The OP is not trying to Directly say, what will be the best Business Design. The OP simply is saying that this is what some of the players (the Customers) want and are waiting for. There is a need for World MMO's.
It is up to the Companies/Devs/Investors to cater that need....
If everyone is trying to make the next WoW, and hit it big with a multi-Billion dollar anual revenue... well guess what, there can be only one winner..and if you are not the winner then you are a total loser....
I am one of the people who would like to play and willing to pay for a world MMO...what you do not want my money? Not enough for you?
You just failed in business then. Continue making Themeparks that become barren after 3 months and switch to F2P model 6-12 months post release...
You propose a false dilemma. Who says devs have to try to make the next WOW, if they don't make the next virtual world game?
There are many new directions as opposed to the old sandbox world route. For example, LOL and WOT got rid of the world all together, and focus on arena pvp. Online ARPG is another direction (though not new). Diablo 3 sold 10M boxes. Now you may argue these are not "true" MMOs. But so what? MMO devs have the skill to make good online games. May be if themepark is not the way to go, change it to something else.
Now if there is a large enough demand for world MMO, then it would be made .. but is there?
There are trials like Earth rise and Darkfall ... how do these game flare? Much worse than LOL and WOT.
And you would not believe how many times I hear, " So what do you do in this game?"
Because obviously it is not linear. And the fact that they can quest, craft, sell crafted goods, fight, scavenge, join a guild and basically just survive and move about through the world just seems lost on them. Or they dismiss all this as just "Boring!!! "
And this is not even considered a sandbox by the hardcore sandboxers as I understand it !!
So I truly hold little hope for the sandbox genre to take off.
There is marketing research, showing that too many choices often paralyze people.
Given this psychology, i don't think you will ever have a large enough market for a true sandbox. Freedom is only good to an extent.
LOL!
Well, it's a good thing we have themeparks then eh? I'd hate to have a bunch of gamers fall over dead at their keyboards!
Hahaha, good stuff.
Actually i don't even think themepark is the answer. I think much more focus online games like LOL or WOT will be the future. In fact, LOL is already bigger than WOW. And look at what they do? Very focus arena PvP ... with no world to distract you.
We may need more PvE focus online game like that (to add variety and not everyone like pvp), but i highly doubt the old themepark in a world game is the only answer.
And you would not believe how many times I hear, " So what do you do in this game?"
Because obviously it is not linear. And the fact that they can quest, craft, sell crafted goods, fight, scavenge, join a guild and basically just survive and move about through the world just seems lost on them. Or they dismiss all this as just "Boring!!! "
And this is not even considered a sandbox by the hardcore sandboxers as I understand it !!
So I truly hold little hope for the sandbox genre to take off.
There is marketing research, showing that too many choices often paralyze people.
Given this psychology, i don't think you will ever have a large enough market for a true sandbox. Freedom is only good to an extent.
LOL!
Well, it's a good thing we have themeparks then eh? I'd hate to have a bunch of gamers fall over dead at their keyboards!
Hahaha, good stuff.
Actually i don't even think themepark is the answer. I think much more focus online games like LOL or WOT will be the future. In fact, LOL is already bigger than WOW. And look at what they do? Very focus arena PvP ... with no world to distract you.
We may need more PvE focus online game like that (to add variety and not everyone like pvp), but i highly doubt the old themepark in a world game is the only answer.
I'm thinking we should go back to Pong myself. Keeping people alive should be priority number one!
ROFL...
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
I think that its high time for game companies that want to make MMOs to understand one simple thing about MMO player :
We dont want games - we want worlds.
We have millions of games - Halo , Super Mario , Starcraft , Monkey Island , Baldurs Gate ... to note few genre stars.
Now they want to take these games and add multiplayer aspect - and slap brand this MMORPG.
This my friends is the themepark world. And the direction its moving ( we are seeing mmofps , mmo platformer , mmo sport , even mmo adventure - beside more traditional mmorpg approach )
But this is not what we are here for ... not what we wanted...
When I played games before the era of internet , this was not what I dreamed of - Super Mario with oter people playing.
No.
What I dreamed was Ultima Online
This dream was shared in developer community that was young and not GREED oriented as today.
And than it stopped. Because its easier to just make a game and add multiplayer element.
And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.
This. That much is obvious - will not fly anymore.
We want worlds.
You can call it sandbox. I call it Virtual world simulation games.
Worlds that have its rules , its economy , its inhabitants , its dangers , its politics - and than we are put inside - and become part of them.
Sadly only good and sucessful modern example of this is EVE online.
The game that caters bit to much to agressive player.... but there is so much potential around.
Will we ever see it ?
I believe almost everytime we saw something like this that worked well it ended with them being swallowed by someone else. Like everquest,DAOC so on. Shame really.
And you would not believe how many times I hear, " So what do you do in this game?"
Because obviously it is not linear. And the fact that they can quest, craft, sell crafted goods, fight, scavenge, join a guild and basically just survive and move about through the world just seems lost on them. Or they dismiss all this as just "Boring!!! "
And this is not even considered a sandbox by the hardcore sandboxers as I understand it !!
So I truly hold little hope for the sandbox genre to take off.
There is marketing research, showing that too many choices often paralyze people.
Given this psychology, i don't think you will ever have a large enough market for a true sandbox. Freedom is only good to an extent.
I really don't care what some lab coats think. I like options, and can deal with making a bad choice as long as I can correct that choice.
As far as MMO's go, the availability of "freedom" is limited to strict guidelines. It's stiffling. "Freedom only to an extent" would be a welcome start, since after character creation there is almost none in the directed games of today.
Originally posted by Suraknar I agree with the OP.
No MMO after UO has been able to keep me engaged for more than six months with the exception of SWG (and they shot that to hell)....
Some people here are arguing thatthe early days were laggy, and full of bugs and the such. This is a fallacious argument. technology was what it was back then, and the Technical issues were the same for all MMO's.
Making a World now would not suffer from the same, with the new realities and tech advancement. We were playing on 28,8 and 56K Dial Up modems back then from crying out loud. Today people have DSL and Cable High Speed connections, advances in hardware and Software have reached new hights as well.
The technical aspect of making an MMO has not been easier, complete MMO's are made with readilly available tools too (Various Premade Engines).
The problem remains money, and, the Vision and Ideas behind the making of a World MMO.
When Devs themselves and their leaders and Producers, do not know how to make a world, how do you want them to pitch the design to an Investor and secure the money required to make the world MMO?
The thriftiness of the Business has made it all about Financial Innovation rather than gameplay one, I immagine that it goes something like this:
"Oh I got the team,, I got the Engine, I got the hosting/networking and marketing/Sales/Support services and the Devellopment mileastones all on paper, here are some financial projections based on the popularity of the IP we are using as a setting...all I need is your money,..and you will get e hefty profit, it is a good investment, we have a winner."
And everyone gets a salary a nice addition to their CV and goes on with their careers and to the next project/job once this one is completed, following the initial stages of the game selling copies, repaying the investors and makingthem a short term profit.
And the circle goes on. That is in reality the issue here.
The irony of it all is that while many people will argue that they may not want to be playing an MMO for more than 6 months, that is not true either. How many people do you know which play WoW for years now already? Yet, how many of those people never experienced a World MMO like UO, almost all, or at least the majority of them.
If they paid to Blizzard for years now a Sub (amazing profit yes?), with a themepark, just immagine a properly made World MMO.
But who knows how to make one now? The only people who did the feat have become legends in the Industry but are not making MMO's anymore. And the people who would have a solid grasp of how it could be made (original Players of the early MMO's), hang around forums like these asking for one but most are not working in the Industry...
The Art of making a world MMO that works is not available at this time.
I think the only problem for the open world/open ended games is the size of the target audience. Games like Fallen Earth, Eve, Perpetuum and probably others have a lot of the exact same technical issues that your more linear MMORPG have, but they also have to deal with a smaller target audience. This equates to money and I really think this is the only real issue.
Right now, an independent developer team, or lone individual could get the Unreal 3 or Unity engine and write a game. It would probably be a single player game, but it might be a multi-player co-op game. The point is, it could happen. In fact, it has happened...I've seen the games on Steam. This cannot happen with an MMORPG. It's not possible. You can have a top down, 2D sprite based MMORPG written for very little money and a tiny team, but nothing like a regular MMORPG with respectable production quality.
I think this will happen...eventually the tools will be in place and the middleware will be part of the development tools...like the Unreal Engine is now, but for MMORPG. I don't know when, because I'm not a futurist, but I think it will. When it does, then the market for those 'World' games will get a chance to grow.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Suraknar I agree with the OP.
No MMO after UO has been able to keep me engaged for more than six months with the exception of SWG (and they shot that to hell)....
Some people here are arguing thatthe early days were laggy, and full of bugs and the such. This is a fallacious argument. technology was what it was back then, and the Technical issues were the same for all MMO's.
Making a World now would not suffer from the same, with the new realities and tech advancement. We were playing on 28,8 and 56K Dial Up modems back then from crying out loud. Today people have DSL and Cable High Speed connections, advances in hardware and Software have reached new hights as well.
The technical aspect of making an MMO has not been easier, complete MMO's are made with readilly available tools too (Various Premade Engines).
The problem remains money, and, the Vision and Ideas behind the making of a World MMO.
When Devs themselves and their leaders and Producers, do not know how to make a world, how do you want them to pitch the design to an Investor and secure the money required to make the world MMO?
The thriftiness of the Business has made it all about Financial Innovation rather than gameplay one, I immagine that it goes something like this:
"Oh I got the team,, I got the Engine, I got the hosting/networking and marketing/Sales/Support services and the Devellopment mileastones all on paper, here are some financial projections based on the popularity of the IP we are using as a setting...all I need is your money,..and you will get e hefty profit, it is a good investment, we have a winner."
And everyone gets a salary a nice addition to their CV and goes on with their careers and to the next project/job once this one is completed, following the initial stages of the game selling copies, repaying the investors and makingthem a short term profit.
And the circle goes on. That is in reality the issue here.
The irony of it all is that while many people will argue that they may not want to be playing an MMO for more than 6 months, that is not true either. How many people do you know which play WoW for years now already? Yet, how many of those people never experienced a World MMO like UO, almost all, or at least the majority of them.
If they paid to Blizzard for years now a Sub (amazing profit yes?), with a themepark, just immagine a properly made World MMO.
But who knows how to make one now? The only people who did the feat have become legends in the Industry but are not making MMO's anymore. And the people who would have a solid grasp of how it could be made (original Players of the early MMO's), hang around forums like these asking for one but most are not working in the Industry...
The Art of making a world MMO that works is not available at this time.
I think the only problem for the open world/open ended games is the size of the target audience. Games like Fallen Earth, Eve, Perpetuum and probably others have a lot of the exact same technical issues that your more linear MMORPG have, but they also have to deal with a smaller target audience. This equates to money and I really think this is the only real issue.
Right now, an independent developer team, or lone individual could get the Unreal 3 or Unity engine and write a game. It would probably be a single player game, but it might be a multi-player co-op game. The point is, it could happen. In fact, it has happened...I've seen the games on Steam. This cannot happen with an MMORPG. It's not possible. You can have a top down, 2D sprite based MMORPG written for very little money and a tiny team, but nothing like a regular MMORPG with respectable production quality.
I think this will happen...eventually the tools will be in place and the middleware will be part of the development tools...like the Unreal Engine is now, but for MMORPG. I don't know when, because I'm not a futurist, but I think it will. When it does, then the market for those 'World' games will get a chance to grow.
I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful.
"World" is missing, and more and more of it as time goes on. And retention is dropping off in what appears to be an equal reaction to less and less "world". You'd think the Powers-That-Be would see this, would have seen it a long time ago now. But I agree with Suraknar, the Devs simply don't know how to make "worlds". There are numerous problems that come with the social scales of making a "world". They've never been able to see the path past those problems. Because they only know how to build gamey content. They don't know how to build societies that actually function.
In my mind, there is only one MMO's Developers who have been successful at society building. Eve. Yet, they are very narrow in scope with that game. I wonder if they would be able to expand their system into a wider scope that would be needed for a "world" game. Everything has to work together to make up one social world. Even UO, for as worldly as it was, failed in the end at a functional social world, which caused the creation of a PvP zone and the addition of gameyness.
For those wondering about what's out there, and those pushing that virtual persistant world out of view because apparently no one wants it... take a look at two of the up coming *MMO* games - Star Citizen (which just may blow Eve away quite easily), and The Repopulation. You'll be quite surprised at the depth that these two games are going into.
SC alone has accrued over 6million dollars in player - PLAYER - backing... meaning that THIS is what (this particular gaming community) wants when it comes to a AAA game. The original goal was 2million. By reaching that goal thier private investors would take note and step up to add additional funding. As it went 4million over the goal... well, you tell me what type of game the community really wants.
And you would not believe how many times I hear, " So what do you do in this game?"
Because obviously it is not linear. And the fact that they can quest, craft, sell crafted goods, fight, scavenge, join a guild and basically just survive and move about through the world just seems lost on them. Or they dismiss all this as just "Boring!!! "
And this is not even considered a sandbox by the hardcore sandboxers as I understand it !!
So I truly hold little hope for the sandbox genre to take off.
There is marketing research, showing that too many choices often paralyze people.
Given this psychology, i don't think you will ever have a large enough market for a true sandbox. Freedom is only good to an extent.
I really don't care what some lab coats think. I like options, and can deal with making a bad choice as long as I can correct that choice.
As far as MMO's go, the availability of "freedom" is limited to strict guidelines. It's stiffling. "Freedom only to an extent" would be a welcome start, since after character creation there is almost none in the directed games of today.
Some lab coats who have published books are probably more credible than random poster on the Internet like yourself.
And the fact that many linear games are popular (Dead Space, COD, Halo, GOW ....) shows that you don't need complete freedom to be entertaining.
Even SKYRIM has quests and little symbols on the map to lead you around.
Originally posted by Taonite For those wondering about what's out there, and those pushing that virtual persistant world out of view because apparently no one wants it... take a look at two of the up coming *MMO* games - Star Citizen (which just may blow Eve away quite easily), and The Repopulation. You'll be quite surprised at the depth that these two games are going into.
SC alone has accrued over 6million dollars in player - PLAYER - backing... meaning that THIS is what (this particular gaming community) wants when it comes to a AAA game. The original goal was 2million. By reaching that goal thier private investors would take note and step up to add additional funding. As it went 4million over the goal... well, you tell me what type of game the community really wants.
Just wait when these news reaches Azeroths Daily News.
You will see armies carrying banners with prints like:
-its not ok to have space in space ,LFT tool must be on every space station,it helps if you have kids or work.
-World PvP sucks and so does space PvP ,make space instanced so it feels more space ?
Originally posted by Amaranthar I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful."World" is missing, and more and more of it as time goes on. And retention is dropping off in what appears to be an equal reaction to less and less "world". You'd think the Powers-That-Be would see this, would have seen it a long time ago now. But I agree with Suraknar, the Devs simply don't know how to make "worlds". There are numerous problems that come with the social scales of making a "world". They've never been able to see the path past those problems. Because they only know how to build gamey content. They don't know how to build societies that actually function.In my mind, there is only one MMO's Developers who have been successful at society building. Eve. Yet, they are very narrow in scope with that game. I wonder if they would be able to expand their system into a wider scope that would be needed for a "world" game. Everything has to work together to make up one social world. Even UO, for as worldly as it was, failed in the end at a functional social world, which caused the creation of a PvP zone and the addition of gameyness.
You're right in that there's a market for virtual worlds. It's just dwarfed by the market for straight up games. The idea of virtual worlds started in the 80s, got some actual development in the 90s, and then it just faded away. I watched it happen. I was on the bandwagon when the virtual world bandwagon lost its wheels. There's been a lot of time for virtual worlds to take off, and they just didn't. Games just sell better. For that matter, things like Facebook, Twitter and even Google+ do the social thing better than any social focused game or virtual world, and they're free.
That's why the cost has to drop. We need independent developers to create games that are set in virtual worlds.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful.
"World" is missing, and more and more of it as time goes on. And retention is dropping off in what appears to be an equal reaction to less and less "world". You'd think the Powers-That-Be would see this, would have seen it a long time ago now. But I agree with Suraknar, the Devs simply don't know how to make "worlds". There are numerous problems that come with the social scales of making a "world". They've never been able to see the path past those problems. Because they only know how to build gamey content. They don't know how to build societies that actually function.
In my mind, there is only one MMO's Developers who have been successful at society building. Eve. Yet, they are very narrow in scope with that game. I wonder if they would be able to expand their system into a wider scope that would be needed for a "world" game. Everything has to work together to make up one social world. Even UO, for as worldly as it was, failed in the end at a functional social world, which caused the creation of a PvP zone and the addition of gameyness.
Say if the recent games have failed. Nothing says its the "world" they are lacking. You simply don't know. What they are lacking, if they are lacking anything, could be something else completely. Maybe it is a fresh new take on gameplay? -SWTOR and TSW both had a chance to take up on this but they played it safe and stuck with tank 'n' spank: reskinned medieval fantasy combat - something which has been around for decades now.
I also think it is pretty bold to say devs don't know what they're doing. A more likely scenario is that devs know all too well what the situation is and you don't see it, or refuse to see the big picture.
You are looking at this from your own perspective alone. It is not good enough to make a game for you. At the end of the day they also have to make some money too. People love good games. Worlds, the way you want them, are secondary.
Virtual make-believe does not have mass-market appeal. I'm curious, why haven't you turned to PnP games for this fix already?
EDIT: Hell, I'll roll a character for a forum game with you if you promise to ease off the whine. Get some RP going, you'll forget all these ludicruous ideas...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful.
You are cherry picking the games.
Diablo 3 is very successful. People jump in and play a few quests.
TL2 is quite succcessful. People jump in and play a few quests.
LOL is very successful, People jump in and play a few arenas.
WOT is very successful. People jump in and play a few battles.
You are only looking at MMORPGs, and not the games that have the similar (jump in for a quest/arena) playstyle. You can argue that is not ONLY what people want. Surely there are people who may want other type of gameplay. But saying that people don't want to jump in and kill stuff (either PvE or Pvp) is just wrong and sticking your head in the sand.
Originally posted by Amaranthar I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful.
"World" is missing, and more and more of it as time goes on. And retention is dropping off in what appears to be an equal reaction to less and less "world". You'd think the Powers-That-Be would see this, would have seen it a long time ago now. But I agree with Suraknar, the Devs simply don't know how to make "worlds". There are numerous problems that come with the social scales of making a "world". They've never been able to see the path past those problems. Because they only know how to build gamey content. They don't know how to build societies that actually function.
In my mind, there is only one MMO's Developers who have been successful at society building. Eve. Yet, they are very narrow in scope with that game. I wonder if they would be able to expand their system into a wider scope that would be needed for a "world" game. Everything has to work together to make up one social world. Even UO, for as worldly as it was, failed in the end at a functional social world, which caused the creation of a PvP zone and the addition of gameyness.
You're right in that there's a market for virtual worlds. It's just dwarfed by the market for straight up games. The idea of virtual worlds started in the 80s, got some actual development in the 90s, and then it just faded away. I watched it happen. I was on the bandwagon when the virtual world bandwagon lost its wheels. There's been a lot of time for virtual worlds to take off, and they just didn't. Games just sell better. For that matter, things like Facebook, Twitter and even Google+ do the social thing better than any social focused game or virtual world, and they're free.
That's why the cost has to drop. We need independent developers to create games that are set in virtual worlds.
You're missing the point of "social" in an MMO design. It's not just chat and "hey, lets do this".
An MMO world needs a design that makes "social" work inside the game, as part of the game world. Even message boards have a little bit, as needed, in that you can report a bad post, link to other items, private chat, etc. But an MMO "world" needs expanded "social" to interconnect the game play throughout the game world. It needs a design much more than code. You can code in guilds, but that doesn't give guilds more purpose to that game world, meaning to anyone but the guildmates. Samne thing for economics, you can code in AH's but that doesn't make owning something have meaning to that game world.
Really, I'm not sure I've come up with the right words to get the point accross. But if you think of the game world as a plane of existence, think of the "social" as the meaningful interactions inside that bubble of existence.
I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful.
You are cherry picking the games.
Diablo 3 is very successful. People jump in and play a few quests.
TL2 is quite succcessful. People jump in and play a few quests.
LOL is very successful, People jump in and play a few arenas.
WOT is very successful. People jump in and play a few battles.
You are only looking at MMORPGs, and not the games that have the similar (jump in for a quest/arena) playstyle. You can argue that is not ONLY what people want. Surely there are people who may want other type of gameplay. But saying that people don't want to jump in and kill stuff (either PvE or Pvp) is just wrong and sticking your head in the sand.
That's exactly the point. An MMO is a different animal. What works for SPGs or GMO's (Grouping Multiplayer Online) is different than a Massively Multiplayer Online game. It's that "Massively" that requires different design to make it work as a "massively" interactive game "world".
I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful.
"World" is missing, and more and more of it as time goes on. And retention is dropping off in what appears to be an equal reaction to less and less "world". You'd think the Powers-That-Be would see this, would have seen it a long time ago now. But I agree with Suraknar, the Devs simply don't know how to make "worlds". There are numerous problems that come with the social scales of making a "world". They've never been able to see the path past those problems. Because they only know how to build gamey content. They don't know how to build societies that actually function.
In my mind, there is only one MMO's Developers who have been successful at society building. Eve. Yet, they are very narrow in scope with that game. I wonder if they would be able to expand their system into a wider scope that would be needed for a "world" game. Everything has to work together to make up one social world. Even UO, for as worldly as it was, failed in the end at a functional social world, which caused the creation of a PvP zone and the addition of gameyness.
Say if the recent games have failed. Nothing says its the "world" they are lacking. You simply don't know. What they are lacking, if they are lacking anything, could be something else completely. Maybe it is a fresh new take on gameplay? -SWTOR and TSW both had a chance to take up on this but they played it safe and stuck with tank 'n' spank: reskinned medieval fantasy combat - something which has been around for decades now.
I also think it is pretty bold to say devs don't know what they're doing. A more likely scenario is that devs know all too well what the situation is and you don't see it, or refuse to see the big picture.
You are looking at this from your own perspective alone. It is not good enough to make a game for you. At the end of the day they also have to make some money too. People love good games. Worlds, the way you want them, are secondary.
Virtual make-believe does not have mass-market appeal. I'm curious, why haven't you turned to PnP games for this fix already?
EDIT: Hell, I'll roll a character for a forum game with you if you promise to ease off the whine. Get some RP going, you'll forget all these ludicruous ideas...
I am a bold person, there's no doubt among those who know me. But honestly, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone can't see the points I'm making. Oh I can understand people who really don't care to think about it, but not from anyone who spends any time looking at things involved here. But, oh well, it's not like I've not seen this problem, and it's not like I ever expect MMOs to change. I'm just sayin', evidently for the sake of the wind.
Originally posted by Amaranthar Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by AmarantharI think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful."World" is missing, and more and more of it as time goes on. And retention is dropping off in what appears to be an equal reaction to less and less "world". You'd think the Powers-That-Be would see this, would have seen it a long time ago now. But I agree with Suraknar, the Devs simply don't know how to make "worlds". There are numerous problems that come with the social scales of making a "world". They've never been able to see the path past those problems. Because they only know how to build gamey content. They don't know how to build societies that actually function.In my mind, there is only one MMO's Developers who have been successful at society building. Eve. Yet, they are very narrow in scope with that game. I wonder if they would be able to expand their system into a wider scope that would be needed for a "world" game. Everything has to work together to make up one social world. Even UO, for as worldly as it was, failed in the end at a functional social world, which caused the creation of a PvP zone and the addition of gameyness.
You're right in that there's a market for virtual worlds. It's just dwarfed by the market for straight up games. The idea of virtual worlds started in the 80s, got some actual development in the 90s, and then it just faded away. I watched it happen. I was on the bandwagon when the virtual world bandwagon lost its wheels. There's been a lot of time for virtual worlds to take off, and they just didn't. Games just sell better. For that matter, things like Facebook, Twitter and even Google+ do the social thing better than any social focused game or virtual world, and they're free. That's why the cost has to drop. We need independent developers to create games that are set in virtual worlds. You're missing the point of "social" in an MMO design. It's not just chat and "hey, lets do this".
An MMO world needs a design that makes "social" work inside the game, as part of the game world. Even message boards have a little bit, as needed, in that you can report a bad post, link to other items, private chat, etc. But an MMO "world" needs expanded "social" to interconnect the game play throughout the game world. It needs a design much more than code. You can code in guilds, but that doesn't give guilds more purpose to that game world, meaning to anyone but the guildmates. Samne thing for economics, you can code in AH's but that doesn't make owning something have meaning to that game world.
Really, I'm not sure I've come up with the right words to get the point accross. But if you think of the game world as a plane of existence, think of the "social" as the meaningful interactions inside that bubble of existence.
I see what you're saying there. I'll need to think about it for a bit. My gut reaction is that games, even MMORPG have too limited a scope to have interactions that are that meaningful. All of the interactions stop at the edge of the game and the people who are playing the game. If I have 10 friends, and I'm the only one playing the game, it doesn't matter how meaningful the interactions are, because my attention is going to be elsewhere.
Beyond that, most players just want to kill stuff. Like, literally that's what they want to do in a game. They aren't looking for worlds or meaningful social interactions because they already have meaningful social interactions outside the game. They just want to kill stuff.
I'm not sure that's my final response...like I said, I need to think about it a bit.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by AmarantharI think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful."World" is missing, and more and more of it as time goes on. And retention is dropping off in what appears to be an equal reaction to less and less "world". You'd think the Powers-That-Be would see this, would have seen it a long time ago now. But I agree with Suraknar, the Devs simply don't know how to make "worlds". There are numerous problems that come with the social scales of making a "world". They've never been able to see the path past those problems. Because they only know how to build gamey content. They don't know how to build societies that actually function.In my mind, there is only one MMO's Developers who have been successful at society building. Eve. Yet, they are very narrow in scope with that game. I wonder if they would be able to expand their system into a wider scope that would be needed for a "world" game. Everything has to work together to make up one social world. Even UO, for as worldly as it was, failed in the end at a functional social world, which caused the creation of a PvP zone and the addition of gameyness.
You're right in that there's a market for virtual worlds. It's just dwarfed by the market for straight up games. The idea of virtual worlds started in the 80s, got some actual development in the 90s, and then it just faded away. I watched it happen. I was on the bandwagon when the virtual world bandwagon lost its wheels. There's been a lot of time for virtual worlds to take off, and they just didn't. Games just sell better. For that matter, things like Facebook, Twitter and even Google+ do the social thing better than any social focused game or virtual world, and they're free. That's why the cost has to drop. We need independent developers to create games that are set in virtual worlds.
You're missing the point of "social" in an MMO design. It's not just chat and "hey, lets do this".
An MMO world needs a design that makes "social" work inside the game, as part of the game world. Even message boards have a little bit, as needed, in that you can report a bad post, link to other items, private chat, etc. But an MMO "world" needs expanded "social" to interconnect the game play throughout the game world. It needs a design much more than code. You can code in guilds, but that doesn't give guilds more purpose to that game world, meaning to anyone but the guildmates. Samne thing for economics, you can code in AH's but that doesn't make owning something have meaning to that game world.
Really, I'm not sure I've come up with the right words to get the point accross. But if you think of the game world as a plane of existence, think of the "social" as the meaningful interactions inside that bubble of existence.
I see what you're saying there. I'll need to think about it for a bit. My gut reaction is that games, even MMORPG have too limited a scope to have interactions that are that meaningful. All of the interactions stop at the edge of the game and the people who are playing the game. If I have 10 friends, and I'm the only one playing the game, it doesn't matter how meaningful the interactions are, because my attention is going to be elsewhere.
Beyond that, most players just want to kill stuff. Like, literally that's what they want to do in a game. They aren't looking for worlds or meaningful social interactions because they already have meaningful social interactions outside the game. They just want to kill stuff.
I'm not sure that's my final response...like I said, I need to think about it a bit.
I agree that most players just want to kill stuff. But my opinion is that in an MMO, they want to do so inside a world. The meaning to them is being nasty, among all these other massive numbers of players. They can just kill stuff in any game, why are they in an MMO? To be doing it, but in a world full of others.
So too are players who like to trade and play economics. It's all those other players, doing it within that massively social sphere.
And what about forming communities? Guilds are just a start, and many players want to be part of a guild. But you can do that on a web site outside the game. How many players want "politics"? But gamey design, something that functions like a card game for example, isn't really politics. Many players do want politics in their games, and to be meaningful and connected to the rest of the game. PvP, trades, economics, player built cities! Is there any doubts here?
And even those who just want to kill stuff seem likely to want to do so inside a game world that has all of the above inclusive. It gives them more meaning to their "thing", and a good "world" game should enhance that by design. As with each and every aspect of it.
It all boils down to human nature. If you go to the movies, you expect to watch that movie with all the other people....
You don't expect to be ushered into a separate room with only a few people you chose to be there with, that's like "Instances."
You might expect to hear others laugh or comment at a funny scene, but you also expect someone who's overdoing it to be shown out. That's like wide open PvP running rampant, without a working justice system.
You expect people to get up and get some popcorn, maybe more for a date or friend. But you don't expect someone to buy it all up so no one else can have any. At the same time you can accept it if someone bought the last box of MilkDuds. Yet you don't ask for a separate room with separate treats. There's something in here about Trade skills and economy, heh.
If you want to watch a movie alone (or with a few others), you don't go to the movies. You rent and watch at home. That's like SPGs.
Edit to add: And you expect a good (or worthwhile) movie, and an enjoyable combination of all else to make the experience enjoyable, so you will go back to the same theater time and time again, with all those other people you don't know.
Beyond that, most players just want to kill stuff. Like, literally that's what they want to do in a game. They aren't looking for worlds or meaningful social interactions because they already have meaningful social interactions outside the game. They just want to kill stuff.
I want a world... and I want to kill stuff and other players there. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
An MMO world to me is the holy grail of MMO design. Just like I was dreaming of something like Madden when I programmed a football simulator on my old TI-59 calculator, I dreamt of a fantasy world where many could kill the dragon together.
Second Life doesn't interest me in the least. I want my world to be more focused on the activity of vanquishing evil so that we're all there with the same goal in mind. The more options we have on how to contribute by either being on the front lines, being part of the supply chain or directing it all, the closer we get to making it more world-like.
It's all the "convenience" features, guides by means of quests and restricted terrain, quick respawns of the recently dead, etc. that detract from this. This is why a lot of people balk at the idea: could it be fun if you take all that away?
The much discussed "social interactions" aspect, imho should be a natural part of the world and be less "convenient." We could still have silent hermits and lone wolfs there as well as the compulsively talkative. But it's the things we've all come to rely on like "zone", "trade", "LFG", "guild" chats and add-ons like ventrilo that detract from the experience. We need more face to face interactions there... everything else, like "grouping" flows from that. Some of those conveniences could fit in a sci-fi world I suppose, but I'd rather stick with a medieval fantasy setting for my world.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
It all boils down to human nature. If you go to the movies, you expect to watch that movie with all the other people....
You don't expect to be ushered into a separate room with only a few people you chose to be there with, that's like "Instances."
You might expect to hear others laugh or comment at a funny scene, but you also expect someone who's overdoing it to be shown out. That's like wide open PvP running rampant, without a working justice system.
You expect people to get up and get some popcorn, maybe more for a date or friend. But you don't expect someone to buy it all up so no one else can have any. At the same time you can accept it if someone bought the last box of MilkDuds. Yet you don't ask for a separate room with separate treats. There's something in here about Trade skills and economy, heh.
If you want to watch a movie alone (or with a few others), you don't go to the movies. You rent and watch at home. That's like SPGs.
Edit to add: And you expect a good (or worthwhile) movie, and an enjoyable combination of all else to make the experience enjoyable, so you will go back to the same theater time and time again, with all those other people you don't know.
That analogy is wrong. People go to a movie theatre to see a movie in a "theatre setting". They do not go there specificly to be surrounded by other people. In fact, I believe most people would like it if they could watch the movie with noone else in the theatre. People expect to watch movies with other people because they cannot afford to rent the theatre just for themselves and their friends. People will go to an earlier or later screening specificly because they expect fewer people to be there.
What you were probably looking is an analogy to a rock concert. The audience reaction is part of the "rock concert experience" so being surrounded by other people is a key part of what people go there for.
I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful.
You are cherry picking the games.
Diablo 3 is very successful. People jump in and play a few quests.
TL2 is quite succcessful. People jump in and play a few quests.
LOL is very successful, People jump in and play a few arenas.
WOT is very successful. People jump in and play a few battles.
You are only looking at MMORPGs, and not the games that have the similar (jump in for a quest/arena) playstyle. You can argue that is not ONLY what people want. Surely there are people who may want other type of gameplay. But saying that people don't want to jump in and kill stuff (either PvE or Pvp) is just wrong and sticking your head in the sand.
That's exactly the point. An MMO is a different animal. What works for SPGs or GMO's (Grouping Multiplayer Online) is different than a Massively Multiplayer Online game. It's that "Massively" that requires different design to make it work as a "massively" interactive game "world".
Well, in that case, i would say a non-world SPG/GMO are much more successful than a world-based MMO, so it is not surprising that some MMO devs are moving to the SPG/GMO direction.
MMOs don't exist in a vacuum. Developers don't just develope for certain type of MMOs. They develop games, and even when the starting point is a traditional MMOs, there is no reason not to consider non-MMO features, particularly when those features are going to make them succeed.
In fact, the word "Massively" is jsut a label. It requires nothing. You can say D3 is massive because i can group with millions of players at any point (in fact, more massive then just a server).
What if devs took the "massive" interacting "world" out of these games ... it is not like they can't or they won't do that.
That analogy is wrong. People go to a movie theatre to see a movie in a "theatre setting". They do not go there specificly to be surrounded by other people. In fact, I believe most people would like it if they could watch the movie with noone else in the theatre. People expect to watch movies with other people because they cannot afford to rent the theatre just for themselves and their friends. People will go to an earlier or later screening specificly because they expect fewer people to be there.
Yeh. I go to a movie theater for a big screen, IMAX, and sound system that i don't own. Whether there is people in the theater with me, is irrelevant. In fact, i often go on SAT Mornign when there is less crowd.
That analogy is wrong. People go to a movie theatre to see a movie in a "theatre setting". They do not go there specificly to be surrounded by other people. In fact, I believe most people would like it if they could watch the movie with noone else in the theatre. People expect to watch movies with other people because they cannot afford to rent the theatre just for themselves and their friends. People will go to an earlier or later screening specificly because they expect fewer people to be there.
Yeh. I go to a movie theater for a big screen, IMAX, and sound system that i don't own. Whether there is people in the theater with me, is irrelevant. In fact, i often go on SAT Mornign when there is less crowd.
Yeah, but you've been defending these modern day MMOs, when so many other players have been leaving them. Just as most people don't make an effort to go to less crowded movies. Obviously.
Edit to add: Maybe there are better analogies, though. How about a Star Wars convention? Or a medieval fair?
Comments
You propose a false dilemma. Who says devs have to try to make the next WOW, if they don't make the next virtual world game?
There are many new directions as opposed to the old sandbox world route. For example, LOL and WOT got rid of the world all together, and focus on arena pvp. Online ARPG is another direction (though not new). Diablo 3 sold 10M boxes. Now you may argue these are not "true" MMOs. But so what? MMO devs have the skill to make good online games. May be if themepark is not the way to go, change it to something else.
Now if there is a large enough demand for world MMO, then it would be made .. but is there?
There are trials like Earth rise and Darkfall ... how do these game flare? Much worse than LOL and WOT.
Actually i don't even think themepark is the answer. I think much more focus online games like LOL or WOT will be the future. In fact, LOL is already bigger than WOW. And look at what they do? Very focus arena PvP ... with no world to distract you.
We may need more PvE focus online game like that (to add variety and not everyone like pvp), but i highly doubt the old themepark in a world game is the only answer.
I'm thinking we should go back to Pong myself. Keeping people alive should be priority number one!
ROFL...
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
I believe almost everytime we saw something like this that worked well it ended with them being swallowed by someone else. Like everquest,DAOC so on. Shame really.
I really don't care what some lab coats think. I like options, and can deal with making a bad choice as long as I can correct that choice.
As far as MMO's go, the availability of "freedom" is limited to strict guidelines. It's stiffling. "Freedom only to an extent" would be a welcome start, since after character creation there is almost none in the directed games of today.
Once upon a time....
I think the only problem for the open world/open ended games is the size of the target audience. Games like Fallen Earth, Eve, Perpetuum and probably others have a lot of the exact same technical issues that your more linear MMORPG have, but they also have to deal with a smaller target audience. This equates to money and I really think this is the only real issue.
Right now, an independent developer team, or lone individual could get the Unreal 3 or Unity engine and write a game. It would probably be a single player game, but it might be a multi-player co-op game. The point is, it could happen. In fact, it has happened...I've seen the games on Steam. This cannot happen with an MMORPG. It's not possible. You can have a top down, 2D sprite based MMORPG written for very little money and a tiny team, but nothing like a regular MMORPG with respectable production quality.
I think this will happen...eventually the tools will be in place and the middleware will be part of the development tools...like the Unreal Engine is now, but for MMORPG. I don't know when, because I'm not a futurist, but I think it will. When it does, then the market for those 'World' games will get a chance to grow.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think there's a market, and there's no limit to it. If you make a good product, people will buy it. It's really that simple. There only question is, what is a good product? Obviously, despite some few posters insistence that players only want to jump in and run a few quests, that's not what people want. Otherwise, these new games that have pretty much failed would be quite successful.
"World" is missing, and more and more of it as time goes on. And retention is dropping off in what appears to be an equal reaction to less and less "world". You'd think the Powers-That-Be would see this, would have seen it a long time ago now. But I agree with Suraknar, the Devs simply don't know how to make "worlds". There are numerous problems that come with the social scales of making a "world". They've never been able to see the path past those problems. Because they only know how to build gamey content. They don't know how to build societies that actually function.
In my mind, there is only one MMO's Developers who have been successful at society building. Eve. Yet, they are very narrow in scope with that game. I wonder if they would be able to expand their system into a wider scope that would be needed for a "world" game. Everything has to work together to make up one social world. Even UO, for as worldly as it was, failed in the end at a functional social world, which caused the creation of a PvP zone and the addition of gameyness.
Once upon a time....
SC alone has accrued over 6million dollars in player - PLAYER - backing... meaning that THIS is what (this particular gaming community) wants when it comes to a AAA game. The original goal was 2million. By reaching that goal thier private investors would take note and step up to add additional funding. As it went 4million over the goal... well, you tell me what type of game the community really wants.
Some lab coats who have published books are probably more credible than random poster on the Internet like yourself.
And the fact that many linear games are popular (Dead Space, COD, Halo, GOW ....) shows that you don't need complete freedom to be entertaining.
Even SKYRIM has quests and little symbols on the map to lead you around.
Just wait when these news reaches Azeroths Daily News.
You will see armies carrying banners with prints like:
-its not ok to have space in space ,LFT tool must be on every space station,it helps if you have kids or work.
-World PvP sucks and so does space PvP ,make space instanced so it feels more space ?
etc...
Let's internet
You're right in that there's a market for virtual worlds. It's just dwarfed by the market for straight up games. The idea of virtual worlds started in the 80s, got some actual development in the 90s, and then it just faded away. I watched it happen. I was on the bandwagon when the virtual world bandwagon lost its wheels. There's been a lot of time for virtual worlds to take off, and they just didn't. Games just sell better. For that matter, things like Facebook, Twitter and even Google+ do the social thing better than any social focused game or virtual world, and they're free.
That's why the cost has to drop. We need independent developers to create games that are set in virtual worlds.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Say if the recent games have failed. Nothing says its the "world" they are lacking. You simply don't know. What they are lacking, if they are lacking anything, could be something else completely. Maybe it is a fresh new take on gameplay? -SWTOR and TSW both had a chance to take up on this but they played it safe and stuck with tank 'n' spank: reskinned medieval fantasy combat - something which has been around for decades now.
I also think it is pretty bold to say devs don't know what they're doing. A more likely scenario is that devs know all too well what the situation is and you don't see it, or refuse to see the big picture.
You are looking at this from your own perspective alone. It is not good enough to make a game for you. At the end of the day they also have to make some money too. People love good games. Worlds, the way you want them, are secondary.
Virtual make-believe does not have mass-market appeal. I'm curious, why haven't you turned to PnP games for this fix already?
EDIT: Hell, I'll roll a character for a forum game with you if you promise to ease off the whine. Get some RP going, you'll forget all these ludicruous ideas...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You are cherry picking the games.
Diablo 3 is very successful. People jump in and play a few quests.
TL2 is quite succcessful. People jump in and play a few quests.
LOL is very successful, People jump in and play a few arenas.
WOT is very successful. People jump in and play a few battles.
You are only looking at MMORPGs, and not the games that have the similar (jump in for a quest/arena) playstyle. You can argue that is not ONLY what people want. Surely there are people who may want other type of gameplay. But saying that people don't want to jump in and kill stuff (either PvE or Pvp) is just wrong and sticking your head in the sand.
You're missing the point of "social" in an MMO design. It's not just chat and "hey, lets do this".
An MMO world needs a design that makes "social" work inside the game, as part of the game world. Even message boards have a little bit, as needed, in that you can report a bad post, link to other items, private chat, etc. But an MMO "world" needs expanded "social" to interconnect the game play throughout the game world. It needs a design much more than code. You can code in guilds, but that doesn't give guilds more purpose to that game world, meaning to anyone but the guildmates. Samne thing for economics, you can code in AH's but that doesn't make owning something have meaning to that game world.
Really, I'm not sure I've come up with the right words to get the point accross. But if you think of the game world as a plane of existence, think of the "social" as the meaningful interactions inside that bubble of existence.
Once upon a time....
That's exactly the point. An MMO is a different animal. What works for SPGs or GMO's (Grouping Multiplayer Online) is different than a Massively Multiplayer Online game. It's that "Massively" that requires different design to make it work as a "massively" interactive game "world".
Once upon a time....
I am a bold person, there's no doubt among those who know me. But honestly, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone can't see the points I'm making. Oh I can understand people who really don't care to think about it, but not from anyone who spends any time looking at things involved here. But, oh well, it's not like I've not seen this problem, and it's not like I ever expect MMOs to change. I'm just sayin', evidently for the sake of the wind.
Once upon a time....
You're missing the point of "social" in an MMO design. It's not just chat and "hey, lets do this".
An MMO world needs a design that makes "social" work inside the game, as part of the game world. Even message boards have a little bit, as needed, in that you can report a bad post, link to other items, private chat, etc. But an MMO "world" needs expanded "social" to interconnect the game play throughout the game world. It needs a design much more than code. You can code in guilds, but that doesn't give guilds more purpose to that game world, meaning to anyone but the guildmates. Samne thing for economics, you can code in AH's but that doesn't make owning something have meaning to that game world.
Really, I'm not sure I've come up with the right words to get the point accross. But if you think of the game world as a plane of existence, think of the "social" as the meaningful interactions inside that bubble of existence.
I see what you're saying there. I'll need to think about it for a bit. My gut reaction is that games, even MMORPG have too limited a scope to have interactions that are that meaningful. All of the interactions stop at the edge of the game and the people who are playing the game. If I have 10 friends, and I'm the only one playing the game, it doesn't matter how meaningful the interactions are, because my attention is going to be elsewhere.
Beyond that, most players just want to kill stuff. Like, literally that's what they want to do in a game. They aren't looking for worlds or meaningful social interactions because they already have meaningful social interactions outside the game. They just want to kill stuff.
I'm not sure that's my final response...like I said, I need to think about it a bit.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree that most players just want to kill stuff. But my opinion is that in an MMO, they want to do so inside a world. The meaning to them is being nasty, among all these other massive numbers of players. They can just kill stuff in any game, why are they in an MMO? To be doing it, but in a world full of others.
So too are players who like to trade and play economics. It's all those other players, doing it within that massively social sphere.
And what about forming communities? Guilds are just a start, and many players want to be part of a guild. But you can do that on a web site outside the game. How many players want "politics"? But gamey design, something that functions like a card game for example, isn't really politics. Many players do want politics in their games, and to be meaningful and connected to the rest of the game. PvP, trades, economics, player built cities! Is there any doubts here?
And even those who just want to kill stuff seem likely to want to do so inside a game world that has all of the above inclusive. It gives them more meaning to their "thing", and a good "world" game should enhance that by design. As with each and every aspect of it.
It all boils down to human nature. If you go to the movies, you expect to watch that movie with all the other people....
Once upon a time....
I want a world... and I want to kill stuff and other players there. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
An MMO world to me is the holy grail of MMO design. Just like I was dreaming of something like Madden when I programmed a football simulator on my old TI-59 calculator, I dreamt of a fantasy world where many could kill the dragon together.
Second Life doesn't interest me in the least. I want my world to be more focused on the activity of vanquishing evil so that we're all there with the same goal in mind. The more options we have on how to contribute by either being on the front lines, being part of the supply chain or directing it all, the closer we get to making it more world-like.
It's all the "convenience" features, guides by means of quests and restricted terrain, quick respawns of the recently dead, etc. that detract from this. This is why a lot of people balk at the idea: could it be fun if you take all that away?
The much discussed "social interactions" aspect, imho should be a natural part of the world and be less "convenient." We could still have silent hermits and lone wolfs there as well as the compulsively talkative. But it's the things we've all come to rely on like "zone", "trade", "LFG", "guild" chats and add-ons like ventrilo that detract from the experience. We need more face to face interactions there... everything else, like "grouping" flows from that. Some of those conveniences could fit in a sci-fi world I suppose, but I'd rather stick with a medieval fantasy setting for my world.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
That analogy is wrong. People go to a movie theatre to see a movie in a "theatre setting". They do not go there specificly to be surrounded by other people. In fact, I believe most people would like it if they could watch the movie with noone else in the theatre. People expect to watch movies with other people because they cannot afford to rent the theatre just for themselves and their friends. People will go to an earlier or later screening specificly because they expect fewer people to be there.
What you were probably looking is an analogy to a rock concert. The audience reaction is part of the "rock concert experience" so being surrounded by other people is a key part of what people go there for.
Well, in that case, i would say a non-world SPG/GMO are much more successful than a world-based MMO, so it is not surprising that some MMO devs are moving to the SPG/GMO direction.
MMOs don't exist in a vacuum. Developers don't just develope for certain type of MMOs. They develop games, and even when the starting point is a traditional MMOs, there is no reason not to consider non-MMO features, particularly when those features are going to make them succeed.
In fact, the word "Massively" is jsut a label. It requires nothing. You can say D3 is massive because i can group with millions of players at any point (in fact, more massive then just a server).
What if devs took the "massive" interacting "world" out of these games ... it is not like they can't or they won't do that.
Yeh. I go to a movie theater for a big screen, IMAX, and sound system that i don't own. Whether there is people in the theater with me, is irrelevant. In fact, i often go on SAT Mornign when there is less crowd.
Yeah, but you've been defending these modern day MMOs, when so many other players have been leaving them. Just as most people don't make an effort to go to less crowded movies. Obviously.
Edit to add: Maybe there are better analogies, though. How about a Star Wars convention? Or a medieval fair?
Once upon a time....