Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Column] General: We No Longer Truly Value MMOs (but Maybe Thats Okay!)
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
When a game’s payment model shifts, as happened last week with The Elder Scrolls Online becoming the latest game to undergo such a change, there’s always a pattern. The conversation almost always turns to the concept of value in comments flung around the internet like “That game wasn’t worth $15 a month” and “The game wasn’t worth a subscription”. After we see these announcements, there’s an overwhelming load of “I told you so” and a number of players who pronounce themselves more knowledgeable than everyone else in “knowing” that a subscription game couldn’t or wouldn’t last.
Read more of Christina Gonzalez's The Social Hub: We No Longer Truly Value MMOs (but Maybe That’s Okay!).
)
Comments
weird you didnt mention my two favorites mmos...Wildstar ( a loyal raiding community) n Rift ( who currently have an excellent new expansion!). both with a very loyal playerbase- many may say ..blah blah blah-abt these two mmos, but these folks playing these games arent mmo hoppers like many of the 'told you so' gamers today.
i also play TSW.
Story - SRPG
PvP - MOBA, FPS, CG
Loot - ARPG
Crafting - Minecraft
Economy - Real World
Social - All of the Above
About the only selling point for MMOs these days is the Group PvE. Well, WoW is still king there and always will be.
ESO is a Toyota Prius. You bought it because you wanted to be new and hip. The novelty has worn off and now you've come to realize it's not as reliable as your '05 Camry. Back to WoW with you....
I wouldn't necessarily say that the culture has shifted entirely, but it has shifted. But that doesn't mean that there isn't still an audience for less of a "one night stand" mode of MMOs. Plus, when you consider a game like WoW with the most players of any MMO on the market, and how many years old - there's a strong suggestion there that the design for 'committed' play is still there. Not saying its the dominate style of play anymore, but it's still there.
I honestly don't mind paying a fee for a game. When I think of how little that is, and generally how much enjoyment I get out of a game in a given month (generally 40-50hrs), there's no other entertainment that I can get 2 hrs of enjoyment for less than a dollar. We can rant about how a game isn't 'worth it' but that's purely opinion -- nothing more. I played Wildstar and loved it ... until I had to start raiding. I don't mind that raiding exists, I don't want to Wildstar to rip out raiding, I just wanted something else to do. Then I cancelled my sub. Did I consider my time in game 'wasted?' of course not.
I think this all has roots in the societal trend towards "Deserving" something -- entitlement. I 'deserve' to play the game I want without any exception--no one else can say anything without being a fanboi or a troll. If a game doesn't give me EXACTLY what I want, when I demand it, I'll go another game who says they will. Then, I'll demand something of them, they won't do it, and I'll threaten to leave, and then move on.
Some MMO players are treat this genre like an abusive relationship, which is sad.
Amen. And for those of us left behind that still want that commitment....we are just called elitists.
For me, it's not so much all of what people have said about gameplay and such, but more of my time commitment. I can't dedicate as much time as I used to for an MMO. So, why should I lock myself into a monthly fee? I've said for a long time now that if a game company offered a tiered plan where I'm charged more if I play more, or less if I play less, I'd sub. For example, if I don't play at all that month for whatever reason, I'm not billed. If I log in for any time at all up to 5 hours, I'm billed $5 for the month. If I go over 5 hours, but play less than 15, I'm billed $15 for the month, and capped at that. That way, the people playing the game the most (and using the servers the most) pay the most. Those who can't play as much but still like to play, pay less.
I think this is a fair system, and would make more sense that a flat fee for everyone personally.
I like to think this has to do with the overall dumbing down of games during the past decade.
Games and gaming have become much, much more popular during the years, and thus companies have had to compete for the audience by making games more & more simple and accessible.
Sadly, this comes at the cost of us who have been gaming longer, and know what a quality game is and what to expect from them. The new generation expects Cash Shops, XP Boosters, simple game mechanics, day-1 DLCs & preorder bonuses, because that is all they see when they enter gaming and it's something easy to understand.
Conveniently, simple games are also easier for developers to create, thus reducing development costs.
If these people had been introduced to the older, more complex games and gradually eased into the whole gaming scene, who knows where gaming would be today, both revenue and quality wise.
Just my thoughts
I agree. I hate how society in general has come to this "I deserve" stage. Everybody feels like they "deserve" not just in games in everything. Look at the music industry. People dont even want to buy music anymore, forcing many artist to give away music for free just to have a chance at selling tickets on a tour. Very few people even remember music before itunes and now even itunes offers free music. Its happening all over.. there is a sense of entitlement and its killing everything that we used to value. Video games used to be such an experience we didnt care or think twice about paying. It was just part of it. Arcades used to be filled with Kids in the 80s and 90s who would spend hours "Spending" their quarters on their favorite games trying to be the high scores. When Consoles started to boom in the mid 90s ( i know about the 80s but 90s imo was when consoles really boomed) with the Sega, SNES, Playstation, Gameboy and N64 people didnt wine and cry about pokemon or Tomb Raider costing money. It was just a given. You had to pay to play a game period. There was no other option.
When MMOs came around, they were so obscure that nobody even thought twice about what they were paying for, again it was a game so people assumed you MUST pay to experience the full thing. Demos were real big in the early 2ks, i remember magazines like PC gamer would give you a demo in the back of the magazine that had all the hot new games on it to try, but we felt super LUCKY that the devs would even allow us to "try" the games before the release dates, again there was no sense of "they have to do it because we are gamers and we said so." Again even back to music, we used to have to wait for albums to release to know what they sounded like and we also had to trust the words of a music journalist when it came to reviews because we knew they got all the music first.. now anybody with a joe blog can write a review and rip the music off the internet for free without paying a cent. So that creates a system where nobody trusts and everybody wants to give their personal opinion of said music. same thing in gaming.
Im not sure what company started this whole f2p thing, i dont really care.. but in retrospect I think that the choice to devalue games (and everything else in the world) has really given people a sense of entitlement we havent seen since when Rome ruled the planet. We live in a era where anything that happens anywhere in the world can be accessed immediately as in seconds. So maybe thats part of it.. there is just too much access. People feel entitled to have access to everything and when they say so.
DEVS TAKE NOTE: go back to making your games in secrecy. dont hype it up, dont say shit until the game is 100% ready to release. Stop being pressured to release by the hype.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Great take on the genre. I agree things have changed. Things we tolerated at the beginning of MMOs (Camping Mobs) wouldn't fly today. I actually prefer a subscription model but realize that is probably a thing of the past. Buy to Play works for me. Personally, I feel Rift has one of the better structures out there.
Right now, I'm out playing single player RPGs waiting for the next big thing.
What does that look like? I think it is something that is different but familiar; innovative but not over the top. This seems to be happening in the RPG space with great games like Wasteland 2. Divinity, and others. Here is hoping we see a similar revival in MMOs. I have some hope for Everquest Next.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
The bar is set high for MMO's with so many experienced MMO gamers now. If the entry fee is set high too, then players tend to be a lot less forgivable if the game is released based on promises instead of delivery.
A sub as payment then just makes it more difficult for the publisher. It is just not a smart payment option nowadays imo. When someone drops a game to play something else, it makes sense to also drop the sub. If then after some time they decide they want to check what has changed, they need to pay for access again. This is an extra financial obstacle, compared to other games that are B2P (like all games used to be traditionally). So I suspect you will have a lot of people just playing for a month or few months and then drop the sub based game and never come back. As developer you really don't want servers to feel deserted in a MMO.
For this reason, B2P or F2P is just a smarter option to hook players again that return to a game after a long time. No entry fee, so the fun can start again before committing financially. It is easier to lure them into buying services or whatever after they are committed to the game again. A strong factor here is also that it feels as if it is not mandatory.
Making them pay just to access the game again like with subbased games, feels more like a bet imo.
WoW is here just an exception. Any newer MMO can't seem to do the same. So imo there is no sign at all that sub based gaming on PC is still a viable option long term.
Yet, when it comes to a game such as EVE, two of my friends and I each pay for 4 subs each, because it offers something of value to us to do so.
Give players good benefit and they'll pay, just hasn't been any reason to do so.
"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 hate to say it, but I think that this article has it totally backwards. It is not that players do not value MMO's. It is that MMO's do not value customers monthly payments. There is no commitment from the companies involved to provide a value in return for required monthly sub. Let me give some examples:
FF XIV is a great example. You don't see a lot of clamoring for this game to go F2P (or B2P, etc) because there is a clear commitment from the developer to provide value in exchange for the required monthly sub. They went for a very long time NOT charging a monthly sub, because they knew that they were not meeting their end of the bargain. They then redesigned the game so that it provided an experience that players would feel was worth their mandatory monthly sub. This was a very clear, and public commitment, and their customers feel that the sub requirement is well justified.
TESO on the other hand clearly showed that they had no understanding of the MMO business, and that they expected people to pay a monthly sub, even if it didn't provide value. They knew that their game was broken, but felt it was more important to charge the monthly sub, than to provide a good value. There was never a solid commitment to provide a clear value for the sub... but there was a clear commitment to charge for as many months as possible before people got tired of paying.
TESO has made a clear commitment to improving the baseline game to the point that it provides a good value for purchase, but didn't provide any value for the required sub... so have dropped it. It is likely that the DLC is going to be of questionable value, but they believe that they can get enough people to pay for it regardless of value.
The basic premise of a P2P model is that you have to get the customers money before you provide them with the product. This in no way guarantees that the customer will agree with the value of the product after they have paid for it. In gaming it is well proven that you can sell subpar products for good money for quite a while before the customer finally stops spending.
This is the approach that many companies have taken, and then moved on to another product, or eventually lowered the price to reflect the true value. This is what has caused F2P to become more popular, as customers became tired of the bad experience, and looked for a way to try the product first.
TESO is a true P2P product, and is taking as much of the customers money as possible before moving on. They are improving the product, to allow for future sales, but they are doing it at the cost of the current customer.
Great article. Too much emphasis to a pay model for a title as a way of measuring the quality of its content is the wrong way of going about it. Whatever happened to just playing the game because it is fun? I picked up game X that had a sub attached to the box price and ended up not liking it so I dropped it to play game Y that is free with an included cash shop because I have more fun in game Y. Am I supposed to automatically fall in love with game X just because of the sub model? Game Y is f2p yet keeps me engaged whether it has a cash shop with questionable items being sold as p2w.
If these two games had switched pay models tomorrow, I will pay a sub for game Y and still not be playing game X. Pay models have changed but Y still has better content for me over game X. It should be that simple but the payment model stigma still lingers for purists who can't consent to change in the industry. It could be a fear of losing their feeling of exclusivity that drives them to uproar in protest of change. "It's MY game, and I don't want bums in it!"
I was playing Rift during its f2p transition. What happened when it eventually turned over? I got more social, my guild grew in numbers, and I became a mentor among other things positive and negative. It was a sweet time in Rifts evolution that has kept me to log over 100+ in-game days /played. I don't understand what's up with all the doom and gloom. If the game is good enough to log in more hours of gaming then play, if not -- move along.
Pure P2P models are dying. People are starting to realize they aren't getting quantity or quality anymore. Even WoW is going hybrid, with their token system, such as EvE's Plex system. The only modern one left is FFXIV, and it's very hard for them to justify a subscription.
The truth is, pure subscription models has kept the MMO genre from growing, until recently. The only valid argument that subscription purists had, was the p2w cash-shop argument, but that no longer holds true anymore, since some hybrid models have proven they can still have a cash shop without making it p2w, but by making it p4c (pay-for-convenience). One can even argue that WoW is now p2w and/or p4c, since they sell level 90 boosted characters, on top of a subscription.
The genre swelled to a size that it really should not have. The inherent design of the early MMO does not appeal to the size of the crowd developers and publishers want it to be. Throwing out World of Warcraft as an anomaly, The most successful games in terms of player retention and longevity, had smaller player bases. Now we see Developers like SOE trying to invent a game with a large mass appeal and by appearances it looks like they are struggling to do so.
MMORPGs (Not other kinds of MMOs) were just never really meant for the masses.
Well, worth. Depends how many hours of entertainment you get out of it. If you pay 15$ for a sub and play 2h per month...yeah, not worth.
If you do 20+ hours/month = worth imo. I'd say even less hours perhaps.
I base that on solo games and their prices and gametime: price tags idk 40-70$ for 4-30h of game play (yes yes, there are exceptions, but usually you don't get much gametime out of average solo game). So 15$ for potentially unlimited monthly play doesn't seem that much.
Economically...hm. A sub that guarantees a decent ROI. It's kinda strange that everyone has 15$-ish price tag, or rather, prices are unusually homogenized despite massive differences in initial investments and quality. But then again, games are the place where people can spend literally 10s of thousands of USD per month on a single cashgrab game...and very few people even bat an eye at the prices for some reason.
Anyway, I'm not valuing MMOs very highly anymore coz they suck donkey balls. Ironically the devs with more money invested listen less to feedback than small devs. And then things happen...things investors don't like, like players flipping a middle finger and leaving :P. And small devs don't have the money to fulfill their vision thus having to launch a game that is kinda sub-par on at least few areas.
F2P gouging, money grabs, whale catering.... yeah, those things also lower my appreciation for MMOs....and games in general.
I've said before that some games aren't worth a sub - that's my opinion. At the same time, some games have been worthy and I never had a problem paying a sub.
I think the bigger problem with MMORPGs these days is that they are no longer MMORPGs, and as such are definitely not worth a sub. Single player online games where you mostly solo on the same server as other people doing mindless nonsense isn't very compelling gaming.
MMORPGs need to go back to their roots - back to being something special - back to being something distinct - back to being about grouping, challenge, and danger.
Players have no reason to give a crap about the games that MMORPGs have become. They have no reason to stay invested or stick around. The antisocial me me me style games work for some players for sure, but for the WRONG players for good MMORPG gameplay.
Doubt it happens, because too few devs care about quality gaming and end up only being able to care about how much money they make their corporate overlords.
The few games that have decent slices of grouping, like WildStar, are still overloaded with solo idiot mode content and fluff content for casual players to plow thru in a few days and move on, and worse, WildStar has built in cheating with CREDD (gold for cash, why not make money off of cheaters too when there are so many losers playing MMORPGs?). So even when a dev gts it somewhat right and has some challenging group content they still manage to screw up the game beyond playability (for anyone like me or my crew who won't play games with host facilitated gold for cash cheating in them - and we're pretty sick of generic solo ez mode too).
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
The main appeal (for myself anyway, probably other "solo" players' as well) Is that in MMO's, there is progression. Single player games, end. MMO's are updated, have events, and when players' like me (you know....the solo idiot mode content players') decide what the hell, I think I'll do a dungeon, the option is there. Since I can't stand generalization, I am not speaking for anyone else but myself when I say that the appeal for me, of MMO's, is the feeling of progression. The occasional ability to chat with people is a nice option to have as well. When I decide to try a game out, I prefer to not have to buy it; that way if I do not end up liking it (like that piece of shit Aion for example, total wasted money there) I can just walk away from it without feeling like I just gave money away. When I am trying a game out, I am not really in the mood to jump right into group content either; I have no idea what the hell I am doing, or even how to really play my class, because I have just started playing. I just prefer to do it that way and avoid being the guy in chat asking all of the questions that piss the veteran's and elitists off. And I have no desire to be that guy in the dungeon that keeps getting the group wiped because I have no idea how to play the character I am on. I run by myself to learn how to play, and to see if I am going to like the game. So in my opinion, that solo idiot mode content is probably more of a benefit (in the way that I am able to L2P my class) then a hindrance in the game. I prefer to learn the correct way to gear-spec-enchant-etc my character before I get into the group content. It is also nice to see the mentality of the community in the game. Are the other players' helpful and friendly, or total dicks like I have observed in a lot of the games (even the p2p and b2p) I have played in my MMO life. If the community doesn't make me feel comfortable (this of course BEFORE I start chatting, grouping, etc....IE: doing solo idiot mode content) then I am less likely to stick around.
So I guess my point on the subject is this:
I am not one to pay for something I am not going to use, or enjoy. I honestly have no problem with a p2p, or b2p, or hybred business model. I feel that try before you buy or sub is the most ideal for myself, and that the more "solo idiot mode content" there is, the better I am going to be able to navigate and learn without feeling like a tool in the chat fields asking questions that some people feel are not even worth catering an answer to.
Since this was about ESO, I can honestly say that what I experienced in beta, wasn't really enough to grab my interest; so even a hybred business model will probably not get me back in the game.
Since Wildstar is mentioned EVERYWHERE, the only reason I never started playing that (yes, I loved it in beta) was the amount of unfixed bugs present even after launch. I figured I would give the game some time, let them work out the kinks. Maybe I will go back and try that game again, but I am not sure yet.
I won't even get into WoW, because my issues are not with WoW (aside from losing interest at the release of Cata) but with Blizzard. Can't stand their Dev's, can't stand their customer service.
Anyway, that was my input on the subject. Take care people!
"Just because you can, that does not mean you should"
Customers have the right to pay for whatever products they choose. However, they typically don't have the right to change said product. They have the right to voice their opinions, sure, but ultimately the creator of the product decides what happens with it.
I'll play and pay for any good MMO (i.e. that meets MY standards). People who say that's entitlement aren't wrong. I am entitled to choose what product I pay for. The problem as I see it is that I feel like most companies nowadays are only looking to fuck me over for another buck at a moments notice. If I pay a monthly fee I expect that fee to cover my access to EVERYTHING. No sneaky cash shops (looking at you WoW, TESO, etc.). Cash shops are alright if it's F2P, but anything too P2W is going to turn me off. "Back in the days", we didn't really have this problem. I think that is a contributing factor to what I see as an us (the gamers) vs. them (the developer and publisher). Another contributing factor could be that MMOs back then were more tight-knit than they are now. It's more commercialized now, more people, more money, more needs. All of this has resulted in my opinion in MMOs shifting towards thinking that they're soulless, plastic husks with loads of promise and potential, but that they ultimately end in disappointment.
Or maybe I'm just growing old and grumpy.
1. P2W was usually associated with buying gear that has higher stats, which gave a clear advantage in PvP, and PvE too (for progression guilds). Depending on the MMO, you can conceptually "win" against your opponents. This was usually found in asian f2p games, before f2p became more prominent in the west. The term is thrown around way too much now and lost it's original meaning.
2. 3rd party sales cannot be controlled though. It's different when a company sanctions it, because they used to provide an environment that was fair to everyone. Time was the exception that gave anyone else an advantage.
I had a little difficulty following some of the article as it needed a little more editing before publication, but I agree with the sentiment. As a gamer coming from paper and dice to this whole new world of online gaming, where people could log in from anywhere around the world instead of having to come to your living room, I placed great value on my gaming experience. It wasn't just the game itself - the graphics, music, and mechanics of it - it was the community.
That is what I find lacking in recent MMOs, and that is not the fault of the developers. It's us.
Back when I started gaming, DAOC was the big thing. SWG hadn't come out yet, and people were flocking from EQ and UO to this new game where realm unity was an essential part of gameplay. Roleplayers would congregate on specific servers designated as RP-friendly, and in some cases you could spend a whole day and never kill anything other than the random creature that wandered into your "area of control". My wife used to stage poetry readings, where audiences would gather and people would volunteer to recite a poem, give a speech, "sing" a song, tell jokes, etc. People from other servers would create a character on our server just to come to the Log and participate.
Also, there was the adventuring aspect that kept us coming back. Loot was either found or crafted, and nothing was that much better than anything else (until the raid quests started entering the system through expansions) but we all strove to make sure people would increase their power by hunting more dangerous creatures in more threatening regions. We did it out of a sense of community.
Finally, the Realm War was something that was a shared experience. No enemy was going to occupy a keep on OUR lands. Enemy assassins were hunted and sent home after a beatdown. Real borders were guarded. Keeps were held or retaken. This was all pretty much business as usual, and it was what kept people coming back, placing high value on their gaming experience.
Guilds would actively seek new recruits (and being a RP server, would do so in character). In fact, there was a stiff competition for new recruits because strong guilds increased the superstructure of the community. In some cases, entire guilds would migrate to our server to set up their own particular brand of roleplay, and also participate in all of the other aspects, as well. Many are the times that our guild group welcomed visitors to our hunting party to battle wind demons in a particularly remote section of the wilderness, and they would seek us out repeatedly. The expectation was that we were "in it together".
Ironically, someone stated that people return to WoW when they become disenchanted with their new games. It was WoW and all games that followed that model that diminished the strenth of community built in games like EQ, UO, and DAOC (and later, SWG), as most content could be played through solo, and guilds and communities were secondary at best, or just away to participate in raid content, or to blab in chat. For people who like to play this way, this is all fine, but many seek a richer experience, and when they do not find it during the free 30-day period, do find that the game and the experience it offers has less value. Personally I hate WoW. I hate the look of it, and the community leaves much to be desired, so going "back to WoW" is never an option.
I think there has been too great of a paradigm shift with the influx of video gamers who think that RP either means gaining levels and playing a skill set or think it is all a bunch of weird people saying "thee" and "forsooth". Seeing the in-game avatar of someone as more than a "toon", but as a virtual representation of the person as they choose to be in that particular setting for the purpose of the game, goes a long way toward taking your environment a bit more seriously, of having more value.
I don't think this can be fixed.
The only reason P2P is dying is because the quality of MMO's has taken a nose dive in the last decade. Of course less people are willing to pay monthly if every option is garbage.
Make a few more games with as much quality as WoW and we will gladly pay for it as the millions in WoW still do.
Yea I agree with this to a degree. IMO it is not that MMO's aren't meant for the masses. Its the fact that the masses in MMO's generally do not gel very well when thrown together in an MMO. Kind of the way none of us here on these forums gel together when it comes to agreeing on something.
I personally do not need millions of people in my MMO. Unfortunately, the people making these games do, since people = dollars to them. A focused, smaller group of players in a MMO works for me. Unfortunately that is not how the business model works these days.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Well said. And I agree 100%.
The simple fact that you are playing an MMO, means that it actually requires that you have some type of role playing skill to enjoy the game. The games are meant to be played with multiple people therefore you have to play your role in that world.
Unfortunately most people play the role of asshat or power leveler, as you say. Or they play the MMO as a single player experience and expect the role playing to be done for them as it is in single player games.
For example, lets say your character is required to rest for a period before they lose skill ability. Most players today, look at that as a cheesy mechanic instead of an attempt at realistic roleplaying. The game interferes with my power leveling, this sucks, they cry! It is all the game's fault, not the player.
Instead of bending to the game world, they whine and want to change the world to suit them. Or they simply ignore all the lore and story and just plough through to end game at which point they announce their boredom and walk away.
Yes it is the player today, who thinks they want to play an MMO, but really has no idea how to play one that is the biggest problem, IMO.
And it is unfixable, unfortunately.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!