The way I see it, a mmorpg is a game with a potential high number of playable hours/invested time in an avatar. If that has ANY value whatsoever, then it needs to be complicated to actually effect some sort of change/meaningful progress:
skill
increasing enjoyment of the game
increasing interaction with other players...
etc...
I think if the game is simple, it's not worth the time invested to play for so many hours; it may be worth a much shorter time invested, but that sort of defeats the purpose of a virtual world in the first place, hence maybe it would be a better choice to play another genre if that applies?
Personally I think your right and have actually long argued for this.
The problem is us the gamers. Generally we want great graphics, both character and environment (both detailed and pleasing), great animation, customization of gear and looks, flight, housing, lots of room to play, lots of options on how we play, great crafting...
All that takes an enormous amount of money. And the devs can only build that type of game if they go after the larger market.
In order to make a smaller game they will have to do what Eve did, sacrfice some things, start with a smaller playerbase, and add those other things in later. But in today's market will the gamer accept that. I'm not sure anymore, there is too much competitiion. If the game doesn't offer all the bells and whisltes, well there seems to be others that do, or will and are releasing in a few months.
I tthink if Eve launched today in the same condition it ws in 03, it would have an even tougher time than it allready did. The press and word of mouth would be terrible, it would be harder to recover from than Vanguard.
I completely agree with this.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.
This poor ridden boredom fest still have major market share with WoW in lead.
When will minority of forum posters understand the blatantly obvious truth provided by undeniable facts?
Facts sometimes get in the way of personal beliefs, therefore they are completely dismissed.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
They just need to stop making games for specials and start making games for people again. Developers are artists in there own trade, but are losing sight of that.
Yes MMO's were works of art before the WoW generation. It was developers putting in many hours to create a living breathing vibrant world for players to immerse themselves in. Now we have quick cash grabs and instanced gear grinds. Very unmotivated works of horse ****.
We need the complexity and passion that was poured into the older generation games back. That is what made them great. The developers were proud of the world they created. I don't know how any developer could be proud of any game that has been made in the last few years. None of them are original.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
I don't mind complexity in a game, but complexity doesn't equal difficult. That's what some people here seem to think when mentioning dumbing down and such.
Complexity would just pertain to how many different things there are to do in an MMO. The more there is to do the longer a player can be held captivated. Making things complex for the sake of making it more difficult simply will never get people to stay except for the few sadomachisists out there.
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).
But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.
Extremely popular games like WoW, Team Fortress 2, Civilization, Minecraft, Torchlight, League of Legends have plenty of longevity yet all of them are fairly accessible, but I wouldn't say simplistic. All WoW clones are just as complex and in many ways more complex than WoW itself. They don't succeed because they're all virtually the same game in different wrapping.
On the other hand, many sandbox MMORPGs are the opposite of accessible, and many even punish new players. They're too complex and nowhere near accessible enough for anyone to simply pick up and play. On the flipside, anyone can pick up and play any of the games I listed above with minimal difficulty. Despite their accessibility, mastering these games still requires a lot of skill and effort.
What people want isn't exactly more complexity, but more accessibility. I shouldn't have to spend 2 hours going through tutorials before I can even begin playing the game. I should be able to jump in, with the game being intuitive enough for me to learn as I go.
Timesinks are a major issue too. WoW drastically reduced timesinks in MMOs, but ever since then, the genre has stagnated. Players hit endgame then realize they have to quit because they can't dedicated 4 hours a night 5 nights a week to raiding for gear. The next step for MMOs is going to be finding a way to open endgame content to a wider variety of players while still placating the hardcore crowd. The answer to this is not simply to do away with raiding but to transform it or replace it. Coming up with alternative endgame content will require some out-of-the box thinking, and I don't envy the developers who are forced to tackle that issue.
Some of the most popular games have very simple mechanics. Portal and Minecraft are very simple games mechanically, but they are still very popular games. Both have outsold every MMORPG except WoW.
Players don't want just one thing. There are many players and many things are wanted. Some players want complexity, some players want simplicity and some players don't care about complexity...they just want something to do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Like someone else already said. Ask 100 people about what they like and you'll get 100 answers. Maybe even more.
I could imagine myself playing on some Neverwinter Nights style game on a low populated server. But there would need to be some additional features:
As realistic as possible (i.e. perma death with some exceptions, aging, item decay, day & night cycles, no respawning NPCs, alignment system, etc.)
More to do than just combat
Botting (and I don't mean stupid scripting) on a scale to introduce lots of believable NPCs (e.g. NPCs that live as bandits in the wilderness, townsfolk that have their own trade, peasants that work their land, various NPC organizations, etc.)
You wouldn't need to log in every evening (there are already more than enough games that offer quick and easy gaming experiences like rated and unrated PVP or End-Game-Raiding). Just hop in with your friends / static RP group once in a while and let yourself be surprised by the environment. The DM / players would have some control over the environment, though. Rather like some holodec experience.
But then I don't believe that a company would try this today because there are lots of conceptual issues (e.g. communication NPCs <-> players, alignment system and past deeds in word and action, etc.). And the prospects for earning money aren't good either. It might maybe work as independant or open source project (don't hope for a quick release, though).
But in today's market will the gamer accept that. I'm not sure anymore, there is too much competitiion. If the game doesn't offer all the bells and whisltes, well there seems to be others that do, or will and are releasing in a few months.
One interesting point here is that another games hype can draw away population, even if the hype is unfounded.
For example, there's code in my engine that allows me to spawn mobs based on time of day. If I pitch that as some uber-cool dynamic event system that's never been seen before, I might be able to pull players that are otherwise happy with their current game*. Of course, once release hits people will figure out it's just BS, but by then the damage to the other game is done. Even better is I get more box sales by exagerating features.
This is part of the reason why I'm always skeptical of marketing hype about features. It's too easy to lie. I'll believe it when I see it working. If I have to PAY to see it working, I'll wait for the youtube gameplay videos.
* I'm not implying that micro-budget Indies are real competition for anyone, just written as an example.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
An ealier poster said it - we all like different things. LOL. Especially on this site!
I don't like very complex games. I work for a living and by the end of the day I just want to have fun. No jumping puzzles and mind twisters for me - I just want to bash npcs, level, make better items and get better gear. I am sure that you can guess which MMO is my favorite.
I don't like MMO fps and I am not into pvp (except things like Alterac Valley and GW2 WvWvW).
On the other hand I do like Eve but am a care bear so I had to give it up.
Still, I can understand why people like complexity and I have no issues with that. TSW sounds like a fantastic game for the complex/mind twist crowd. Cool! Just not for me.
But in today's market will the gamer accept that. I'm not sure anymore, there is too much competitiion. If the game doesn't offer all the bells and whisltes, well there seems to be others that do, or will and are releasing in a few months.
One interesting point here is that another games hype can draw away population, even if the hype is unfounded.
For example, there's code in my engine that allows me to spawn mobs based on time of day. If I pitch that as some uber-cool dynamic event system that's never been seen before, I might be able to pull players that are otherwise happy with their current game*. Of course, once release hits people will figure out it's just BS, but by then the damage to the other game is done. Even better is I get more box sales by exagerating features.
This is part of the reason why I'm always skeptical of marketing hype about features. It's too easy to lie. I'll believe it when I see it working. If I have to PAY to see it working, I'll wait for the youtube gameplay videos.
* I'm not implying that micro-budget Indies are real competition for anyone, just written as an example.
I'm not aware of data to support tnat those players do not normally return to their previous games. Do you have examples of where 'the damage was done' and the players did not return to the original game or cancelled their subs to the original game?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Complexity for the sake of it .. is not fun. Interesting choices, on the other hand, should be encouraged.
Having 100 stats is complex, but if most of them do not matter .. there is no point. In fact, just optimizing a bunch of dry numbers is a lot less fun than choosing skills that does different things.
So the statement "players want complexity" is just vague and not useful at all. Everything is in the details and implementation.
Complexity for the sake of it .. is not fun. Interesting choices, on the other hand, should be encouraged.
Having 100 stats is complex, but if most of them do not matter .. there is no point. In fact, just optimizing a bunch of dry numbers is a lot less fun than choosing skills that does different things.
So the statement "players want complexity" is just vague and not useful at all. Everything is in the details and implementation.
Very good point. 5 interesting choices is far better than 10 complicated choices or 40 irrelevant choices.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm not aware of data to support tnat those players do not normally return to their previous games. Do you have examples of where 'the damage was done' and the players did not return to the original game or cancelled their subs to the original game?
Any time you have people quitting something, of course there's going to be a percentage of those people that never go back.
That's exacerbated by the sub system, where going back takes effort and money.
I'm not aware of data to support tnat those players do not normally return to their previous games. Do you have examples of where 'the damage was done' and the players did not return to the original game or cancelled their subs to the original game?
Any time you have people quitting something, of course there's going to be a percentage of those people that never go back.
That's exacerbated by the sub system, where going back takes effort and money.
You're working on the assumption they cancelled their existing subscription. I was asking for data that supports that claim.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm not aware of data to support tnat those players do not normally return to their previous games. Do you have examples of where 'the damage was done' and the players did not return to the original game or cancelled their subs to the original game?
Any time you have people quitting something, of course there's going to be a percentage of those people that never go back.
That's exacerbated by the sub system, where going back takes effort and money.
You're working on the assumption they cancelled their existing subscription. I was asking for data that supports that claim.
Requesting data that can't possibly be obtained to "prove" your arguement is sort of a cheap theatrical trick really. (probably some sort of cool latin phrase to describe this)
Here's some data, with few exceptions, (Lineage 2, DAOC, WOW and EVE) I have never gone back to a MMORPG that I quit playing.
Especially in these more modern times, I never see the need to return to a previous theme park game, better to just pick up the next one coming down the pike, they all play pretty much the same anyways.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You're working on the assumption they cancelled their existing subscription. I was asking for data that supports that claim.
I can't give any numbers, but I just think it's pretty obvious that when people move from one game to another, there will always be a percentage that quits the old game.
If you're asking for data to show that it's a really huge amount, I can't, but just human behavior and past experience shows that a lot of people move from one game to another, and any time you have people moving on, you'll have some people who don't go back.
That's why subscriptions in game generally drop, barring something like an expansion.
You're working on the assumption they cancelled their existing subscription. I was asking for data that supports that claim.
I can't give any numbers, but I just think it's pretty obvious that when people move from one game to another, there will always be a percentage that quits the old game.
If you're asking for data to show that it's a really huge amount, I can't, but just human behavior and past experience shows that a lot of people move from one game to another, and any time you have people moving on, you'll have some people who don't go back.
That's why subscriptions in game generally drop, barring something like an expansion.
Homan behaviour and past experience have shown that people will retain their subscription long beyond when they have stopped using it. People have a repeat pattern of, rash decisions aside, retaining their existing service until they feel they will enjoy the service they plan to move to. This is the reason why when you have cable and want dish or vice versa, the installer does his damnedest to convinvce you he has to use the existing inside lines, 'possibly' disabling your current service.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
After reading a few articles on Gamasutra about the use of the word "fun" in development and how its such a huge pitfall (to develop "fun" games). And it's interesting to think that "fun" is such a relative and subjective term, that when developers make "fun" games... its probably not very long for this world. Quirky things are fun, taking known things... say copying a well-known game that is successful... and adding quirky tweaks and additions makes for a "fun" game.... but does it make for an interesting, complex, indepth experience? The people here say "No wai".
What are you looking for in a game then?
"Fun"? Not likely, "fun" is playing games as a kid, you played tag cause it was "fun" but tag isn't "fun" anymore (I hope) and you didn't spend 8 hours a day every day playing the same "fun" game... it usually wears off its novelty quite quickly. Also people talk about how much "fun" things were in games like corpse-running, exp-loss etc. But its not really about "fun" so that seems like a bit of a flawed argument...
"Accessibility"? I'm not sure in this day and age that being accessible will play the same way it did say 10 years ago. Part of the success of WoW was because it was accessible. But now accessible is the norm, you cannot get much more accessibility into games than you can today. Think about 5 years ago, you probably bought WoW in a brick and mortar store weeks after it came out (maybe months or years) you installed the game from a multitude of discs patched for hours, possibly even on dialup... now... god now you are DLing free games multiple times a week in just an hour over high speed internet. Accessibiltiy is expected its no longer "special", no... accessbility will NOT make a successful game (like Blizzard did)
"Complexity"? Perhaps, but there are loads of overly complex games out there that just do not get the players, or can't keep people around. I think Perpetuum is a good example, similar to EVE (less complexity granted, but complex on its own), but struggles to keep players around for more than a month or two (even threads on their boards with people trying to figure out how to fix this). So is complexity needed? maybe, but its not the end-all be-all here.
So what is the magic word that will give us the game we want? There is none. Stop succoming to the regular old internet cliche of one-word answers and over-simplifying extremely complex systems (you and your game choices) coupled with hyperbole just leading the market down dead-end alleys. To go against my own better judgement here... The answer is a complex combination of all the negatives and positives posted here combined with ingenuity, creativity, and above all else, a developer with brass balls.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.
Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.
Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers)
When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.
Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you...
So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame
if there was a majority of player that actually wanted complex we already would have it, that's the only thing that should be obvious by now especially by someone like OP who has been around for some time should have known better.
Btw I full agree on wanting a more complex challenging MMORPG that isn't just a online combat game. But I know better that those of us who want more complex are most likely the minority by today's standards in gaming.
Comments
The way I see it, a mmorpg is a game with a potential high number of playable hours/invested time in an avatar. If that has ANY value whatsoever, then it needs to be complicated to actually effect some sort of change/meaningful progress:
etc...
I think if the game is simple, it's not worth the time invested to play for so many hours; it may be worth a much shorter time invested, but that sort of defeats the purpose of a virtual world in the first place, hence maybe it would be a better choice to play another genre if that applies?
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I completely agree with this.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Facts sometimes get in the way of personal beliefs, therefore they are completely dismissed.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
They just need to stop making games for specials and start making games for people again. Developers are artists in there own trade, but are losing sight of that.
Yes MMO's were works of art before the WoW generation. It was developers putting in many hours to create a living breathing vibrant world for players to immerse themselves in. Now we have quick cash grabs and instanced gear grinds. Very unmotivated works of horse ****.
We need the complexity and passion that was poured into the older generation games back. That is what made them great. The developers were proud of the world they created. I don't know how any developer could be proud of any game that has been made in the last few years. None of them are original.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
I believe the OP gives the human race too much credit... but good on you for thinking better of us than we probably deserve!
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
I don't mind complexity in a game, but complexity doesn't equal difficult. That's what some people here seem to think when mentioning dumbing down and such.
Complexity would just pertain to how many different things there are to do in an MMO. The more there is to do the longer a player can be held captivated. Making things complex for the sake of making it more difficult simply will never get people to stay except for the few sadomachisists out there.
WoW and COD are exceptions to the rule. As it was proven again and again and again by anyone trying to copy them.
They are games that managed to draw in non-gamer communities. This is their sucess.
Problem is :
Non-gamers do not like games. And when they do, they tend to play only one game always. WoW.
That audience is locked.
Now try to make game for gamers - you are copying WOW
Big Mistake
Diablo 3 is perfect example that contradicts your theory.
Its hugely fun to play. However people are leaving because there is nothing that will hold them.
Extremely popular games like WoW, Team Fortress 2, Civilization, Minecraft, Torchlight, League of Legends have plenty of longevity yet all of them are fairly accessible, but I wouldn't say simplistic. All WoW clones are just as complex and in many ways more complex than WoW itself. They don't succeed because they're all virtually the same game in different wrapping.
On the other hand, many sandbox MMORPGs are the opposite of accessible, and many even punish new players. They're too complex and nowhere near accessible enough for anyone to simply pick up and play. On the flipside, anyone can pick up and play any of the games I listed above with minimal difficulty. Despite their accessibility, mastering these games still requires a lot of skill and effort.
What people want isn't exactly more complexity, but more accessibility. I shouldn't have to spend 2 hours going through tutorials before I can even begin playing the game. I should be able to jump in, with the game being intuitive enough for me to learn as I go.
Timesinks are a major issue too. WoW drastically reduced timesinks in MMOs, but ever since then, the genre has stagnated. Players hit endgame then realize they have to quit because they can't dedicated 4 hours a night 5 nights a week to raiding for gear. The next step for MMOs is going to be finding a way to open endgame content to a wider variety of players while still placating the hardcore crowd. The answer to this is not simply to do away with raiding but to transform it or replace it. Coming up with alternative endgame content will require some out-of-the box thinking, and I don't envy the developers who are forced to tackle that issue.
Some of the most popular games have very simple mechanics. Portal and Minecraft are very simple games mechanically, but they are still very popular games. Both have outsold every MMORPG except WoW.
Players don't want just one thing. There are many players and many things are wanted. Some players want complexity, some players want simplicity and some players don't care about complexity...they just want something to do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Like someone else already said. Ask 100 people about what they like and you'll get 100 answers. Maybe even more.
I could imagine myself playing on some Neverwinter Nights style game on a low populated server. But there would need to be some additional features:
You wouldn't need to log in every evening (there are already more than enough games that offer quick and easy gaming experiences like rated and unrated PVP or End-Game-Raiding). Just hop in with your friends / static RP group once in a while and let yourself be surprised by the environment. The DM / players would have some control over the environment, though. Rather like some holodec experience.
But then I don't believe that a company would try this today because there are lots of conceptual issues (e.g. communication NPCs <-> players, alignment system and past deeds in word and action, etc.). And the prospects for earning money aren't good either. It might maybe work as independant or open source project (don't hope for a quick release, though).
One interesting point here is that another games hype can draw away population, even if the hype is unfounded.
For example, there's code in my engine that allows me to spawn mobs based on time of day. If I pitch that as some uber-cool dynamic event system that's never been seen before, I might be able to pull players that are otherwise happy with their current game*. Of course, once release hits people will figure out it's just BS, but by then the damage to the other game is done. Even better is I get more box sales by exagerating features.
This is part of the reason why I'm always skeptical of marketing hype about features. It's too easy to lie. I'll believe it when I see it working. If I have to PAY to see it working, I'll wait for the youtube gameplay videos.
* I'm not implying that micro-budget Indies are real competition for anyone, just written as an example.
An ealier poster said it - we all like different things. LOL. Especially on this site!
I don't like very complex games. I work for a living and by the end of the day I just want to have fun. No jumping puzzles and mind twisters for me - I just want to bash npcs, level, make better items and get better gear. I am sure that you can guess which MMO is my favorite.
I don't like MMO fps and I am not into pvp (except things like Alterac Valley and GW2 WvWvW).
On the other hand I do like Eve but am a care bear so I had to give it up.
Still, I can understand why people like complexity and I have no issues with that. TSW sounds like a fantastic game for the complex/mind twist crowd. Cool! Just not for me.
So, OP, no - not all players like complexity.
I'm not aware of data to support tnat those players do not normally return to their previous games. Do you have examples of where 'the damage was done' and the players did not return to the original game or cancelled their subs to the original game?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Complexity for the sake of it .. is not fun. Interesting choices, on the other hand, should be encouraged.
Having 100 stats is complex, but if most of them do not matter .. there is no point. In fact, just optimizing a bunch of dry numbers is a lot less fun than choosing skills that does different things.
So the statement "players want complexity" is just vague and not useful at all. Everything is in the details and implementation.
Very good point. 5 interesting choices is far better than 10 complicated choices or 40 irrelevant choices.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well when you are constantly fed dumbed down theme park mmos ofcourse players want something different. Who wants to eat the same meal everyday ?
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
And they seem they know what they are doing because according to your 3 points, those games would:
1) Be "awesome" but unknown since you have no marketing.
2) Yet you do not say what that is supposed to be...
3) "Experimental" games with unfamiliar designs are the riskiest and with highest failure rate.
So far it seems your "solutions" are just good advice how to lose hefty amount of money...
Any time you have people quitting something, of course there's going to be a percentage of those people that never go back.
That's exacerbated by the sub system, where going back takes effort and money.
You're working on the assumption they cancelled their existing subscription. I was asking for data that supports that claim.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Requesting data that can't possibly be obtained to "prove" your arguement is sort of a cheap theatrical trick really. (probably some sort of cool latin phrase to describe this)
Here's some data, with few exceptions, (Lineage 2, DAOC, WOW and EVE) I have never gone back to a MMORPG that I quit playing.
Especially in these more modern times, I never see the need to return to a previous theme park game, better to just pick up the next one coming down the pike, they all play pretty much the same anyways.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I can't give any numbers, but I just think it's pretty obvious that when people move from one game to another, there will always be a percentage that quits the old game.
If you're asking for data to show that it's a really huge amount, I can't, but just human behavior and past experience shows that a lot of people move from one game to another, and any time you have people moving on, you'll have some people who don't go back.
That's why subscriptions in game generally drop, barring something like an expansion.
Homan behaviour and past experience have shown that people will retain their subscription long beyond when they have stopped using it. People have a repeat pattern of, rash decisions aside, retaining their existing service until they feel they will enjoy the service they plan to move to. This is the reason why when you have cable and want dish or vice versa, the installer does his damnedest to convinvce you he has to use the existing inside lines, 'possibly' disabling your current service.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
After reading a few articles on Gamasutra about the use of the word "fun" in development and how its such a huge pitfall (to develop "fun" games). And it's interesting to think that "fun" is such a relative and subjective term, that when developers make "fun" games... its probably not very long for this world. Quirky things are fun, taking known things... say copying a well-known game that is successful... and adding quirky tweaks and additions makes for a "fun" game.... but does it make for an interesting, complex, indepth experience? The people here say "No wai".
What are you looking for in a game then?
"Fun"? Not likely, "fun" is playing games as a kid, you played tag cause it was "fun" but tag isn't "fun" anymore (I hope) and you didn't spend 8 hours a day every day playing the same "fun" game... it usually wears off its novelty quite quickly. Also people talk about how much "fun" things were in games like corpse-running, exp-loss etc. But its not really about "fun" so that seems like a bit of a flawed argument...
"Accessibility"? I'm not sure in this day and age that being accessible will play the same way it did say 10 years ago. Part of the success of WoW was because it was accessible. But now accessible is the norm, you cannot get much more accessibility into games than you can today. Think about 5 years ago, you probably bought WoW in a brick and mortar store weeks after it came out (maybe months or years) you installed the game from a multitude of discs patched for hours, possibly even on dialup... now... god now you are DLing free games multiple times a week in just an hour over high speed internet. Accessibiltiy is expected its no longer "special", no... accessbility will NOT make a successful game (like Blizzard did)
"Complexity"? Perhaps, but there are loads of overly complex games out there that just do not get the players, or can't keep people around. I think Perpetuum is a good example, similar to EVE (less complexity granted, but complex on its own), but struggles to keep players around for more than a month or two (even threads on their boards with people trying to figure out how to fix this). So is complexity needed? maybe, but its not the end-all be-all here.
So what is the magic word that will give us the game we want? There is none. Stop succoming to the regular old internet cliche of one-word answers and over-simplifying extremely complex systems (you and your game choices) coupled with hyperbole just leading the market down dead-end alleys. To go against my own better judgement here... The answer is a complex combination of all the negatives and positives posted here combined with ingenuity, creativity, and above all else, a developer with brass balls.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
if there was a majority of player that actually wanted complex we already would have it, that's the only thing that should be obvious by now especially by someone like OP who has been around for some time should have known better.
Btw I full agree on wanting a more complex challenging MMORPG that isn't just a online combat game. But I know better that those of us who want more complex are most likely the minority by today's standards in gaming.