Why the f# ill play a game that i can questing and gring when i can play a game that i can questing grind etc...and i also can housing,manage a fortress with my guildies,change the inviroment around,interact directly with the inviroment,choose a diferent path instead of just play the gameplay the devs just designed???
After archeage,a sandbox with themepark gtaphs and dinamics,there will be no reason to play themepark,even becouse that will be mandatory for any game that want make some success,to be a sandbox
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys FH1942 best tanker for 4years Playing WWII OL for some years untill now many other for some months
I think this is a big part of it. Back in the EQ/UO era, what choices did you really have for an MMO? Sure AC and EQ came out around the same time but...what else was there? Not much. So, if you enjoyed the game, you'd stay there forever because there wasn't a "new shiny MMO" every year.
there was enough around preWOW -- more than a dozen mmos
Pre2001 Everquest, Ultima Online, Lineage
2001 Anarchy Online, Asherons Call, Dark Age of Camelot
2002 Earth & Beyond, Final Fantasy XI
2003 Shadowbane, Eve Online, Lineage II ,Second Life, Star Wars Galaxies, Horizons (now called Isitaria)
early 2004 City of Heroes
of course theres MORE now but it wasnt barren preWOW
I think what the mmo Genre needs is a game with 100 levels of content at launch on the level of classic EQ, along with 50 levels increase every expansion which would be YEARLY. An ever expanding sandbox world with many themepark elements in it, but also extensive sandbox features No instances beyond raids and some dungeons, Long spawn timers so you need to camp to kill that mob that drops those amazing boots you wanted. No auction house, just player to player trading, grouping needs to make up 80% of the gameplay, Crafting needs to be extensive and structured to create a massive in game economy.
There are alot of other ideas I could slap on there as well, but another main one would be every 4 years, upgrading the engine to keep the game looking fresh and new. All these things and more would make the greatest MMO ever.
A truly alive world to live and adventure in, and people would pay 15+ dollars a month easy.
Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.
** edit ** * Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.
A 4 month sub earns the company 60 dollars. Which may exceed the orginial box sale. Your take is incorrect. MMO devs just have no idea how to hang on to people, and right now people are desperate enough to buy anything.
These games are worse than single player games, and I think a lot of people agree with that assessment.
Originally posted by OtomoxSorry it cant be true that many ppl are looking just for a quick play for 3 months and jump on otherwise wow would be already dead. I know ppl that are subbed to wow for more than 5 years thats crazy and several otehrs in other old mmorpgs like lineage 2 or ff. the problem are the new mmoprgs not the ppl. Give them good mmorpgs and they gonna stay.
I don't think that is all the truth.
The fact is that people invested thousand of hours and thousand of dollars in a game, they made a name for themselves, they built friends lists and they simply don't want to leave/ wont leave easily to start all over again, especially if they going to playthe same game again with different cloths.
One of the key aspects that needs to change is the business model - instead of having games that force to pay every month and and to do so they create a series of mechanics to suck all your time, we need games that can be played for years but not require the player to log every day or even every month.
A game box + a balanced cash shop with no items that break the game play mechanics has the potential to be the best model - it allows a developer to recoup the money invested in creating a AAA quality title due to the box sales and allow the developer to keep supporting and get additional revenue with the cash shop sales and new expansions.
That is why GW2 is so hyped/followed and will probably be a great success - it is shaping to be a high quality product, it doesn't require the mechanics to suck the players time and force them to keep playing to reach the carrot, it doesn't make the player to choose between it and their older MMORPG oince it doesn't require you to invest all your free time in to it nor does it require to pay a new sub.
I don't think sandboxes, theme parks or hybrids are the solution or the problem - different people like different things.
The problem is the business model - p2p will face competition from existing subs (paying 1 sub is one thing, paying 2+ subs is a something different) plus the fact that sub games are by nature "forced" to give a reason for the player to log in every day; f2p will generally be lower quality since they can't invest that much without a quick recoup tool in the box sale price.
One can say "look at all those p2p that became f2p and still aren't nowhere near the size of the big p2p". Sure, but those games use mechanics and gameplay designed for a p2p game and at one point forced the players to choose if they wanted a new sub or drop their old, plus forcing players to start from zero.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Originally posted by Golelorn Originally posted by lizardbones Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games. ** edit ** * Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.
A 4 month sub earns the company 60 dollars. Which may exceed the orginial box sale. Your take is incorrect. MMO devs just have no idea how to hang on to people, and right now people are desperate enough to buy anything.
These games are worse than single player games, and I think a lot of people agree with that assessment.
If the overall market thought each game was getting worse than the last, then each game would not outsell the last in box and digital sales. More MMORPG keep getting sold, but the same pattern of retention still holds for each new game. It's certainly possible for a developer to make tons of money over a long period of time, but the idea that they're going to keep the bulk of their player base is ludicrous. It's just not going to happen.
Trion knew this. They've made an awesome game, but they knew there was a running timer as soon as they released the game. So they've released content updates and substantial changes to the original game to minimize the impact of the losing subs trend. Rift is probably the best possible scenario for an MMORPG in the current market.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This issue is a complex problem with compounding complications, and for which there will be no easy solution. However, this is something that I have preaching for quite some time, and you can see this business philosophy everywhere. Not simply, just in games. Whenever a product really “hits”, all of the sudden you see a plethora of companies propping up and producing a 99% replica.
Essentially, these companies through their product mimicry, they drive the genre of their product into the ground, and eventually kill demand. Granted this takes longer for some things than others.
However, as it pertains to MMOs in particular this philosophy is inherently flawed for at least two reasons. Firstly and predominately, there is not a demand for themeparks; there is a perceived demand for themeparks; there is actually a demand for World of Warcraft (although someone reduced as of late). While developers are busy chasing Blizzard’s cash cow, they’ve forgone their own individuality, and people have caught up to that. The majority, or so it seems, have realized that all themeparks really are, are an attempt to catch up to Blizzard. However, this goal is an impossible one, because once again, there is no demand for the themepark, there is only a demand for World of Warcraft. We can see that this is true, because and regardless of attempts, no themepark has ever came near World of Warcraft’s success. Additionally, we can see that in an average themepark there are cries to change specific features so that they are more like World of Warcraft. Futhermore, players who do emigrate eventually repatriate because their current game, doesn’t satiate their need like World of Warcraft did/does.
The reason for this phenomenon lies in World of Warcraft’s unique situation. Firstly, it landed at the perfect time, seizing on the birth of what we’ve come to call the themepark. Secondly, their model attracted a huge audience of traditionally non-MMO gamers, MMO-haters, and even non-gamers altogether. There are simply far more of these types that there of what some would call the “Bitter Vets”, the pre-CU SWG or UO vets, and because of such, Blizzard was able to accumulate their throng of throngs.
So, to finish the point, no themepark will ever be able to usurp World of Warcraft, because the phenomena that allowed for its dominance has passed. The themepark game is now being played for second place, begging for scraps at its table. But, and I must urge this strongly, no MMO (whatever the model, themepark, sandbox, etc.) whatsoever will ever acquire WoW’s peak subscribers, and it is futile to attempt to do so. Designing for extreme inclusivity does nothing but create a watered down game that only a few will enjoy. Shooting for the extreme alienates its opposite, which once again only a few will enjoy. It is simply not possible to please everyone, and developers should stop trying to do so.
In order to actually usurp World of Warcraft, there will have to be created a game that is as different from it as night and day, it must be well funded, and be the creation of AAA talent, and it must seize precisely the right moment, but I don't think any currently known game has the potential.
This issue is a complex problem with compounding complications, and for which there will be no easy solution. However, this is something that I have preaching for quite some time, and you can see this business philosophy everywhere. Not simply, just in games. Whenever a product really “hits”, all of the sudden you see a plethora of companies propping up and producing a 99% replica.
Same phenomena occurs in movies and television and music, any creative process that sells for money generates trends and sequels and copies.
Is essence, it's just easier to copy than it is to create, not terribly surprising.
The Big Wave effect (network TV turning as a flock away from Westerns to Sitcoms, away from Sitcoms and toward Reality shows) are generally triggered by the existing status quo being worn out, and one extraordinarily successful "hit".
My conclusion would be that the EQ Clone mmo format that's worked for so many, many years is just played out, too many Old Bitter Vets to continue--indeed, just reading this board on a daily basis feels like a confirmation. It's quite possible that it won't work even for Blizzard much longer.
But unlike a lot of our regulars, I'm not convinced that sandboxes are the magic wand that will fix everything. Plenty of years of opportunity has failed to present the big hit, for reasons that are not entirely clear... Which is the cart and which the horse, have the sucky games failed to produce an audience or the lack of audience responsible for the generally sucky games? Garriott's still preaching, but not all that many people are still listening.
In essence, the industry is just waiting for some genuine creativity to produce the next big thing for the also-rans to copy in the next wave. If it never happens, well, video games imploded in '83 and survived. It's possible that the Next Thing won't be an MMO format game at all.
Maybe Zuckerberg's crew has the answer, they're certainly riding the peak of their own trend wave. Though the "follow Zuckerberg, social media is the answer!" companies are already beginning to fail, arguably (take heed, Bobby Kotick).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Same phenomena occurs in movies and television and music, any creative process that sells for money generates trends and sequels and copies.
Is essence, it's just easier to copy than it is to create, not terribly surprising.
The Big Wave effect (network TV turning as a flock away from Westerns to Sitcoms, away from Sitcoms and toward Reality shows) are generally triggered by the existing status quo being worn out, and one extraordinarily successful "hit".
My conclusion would be that the EQ Clone mmo format that's worked for so many, many years is just played out, too many Old Bitter Vets to continue--indeed, just reading this board on a daily basis feels like a confirmation. It's quite possible that it won't work even for Blizzard much longer.
But unlike a lot of our regulars, I'm not convinced that sandboxes are the magic wand that will fix everything. Plenty of years of opportunity has failed to present the big hit, for reasons that are not entirely clear... Which is the cart and which the horse, have the sucky games failed to produce an audience or the lack of audience responsible for the generally sucky games? Garriott's still preaching, but not all that many people are still listening.
In essence, the industry is just waiting for some genuine creativity to produce the next big thing for the also-rans to copy in the next wave. If it never happens, well, video games imploded in '83 and survived. It's possible that the Next Thing won't be an MMO format game at all.
Maybe Zuckerberg's crew has the answer, they're certainly riding the peak of their own trend wave. Though the "follow Zuckerberg, social media is the answer!" companies are already beginning to fail, arguably (take heed, Bobby Kotick).
This is a true statement White, and while I do certainly prefer sandboxes and have a general disdain for anything resembling a themepark, I can't make the claim that a return to sandbox will cure all ills. I simply don't have the facts to substantiate that claim.
However, as you rightly point out the status quo is simply going to work going into the future. Which is why I claim that for a game to garner as many subscribers as they can (although they won't rival Warcraft's peak) they will have to break with tradition and enter untested ground. They will have to develop a model that is wholely different from what Warcraft is.
If I follow your point correctly, you suggest that perhaps Zuckerburg has the answer, then it appears that I and quite other people will simply have to find a new hobby, as we simply find facebook games shallow and unappealing. If the majority disagrees and this is accurate, that is fine, but those of who do disagree won't support them. I could continue and go into an entire shpeel about how social media has ruined gaming, but I'll save that for a more appropriate discussion.
Wrong. The reason the games don't stick is because they're shit.
It doesn't matter whether the game is a themepark, sandbox, or whatever it is you sensationalist fucks try to categorize MMOs as - we just want a game that isn't terrible.
Considering that the only decent computer game is Planescape: Torment, we've got a long way to go.
We'll game hop because the games are bad, or we'll stick with it because we have a community there already.
In order to actually usurp World of Warcraft, there will have to be created a game that is as different from it as night and day, it must be well funded, and be the creation of AAA talent, and it must seize precisely the right moment, but I don't think any currently known game has the potential.
Sure.
Sorta like how LoL is about as different from WOW as you can get...and thus sold amazingly.
Seems like we have plenty of players able to see how corporations run in and copy successful formulas. But some of those players are completely dissatisfied with MMORPGs and instead of actually seeking innovation (by not playing MMORPGs) they stay with the same genre.
Funny how that works: If you don't try different things, you won't experience different things.
I don't mean to sound 100% in approval of how much gameplay variety MMORPGs have, because I do see a lot of games which soullessly copy-paste things and end up with a much worse version what they're trying to copy. But I do feel like gamer rage hits a certain point and you have to wonder why these players bother sticking with a genre they clearly hate.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In order to actually usurp World of Warcraft, there will have to be created a game that is as different from it as night and day, it must be well funded, and be the creation of AAA talent, and it must seize precisely the right moment, but I don't think any currently known game has the potential.
Sure.
Sorta like how LoL is about as different from WOW as you can get...and thus sold amazingly.
Seems like we have plenty of players able to see how corporations run in and copy successful formulas. But some of those players are completely dissatisfied with MMORPGs and instead of actually seeking innovation (by not playing MMORPGs) they stay with the same genre.
Funny how that works: If you don't try different things, you won't experience different things.
I don't mean to sound 100% in approval of how much gameplay variety MMORPGs have, because I do see a lot of games which soullessly copy-paste things and end up with a much worse version what they're trying to copy. But I do feel like gamer rage hits a certain point and you have to wonder why these players bother sticking with a genre they clearly hate.
Yes, it stands to reason that if something leaves a bad taste in your mouth, you spit it out, you don't continuously taste it.
I think there might be some level of psychology in what you point out, whereas those of use who started with sandboxes (specifically SWG) continuously struggle to find it's equal. Similarly, those who started with themeparks (specifically WoW) do the same. Regardless though, each never find that game, they don't exist. This longing is purely psycological, and not merely the 'rose tinted glasses' argument, but a more deeply rooted issue.
Perhaps the hatred is the result of an unfufiled longing, regardless of being created within the person's own mind. I think this is evident in how some people say things such as, "Game X did this much better.", or "Game X was better than Game Y", and proclaim these statements as some how being profound, when in reality they are simply products of a relative nature.
However with that said, there could also be some legitimacy in this rage and hatred, because in the end it is increasily difficult to continously play and enjoy a game that is for all intents and purposes identical to its predecesors. It stands to reason, that some would be raging and the notion of "eating crap with a spoon, and being forced to enjoy it.".
Eventualy someone is going to have to break out of this mundane model that we are stuck with, otherwise the genre that we enjoy, will die. Gamers are people, and people are fickle. Regardless though, I do think that developers are more to blame, and investors are also to blame. As long as investors believe that the overtly linear themepark model is successful, they will continue to only place their money into areas that tow the line, and as such developers do not have much choice if they want to produce a well funded experience. Therefore the only logical choice is to cut the investors out of the loop, and find other sources of capital. Kickstarter seems like a good baseline for this idea.
Lastly, and on the same note, I don't think that its necessary for a game to have multiple-million subscribers in order to successful. Games are a business just like any other, and businesses exist to make profit. Provided the developer doesn't spend 500 million dollars producing the game, then several hundred thousand subscribers who are very happy, will make a game succesful in the eyes of the bottom line. The point being, developers shoud pick and audience and serve them well, rather than attempting to please everyone, where no one is entirely satisfied. People have differing opinions, its not possible to force everyone into the same peg and expect them to enjoy the experience. Diversity is a good thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by Khaeros
Wrong. The reason the games don't stick is because they're shit.
It doesn't matter whether the game is a themepark, sandbox, or whatever it is you sensationalist fucks try to categorize MMOs as - we just want a game that isn't terrible.
Considering that the only decent computer game is Planescape: Torment, we've got a long way to go.
We'll game hop because the games are bad, or we'll stick with it because we have a community there already.
Yes, I would concur that the reason people leave games and return to a previous game is both because the current game is 'shit', however what makes them so is the point. Simply calling a game 'shit', really does nothing to quantity why you feel a certain way, or why you chose to return to a previous game. Once again, that is pigeon-holing people, and it is inherently false logic. Also, while some might return to a previous game simply because they have friends there, that in of itself, won't in the long run, provide a profound enough reason for them to continue playing. Because, as you say if a game is 'shit', then the community won't save it.
Most of what you say is relative to your own standards, opinions, and expectations. Surely there are others who will disagree with you and greatly so.
I too preach for years that PURE themeparks without ANY sandbox elements, like SWTOR, just can not function. NO amount of story can ever keep people busy long enough! I said that during the development of SWTOR time and again. I still don't understand why developers are so resisting sandbox elements like the goat against the rope.
Only a return to adding sandbox elements, the MMO genre can really return to good. And yes, despite the many flaws, I also loved SWG for what it offered. I never experienced such an alife world! Best MMO time I ever had.
Just speaking for myself, I am definitely NOT happy with the current pure themeparks which catch me just 3-4 months. That feels like a waste of time to me. I feel MMOs are way too narrowed down to killing. Anything games like UO and SWG had beside killing is almost entirely gone. It really can't be THAT difficult to add!
On top, modern games often just lack "soul" or "heart". SWTOR is again a bad example for this. Anyone remembers simple graphics games like Grandia II or Ultima V? THEY had heart and soul! And it's no rose tinted glasses, since I love such games still. Recent example? "To the moon" by Freebird Games: http://freebirdgames.com/to_the_moon/
It's a short, small game. But it is so full of soul, of dreams, of meaning! And it has totally simple graphics. That is what I mean, when I say, I am not a demaning locust player. I want something with substance, with feeling! And in a MMO I want to feel "at home", and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!
Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!
Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.
When everyone is "the hero" is anyone really a hero? By trying to write every player into the story as the great hope in a game despite what actions they take or what they actually accomplish in the game all it does is remove any depth or meaning.
That said, personally I enjoy themeparks for the most part but ones that completely revolve around combat just seem boring and repetitive. Having well-made noncombat elements such as truly interactive stories that are more involved than simple quest-grinds, crafting that takes more effort than just gathering stacks of materials and going afk until you've leveled up, well-done housing systems (instanced or not), and even other minigames are really the key to bringing a good name back to themeparks. As they are currently, they just seem to be a very diluted single-player action RPG until endgame when you're forced to engage in multiplayer to advance. That's great for the "babby's first MMORPG" types but I think the majority of this genre's gamers are past that stage.
and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!
Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.
It's not the 1000s others that bother me, it's the narrowing down to being hero. And what good is a so called "personal story" when everyone around me has it?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
In order to actually usurp World of Warcraft, there will have to be created a game that is as different from it as night and day, it must be well funded, and be the creation of AAA talent, and it must seize precisely the right moment, but I don't think any currently known game has the potential.
Sure.
Sorta like how LoL is about as different from WOW as you can get...and thus sold amazingly.
Seems like we have plenty of players able to see how corporations run in and copy successful formulas. But some of those players are completely dissatisfied with MMORPGs and instead of actually seeking innovation (by not playing MMORPGs) they stay with the same genre.
Funny how that works: If you don't try different things, you won't experience different things.
I don't mean to sound 100% in approval of how much gameplay variety MMORPGs have, because I do see a lot of games which soullessly copy-paste things and end up with a much worse version what they're trying to copy. But I do feel like gamer rage hits a certain point and you have to wonder why these players bother sticking with a genre they clearly hate.
There is another major factor as to why both of those games did so well...the original Warcraft RTS series, and for LoL it was Warcraft 3. Those RTS games were insanely successful (I still see Warcraft 3 in videogame stores, which along with Starcraft is utterly unheard of for games that old) and built up an unheard-of fanbase, including myself, and at least for me THAT was the biggest drive to try WoW; to live in the world that I had played in with those RTS games for ten years. I'm sure a lot of other people had the same idea. And League of Legends is a complete spinoff of the Warcraft 3 modded map DotA.
No other MMO that I know of has had other games before it within the same world and lore build up as much of a throng of followers as the Warcraft series has. Nothing else comes even remotely close. The original three Warcraft games and their expansions sold millions of copies each, and even though it's a different genre Blizzard's reputation was also helped with the Starcraft series, which also sold into the double-digit millions between all the versions. I would personally say that at least 50% of WoW's unrivalled success came from the reputation Blizzard earned through the Warcraft/Starcraft series and the already established loyal fanbase of millions.
And as for League of Legends, I would attribute 100% of its success to Warcraft 3, and more specifically the DotA map. If DotA had not been created, and had not become almost stupidly popular (I heard of some people buying Warcraft 3 ONLY to play DotA and not the rest of the game), League of Legends probably wouldn't exist at all.
That's another major thing that all of these new themepark MMOs lack: that established reputation and millions-strong fanbase of their game worlds and lore that built up over years. The companies that are cranking out these stupid themepark clones just don't seem to realize this as well.
and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!
Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.
It's not the 1000s others that bother me, it's the narrowing down to being hero. And what good is a so called "personal story" when everyone around me has it?
Apparently good enough when the game is fun. Just look at D3. Does anyone care every other player is going through the same story?
Sure, it is not a MMO. However, it has enough modern MMO elements (i.e. the most important core .. small group combat centric gameplay, with easy crafting and AH) and MMOs should learn from it.
Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.
** edit ** * Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.
Has to be a reason crafting in older MMOs was more exciting than just your basic MMO today. Something is missing, and players should want to stick around for years. This is why they need to build Worlds and not Games ala content you just play through.
If you have a neighborhood/community built by player housing/building and things like that with friends/guildmates. I'd have to think there is a less chance you'll leave the game. People get attached to sandbox-esque games. It beings with - removing levels, removing quests, removing competetion between players (don't take this for easy content, more so what GW2 is doing), an actual crafting system and probably more 3 faction type MMO cause people seem to like that.
It would be a start at least. As you said the the audience for these games are also a lot different. The 16 year olds I played with in UO aren't the same 16 year olds you run across today who complain about EVERYTHING.
and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!
Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.
It's not the 1000s others that bother me, it's the narrowing down to being hero. And what good is a so called "personal story" when everyone around me has it?
Apparently good enough when the game is fun. Just look at D3. Does anyone care every other player is going through the same story?
Sure, it is not a MMO. However, it has enough modern MMO elements (i.e. the most important core .. small group combat centric gameplay, with easy crafting and AH) and MMOs should learn from it.
Different games/genres should be different, scripted or too complex encounters work fine within a fixed loot table system, not so much in d3, imo.
With that said i find it interesting, if not confusing, that wow seems to move towards "diablo" gameplay and d3 to the opposite direction...
As for crafting, well, its all fun and games until you realize it costs money, and you can very well end up paying much more only in the fees, not even counting mats (occasionally look at the sell pice of an item), due to rng than you would pay for a similar item on the ah, it needs some work still, for example i am still looking for a reasonable explanation why mats have tiers or why those pages/tomes even exist, if adding sockets to every item (for a fee) is a shallow and dull mechanic, what is gathering some extra superfluous paper that has a quite good drop rate then?
Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.
** edit ** * Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.
Has to be a reason crafting in older MMOs was more exciting than just your basic MMO today. Something is missing, and players should want to stick around for years. This is why they need to build Worlds and not Games ala content you just play through.
If you have a neighborhood/community built by player housing/building and things like that with friends/guildmates. I'd have to think there is a less chance you'll leave the game. People get attached to sandbox-esque games. It beings with - removing levels, removing quests, removing competetion between players (don't take this for easy content, more so what GW2 is doing), an actual crafting system and probably more 3 faction type MMO cause people seem to like that.
It would be a start at least. As you said the the audience for these games are also a lot different. The 16 year olds I played with in UO aren't the same 16 year olds you run across today who complain about EVERYTHING.
Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.
I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.
"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...
Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.
Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.
Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.
Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.
I'm lost to the fact how it's difficult figuring out what YOU WANT TO DO IN A GAME? I guess when you're never given any freedom in a game really you'd have a hard time. Why does someone have to be told what to do? It's kind of sad in reality.
It's obvious if you have 5 swordsmanship you shouldn't be trying to tackle a dungeon with dragons, etc.
Comments
After archeage,a sandbox with themepark gtaphs and dinamics,there will be no reason to play themepark,even becouse that will be mandatory for any game that want make some success,to be a sandbox
WoW 4ys,EVE 4ys,EU 4ys
FH1942 best tanker for 4years
Playing WWII OL for some years untill now
many other for some months
there was enough around preWOW -- more than a dozen mmos
Pre2001
Everquest, Ultima Online, Lineage
2001
Anarchy Online, Asherons Call, Dark Age of Camelot
2002
Earth & Beyond, Final Fantasy XI
2003
Shadowbane, Eve Online, Lineage II ,Second Life, Star Wars Galaxies, Horizons (now called Isitaria)
early 2004
City of Heroes
of course theres MORE now but it wasnt barren preWOW
EQ2 fan sites
I think what the mmo Genre needs is a game with 100 levels of content at launch on the level of classic EQ, along with 50 levels increase every expansion which would be YEARLY. An ever expanding sandbox world with many themepark elements in it, but also extensive sandbox features No instances beyond raids and some dungeons, Long spawn timers so you need to camp to kill that mob that drops those amazing boots you wanted. No auction house, just player to player trading, grouping needs to make up 80% of the gameplay, Crafting needs to be extensive and structured to create a massive in game economy.
There are alot of other ideas I could slap on there as well, but another main one would be every 4 years, upgrading the engine to keep the game looking fresh and new. All these things and more would make the greatest MMO ever.
A truly alive world to live and adventure in, and people would pay 15+ dollars a month easy.
A 4 month sub earns the company 60 dollars. Which may exceed the orginial box sale. Your take is incorrect. MMO devs just have no idea how to hang on to people, and right now people are desperate enough to buy anything.
These games are worse than single player games, and I think a lot of people agree with that assessment.
I don't think that is all the truth.
The fact is that people invested thousand of hours and thousand of dollars in a game, they made a name for themselves, they built friends lists and they simply don't want to leave/ wont leave easily to start all over again, especially if they going to playthe same game again with different cloths.
One of the key aspects that needs to change is the business model - instead of having games that force to pay every month and and to do so they create a series of mechanics to suck all your time, we need games that can be played for years but not require the player to log every day or even every month.
A game box + a balanced cash shop with no items that break the game play mechanics has the potential to be the best model - it allows a developer to recoup the money invested in creating a AAA quality title due to the box sales and allow the developer to keep supporting and get additional revenue with the cash shop sales and new expansions.
That is why GW2 is so hyped/followed and will probably be a great success - it is shaping to be a high quality product, it doesn't require the mechanics to suck the players time and force them to keep playing to reach the carrot, it doesn't make the player to choose between it and their older MMORPG oince it doesn't require you to invest all your free time in to it nor does it require to pay a new sub.
I don't think sandboxes, theme parks or hybrids are the solution or the problem - different people like different things.
The problem is the business model - p2p will face competition from existing subs (paying 1 sub is one thing, paying 2+ subs is a something different) plus the fact that sub games are by nature "forced" to give a reason for the player to log in every day; f2p will generally be lower quality since they can't invest that much without a quick recoup tool in the box sale price.
One can say "look at all those p2p that became f2p and still aren't nowhere near the size of the big p2p". Sure, but those games use mechanics and gameplay designed for a p2p game and at one point forced the players to choose if they wanted a new sub or drop their old, plus forcing players to start from zero.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
These games are worse than single player games, and I think a lot of people agree with that assessment.
If the overall market thought each game was getting worse than the last, then each game would not outsell the last in box and digital sales. More MMORPG keep getting sold, but the same pattern of retention still holds for each new game. It's certainly possible for a developer to make tons of money over a long period of time, but the idea that they're going to keep the bulk of their player base is ludicrous. It's just not going to happen.
Trion knew this. They've made an awesome game, but they knew there was a running timer as soon as they released the game. So they've released content updates and substantial changes to the original game to minimize the impact of the losing subs trend. Rift is probably the best possible scenario for an MMORPG in the current market.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Same phenomena occurs in movies and television and music, any creative process that sells for money generates trends and sequels and copies.
Is essence, it's just easier to copy than it is to create, not terribly surprising.
The Big Wave effect (network TV turning as a flock away from Westerns to Sitcoms, away from Sitcoms and toward Reality shows) are generally triggered by the existing status quo being worn out, and one extraordinarily successful "hit".
My conclusion would be that the EQ Clone mmo format that's worked for so many, many years is just played out, too many Old Bitter Vets to continue--indeed, just reading this board on a daily basis feels like a confirmation. It's quite possible that it won't work even for Blizzard much longer.
But unlike a lot of our regulars, I'm not convinced that sandboxes are the magic wand that will fix everything. Plenty of years of opportunity has failed to present the big hit, for reasons that are not entirely clear... Which is the cart and which the horse, have the sucky games failed to produce an audience or the lack of audience responsible for the generally sucky games? Garriott's still preaching, but not all that many people are still listening.
In essence, the industry is just waiting for some genuine creativity to produce the next big thing for the also-rans to copy in the next wave. If it never happens, well, video games imploded in '83 and survived. It's possible that the Next Thing won't be an MMO format game at all.
Maybe Zuckerberg's crew has the answer, they're certainly riding the peak of their own trend wave. Though the "follow Zuckerberg, social media is the answer!" companies are already beginning to fail, arguably (take heed, Bobby Kotick).
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
This is a true statement White, and while I do certainly prefer sandboxes and have a general disdain for anything resembling a themepark, I can't make the claim that a return to sandbox will cure all ills. I simply don't have the facts to substantiate that claim.
However, as you rightly point out the status quo is simply going to work going into the future. Which is why I claim that for a game to garner as many subscribers as they can (although they won't rival Warcraft's peak) they will have to break with tradition and enter untested ground. They will have to develop a model that is wholely different from what Warcraft is.
If I follow your point correctly, you suggest that perhaps Zuckerburg has the answer, then it appears that I and quite other people will simply have to find a new hobby, as we simply find facebook games shallow and unappealing. If the majority disagrees and this is accurate, that is fine, but those of who do disagree won't support them. I could continue and go into an entire shpeel about how social media has ruined gaming, but I'll save that for a more appropriate discussion.
Wrong. The reason the games don't stick is because they're shit.
It doesn't matter whether the game is a themepark, sandbox, or whatever it is you sensationalist fucks try to categorize MMOs as - we just want a game that isn't terrible.
Considering that the only decent computer game is Planescape: Torment, we've got a long way to go.
We'll game hop because the games are bad, or we'll stick with it because we have a community there already.
Sure.
Sorta like how LoL is about as different from WOW as you can get...and thus sold amazingly.
Seems like we have plenty of players able to see how corporations run in and copy successful formulas. But some of those players are completely dissatisfied with MMORPGs and instead of actually seeking innovation (by not playing MMORPGs) they stay with the same genre.
Funny how that works: If you don't try different things, you won't experience different things.
I don't mean to sound 100% in approval of how much gameplay variety MMORPGs have, because I do see a lot of games which soullessly copy-paste things and end up with a much worse version what they're trying to copy. But I do feel like gamer rage hits a certain point and you have to wonder why these players bother sticking with a genre they clearly hate.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yes, it stands to reason that if something leaves a bad taste in your mouth, you spit it out, you don't continuously taste it.
I think there might be some level of psychology in what you point out, whereas those of use who started with sandboxes (specifically SWG) continuously struggle to find it's equal. Similarly, those who started with themeparks (specifically WoW) do the same. Regardless though, each never find that game, they don't exist. This longing is purely psycological, and not merely the 'rose tinted glasses' argument, but a more deeply rooted issue.
Perhaps the hatred is the result of an unfufiled longing, regardless of being created within the person's own mind. I think this is evident in how some people say things such as, "Game X did this much better.", or "Game X was better than Game Y", and proclaim these statements as some how being profound, when in reality they are simply products of a relative nature.
However with that said, there could also be some legitimacy in this rage and hatred, because in the end it is increasily difficult to continously play and enjoy a game that is for all intents and purposes identical to its predecesors. It stands to reason, that some would be raging and the notion of "eating crap with a spoon, and being forced to enjoy it.".
Eventualy someone is going to have to break out of this mundane model that we are stuck with, otherwise the genre that we enjoy, will die. Gamers are people, and people are fickle. Regardless though, I do think that developers are more to blame, and investors are also to blame. As long as investors believe that the overtly linear themepark model is successful, they will continue to only place their money into areas that tow the line, and as such developers do not have much choice if they want to produce a well funded experience. Therefore the only logical choice is to cut the investors out of the loop, and find other sources of capital. Kickstarter seems like a good baseline for this idea.
Lastly, and on the same note, I don't think that its necessary for a game to have multiple-million subscribers in order to successful. Games are a business just like any other, and businesses exist to make profit. Provided the developer doesn't spend 500 million dollars producing the game, then several hundred thousand subscribers who are very happy, will make a game succesful in the eyes of the bottom line. The point being, developers shoud pick and audience and serve them well, rather than attempting to please everyone, where no one is entirely satisfied. People have differing opinions, its not possible to force everyone into the same peg and expect them to enjoy the experience. Diversity is a good thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, I would concur that the reason people leave games and return to a previous game is both because the current game is 'shit', however what makes them so is the point. Simply calling a game 'shit', really does nothing to quantity why you feel a certain way, or why you chose to return to a previous game. Once again, that is pigeon-holing people, and it is inherently false logic. Also, while some might return to a previous game simply because they have friends there, that in of itself, won't in the long run, provide a profound enough reason for them to continue playing. Because, as you say if a game is 'shit', then the community won't save it.
Most of what you say is relative to your own standards, opinions, and expectations. Surely there are others who will disagree with you and greatly so.
Sage words, OP!
I too preach for years that PURE themeparks without ANY sandbox elements, like SWTOR, just can not function. NO amount of story can ever keep people busy long enough! I said that during the development of SWTOR time and again. I still don't understand why developers are so resisting sandbox elements like the goat against the rope.
Only a return to adding sandbox elements, the MMO genre can really return to good. And yes, despite the many flaws, I also loved SWG for what it offered. I never experienced such an alife world! Best MMO time I ever had.
Just speaking for myself, I am definitely NOT happy with the current pure themeparks which catch me just 3-4 months. That feels like a waste of time to me. I feel MMOs are way too narrowed down to killing. Anything games like UO and SWG had beside killing is almost entirely gone. It really can't be THAT difficult to add!
On top, modern games often just lack "soul" or "heart". SWTOR is again a bad example for this. Anyone remembers simple graphics games like Grandia II or Ultima V? THEY had heart and soul! And it's no rose tinted glasses, since I love such games still. Recent example? "To the moon" by Freebird Games: http://freebirdgames.com/to_the_moon/
It's a short, small game. But it is so full of soul, of dreams, of meaning! And it has totally simple graphics. That is what I mean, when I say, I am not a demaning locust player. I want something with substance, with feeling! And in a MMO I want to feel "at home", and not just some story-hero among 1000s of other story-heroes!
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Must be tough dealing with multi-player themes when you don't want them.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
When everyone is "the hero" is anyone really a hero? By trying to write every player into the story as the great hope in a game despite what actions they take or what they actually accomplish in the game all it does is remove any depth or meaning.
That said, personally I enjoy themeparks for the most part but ones that completely revolve around combat just seem boring and repetitive. Having well-made noncombat elements such as truly interactive stories that are more involved than simple quest-grinds, crafting that takes more effort than just gathering stacks of materials and going afk until you've leveled up, well-done housing systems (instanced or not), and even other minigames are really the key to bringing a good name back to themeparks. As they are currently, they just seem to be a very diluted single-player action RPG until endgame when you're forced to engage in multiplayer to advance. That's great for the "babby's first MMORPG" types but I think the majority of this genre's gamers are past that stage.
It's not the 1000s others that bother me, it's the narrowing down to being hero. And what good is a so called "personal story" when everyone around me has it?
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
There is another major factor as to why both of those games did so well...the original Warcraft RTS series, and for LoL it was Warcraft 3. Those RTS games were insanely successful (I still see Warcraft 3 in videogame stores, which along with Starcraft is utterly unheard of for games that old) and built up an unheard-of fanbase, including myself, and at least for me THAT was the biggest drive to try WoW; to live in the world that I had played in with those RTS games for ten years. I'm sure a lot of other people had the same idea. And League of Legends is a complete spinoff of the Warcraft 3 modded map DotA.
No other MMO that I know of has had other games before it within the same world and lore build up as much of a throng of followers as the Warcraft series has. Nothing else comes even remotely close. The original three Warcraft games and their expansions sold millions of copies each, and even though it's a different genre Blizzard's reputation was also helped with the Starcraft series, which also sold into the double-digit millions between all the versions. I would personally say that at least 50% of WoW's unrivalled success came from the reputation Blizzard earned through the Warcraft/Starcraft series and the already established loyal fanbase of millions.
And as for League of Legends, I would attribute 100% of its success to Warcraft 3, and more specifically the DotA map. If DotA had not been created, and had not become almost stupidly popular (I heard of some people buying Warcraft 3 ONLY to play DotA and not the rest of the game), League of Legends probably wouldn't exist at all.
That's another major thing that all of these new themepark MMOs lack: that established reputation and millions-strong fanbase of their game worlds and lore that built up over years. The companies that are cranking out these stupid themepark clones just don't seem to realize this as well.
Where's the any key?
Apparently good enough when the game is fun. Just look at D3. Does anyone care every other player is going through the same story?
Sure, it is not a MMO. However, it has enough modern MMO elements (i.e. the most important core .. small group combat centric gameplay, with easy crafting and AH) and MMOs should learn from it.
.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Has to be a reason crafting in older MMOs was more exciting than just your basic MMO today. Something is missing, and players should want to stick around for years. This is why they need to build Worlds and not Games ala content you just play through.
If you have a neighborhood/community built by player housing/building and things like that with friends/guildmates. I'd have to think there is a less chance you'll leave the game. People get attached to sandbox-esque games. It beings with - removing levels, removing quests, removing competetion between players (don't take this for easy content, more so what GW2 is doing), an actual crafting system and probably more 3 faction type MMO cause people seem to like that.
It would be a start at least. As you said the the audience for these games are also a lot different. The 16 year olds I played with in UO aren't the same 16 year olds you run across today who complain about EVERYTHING.
Different games/genres should be different, scripted or too complex encounters work fine within a fixed loot table system, not so much in d3, imo.
With that said i find it interesting, if not confusing, that wow seems to move towards "diablo" gameplay and d3 to the opposite direction...
As for crafting, well, its all fun and games until you realize it costs money, and you can very well end up paying much more only in the fees, not even counting mats (occasionally look at the sell pice of an item), due to rng than you would pay for a similar item on the ah, it needs some work still, for example i am still looking for a reasonable explanation why mats have tiers or why those pages/tomes even exist, if adding sockets to every item (for a fee) is a shallow and dull mechanic, what is gathering some extra superfluous paper that has a quite good drop rate then?
Flame on!
Considering that MMOs at best only keep a little less than 30% of those who try them for longer than the free month (this was WoW's experience, according to them), that leaves a lot of gamers who want to play an MMORPG but don't stick.
I can't help but think that there's a massive number out there who are unsatisfied with games as they are, lacking this sort of social glue in exchange for quick pick-up gaming.
"Only 30 percent of new World of Warcraft players ever make it past level ten, according to Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime"...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.174642-Only-30-Percent-of-WoW-Players-Get-Past-Level-10
Once upon a time....
Sorry, but certain degrees of themepark is the true element of a good MMO.
Pure sandbox never has, nor never will be what makes a good MMO. Who wants to wander around aimlessly trying to figure out what to do. That just is not what the majority wants. Sure, you might find your sandbox MMO to carve out your niche handful of players until the game quickly dies, but thats as far as it will ever go.
I'm lost to the fact how it's difficult figuring out what YOU WANT TO DO IN A GAME? I guess when you're never given any freedom in a game really you'd have a hard time. Why does someone have to be told what to do? It's kind of sad in reality.
It's obvious if you have 5 swordsmanship you shouldn't be trying to tackle a dungeon with dragons, etc.
Because both games (genre) have elements that are fun.
- D3 type small group combats (hence, dungeon finder in WOW)
- WOW type AH, social network/friend list
This convengence is the future of this type of gaming.