When I take a step back from playing the different MMOs I am involved with and really examine the state of the genre, I find little that worries me as much as the F2P/Cash Shop monetization. This system (imo) has changed the focus for developers and publishers which has distracted and deterred vision from the creative content side of many games.
I know many believe F2P and the Cash Shop is the wave of the future, but it is more of a bad Omen that hovers over the industry in my eyes.
I 100% agree but does that not in turn spell sad times for game development as well?
The last thing i want are more MOBA designs,browser games and games that look like Nintendo 64 or worse.
A perfect example are all these early release games.I didn't even know there were TAT many Zombie games out there, iwas shocked like literally 30 or so just in the last 6 months and MANY more real low budget games.ALL of those games are near dead now and Dying Light will follow them after another few months.
My point is that after they get that initial kickstarter or free handouts or early access money,development almost stops,you definitely do not see the money put to good use.
Since this NEW gimmick for making a quick buck seems to be working more devs are going to continue doing this.
The whole ordeal is super baffling because the reason f2p was suppose to work was because gamer's didn't want to carry subs on several different games,so it handcuffed them.However these same gamer's are buying every new early accesss and game that comes out and only playing them for a month or two or less.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Hats off to you for writing this article, Bill! I couldn't agree more with it.
WoW needs to go - everyone needs to accept that fact in order for the MMO to survive in the long term.
Wont happen, so you need to let go of that idea.
The mmo industry isnt dead, its just realising the same as lot of industries have that you cant compete like for like with the breakout leader, you have to bring something different and yet similar for that audience, or use the medium to go for a different audience.
The next few years will be really rough, the bubble is as close to bursting as its ever going to get, big studios are going to back off from the true mmo and instead try and merge single player games into online worlds (Destiny and ACU are badly executed examples of what this will mean).
The next evolution of the mmo is going to be the connected single player game, where the solo parts of the game are played solo and then you seamlessly merge into your friends game for the group content. (The division, Destiny are examples of this).
The traditional MMO will then instead focus on the world element of it, the massive side of the genre and I think in general this is a good thing too.
But, developing games is a slow process, what we are seeing now are the results of things developers learned 5 years ago, the last 2 years of harsh reality have not even begun to showcase them selves in mmos yet.
It will be another 2 years before the harsh lesson of "you cant beat wow" starts to show results and we start seeing a move away from that type of game.
Really... I don't agree. The MMORPG is in big trouble. So is the MMO itself. There is less offered now than there was when EQ and EQ2 came out. Game companies are more concerned with graphics than they are game play and none of them are listening to the gamers themselves. Gamers keep telling them what they want over and over again. And over and over again, they get ignored. It's like the developers and the money don't even bother to listen to us, or have the remotest desire to do so. Heck, Cryptic studios was actually proud of the fact that they managed to release STO in a year and a half and it was just a copy of everything that came before it except for the graphics and the "space" functionality, and those things weren't enough for it to make it big.
There are a handful of games that MAY have potential. None of them are by AAA developers.
If they would listen to us, things would be different, but they are actually complaining that its becoming harder and harder to please people with good graphics as though thats the only thing that makes a game.
Maybe what they need to do is go back to those old games and look at what people really love about them. It wasn't the graphics. It was the wide open worlds that we could explore endlessly and seemed to have so many quests, you could play the game differently every time you played it, you could wander for hours and hours and hours and explore and learn new things, the housing was awesome, so was the crafting.
They need to listen to us. They aren't doing that. Until they start listening, they are going to have problems. The genre is dying not because players are tired of the genre but because they aren't listening.
MMO's are doing ok. Why we have hundreds now. The companies that run (make the profit) from them are sure making an effort to kill them but they can not.
They just can not learn the meaning of the word Niche. They all have WOW on the brain.
Get in your niche, love your niche, and treat your niche well. And it will treat you well.
50k paying a sub will more than support a niche game. And it will grow if you just do not panic and tick off your NICHE players by changing things around.
Make a good game, charge a fair price, treat your players with the respect they deserve and they will be your best advertisement you can have. And the best way to grow the niche as well.
Ok lets crunch some numbers. Lets say 150 million dollars to create a nice AAA MMO for the niche crowd of 50,000 subs.
That works out to $3,000 per sub. Box sales at 50 / box will net 2.5 million. Now you need to recoup 147,500,000 dollars.
Each sub at 15 dollars returns 180 / year. So annual sub revenue would be 9 million.
147.5 million divided by 9 = 16.38 years
So according to you, spending 150 million with the possibility of not seeing a return on your investment until after 16.4 years is ok? And this does not even include operating expenses or profit! How many people will be still playing your game after 16 years? You are going to need at least EVE numbers and EVE level of retention if that is your plan. And we all know how many games have been successful at that. A Darkfall was the best you could hope for and that was what you got. Pretty successful wasn't it!
Yea try pitching that one to your investors. It just shows how the niche players do not understand the reality of economics today.
At least try to put something that makes sense. Who says you need 150 million is question one.
Number 2 would be who says that only 50 k would ever buy a new game? Do you not pay attention at all to the way games work anymore? Most games have a massive spike of box sales then settle down to a much smaller number of people that stick around past the first month or 2. THAT smaller number is your niche.
They will sustain a good MMO if they are treated well and the devs stay true to the niche.
So please make a better point.. Not just more BS....
I did make a point, yours was the BS without anything to back it up.
So I had a look around to see what development costs might be. My first impression was that Star Citizen is well past 60 million and a long way from complete so the 150 million dollar number seemed reasonable. But I also saw that funcom states around 40 million for TSW but that includes the fact that they used an inhouse game engine.
So If we drop the number to 50 million ( which is the bare minimum for a game acceptable to a niche audience IMO ) Then the numbers will drop to a third of what I used. As far as the box sales you can see they were a small % of the revenue. An increase there would not make a significant difference.
So about 5 and a half years to recoup investment. That is more reasonable definitely. But TSW and Rift which were both claimed to be about 50 million were meant to appeal to larger audiences and have had their trouble as well. Going after a fickle niche audience would be even tougher, as the game would have to be extremely focused. One misstep and the whole baby goes out with the bath water.
Still if you were trying to pitch this game to an investor and said we are aiming to please about 50 k players who are fairly demanding in what they want, as well as saying we won't see any profit for over 5 years, and its difficult to predict how successful we will be, what would be your answer?
[snip]
im assuming 50k is a typo since that is not niche its dead when you consider how those players spread their time.
500k is however a good niche level (i would call that mainstream, not niche) - and a perfectly achievable figure for a good mmo. Thats £25 million from box sales roughly, and assuming say 20% running costs will break-even in a year and a half with a dev budget of £100m. Over 5 years though and you are talking 100% profit +. So for big money investors its very attractive i'm sure.
No it wasn't a typo, thats honestly what he meant, although I believe he wishes he had started with a higher number. The same as I wished I had probably used 100 million instead of 150.
Its the main reason why I said he needed to be looking at EVE numbers instead, which are generally considered around that mark, as I understand it.
But my whole point is that people just seem to think ..... oh! make a game that appeals to ME and everyone who thinks exactly like ME and it will be successful as long as you don't piss ME off or do something I don't like!
And I don't think the world works that way IMO.
Keep the BS rolling.
I used 50k and i meant 50k. Dunno why you folks think that would not support a niche game fairly well. 50k will pay the bills quite well and give a company time to show that they are there for the long haul and let word spread and gain more people.
You use EVE above...well that is a niche game that did exactly like i said one should. (at first anyhow till they got crazy and started on other stuff) Keep true to your market and game. Slowly grow that game and make your market happy.
Small company that has a vision and a market that they want to fill and keep. Entirely possible on MUCH smaller budgets than you pick out of the air and quote like it is from a bible or something. The only one here talking AAA games and budgets are you for some reason...how many times must i say niche?
It's strange that you can try and use such a simple example and not see the implications towards your own argument.
I mean... using your example, neither F2P games or P2P games are communist or capitalist. P2P games are buffet restaurants and F2P games are regular restaurants. Which is kind of funny because you are trying to argue the complete opposite.
If you can't understand what I'm saying, then I can't help you. I wrote everything as Sesame Street as possible and you still ljrhgblkjhdgfbsdf;jdfblkjndgfb what am I doing?
Themeparks & Sandbox, and "sandparks" are trying to differentiate the genre into subgenres, but overall, they are still the same. Their main component is combat. Everything revolves around that. Until this changes, we can expect the same old garbage coming from developers.
Dungeons, story missions (questing), raids, pvp, events, and so on.. it's all about combat and killing.
Which MMORPG currently has great RPG tools? Hardly any. By tools, i mean biography sheets, event notices, contests, or even RP designated organized places. Character customizaion is also very limited and centered on combat, by means of stats, weapons, armor, talents, skills, etc. Just look at crafting too, the things made from it are focused on combat. Housing is one aspect that isn't combat focused, but housing is still an afterthought in most MMO's. I'm not even an RP'er, but i can at least recognize the tools that they would like or need. It's one of the reasons why i do not label most of these games as MMORPG's anymroe, and i use MMO instead.
If there's one thing i always hear about SWG, it's that people had the freedom to actually be in an RPG without needing to be in a combat role. I've never played it though, but it's what i've read about it, so it might not to be 100% true. When was the last MMO where this was true? Archeage would probably come close, with it's farms and housing, but it's still limited somewhat.
The genre needs to balance itself out, and focus on an immersive virtual environment first, then everything else should follow. Combat needs to be secondary to immersion. Immersive virtual worlds need to merge with the mmorpg genre, within a true sandbox environment, where certain things can be customized, including custom imported avatars, textures, zones, gear/clothing, quests, and building/housing. Some of these would need to be restricted of course, depending on the developer's environment and limited resources, and some of these things are already in some mmo's but not completely custom created.
Custom-created content is the future of this genre, but developers continue to fail to recognize this. Developer-created content is why this genre is stagnant and basically a wholesale themepark, where players enjoy the ride for a month or less.
If any of you have spent a significant amount of time in a true sandbox virtual environment, you would notice the vast difference between the two. The problem with virtual worlds though, is that their game systems, graphics, user interface, and controls are just terrible and awkward for a 3d environment. Landmark is an example of this. It had the potential to be a true sandbox environment, but they took it into another themepark direction with the common combat-focused aspects, instead of a truly immersive building-environment where custom content could've taken precedent.
In short, the genre needs to be revolutionized at it's core and offer an immersive environment that isn't focused on combat as it's main priority.
I find is super irritating that most of whats considered upcoming risk-taking innovated games, are simply more FFA PVP "open world", b2p/f2p games.
It would be nice to see one of these innovators actually do something new, instead of slap one or two new mechanics on what is rapidly become the second most tired formula in mmorpgs (the first being WoW-clones).
I find is super irritating that most of whats considered upcoming risk-taking innovated games, are simply more FFA PVP "open world", b2p/f2p games.
It would be nice to see one of these innovators actually do something new, instead of slap one or two new mechanics on what is rapidly become the second most tired formula in mmorpgs (the first being WoW-clones).
One man's treasure...
I couldn't be happier that the class/level, trinity based, gear treadmill system is dying off.
I'm tired of being boxed into predefined walls. I'll finally be happy when I find a crafting centric, non gear treadmill game that lets me play a character who knows some limited fire based magic spells, wears leather armor and uses a two handed sword.
In other words, bring on the games that let me play characters rather than classes. The D20 system has had a good long run in the MMORPG landscape, now lets give the GURPS or Shadowrun game mechanics a try for a while.
Not sure what world you're living in Bill, but since 2005 this genre has become creativity's desert. Sure things are prettier, theres a few mechanics that have made things a little more interesting, but in general the "virtual worlds" of modern MMORPGs couldn't be more lifeless, less multiplayer, and the product of emulation rather than innovation. And sadly, they aren't even emulating the good, they are emulating what made the most money.
None the less, you have to say that or it wouldn't bode well for your job.
Things get worse before they better, eh? The age of the indie is upon us, who knows what it will bring.
Not sure what world you're living in Bill, but since 2005 this genre has become creativity's desert. Sure things are prettier, theres a few mechanics that have made things a little more interesting, but in general the "virtual worlds" of modern MMORPGs couldn't be more lifeless, less multiplayer, and the product of emulation rather than innovation. And sadly, they aren't even emulating the good, they are emulating what made the most money.
None the less, you have to say that or it wouldn't bode well for your job.
Things get worse before they better, eh? The age of the indie is upon us, who knows what it will bring.
EDIT - *in agreement*
As if things are getting worse....
I've been able to play an MMO at any time I wanted to. AAA MMO's when I have the money, others when not.
Not sure when the genre took a dive. Sounds like the players committed suicide to me...
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
I find it ironic how many people are saying 'F2P killed this genre' when (with the exceptions of and EvE) most of the games today would be gone if still on the sub model.
Hate the model all you want, but there is a reason everyone's been it witching over to it. And it's not out of some hipster 'this is the newest cool thing' mentality. Most people (studios and players) were against the F2P model when it was first brought to light. But after numerous examples people began to see that it was one of the best ways to save a game dying on the sub model. And that's still true today.
If the quality was there, the game would have survived. Wow was just better, it's called competition, they couldn't compete so they changed the rules. That's why WoW is what killed the genre, wow made the competition seek new ways, that led to f2p, which led to the monetization we have today. It continues to spiral out of control with paid for alpha.
Sounds good in theory, however the reality is quite a bit different.
WoW is a well made game, true. However it's far from the only well made game on the market. Furthermore, WoW had quite a few issues when it first launched that we often overlook thanks to nearly a decade worth of updates and tweaks. WoW's success is largely contributed to 'friends'. WoW was released during a time when this genre was still very small, for many there was still a massive stigma associated w/ MMOs 'only losers play those games'. Then Blizzard launches WoW and BAM, practically overnight the population of the genre more than doubles.
The problem was, however, that out of all those new players, few really branched out into other games. They were 'hooked' on WoW. They didn't really care about MMOs, they just wanted to play the latest Blizzard game. Because of this, many people's friends were stuck on WoW, not really willing to try other games out. So what happens? The people that want to play other games end up going back to WoW anyway, even if it's not their favorite game, because it's what all their friends are playing.
This is why so many newer games can't compete with WoW. It has little to do with quality. Heck WildStar and even SWTOR were well made games. FFXIV:ARR and GW2 are well made games. Yet none of that matters, because too many people refuse to play anything that isn't WoW.
exactly how i always felt! as much as i dislike WoW i have on numourous occasions tried to give it a chance due to friends even tho in my heart i know how i feel about it on a design level. I also have told friends who play WoW about games that are their cup of tea and because it's not warcraft they couldnt even be bothered to google the game and even glance at it.
Not sure what world you're living in Bill, but since 2005 this genre has become creativity's desert. Sure things are prettier, theres a few mechanics that have made things a little more interesting, but in general the "virtual worlds" of modern MMORPGs couldn't be more lifeless, less multiplayer, and the product of emulation rather than innovation. And sadly, they aren't even emulating the good, they are emulating what made the most money.
None the less, you have to say that or it wouldn't bode well for your job.
Things get worse before they better, eh? The age of the indie is upon us, who knows what it will bring.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done. I know it will bring more variety, but development time is going to be glacial and we will need to be patient during the building of these games. I can take slow dev time if the vision is about freedom and building a virtual world with risk vs reward.
It's strange that you can try and use such a simple example and not see the implications towards your own argument.
I mean... using your example, neither F2P games or P2P games are communist or capitalist. P2P games are buffet restaurants and F2P games are regular restaurants. Which is kind of funny because you are trying to argue the complete opposite.
If you can't understand what I'm saying, then I can't help you. I wrote everything as Sesame Street as possible and you still ljrhgblkjhdgfbsdf;jdfblkjndgfb what am I doing?
You are right.
Have a great day, sir.
Capitalism and "free market" (its anything but free lol) are slowly but surely on their way out, will they go peacefully evolution like or with revolution remains to be seen, but as even Theory of Evolution has shown us, you can evolve stuff only so far and for significat progress revolution is needed - and thats my tie in to the actual topic.
Genre (in a narrow point of view of "traditional MMOs") is stagnant since WoW. Kinda like whole Coca-cola situation, until Red Bull comes along you are stuck with WoW and buch of its clones with rare oddbals like EvE/GW2. (and yeah, Red Bull didnt "explode", it grew less/more slowly from 1987 to get where it is today)
For more noticable progress old "experienced" devs need to go and give way to new ones with fresh ideas, everyone blames publishers and such, but WS and SWTOR, for instance, were packed with "expereinced" well known devs, pretty much free from publishers, and they didnt manage anything but WoW clone with a twist (and it shows in their performance).
So yeah, doing oddballs until revolution happens, will that revolution bring something i like or not remains to be seen, but that is status quo of MMO
All problems with the genre can be boiled down to one single thing.
Large non-gaming companies getting into the gaming industry.
Once a large company gets involved everything is broken down into numbers and formula's and removes the heart and soul from the product. It is no longer about creating a "fun" game, its all about making a "profitable" game. This is how we ended up with the vast majority of MMOs being made to mimic WoW. They looked at the numbers and picked what seemed popular and used that formula for the game.
Its also the reason for the existence of AAA titles, its the big company belief that the more money you throw at something for bells and whistles (flashy graphics), the better the chance for a major hit.
Games are a form of art, they should not be following a business formula...it did not become bigger than Hollywood for nothing and did not require changing.
For the last 2 years I have only purchased a few games made by major game companies for this reason. They do not deserve my money, the indie companies do and man, haven't seen their level of innovation in YEARS.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
All I see is blame on the producers. When a into to economics course will show that the producers attracted to the profits made by other firms are selling what the consumers want. Well the majority of consumers, who with their wallets are > the forum posting minority that feels games should be made to make them happy.
Originally posted by remyburke F2P killed the genre.
F2P saved it. The MMO industry needed a temporary crutch in order to innovate. What we got is the fix-all for short term profitability and a industry wide f2p cycle which has lasted WAY too long. The problem being is that mmo's are no longer a social experience for the most part - they are large multiplayer games made for adult-children with ADHD with very little depth using the same formulas over and over again.
MMORPG's like Archeage are able to do VERY well in western markets, yet the western publishers of those titles are trying desperately to "Westernize" and apply the instant gratification formulas and simplified mechanics to those titles in order to "churn and burn" some quick cash - primarily because EVERY developer that has had success in the genre in the past is bleeding money. Its an uphill battle at this point.
You know when companies like Blizzard shutters wip's and won't go near an MMO development cycle ever again, that the genre is DEAD. Everyone is riding the end of the lightning bolt.
Well the majority of consumers, who with their wallets are > the forum posting minority that feels games should be made to make them happy.
Dumb.
Wait, did you just say people are dumb for thinking a product should be made to make them happy?!?
Is your home filled with garbage you don't want, need or use?
Also, the majority of MMO gamers are playing WoW and LoL...the originators of the formula's being copied by games that are failing...fail post is fail.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Seems to me many on here have put their eggs in one basket. It's times like this that owning a console or playing single player rpg give as much fun as playing mmo is a godsend.
There are some really good single payer rpg out there and on the way. The right and mmo has been lost from the genre and I also think with the new turn of events it will be the pve player's that will suffer more.
Very similar to a post I made on the Crowfall forums a number of weeks ago. This switch over to smaller indie studios and smaller niche games was inevitable. I'm glad it seems to be happening sooner than I though it would.
Originally posted by Loktofeit "And the ideals that the MMORPG began with have grown and become a complicated web of ideas that all link to the first three letters: MMO. And we can’t even agree on what exactly an MMO is most days. I’m not saying that a game like World of Tanks is an MMO, just that there’s a connection that’s obvious and we cover the game’s news when appropriate. But I digress… everything, as the title says, is not alright.
We’re 10 years on from World of Warcraft and Azeroth is still the only world that makes a real blip in the greater populace’s consciousness. There have been successes in the MMO industry to be sure, but nothing as great as what Blizzard stumbled into. And that’s not how it’s supposed to go… right? Aren’t cultural zeitgeist-leading trends like World of Warcraft supposed to help evolve the medium into something greater than what came before?"
I kinda see it differently, Bill. The second paragraph seems to only be true because you limit ""MMO" in the first. If you limit MMOs to class-restricted, level-based, fantasy games with few outliers, then not only can the platform not evolve, you ensure its stagnation, no?
If you're looking for successes in the MMO industry only among the DIKU-shackled designed, and dismiss games such as World of Tanks and League of Legends then the industry is not alright. IMO, the industry has expanded the MMO far beyond elves, raiding and the repetitive ascent from the "flimsy starter sword". MOBAs, PBBGs, ActionRPGs, and MMOFPS have expanded the platform, grown popular, and produced successes equal to the behemoth WoW.
MMOs are more than just the EQ/WOW games. I think it does the platform a disservice to relegate it to just that. It causes stagnation in both perception and acceptance, which in turn causes stagnation in progress.
But MMOs aren't a gaming platform; it's a genre. Bill was right to limit it. And, indeed, that genre is floundering.
If you include MOBAs, Action RPGs, and Coop RPGs, then you aren't talking about MMOs anymore. You're talking about any online game with RPG elements included. And, as such, has very little bearing on what's being released in the specific MMO industry (beyond arguments made in regards to influencing MMO developers).
World of Tanks is not an MMO. Neither is League of Legends. All the gaming journalism folks making their money off advertising can spout that non-sense all they want, but it won't be true. Because if WoT and LoL are MMOs, so is CoD. So is Battlefield. So is Evolve. So is TLoU for Christ's sake. Tell me, what is the difference between WoT and Battlefield? Both have different "classes." Both have tons of unlocks within those classes in terms of weaponry, perks, equipment, attachments, etc. Battlefield actually supports more players per match. What logic do you use to differentiate the two, then? The setting? The FPS view? Those both seem quite arbitrary to the definition created when WoT is included in "MMO." What's the difference between LoL and Evolve? Both unlock different "personas" each with unique abilities. Both include a leveling process of sorts (monsters in Evolve go through 3 stages throughout the match, actually requiring "farming" food to evolve those stages). Both include NPC hostiles towards both sides, some even providing temporary bufffs (oooh how familiar does that sound, LoLers?). All have progression unlocks, all are multiplayer, all have a lot of players (though not a lot playing in the same gameworld simultaneously). Relegating the MMO definiton to include WoT and LoL dilutes the definition to mean nothing. Why the hell gaming journalists can't see that defies logic, pointing to only one thing: ad-revenue, baby. Cover what sells.
Coincidentally, I feel like MMOs would be in a better place is gaming journalists had the balls to provide a hard differentiation. Stop including LoL revenue and comparing it to ESO revenue. Stop examining WoT's success through the lens of what makes an MMO a success or failure. Stop that shit. Just stop it. It's not helping the MMO genre. LoL's failure or success has no bearing whatsoever on ESO's. The rise of the MOBA shouldn't have even been a big deal for the MMO industry (save for maybe developers emulating them in instanced PvP design). Sorry, but they don't share much in the way of gameplay or design philosophy. Why the hell we even talk about WoT or LoL or Smite or any other MOBA when gauging the success of an MMO or the MMO genre's health baffles me.
If we exclude the games that obviously aren't, by any reasonable logic governing the use of "genres" in the first place, part of the MMORPG genre we can see it's not keeping pace with the rest of the gaming industry. That's an issue. And as much as I enjoyed Bill's article, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion.
Comments
I 100% agree but does that not in turn spell sad times for game development as well?
The last thing i want are more MOBA designs,browser games and games that look like Nintendo 64 or worse.
A perfect example are all these early release games.I didn't even know there were TAT many Zombie games out there, iwas shocked like literally 30 or so just in the last 6 months and MANY more real low budget games.ALL of those games are near dead now and Dying Light will follow them after another few months.
My point is that after they get that initial kickstarter or free handouts or early access money,development almost stops,you definitely do not see the money put to good use.
Since this NEW gimmick for making a quick buck seems to be working more devs are going to continue doing this.
The whole ordeal is super baffling because the reason f2p was suppose to work was because gamer's didn't want to carry subs on several different games,so it handcuffed them.However these same gamer's are buying every new early accesss and game that comes out and only playing them for a month or two or less.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I agree
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Wont happen, so you need to let go of that idea.
The mmo industry isnt dead, its just realising the same as lot of industries have that you cant compete like for like with the breakout leader, you have to bring something different and yet similar for that audience, or use the medium to go for a different audience.
The next few years will be really rough, the bubble is as close to bursting as its ever going to get, big studios are going to back off from the true mmo and instead try and merge single player games into online worlds (Destiny and ACU are badly executed examples of what this will mean).
The next evolution of the mmo is going to be the connected single player game, where the solo parts of the game are played solo and then you seamlessly merge into your friends game for the group content. (The division, Destiny are examples of this).
The traditional MMO will then instead focus on the world element of it, the massive side of the genre and I think in general this is a good thing too.
But, developing games is a slow process, what we are seeing now are the results of things developers learned 5 years ago, the last 2 years of harsh reality have not even begun to showcase them selves in mmos yet.
It will be another 2 years before the harsh lesson of "you cant beat wow" starts to show results and we start seeing a move away from that type of game.
Really... I don't agree. The MMORPG is in big trouble. So is the MMO itself. There is less offered now than there was when EQ and EQ2 came out. Game companies are more concerned with graphics than they are game play and none of them are listening to the gamers themselves. Gamers keep telling them what they want over and over again. And over and over again, they get ignored. It's like the developers and the money don't even bother to listen to us, or have the remotest desire to do so. Heck, Cryptic studios was actually proud of the fact that they managed to release STO in a year and a half and it was just a copy of everything that came before it except for the graphics and the "space" functionality, and those things weren't enough for it to make it big.
There are a handful of games that MAY have potential. None of them are by AAA developers.
If they would listen to us, things would be different, but they are actually complaining that its becoming harder and harder to please people with good graphics as though thats the only thing that makes a game.
Maybe what they need to do is go back to those old games and look at what people really love about them. It wasn't the graphics. It was the wide open worlds that we could explore endlessly and seemed to have so many quests, you could play the game differently every time you played it, you could wander for hours and hours and hours and explore and learn new things, the housing was awesome, so was the crafting.
They need to listen to us. They aren't doing that. Until they start listening, they are going to have problems. The genre is dying not because players are tired of the genre but because they aren't listening.
Keep the BS rolling.
I used 50k and i meant 50k. Dunno why you folks think that would not support a niche game fairly well. 50k will pay the bills quite well and give a company time to show that they are there for the long haul and let word spread and gain more people.
You use EVE above...well that is a niche game that did exactly like i said one should. (at first anyhow till they got crazy and started on other stuff) Keep true to your market and game. Slowly grow that game and make your market happy.
Small company that has a vision and a market that they want to fill and keep. Entirely possible on MUCH smaller budgets than you pick out of the air and quote like it is from a bible or something. The only one here talking AAA games and budgets are you for some reason...how many times must i say niche?
If you can't understand what I'm saying, then I can't help you. I wrote everything as Sesame Street as possible and you still ljrhgblkjhdgfbsdf;jdfblkjndgfb what am I doing?
You are right.
Have a great day, sir.
The genre is stagnant.
Themeparks & Sandbox, and "sandparks" are trying to differentiate the genre into subgenres, but overall, they are still the same. Their main component is combat. Everything revolves around that. Until this changes, we can expect the same old garbage coming from developers.
Dungeons, story missions (questing), raids, pvp, events, and so on.. it's all about combat and killing.
Which MMORPG currently has great RPG tools? Hardly any. By tools, i mean biography sheets, event notices, contests, or even RP designated organized places. Character customizaion is also very limited and centered on combat, by means of stats, weapons, armor, talents, skills, etc. Just look at crafting too, the things made from it are focused on combat. Housing is one aspect that isn't combat focused, but housing is still an afterthought in most MMO's. I'm not even an RP'er, but i can at least recognize the tools that they would like or need. It's one of the reasons why i do not label most of these games as MMORPG's anymroe, and i use MMO instead.
If there's one thing i always hear about SWG, it's that people had the freedom to actually be in an RPG without needing to be in a combat role. I've never played it though, but it's what i've read about it, so it might not to be 100% true. When was the last MMO where this was true? Archeage would probably come close, with it's farms and housing, but it's still limited somewhat.
The genre needs to balance itself out, and focus on an immersive virtual environment first, then everything else should follow. Combat needs to be secondary to immersion. Immersive virtual worlds need to merge with the mmorpg genre, within a true sandbox environment, where certain things can be customized, including custom imported avatars, textures, zones, gear/clothing, quests, and building/housing. Some of these would need to be restricted of course, depending on the developer's environment and limited resources, and some of these things are already in some mmo's but not completely custom created.
Custom-created content is the future of this genre, but developers continue to fail to recognize this. Developer-created content is why this genre is stagnant and basically a wholesale themepark, where players enjoy the ride for a month or less.
If any of you have spent a significant amount of time in a true sandbox virtual environment, you would notice the vast difference between the two. The problem with virtual worlds though, is that their game systems, graphics, user interface, and controls are just terrible and awkward for a 3d environment. Landmark is an example of this. It had the potential to be a true sandbox environment, but they took it into another themepark direction with the common combat-focused aspects, instead of a truly immersive building-environment where custom content could've taken precedent.
In short, the genre needs to be revolutionized at it's core and offer an immersive environment that isn't focused on combat as it's main priority.
I find is super irritating that most of whats considered upcoming risk-taking innovated games, are simply more FFA PVP "open world", b2p/f2p games.
It would be nice to see one of these innovators actually do something new, instead of slap one or two new mechanics on what is rapidly become the second most tired formula in mmorpgs (the first being WoW-clones).
One man's treasure...
I couldn't be happier that the class/level, trinity based, gear treadmill system is dying off.
I'm tired of being boxed into predefined walls. I'll finally be happy when I find a crafting centric, non gear treadmill game that lets me play a character who knows some limited fire based magic spells, wears leather armor and uses a two handed sword.
In other words, bring on the games that let me play characters rather than classes. The D20 system has had a good long run in the MMORPG landscape, now lets give the GURPS or Shadowrun game mechanics a try for a while.
Not sure what world you're living in Bill, but since 2005 this genre has become creativity's desert. Sure things are prettier, theres a few mechanics that have made things a little more interesting, but in general the "virtual worlds" of modern MMORPGs couldn't be more lifeless, less multiplayer, and the product of emulation rather than innovation. And sadly, they aren't even emulating the good, they are emulating what made the most money.
None the less, you have to say that or it wouldn't bode well for your job.
Things get worse before they better, eh? The age of the indie is upon us, who knows what it will bring.
EDIT - *in agreement*
As if things are getting worse....
I've been able to play an MMO at any time I wanted to. AAA MMO's when I have the money, others when not.
Not sure when the genre took a dive. Sounds like the players committed suicide to me...
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
exactly how i always felt! as much as i dislike WoW i have on numourous occasions tried to give it a chance due to friends even tho in my heart i know how i feel about it on a design level. I also have told friends who play WoW about games that are their cup of tea and because it's not warcraft they couldnt even be bothered to google the game and even glance at it.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done. I know it will bring more variety, but development time is going to be glacial and we will need to be patient during the building of these games. I can take slow dev time if the vision is about freedom and building a virtual world with risk vs reward.
Capitalism and "free market" (its anything but free lol) are slowly but surely on their way out, will they go peacefully evolution like or with revolution remains to be seen, but as even Theory of Evolution has shown us, you can evolve stuff only so far and for significat progress revolution is needed - and thats my tie in to the actual topic.
Genre (in a narrow point of view of "traditional MMOs") is stagnant since WoW. Kinda like whole Coca-cola situation, until Red Bull comes along you are stuck with WoW and buch of its clones with rare oddbals like EvE/GW2. (and yeah, Red Bull didnt "explode", it grew less/more slowly from 1987 to get where it is today)
For more noticable progress old "experienced" devs need to go and give way to new ones with fresh ideas, everyone blames publishers and such, but WS and SWTOR, for instance, were packed with "expereinced" well known devs, pretty much free from publishers, and they didnt manage anything but WoW clone with a twist (and it shows in their performance).
So yeah, doing oddballs until revolution happens, will that revolution bring something i like or not remains to be seen, but that is status quo of MMO
All problems with the genre can be boiled down to one single thing.
Large non-gaming companies getting into the gaming industry.
Once a large company gets involved everything is broken down into numbers and formula's and removes the heart and soul from the product. It is no longer about creating a "fun" game, its all about making a "profitable" game. This is how we ended up with the vast majority of MMOs being made to mimic WoW. They looked at the numbers and picked what seemed popular and used that formula for the game.
Its also the reason for the existence of AAA titles, its the big company belief that the more money you throw at something for bells and whistles (flashy graphics), the better the chance for a major hit.
Games are a form of art, they should not be following a business formula...it did not become bigger than Hollywood for nothing and did not require changing.
For the last 2 years I have only purchased a few games made by major game companies for this reason. They do not deserve my money, the indie companies do and man, haven't seen their level of innovation in YEARS.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
All I see is blame on the producers. When a into to economics course will show that the producers attracted to the profits made by other firms are selling what the consumers want. Well the majority of consumers, who with their wallets are > the forum posting minority that feels games should be made to make them happy.
Dumb.
F2P saved it. The MMO industry needed a temporary crutch in order to innovate. What we got is the fix-all for short term profitability and a industry wide f2p cycle which has lasted WAY too long. The problem being is that mmo's are no longer a social experience for the most part - they are large multiplayer games made for adult-children with ADHD with very little depth using the same formulas over and over again.
MMORPG's like Archeage are able to do VERY well in western markets, yet the western publishers of those titles are trying desperately to "Westernize" and apply the instant gratification formulas and simplified mechanics to those titles in order to "churn and burn" some quick cash - primarily because EVERY developer that has had success in the genre in the past is bleeding money. Its an uphill battle at this point.
You know when companies like Blizzard shutters wip's and won't go near an MMO development cycle ever again, that the genre is DEAD. Everyone is riding the end of the lightning bolt.
Wait, did you just say people are dumb for thinking a product should be made to make them happy?!?
Is your home filled with garbage you don't want, need or use?
Also, the majority of MMO gamers are playing WoW and LoL...the originators of the formula's being copied by games that are failing...fail post is fail.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
There are some really good single payer rpg out there and on the way. The right and mmo has been lost from the genre and I also think with the new turn of events it will be the pve player's that will suffer more.
But MMOs aren't a gaming platform; it's a genre. Bill was right to limit it. And, indeed, that genre is floundering.
If you include MOBAs, Action RPGs, and Coop RPGs, then you aren't talking about MMOs anymore. You're talking about any online game with RPG elements included. And, as such, has very little bearing on what's being released in the specific MMO industry (beyond arguments made in regards to influencing MMO developers).
World of Tanks is not an MMO. Neither is League of Legends. All the gaming journalism folks making their money off advertising can spout that non-sense all they want, but it won't be true. Because if WoT and LoL are MMOs, so is CoD. So is Battlefield. So is Evolve. So is TLoU for Christ's sake. Tell me, what is the difference between WoT and Battlefield? Both have different "classes." Both have tons of unlocks within those classes in terms of weaponry, perks, equipment, attachments, etc. Battlefield actually supports more players per match. What logic do you use to differentiate the two, then? The setting? The FPS view? Those both seem quite arbitrary to the definition created when WoT is included in "MMO." What's the difference between LoL and Evolve? Both unlock different "personas" each with unique abilities. Both include a leveling process of sorts (monsters in Evolve go through 3 stages throughout the match, actually requiring "farming" food to evolve those stages). Both include NPC hostiles towards both sides, some even providing temporary bufffs (oooh how familiar does that sound, LoLers?). All have progression unlocks, all are multiplayer, all have a lot of players (though not a lot playing in the same gameworld simultaneously). Relegating the MMO definiton to include WoT and LoL dilutes the definition to mean nothing. Why the hell gaming journalists can't see that defies logic, pointing to only one thing: ad-revenue, baby. Cover what sells.
Coincidentally, I feel like MMOs would be in a better place is gaming journalists had the balls to provide a hard differentiation. Stop including LoL revenue and comparing it to ESO revenue. Stop examining WoT's success through the lens of what makes an MMO a success or failure. Stop that shit. Just stop it. It's not helping the MMO genre. LoL's failure or success has no bearing whatsoever on ESO's. The rise of the MOBA shouldn't have even been a big deal for the MMO industry (save for maybe developers emulating them in instanced PvP design). Sorry, but they don't share much in the way of gameplay or design philosophy. Why the hell we even talk about WoT or LoL or Smite or any other MOBA when gauging the success of an MMO or the MMO genre's health baffles me.
If we exclude the games that obviously aren't, by any reasonable logic governing the use of "genres" in the first place, part of the MMORPG genre we can see it's not keeping pace with the rest of the gaming industry. That's an issue. And as much as I enjoyed Bill's article, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion.