Originally posted by sketocafe It's a sandbox. YOU have to make it work. I can log into my Red-Fed alt, find a fight, reship and find another fight in 15 minutes.
In a sandbox, the entire point of the game is to be sand. Not hard, unyielding granite. The sand doesn't shape players, players shape the sand.
Something is a sandbox trait if it's characterized by player control. Something is a themepark trait if it's characterized by developers being in control.
Long sessions are a themepark trait. It's the developer saying "You must play for exactly as long as I tell you."
Short sessions are a sandbox trait. It's the developer saying, "It's up to you the player how long you want to play."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Themeparks went down the 'bite sized content' path.
Why can't Sandbox?
It's already been mentioned by several that sandbox style MMOs do have that. Can you give us examples of the sandbox MMOs you've played, so we can see why you are so rigid about this rather false premise you are basing this on?
I played EVE-Online and Archeage (very light though) which probably colors my views in a certain way.
I think the conclusion (in a general, above 30,000 ft kind of way) is that Sandbox tries more often (compared to themeparks) to emulate real-life. Which in turns means some activities cannot be chopped up in 15-20mins portions.
I go for a jog around my block =/= I go on the Sydney Marathon
Obviously, there will be exceptions; e.g. I am told Wildstar while themepark has some very long raids.
But that's the overall conclusion I feel.
I would like to state that I never played Wildstar so I could have picked the wrong example.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I work full-time and I'm also a part-time student, so I don't have copious amounts of free time. That being said, I don't log in at all unless I have at least 45 minutes to spare. 15-20 minutes just isn't enough time to get anything done in an RPG. If your time is that limited, you'd be better with a 3DS, as it's designed more around that sort of on-the-go playstyle.
I think most actions in a sandbox MMO are very good for short play sessions. It's possible to log on for just a couple of minutes to gather ingredients, craft something, or kill a couple more mobs collecting their drops.
Personally, I'm not interested to do that if I have just a couple of minutes. When playing I want to achieve something, and in a sandbox MMO I mostly think about the big picture and big achievements. They are the allure of sandbox MMO for me, but if I don't have time also its downfall since the progress I can make in 10 minutes feels meaningless.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky There are "other" games a player can play. I listed 3 of them. There are millions more, none of them MMOs.We will never agree on downtime. You despise and I enjoy it "Fitting into players lives." All well and good on paper and "single player games." In games where any singular player is not the be-all, end-all, they need to fit the games into their lives, or play single player games. Once a player logs into an MMO, they are no longer playing a game that ONLY they play.I will agree that short sessions put the player in control. However, I have yet to find an MMO that FORCED me stay logged in past any time I desired to log out. Have you found differently?Now, other players have kept me logged in past a time that I wanted to log off. It is the way I am that I will not leave players in my group high and dry in the midst of a battle.In old EQ, players in groups came and went regularly. Players logged in for whatever time they had, got into a group, and played until they had to log off. The thing in that game was that most of the players were seeking groups so the vacancies were easily filled. Many times there were "lists" that group leaders had of players waiting to get into a group. As openings came, players were notified. Sometimes they had left to do other things or got into another group or simply logged off. Next name on the list.I am grinning right now thinking of the ages of some of those players... "Mom says I need to eat NOW!" was a common statement in group chats
Er, the traits I described aren't actually something you can disagree with. It's more describing the underlying mathematical truth of it all. For any player who needs to take breaks at any random sets of time, short-session games will allow them to play the game and more consistently find fun than long-session games, or games with mandatory downtime.There's basically no solid reason not to fit into those busy players' lives. The purpose of games is to entertain. A rigid design which refuses to yield to the ways players are able to be entertained will entertain less. A fluid design which adapts its shape to fit in each player's life will entertain more. Shorter sessions are the easiest way for games to adapt in that manner. It's sort of like Bruce Lee's "be like water" philosophy, except instead of a person adapting to their environment, it's the game's design adapting to its environment.Until you present a reason not to fit into those players' lives, the reasons you want this are most likely one of these: Change-hating / nostalgia. "Things used to be one way. Now they're not. I hate that." Maintain the advantage! "They don't fit into those players' lives, but they fit into mine, so this gives me a gameplay advantage, and you shouldn't take that."
With the movie analogy, you listed other entertainment choices, just like I did with MMOs.
I seriously can not, nor want to dispute what you say. It is true. We live in a society now where the slightest discomfort or requirement of effort has too many giving up. My shoulders slump because that is how the industry is, now. No more will we have games designed for specific smaller (150K to 750K) groups of players and everything hinges on "the bottom line."
When everything is sunshine and lollipops 100% of the time, there is no "bad" to make the "good", better by comparison. So, anything and everything "bad" is weeded out and the "good" becomes boring to many other players, not the "mainstream."
Maybe it should not, but this saddens me...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
With the movie analogy, you listed other entertainment choices, just like I did with MMOs.
I seriously can not, nor want to dispute what you say. It is true. We live in a society now where the slightest discomfort or requirement of effort has too many giving up. My shoulders slump because that is how the industry is, now. No more will we have games designed for specific smaller (150K to 750K) groups of players and everything hinges on "the bottom line."
When everything is sunshine and lollipops 100% of the time, there is no "bad" to make the "good", better by comparison. So, anything and everything "bad" is weeded out and the "good" becomes boring to many other players, not the "mainstream."
Maybe it should not, but this saddens me...
What demographic do you think isn't being served though?
If a game has 15-minute sessions, then a player with 15 minutes of free time is able to play. Meanwhile the player with 2 hours of free time is able to play too (8 of the 15-minute chunks.)
I could see an argument that certain types of gameplay mandate a pacing that requires up to an hour of gameplay. But that's really the high end. So yeah, serving players who want those particular experiences will require an hour.
Keeping in mind the fact that most longer types of gameplay like a 3-hour raid can easily be broken down into a bunch of 15-30 minute chunks. The player with 3 hours is still going to run all of them in succession and get the same gameplay as before. But now everyone else is welcome to join too (which is even better for the player with more time, because it means more people to group with.) Replace "3-hour raid" with any other long-form gameplay and the result is the same.
I'm not really sure how the sunshine and lollipops comment really fits here. Games are supposed to fit into players' lives, not the other way around. This says nothing for the challenges confronted in those smaller pieces, it simply means "not enough time" was a stupid reason to bar entry to a game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by AlBQuirkyWith the movie analogy, you listed other entertainment choices, just like I did with MMOs.I seriously can not, nor want to dispute what you say. It is true. We live in a society now where the slightest discomfort or requirement of effort has too many giving up. My shoulders slump because that is how the industry is, now. No more will we have games designed for specific smaller (150K to 750K) groups of players and everything hinges on "the bottom line."When everything is sunshine and lollipops 100% of the time, there is no "bad" to make the "good", better by comparison. So, anything and everything "bad" is weeded out and the "good" becomes boring to many other players, not the "mainstream."Maybe it should not, but this saddens me...
What demographic do you think isn't being served though? If a game has 15-minute sessions, then a player with 15 minutes of free time is able to play. Meanwhile the player with 2 hours of free time is able to play too (8 of the 15-minute chunks.)I could see an argument that certain types of gameplay mandate a pacing that requires up to an hour of gameplay. But that's really the high end. So yeah, serving players who want those particular experiences will require an hour. Keeping in mind the fact that most longer types of gameplay like a 3-hour raid can easily be broken down into a bunch of 15-30 minute chunks. The player with 3 hours is still going to run all of them in succession and get the same gameplay as before. But now everyone else is welcome to join too (which is even better for the player with more time, because it means more people to group with.) Replace "3-hour raid" with any other long-form gameplay and the result is the same. I'm not really sure how the sunshine and lollipops comment really fits here. Games are supposed to fit into players' lives, not the other way around. This says nothing for the challenges confronted in those smaller pieces, it simply means "not enough time" was a stupid reason to bar entry to a game.
But there's examples, in other genres, of incredibly successful games that do, generally, take much more than 15-20 minutes to make real progress.
Take Rome: Total War as an example. Once you've maxed out an army and are fighting another, similarly sized army, or taking a city.. The battles alone will take 15-20 minutes. And that's literally from the time you hit "start battle" after deploying your units 'til the time the battle ends. This doesn't take into account the conquest map outside of battles, where armies are recruited (over multiple turns), armies are moved (you generally can't recruit troops outside of your own territory, so attacking means you must recruit first, then march across terrain/sail across a sea), and enemy forces are scouted. All of that is turn-based, with AI simulating anywhere from 5 to 25 other civilizations in between your turns.
That ends up meaning 15-20 minutes (if you include loading times) can find you literally only having loaded your game and regained your bearings regarding your territory, enemy threats, your armies/spies/other special units, diplomacy, etc. Though there is an option to just play a random battle, those battles can still take more than 15-20 minutes. And it hasn't been evolving away from that, as Total War 2 is just as lengthy. That series hasn't died due to any perceived realities of today's gamers. In fact, the player community is very much aware of the time-sink required to enjoy the game, and do not mind it due to the depth of play it offers. I don't see any reason why MMORPGs must include 15-20 minute bites to be a successful game.
In my opinion, it's more a residual effect of WoW's success. Many developers in the genre may not desire millions of dollars in profit every year. But, in order to release a AAA game, they need the financial backing of folks who do insist their investment make that kind of profit. Which is why I've mentioned multiple times that I hope the genre will soon return to the lesser-known niche it came from and desire to realize a vision will replace the desire to return millions every year on your investment.
EDIT- Also, a survey last year from Nielsen reveals that, contrary to popular belief, gamers are actually spending more time gaming per week than in previous years. The article states that amount of time gamers spend gaming per week has grown consistently over 3 years (ending with data for 2013), not decreased. So this thread and the arguments contained within may, in reality, be a moot point. Additionally, while I cannot find quantitative metrics from the website, GameHud seems to support the claim that PC players are still playing long sessions in RPGs. To quote: "If you are designing an RPG for PCs, you should expect a low average number of sessions per day but a very long average session length."
Define bite sized? Back in the EQ days my friends picked up a new RTS (I forget which one) and they wanted me to play with them. I told them I couldn't because I didn't have time for a game like that. They always replied that I was crazy since EQ was more time consuming than an RTS. Only thing is EQ was very easy for me to play until I had to log off and then I could quit right where I was. I would just play solo. An RTS I'm at the mercy of other people as to when I can be done playing. Same thing is true with instances in a MMORPG.
To me bite sized generally means something solo where I quit when my bite is done. That works just fine with a sandbox. Group content always has time constraints out of your control, that is true for a theme park or a sandbox.
Originally posted by MadFrenchie But there's examples, in other genres, of incredibly successful games that do, generally, take much more than 15-20 minutes to make real progress.
Take Rome: Total War as an example. Once you've maxed out an army and are fighting another, similarly sized army, or taking a city.. The battles alone will take 15-20 minutes. And that's literally from the time you hit "start battle" after deploying your units 'til the time the battle ends. This doesn't take into account the conquest map outside of battles, where armies are recruited (over multiple turns), armies are moved (you generally can't recruit troops outside of your own territory, so attacking means you must recruit first, then march across terrain/sail across a sea), and enemy forces are scouted. All of that is turn-based, with AI simulating anywhere from 5 to 25 other civilizations in between your turns.
That ends up meaning 15-20 minutes (if you include loading times) can find you literally only having loaded your game and regained your bearings regarding your territory, enemy threats, your armies/spies/other special units, diplomacy, etc. Though there is an option to just play a random battle, those battles can still take more than 15-20 minutes. And it hasn't been evolving away from that, as Total War 2 is just as lengthy. That series hasn't died due to any perceived realities of today's gamers. In fact, the player community is very much aware of the time-sink required to enjoy the game, and do not mind it due to the depth of play it offers. I don't see any reason why MMORPGs must include 15-20 minute bites to be a successful game.
In my opinion, it's more a residual effect of WoW's success. Many developers in the genre may not desire millions of dollars in profit every year. But, in order to release a AAA game, they need the financial backing of folks who do insist their investment make that kind of profit. Which is why I've mentioned multiple times that I hope the genre will soon return to the lesser-known niche it came from and desire to realize a vision will replace the desire to return millions every year on your investment.
EDIT- Also, a survey last year from Nielsen reveals that, contrary to popular belief, gamers are actually spending more time gaming per week than in previous years. The article states that amount of time gamers spend gaming per week has grown consistently over 3 years (ending with data for 2013), not decreased. So this thread and the arguments contained within may, in reality, be a moot point. Additionally, while I cannot find quantitative metrics from the website, GameHud seems to support the claim that PC players are still playing long sessions in RPGs. To quote: "If you are designing an RPG for PCs, you should expect a low average number of sessions per day but a very long average session length."
But...you're giving an example of a short-session game...
In Total War you can save anytime it's not a battle and battles aren't longer than 30 minutes (as I recall, the majority of them are shorter than 10 minutes, yeah?) This means it's a game where you can make meaningful progress with a short session. (Also in the last TW game I played those longer battles are extremely rare; like once or twice in an entire many-hours-long campaign; which means that all the rest of the time it's very forgiving of shorter sessions.)
That Nielsen study describes a 24% increase in gaming hours and a 42% increase in mobile gaming. Combined with the GameHud comment "On the other hand, if you are designing a short run game on mobile, you should expect a high average number of sessions per day with a short average session length." it means it's a little shaky to try to use it as evidence of longer individual sessions. I wouldn't rule it out (and in fact I made the same assumption when I saw the data too; but then someone rightly pointed out the 42% increase in mobile.)
Either way, we have no reason to doubt the GameHud comment regarding RPG session length -- but we just covered how Total War is actually a short-session game and I'm sure the average session length of that game is also quite long. So average session length doesn't really speak to the good or bad of a game requiring big meaty chunks of uninterrupted gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by MadFrenchieBut there's examples, in other genres, of incredibly successful games that do, generally, take much more than 15-20 minutes to make real progress. Take Rome: Total War as an example. Once you've maxed out an army and are fighting another, similarly sized army, or taking a city.. The battles alone will take 15-20 minutes. And that's literally from the time you hit "start battle" after deploying your units 'til the time the battle ends. This doesn't take into account the conquest map outside of battles, where armies are recruited (over multiple turns), armies are moved (you generally can't recruit troops outside of your own territory, so attacking means you must recruit first, then march across terrain/sail across a sea), and enemy forces are scouted. All of that is turn-based, with AI simulating anywhere from 5 to 25 other civilizations in between your turns.That ends up meaning 15-20 minutes (if you include loading times) can find you literally only having loaded your game and regained your bearings regarding your territory, enemy threats, your armies/spies/other special units, diplomacy, etc. Though there is an option to just play a random battle, those battles can still take more than 15-20 minutes. And it hasn't been evolving away from that, as Total War 2 is just as lengthy. That series hasn't died due to any perceived realities of today's gamers. In fact, the player community is very much aware of the time-sink required to enjoy the game, and do not mind it due to the depth of play it offers. I don't see any reason why MMORPGs must include 15-20 minute bites to be a successful game.In my opinion, it's more a residual effect of WoW's success. Many developers in the genre may not desire millions of dollars in profit every year. But, in order to release a AAA game, they need the financial backing of folks who do insist their investment make that kind of profit. Which is why I've mentioned multiple times that I hope the genre will soon return to the lesser-known niche it came from and desire to realize a vision will replace the desire to return millions every year on your investment.EDIT- Also, a survey last year from Nielsen reveals that, contrary to popular belief, gamers are actually spending more time gaming per week than in previous years. The article states that amount of time gamers spend gaming per week has grown consistently over 3 years (ending with data for 2013), not decreased. So this thread and the arguments contained within may, in reality, be a moot point. Additionally, while I cannot find quantitative metrics from the website, GameHud seems to support the claim that PC players are still playing long sessions in RPGs. To quote: "If you are designing an RPG for PCs, you should expect a low average number of sessions per day but a very long average session length."
But...you're giving an example of a short-session game... In Total War you can save anytime it's not a battle and battles aren't longer than 30 minutes (as I recall, the majority of them are shorter than 10 minutes, yeah?) This means it's a game where you can make meaningful progress with a short session. (Also in the last TW game I played those longer battles are extremely rare; like once or twice in an entire many-hours-long campaign; which means that all the rest of the time it's very forgiving of shorter sessions.) That Nielsen study describes a 24% increase in gaming hours and a 42% increase in mobile gaming. Combined with the GameHud comment "On the other hand, if you are designing a short run game on mobile, you should expect a high average number of sessions per day with a short average session length." it means it's a little shaky to try to use it as evidence of longer individual sessions. I wouldn't rule it out (and in fact I made the same assumption when I saw the data too; but then someone rightly pointed out the 42% increase in mobile.) Either way, we have no reason to doubt the GameHud comment regarding RPG session length -- but we just covered how Total War is actually a short-session game and I'm sure the average session length of that game is also quite long. So average session length doesn't really speak to the good or bad of a game requiring big meaty chunks of uninterrupted gameplay.
Not sure I agree that Total War is a short-session game. Unless you're constantly speeding up the battle time, any battles I've played have been at least 15 minutes. And, again, that's not including the time it takes to set your army up and move it into an advantageous position to take on the enemy. I guess it can depend upon some game settings, such as difficulty and battle sizes. I'd say, with the evidence cited, we could reasonably assume that MMORPG play times extend, on average, beyond the length of 15, 20, or even 30 minutes. (As additional evidence, consider this evidence from 2012 wherein Bioware employee reveals the average SW:TOR session length to be 4 to 6 hours.)
The point of the combined citations was to show that gamers are putting in plenty of hours per week and combining it with the GameHud metric summary that PC players (specifically, RPG players) put in less sessions per day, with longer continuous sessions. A 42% increase, I submit, is as much about the rise and availability of gaming apps and phones/tablets that can utilize those apps as it is the amount of time folks have to game. Most of those games deliberately limit the amount of productivity you can maintain continuously without spending money. As anecdotal evidence (take that as you will), I've not met a person playing those games that continuously spends money to extend their play sessions. They'd rather watch TV or engage in another hobby while waiting out the recharge/progression periods. Some of that waiting time is spent playing other video games on other platforms. It all adds up, in my opinion, to make the need for short, 15-20 minute bite-size chunks in MMORPGs not really that important when trying to appeal to most gamers in the genre.
EDIT- This topic has piqued my curiosity. In addition to the above evidence, the Raptr Awards for 2012 also happens to collect data on average session lengths. For the MMORPGs included in the PDF, we have:
WoW- ~2 hours average session GW2- just under 2 hours (looking like approximately 1 hour, 40 minutes)
Given any one of the citations I've included, the average MMORPG session length is certainly debatable. I find it hard to reasonably debate this, however, when taking into account all the evidence cited (at least, unreasonable to assert MMORPGs need 15-20 minute chunks to enjoy widespread appeal in the genre).
Average is a pretty slippery slope though. There are people who routinely play 8 hour sessions and there are people that enjoy the games just fine on 15-30 minutes per session. Just depends on how much disposable time you have.
Average is a pretty slippery slope though. There are people who routinely play 8 hour sessions and there are people that enjoy the games just fine on 15-30 minutes per session. Just depends on how much disposable time you have.
Not sure I can agree (while, certainly, with a standard deviation we could picture the playerbase more accurately); it would be remiss to ignore the data we can access when talking about these things. Certainly, if a potential investor consults GameHud, they will receive metric advice consistent with what I quoted.
The average also, by definition, gives us the rough estimate of what the majority of players consider their normal game session. Again, a standard deviation would shed even more light, but I don't think you can look at the data and go, "Yeah, but you still won't be successful in the genre unless you exclusively offer 15-20 minute sized chunks of content."
That's not to say developers won't do so to provide flexibility in gameplay. It's to say: developers have no real need to depend upon those "15-20 minute players" to achieve success in the genre.
Not sure I agree that Total War is a short-session game. Unless you're constantly speeding up the battle time, any battles I've played have been at least 15 minutes. And, again, that's not including the time it takes to set your army up and move it into an advantageous position to take on the enemy. I guess it can depend upon some game settings, such as difficulty and battle sizes. I'd say, with the evidence cited, we could reasonably assume that MMORPG play times extend, on average, beyond the length of 15, 20, or even 30 minutes. (As additional evidence, consider this evidence from 2012 wherein Bioware employee reveals the average SW:TOR session length to be 4 to 6 hours.)
The point of the combined citations was to show that gamers are putting in plenty of hours per week and combining it with the GameHud metric summary that PC players (specifically, RPG players) put in less sessions per day, with longer continuous sessions. A 42% increase, I submit, is as much about the rise and availability of gaming apps and phones/tablets that can utilize those apps as it is the amount of time folks have to game. Most of those games deliberately limit the amount of productivity you can maintain continuously without spending money. As anecdotal evidence (take that as you will), I've not met a person playing those games that continuously spends money to extend their play sessions. They'd rather watch TV or engage in another hobby while waiting out the recharge/progression periods. Some of that waiting time is spent playing other video games on other platforms. It all adds up, in my opinion, to make the need for short, 15-20 minute bite-size chunks in MMORPGs not really that important when trying to appeal to most gamers in the genre.
EDIT- This topic has piqued my curiosity. In addition to the above evidence, the Raptr Awards for 2012 also happens to collect data on average session lengths. For the MMORPGs included in the PDF, we have:
WoW- ~2 hours average session GW2- just under 2 hours (looking like approximately 1 hour, 40 minutes)
Given any one of the citations I've included, the average MMORPG session length is certainly debatable. I find it hard to reasonably debate this, however, when taking into account all the evidence cited (at least, unreasonable to assert MMORPGs need 15-20 minute chunks to enjoy widespread appeal in the genre).
We're talking about games having a High Minimum Session Length. Bite-sized sessions where you can accomplish something meaningful in under 30 minutes.
In that context, average session length has little if any relevance. Certainly if you eliminated all the bite-sized content in a game you could increase the average session length. Certainly if the average session length is that high then it's likely many players are playing for long spurts anyway. But it's guaranteed that it will also totally shut out certain other players -- and for what? Without a concrete benefit or reason to shut out those other players, a higher minimum session just doesn't make sense.
So WOW having 2 hours avg session doesn't speak to how many players are able to play WOW because they can accomplish something fun and meaningful inside of 30 minutes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not sure I agree that Total War is a short-session game. Unless you're constantly speeding up the battle time, any battles I've played have been at least 15 minutes. And, again, that's not including the time it takes to set your army up and move it into an advantageous position to take on the enemy. I guess it can depend upon some game settings, such as difficulty and battle sizes. I'd say, with the evidence cited, we could reasonably assume that MMORPG play times extend, on average, beyond the length of 15, 20, or even 30 minutes. (As additional evidence, consider this evidence from 2012 wherein Bioware employee reveals the average SW:TOR session length to be 4 to 6 hours.)
The point of the combined citations was to show that gamers are putting in plenty of hours per week and combining it with the GameHud metric summary that PC players (specifically, RPG players) put in less sessions per day, with longer continuous sessions. A 42% increase, I submit, is as much about the rise and availability of gaming apps and phones/tablets that can utilize those apps as it is the amount of time folks have to game. Most of those games deliberately limit the amount of productivity you can maintain continuously without spending money. As anecdotal evidence (take that as you will), I've not met a person playing those games that continuously spends money to extend their play sessions. They'd rather watch TV or engage in another hobby while waiting out the recharge/progression periods. Some of that waiting time is spent playing other video games on other platforms. It all adds up, in my opinion, to make the need for short, 15-20 minute bite-size chunks in MMORPGs not really that important when trying to appeal to most gamers in the genre.
EDIT- This topic has piqued my curiosity. In addition to the above evidence, the Raptr Awards for 2012 also happens to collect data on average session lengths. For the MMORPGs included in the PDF, we have:
WoW- ~2 hours average session GW2- just under 2 hours (looking like approximately 1 hour, 40 minutes)
Given any one of the citations I've included, the average MMORPG session length is certainly debatable. I find it hard to reasonably debate this, however, when taking into account all the evidence cited (at least, unreasonable to assert MMORPGs need 15-20 minute chunks to enjoy widespread appeal in the genre).
We're talking about games having a High Minimum Session Length. Bite-sized sessions where you can accomplish something meaningful in under 30 minutes.
In that context, average session length has little if any relevance. Certainly if you eliminated all the bite-sized content in a game you could increase the average session length. Certainly if the average session length is that high then it's likely many players are playing for long spurts anyway. But it's guaranteed that it will also totally shut out certain other players -- and for what? Without a concrete benefit or reason to shut out those other players, a higher minimum session just doesn't make sense.
So WOW having 2 hours avg session doesn't speak to how many players are able to play WOW because they can accomplish something fun and meaningful inside of 30 minutes.
What you're stating is all true- and doesn't really conflict with what I'm saying.
The evidence shows MMOs do not need to cater to those players to enjoy success. As I state in a previous post, MMORPGs may very well include content for those folks to appeal to the widest variety of gamers. However, if the average session length is any indicator, a game such as EVE (where measurable progress arguably does take longer, on average, than 15-20 minutes) isn't an aberration; it simply plays to those folks who make up the majority of the genre's gamers (in terms of session lengths) at the exclusion, on one end of the spectrum, of players who might otherwise subscribe.
If the aim of the developers is to reach the maximum amount of players possible (with a willingness to sacrifice any visions they initially had for the game), then they will (and should) create an abundance of these small chunks of easily digestible content. If the developers have a vision for the game that does not include such small chunks (or makes progression immeasurable in such small amounts of time), they need not fear that their efforts are futile from the outset (when looking at the market from a gamer metrics point of view).
This makes perfect sense, design to the vision not to some generic bucket of bites with a reward attached to each bite.
An obvious analogy Is comparing a crusty loaf where you can cut of what you like each time to a sliced loaf of bread where all you can have is slices 1cm wide - uniform and dull and not at all specialised.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by MadFrenchieBut there's examples, in other genres, of incredibly successful games that do, generally, take much more than 15-20 minutes to make real progress. Take Rome: Total War as an example. Once you've maxed out an army and are fighting another, similarly sized army, or taking a city.. The battles alone will take 15-20 minutes. And that's literally from the time you hit "start battle" after deploying your units 'til the time the battle ends. This doesn't take into account the conquest map outside of battles, where armies are recruited (over multiple turns), armies are moved (you generally can't recruit troops outside of your own territory, so attacking means you must recruit first, then march across terrain/sail across a sea), and enemy forces are scouted. All of that is turn-based, with AI simulating anywhere from 5 to 25 other civilizations in between your turns.That ends up meaning 15-20 minutes (if you include loading times) can find you literally only having loaded your game and regained your bearings regarding your territory, enemy threats, your armies/spies/other special units, diplomacy, etc. Though there is an option to just play a random battle, those battles can still take more than 15-20 minutes. And it hasn't been evolving away from that, as Total War 2 is just as lengthy. That series hasn't died due to any perceived realities of today's gamers. In fact, the player community is very much aware of the time-sink required to enjoy the game, and do not mind it due to the depth of play it offers. I don't see any reason why MMORPGs must include 15-20 minute bites to be a successful game.In my opinion, it's more a residual effect of WoW's success. Many developers in the genre may not desire millions of dollars in profit every year. But, in order to release a AAA game, they need the financial backing of folks who do insist their investment make that kind of profit. Which is why I've mentioned multiple times that I hope the genre will soon return to the lesser-known niche it came from and desire to realize a vision will replace the desire to return millions every year on your investment.EDIT- Also, a survey last year from Nielsen reveals that, contrary to popular belief, gamers are actually spending more time gaming per week than in previous years. The article states that amount of time gamers spend gaming per week has grown consistently over 3 years (ending with data for 2013), not decreased. So this thread and the arguments contained within may, in reality, be a moot point. Additionally, while I cannot find quantitative metrics from the website, GameHud seems to support the claim that PC players are still playing long sessions in RPGs. To quote: "If you are designing an RPG for PCs, you should expect a low average number of sessions per day but a very long average session length."
But...you're giving an example of a short-session game... In Total War you can save anytime it's not a battle and battles aren't longer than 30 minutes (as I recall, the majority of them are shorter than 10 minutes, yeah?) This means it's a game where you can make meaningful progress with a short session. (Also in the last TW game I played those longer battles are extremely rare; like once or twice in an entire many-hours-long campaign; which means that all the rest of the time it's very forgiving of shorter sessions.) That Nielsen study describes a 24% increase in gaming hours and a 42% increase in mobile gaming. Combined with the GameHud comment "On the other hand, if you are designing a short run game on mobile, you should expect a high average number of sessions per day with a short average session length." it means it's a little shaky to try to use it as evidence of longer individual sessions. I wouldn't rule it out (and in fact I made the same assumption when I saw the data too; but then someone rightly pointed out the 42% increase in mobile.) Either way, we have no reason to doubt the GameHud comment regarding RPG session length -- but we just covered how Total War is actually a short-session game and I'm sure the average session length of that game is also quite long. So average session length doesn't really speak to the good or bad of a game requiring big meaty chunks of uninterrupted gameplay.
Not sure I agree that Total War is a short-session game. Unless you're constantly speeding up the battle time, any battles I've played have been at least 15 minutes. And, again, that's not including the time it takes to set your army up and move it into an advantageous position to take on the enemy. I guess it can depend upon some game settings, such as difficulty and battle sizes. I'd say, with the evidence cited, we could reasonably assume that MMORPG play times extend, on average, beyond the length of 15, 20, or even 30 minutes. (As additional evidence, consider this evidence from 2012 wherein Bioware employee reveals the average SW:TOR session length to be 4 to 6 hours.)
The point of the combined citations was to show that gamers are putting in plenty of hours per week and combining it with the GameHud metric summary that PC players (specifically, RPG players) put in less sessions per day, with longer continuous sessions. A 42% increase, I submit, is as much about the rise and availability of gaming apps and phones/tablets that can utilize those apps as it is the amount of time folks have to game. Most of those games deliberately limit the amount of productivity you can maintain continuously without spending money. As anecdotal evidence (take that as you will), I've not met a person playing those games that continuously spends money to extend their play sessions. They'd rather watch TV or engage in another hobby while waiting out the recharge/progression periods. Some of that waiting time is spent playing other video games on other platforms. It all adds up, in my opinion, to make the need for short, 15-20 minute bite-size chunks in MMORPGs not really that important when trying to appeal to most gamers in the genre.
EDIT- This topic has piqued my curiosity. In addition to the above evidence, the Raptr Awards for 2012 also happens to collect data on average session lengths. For the MMORPGs included in the PDF, we have:
WoW- ~2 hours average session GW2- just under 2 hours (looking like approximately 1 hour, 40 minutes)
Given any one of the citations I've included, the average MMORPG session length is certainly debatable. I find it hard to reasonably debate this, however, when taking into account all the evidence cited (at least, unreasonable to assert MMORPGs need 15-20 minute chunks to enjoy widespread appeal in the genre).
You seem to be working on two rather unsupported assumptions.
that those people are doing only one or two things in that gaming session instead of 5-50 things
that those people would still play a two hour session if content chunks took 45-60 minutes to complete
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You seem to be working on two rather unsupported assumptions.
that those people are doing only one or two things in that gaming session instead of 5-50 things
that those people would still play a two hour session if content chunks took 45-60 minutes to complete
For one, could you be more specific? Do you mean 5-50 things in-game, or 5-50 things around the house that includes playing a game, or..?
For number two, it depends upon the fun factor. Many singleplayer FPS/action games cannot be readily measured in "content chunks." Survival horror games align with that category, as well. MOBAs are chalk full of players who don't mind heading into a match knowing it will take 45 minutes to complete. If it's fun enough for the experience to be rewarding in and of itself, the length of content "chunks" becomes less important. I wonder when, exactly, did video games become more about the virtual reward in the end (one that really holds no value outside of said game) than it's about the fun of actually, y'know, playing the game.
EDIT- I find it interesting, while on this topic, that the MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content. Speedily running dungeon after dungeon, grinding daily after daily.. Is there another genre where folks have become so focused on what they get after they finish a task, rather than how enjoyable it is to actually play the game in the first place?
You seem to be working on two rather unsupported assumptions.
that those people are doing only one or two things in that gaming session instead of 5-50 things
that those people would still play a two hour session if content chunks took 45-60 minutes to complete
For one, could you be more specific? Do you mean 5-50 things in-game, or 5-50 things around the house that includes playing a game, or..?
For number two, it depends upon the fun factor. Many singleplayer FPS/action games cannot be readily measured in "content chunks." Survival horror games align with that category, as well. MOBAs are chalk full of players who don't mind heading into a match knowing it will take 45 minutes to complete. If it's fun enough for the experience to be rewarding in and of itself, the length of content "chunks" becomes less important. I wonder when, exactly, did video games become more about the virtual reward in the end (one that really holds no value outside of said game) than it's about the fun of actually, y'know, playing the game.
EDIT- I find it interesting, while on this topic, that the MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content. Speedily running dungeon after dungeon, grinding daily after daily.. Is there another genre where folks have become so focused on what they get after they finish a task, rather than how enjoyable it is to actually play the game in the first place?
This is nothing new. Grind and spawncamping represent the bare minimum in terms of content and old school MMORPGs had plenty of it. You cannot set the bar any lower for the developer. The sort of monotonous gameplay they had couldn't possibly be justified with anything other than a virtual reward.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You seem to be working on two rather unsupported assumptions.
that those people are doing only one or two things in that gaming session instead of 5-50 things
that those people would still play a two hour session if content chunks took 45-60 minutes to complete
For one, could you be more specific? Do you mean 5-50 things in-game, or 5-50 things around the house that includes playing a game, or..?
For number two, it depends upon the fun factor. Many singleplayer FPS/action games cannot be readily measured in "content chunks." Survival horror games align with that category, as well. MOBAs are chalk full of players who don't mind heading into a match knowing it will take 45 minutes to complete. If it's fun enough for the experience to be rewarding in and of itself, the length of content "chunks" becomes less important. I wonder when, exactly, did video games become more about the virtual reward in the end (one that really holds no value outside of said game) than it's about the fun of actually, y'know, playing the game.
EDIT- I find it interesting, while on this topic, that the MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content. Speedily running dungeon after dungeon, grinding daily after daily.. Is there another genre where folks have become so focused on what they get after they finish a task, rather than how enjoyable it is to actually play the game in the first place?
This is nothing new. Grind and spawncamping represent the bare minimum in terms of content and old school MMORPGs had plenty of it. You cannot set the bar any lower for the developer. The sort of monotonous gameplay they had couldn't possibly be justified with anything other than a virtual reward.
I can agree, but it hasn't much changed since the beginnings of the genre. We've had significant graphical and UI advancements... Mob AI and the static world haven't changed much at all. In some areas, they're almost exactly as they were when I played DAoC during the Shrouded Isles era. In the areas that have changed, it only changed how players get credit for and progress through the content, now in how the content interacts with the player or the world. It's mostly convenience changes to solve the spawncamping issue, really. Mobs still stand around, waiting to be slaughtered. Still simply attack the player dealing it the most damage (or attacking the player spamming the taunt), still respawning with exactly the same characteristics and abilities in exactly the same numbers as before. ESO and some others have done work with the static world, but it's work is done in the form of a singleplayer game and not in a manner which meshes well with a shared world.
You seem to be working on two rather unsupported assumptions.
that those people are doing only one or two things in that gaming session instead of 5-50 things
that those people would still play a two hour session if content chunks took 45-60 minutes to complete
For one, could you be more specific? Do you mean 5-50 things in-game, or 5-50 things around the house that includes playing a game, or..?
For number two, it depends upon the fun factor. Many singleplayer FPS/action games cannot be readily measured in "content chunks." Survival horror games align with that category, as well. MOBAs are chalk full of players who don't mind heading into a match knowing it will take 45 minutes to complete. If it's fun enough for the experience to be rewarding in and of itself, the length of content "chunks" becomes less important. I wonder when, exactly, did video games become more about the virtual reward in the end (one that really holds no value outside of said game) than it's about the fun of actually, y'know, playing the game.
EDIT- I find it interesting, while on this topic, that the MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content. Speedily running dungeon after dungeon, grinding daily after daily.. Is there another genre where folks have become so focused on what they get after they finish a task, rather than how enjoyable it is to actually play the game in the first place?
In-game, of course.
Re: #2 -Of course, we're talking about the content that is fun to do. To repeat the example I gave before: I can log into UO, do some logging, make a few bows, and throw them on a vendor (with descriptions and my chosen placement because UO will ALWAYS be that far ahead of most MMOs) inside of a few minutes. Maybe recall to Yew to BS with a few people at the Abbey and then log out. 15-20 minutes of bite-sized content, none of it remotely relevant to the "length" of the game's content.
"MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content."
That's been a big part of the shift from tabletop to CRPG in general - less emphasis on the narrative and more on the progression.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You seem to be working on two rather unsupported assumptions.
that those people are doing only one or two things in that gaming session instead of 5-50 things
that those people would still play a two hour session if content chunks took 45-60 minutes to complete
For one, could you be more specific? Do you mean 5-50 things in-game, or 5-50 things around the house that includes playing a game, or..?
For number two, it depends upon the fun factor. Many singleplayer FPS/action games cannot be readily measured in "content chunks." Survival horror games align with that category, as well. MOBAs are chalk full of players who don't mind heading into a match knowing it will take 45 minutes to complete. If it's fun enough for the experience to be rewarding in and of itself, the length of content "chunks" becomes less important. I wonder when, exactly, did video games become more about the virtual reward in the end (one that really holds no value outside of said game) than it's about the fun of actually, y'know, playing the game.
EDIT- I find it interesting, while on this topic, that the MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content. Speedily running dungeon after dungeon, grinding daily after daily.. Is there another genre where folks have become so focused on what they get after they finish a task, rather than how enjoyable it is to actually play the game in the first place?
In-game, of course.
Re: #2 -Of course, we're talking about the content that is fun to do. To repeat the example I gave before: I can log into UO, do some logging, make a few bows, and throw them on a vendor (with descriptions and my chosen placement because UO will ALWAYS be that far ahead of most MMOs) inside of a few minutes. Maybe recall to Yew to BS with a few people at the Abbey and then log out. 15-20 minutes of bite-sized content, none of it remotely relevant to the "length" of the game's content.
"MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content."
That's been a big part of the shift from tabletop to CRPG in general - less emphasis on the narrative and more on the progression.
I'm not sure where your response in #1 really contradicts anything I said. All you disputed seemed to be a matter of perspective, unless you were implying that you would get the same caliber reward 5-50 times for 5-50 smaller tasks in 2 hours as you would 3-4 times for accomplishing 3-4 larger tasks for that same timeframe. My original point applies, specifically, to the future of the genre; games like Pathfinder (emphasizing player construction, interaction, and group dynamics) and Camelot Unchained (massive-scale PvP). Both of those, due to their vision, will naturally require a higher session length commitment. If for nothing else, due to the logistics of moving that many players into organization. However, we may also find that the tasks (i.e. quests, certainly RvR objectives in CU) in these games become more lengthy as the demographic their shooting for is the more focused core of the genre. If statistics cited are any evidence, it makes a strong case for those developers' visions being implemented successfully (barring other, unrelated issues). Contrary to what many posters I've seen here have said about the genre (namely, it's moved the direction it has because the majority of players do not have as much time to play anymore and/or are not willing to commit so much time to these types of games because they have other things they would rather do instead), the sites I included actually show quite the opposite: more folks are increasingly spending time on this particular hobby (video games), and aren't afraid to sink a couple hours at a time in an MMORPG.
As for #2, if you enjoy that, then so be it. It works for you since you've mastered the craft you needed to make said bows. But still, compared to a player that crafts those bows for 2 hours, you will not make as much cash or progress in your craft. And certainly, if the progression for crafting is of any notable length, you would've made almost immeasurable progress along that craft line making just a few bows. So that doesn't show a developer really catering to players who want to play and make significant progress in 15-20 minutes of playtime so much as it just shows the traditional manner of crafting takes less time (due to the very nature of the thing) per item/task finished than pretty much all other content in an MMORPG.
As for the bolded part of your post, I certainly don't disagree. Do you think it was the best route to take? The experience taking a backseat to the carrot? Leaving Mob AI and the world so static and years behind what game developers (at least in other genres, including RPGs) are capable of?
Comments
In a sandbox, the entire point of the game is to be sand. Not hard, unyielding granite. The sand doesn't shape players, players shape the sand.
Something is a sandbox trait if it's characterized by player control. Something is a themepark trait if it's characterized by developers being in control.
Long sessions are a themepark trait. It's the developer saying "You must play for exactly as long as I tell you."
Short sessions are a sandbox trait. It's the developer saying, "It's up to you the player how long you want to play."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I played EVE-Online and Archeage (very light though) which probably colors my views in a certain way.
I think the conclusion (in a general, above 30,000 ft kind of way) is that Sandbox tries more often (compared to themeparks) to emulate real-life. Which in turns means some activities cannot be chopped up in 15-20mins portions.
I go for a jog around my block =/= I go on the Sydney Marathon
Obviously, there will be exceptions; e.g. I am told Wildstar while themepark has some very long raids.
But that's the overall conclusion I feel.
I would like to state that I never played Wildstar so I could have picked the wrong example.
It shows what PvP games are really all about, and no, it's not about more realism and immersion. It's about cowards hiding behind a screen to they can bully other defenseless players without any risk of direct retaliation like there would be if they acted like asshats in "real life". -Jean-Luc_Picard
Life itself is a game. So why shouldn't your game be ruined? - justmemyselfandi
I think most actions in a sandbox MMO are very good for short play sessions. It's possible to log on for just a couple of minutes to gather ingredients, craft something, or kill a couple more mobs collecting their drops.
Personally, I'm not interested to do that if I have just a couple of minutes. When playing I want to achieve something, and in a sandbox MMO I mostly think about the big picture and big achievements. They are the allure of sandbox MMO for me, but if I don't have time also its downfall since the progress I can make in 10 minutes feels meaningless.
I seriously can not, nor want to dispute what you say. It is true. We live in a society now where the slightest discomfort or requirement of effort has too many giving up. My shoulders slump because that is how the industry is, now. No more will we have games designed for specific smaller (150K to 750K) groups of players and everything hinges on "the bottom line."
When everything is sunshine and lollipops 100% of the time, there is no "bad" to make the "good", better by comparison. So, anything and everything "bad" is weeded out and the "good" becomes boring to many other players, not the "mainstream."
Maybe it should not, but this saddens me...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
What demographic do you think isn't being served though?
If a game has 15-minute sessions, then a player with 15 minutes of free time is able to play. Meanwhile the player with 2 hours of free time is able to play too (8 of the 15-minute chunks.)
I could see an argument that certain types of gameplay mandate a pacing that requires up to an hour of gameplay. But that's really the high end. So yeah, serving players who want those particular experiences will require an hour.
Keeping in mind the fact that most longer types of gameplay like a 3-hour raid can easily be broken down into a bunch of 15-30 minute chunks. The player with 3 hours is still going to run all of them in succession and get the same gameplay as before. But now everyone else is welcome to join too (which is even better for the player with more time, because it means more people to group with.) Replace "3-hour raid" with any other long-form gameplay and the result is the same.
I'm not really sure how the sunshine and lollipops comment really fits here. Games are supposed to fit into players' lives, not the other way around. This says nothing for the challenges confronted in those smaller pieces, it simply means "not enough time" was a stupid reason to bar entry to a game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But there's examples, in other genres, of incredibly successful games that do, generally, take much more than 15-20 minutes to make real progress.Take Rome: Total War as an example. Once you've maxed out an army and are fighting another, similarly sized army, or taking a city.. The battles alone will take 15-20 minutes. And that's literally from the time you hit "start battle" after deploying your units 'til the time the battle ends. This doesn't take into account the conquest map outside of battles, where armies are recruited (over multiple turns), armies are moved (you generally can't recruit troops outside of your own territory, so attacking means you must recruit first, then march across terrain/sail across a sea), and enemy forces are scouted. All of that is turn-based, with AI simulating anywhere from 5 to 25 other civilizations in between your turns.
That ends up meaning 15-20 minutes (if you include loading times) can find you literally only having loaded your game and regained your bearings regarding your territory, enemy threats, your armies/spies/other special units, diplomacy, etc. Though there is an option to just play a random battle, those battles can still take more than 15-20 minutes. And it hasn't been evolving away from that, as Total War 2 is just as lengthy. That series hasn't died due to any perceived realities of today's gamers. In fact, the player community is very much aware of the time-sink required to enjoy the game, and do not mind it due to the depth of play it offers. I don't see any reason why MMORPGs must include 15-20 minute bites to be a successful game.
In my opinion, it's more a residual effect of WoW's success. Many developers in the genre may not desire millions of dollars in profit every year. But, in order to release a AAA game, they need the financial backing of folks who do insist their investment make that kind of profit. Which is why I've mentioned multiple times that I hope the genre will soon return to the lesser-known niche it came from and desire to realize a vision will replace the desire to return millions every year on your investment.
EDIT- Also, a survey last year from Nielsen reveals that, contrary to popular belief, gamers are actually spending more time gaming per week than in previous years. The article states that amount of time gamers spend gaming per week has grown consistently over 3 years (ending with data for 2013), not decreased. So this thread and the arguments contained within may, in reality, be a moot point. Additionally, while I cannot find quantitative metrics from the website, GameHud seems to support the claim that PC players are still playing long sessions in RPGs. To quote: "If you are designing an RPG for PCs, you should expect a low average number of sessions per day but a very long average session length."
Define bite sized? Back in the EQ days my friends picked up a new RTS (I forget which one) and they wanted me to play with them. I told them I couldn't because I didn't have time for a game like that. They always replied that I was crazy since EQ was more time consuming than an RTS. Only thing is EQ was very easy for me to play until I had to log off and then I could quit right where I was. I would just play solo. An RTS I'm at the mercy of other people as to when I can be done playing. Same thing is true with instances in a MMORPG.
To me bite sized generally means something solo where I quit when my bite is done. That works just fine with a sandbox. Group content always has time constraints out of your control, that is true for a theme park or a sandbox.
But...you're giving an example of a short-session game...
In Total War you can save anytime it's not a battle and battles aren't longer than 30 minutes (as I recall, the majority of them are shorter than 10 minutes, yeah?) This means it's a game where you can make meaningful progress with a short session. (Also in the last TW game I played those longer battles are extremely rare; like once or twice in an entire many-hours-long campaign; which means that all the rest of the time it's very forgiving of shorter sessions.)
That Nielsen study describes a 24% increase in gaming hours and a 42% increase in mobile gaming. Combined with the GameHud comment "On the other hand, if you are designing a short run game on mobile, you should expect a high average number of sessions per day with a short average session length." it means it's a little shaky to try to use it as evidence of longer individual sessions. I wouldn't rule it out (and in fact I made the same assumption when I saw the data too; but then someone rightly pointed out the 42% increase in mobile.)
Either way, we have no reason to doubt the GameHud comment regarding RPG session length -- but we just covered how Total War is actually a short-session game and I'm sure the average session length of that game is also quite long. So average session length doesn't really speak to the good or bad of a game requiring big meaty chunks of uninterrupted gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not sure I agree that Total War is a short-session game. Unless you're constantly speeding up the battle time, any battles I've played have been at least 15 minutes. And, again, that's not including the time it takes to set your army up and move it into an advantageous position to take on the enemy. I guess it can depend upon some game settings, such as difficulty and battle sizes. I'd say, with the evidence cited, we could reasonably assume that MMORPG play times extend, on average, beyond the length of 15, 20, or even 30 minutes. (As additional evidence, consider this evidence from 2012 wherein Bioware employee reveals the average SW:TOR session length to be 4 to 6 hours.)
The point of the combined citations was to show that gamers are putting in plenty of hours per week and combining it with the GameHud metric summary that PC players (specifically, RPG players) put in less sessions per day, with longer continuous sessions. A 42% increase, I submit, is as much about the rise and availability of gaming apps and phones/tablets that can utilize those apps as it is the amount of time folks have to game. Most of those games deliberately limit the amount of productivity you can maintain continuously without spending money. As anecdotal evidence (take that as you will), I've not met a person playing those games that continuously spends money to extend their play sessions. They'd rather watch TV or engage in another hobby while waiting out the recharge/progression periods. Some of that waiting time is spent playing other video games on other platforms. It all adds up, in my opinion, to make the need for short, 15-20 minute bite-size chunks in MMORPGs not really that important when trying to appeal to most gamers in the genre.
EDIT- This topic has piqued my curiosity. In addition to the above evidence, the Raptr Awards for 2012 also happens to collect data on average session lengths. For the MMORPGs included in the PDF, we have:
WoW- ~2 hours average session
GW2- just under 2 hours (looking like approximately 1 hour, 40 minutes)
Given any one of the citations I've included, the average MMORPG session length is certainly debatable. I find it hard to reasonably debate this, however, when taking into account all the evidence cited (at least, unreasonable to assert MMORPGs need 15-20 minute chunks to enjoy widespread appeal in the genre).
Average is a pretty slippery slope though. There are people who routinely play 8 hour sessions and there are people that enjoy the games just fine on 15-30 minutes per session. Just depends on how much disposable time you have.
Not sure I can agree (while, certainly, with a standard deviation we could picture the playerbase more accurately); it would be remiss to ignore the data we can access when talking about these things. Certainly, if a potential investor consults GameHud, they will receive metric advice consistent with what I quoted.
The average also, by definition, gives us the rough estimate of what the majority of players consider their normal game session. Again, a standard deviation would shed even more light, but I don't think you can look at the data and go, "Yeah, but you still won't be successful in the genre unless you exclusively offer 15-20 minute sized chunks of content."
That's not to say developers won't do so to provide flexibility in gameplay. It's to say: developers have no real need to depend upon those "15-20 minute players" to achieve success in the genre.
We're talking about games having a High Minimum Session Length. Bite-sized sessions where you can accomplish something meaningful in under 30 minutes.
In that context, average session length has little if any relevance. Certainly if you eliminated all the bite-sized content in a game you could increase the average session length. Certainly if the average session length is that high then it's likely many players are playing for long spurts anyway. But it's guaranteed that it will also totally shut out certain other players -- and for what? Without a concrete benefit or reason to shut out those other players, a higher minimum session just doesn't make sense.
So WOW having 2 hours avg session doesn't speak to how many players are able to play WOW because they can accomplish something fun and meaningful inside of 30 minutes.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What you're stating is all true- and doesn't really conflict with what I'm saying.
The evidence shows MMOs do not need to cater to those players to enjoy success. As I state in a previous post, MMORPGs may very well include content for those folks to appeal to the widest variety of gamers. However, if the average session length is any indicator, a game such as EVE (where measurable progress arguably does take longer, on average, than 15-20 minutes) isn't an aberration; it simply plays to those folks who make up the majority of the genre's gamers (in terms of session lengths) at the exclusion, on one end of the spectrum, of players who might otherwise subscribe.
If the aim of the developers is to reach the maximum amount of players possible (with a willingness to sacrifice any visions they initially had for the game), then they will (and should) create an abundance of these small chunks of easily digestible content. If the developers have a vision for the game that does not include such small chunks (or makes progression immeasurable in such small amounts of time), they need not fear that their efforts are futile from the outset (when looking at the market from a gamer metrics point of view).
An obvious analogy Is comparing a crusty loaf where you can cut of what you like each time to a sliced loaf of bread where all you can have is slices 1cm wide - uniform and dull and not at all specialised.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
You seem to be working on two rather unsupported assumptions.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
For one, could you be more specific? Do you mean 5-50 things in-game, or 5-50 things around the house that includes playing a game, or..?
For number two, it depends upon the fun factor. Many singleplayer FPS/action games cannot be readily measured in "content chunks." Survival horror games align with that category, as well. MOBAs are chalk full of players who don't mind heading into a match knowing it will take 45 minutes to complete. If it's fun enough for the experience to be rewarding in and of itself, the length of content "chunks" becomes less important. I wonder when, exactly, did video games become more about the virtual reward in the end (one that really holds no value outside of said game) than it's about the fun of actually, y'know, playing the game.
EDIT- I find it interesting, while on this topic, that the MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content. Speedily running dungeon after dungeon, grinding daily after daily.. Is there another genre where folks have become so focused on what they get after they finish a task, rather than how enjoyable it is to actually play the game in the first place?
This is nothing new. Grind and spawncamping represent the bare minimum in terms of content and old school MMORPGs had plenty of it. You cannot set the bar any lower for the developer. The sort of monotonous gameplay they had couldn't possibly be justified with anything other than a virtual reward.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I can agree, but it hasn't much changed since the beginnings of the genre. We've had significant graphical and UI advancements... Mob AI and the static world haven't changed much at all. In some areas, they're almost exactly as they were when I played DAoC during the Shrouded Isles era. In the areas that have changed, it only changed how players get credit for and progress through the content, now in how the content interacts with the player or the world. It's mostly convenience changes to solve the spawncamping issue, really. Mobs still stand around, waiting to be slaughtered. Still simply attack the player dealing it the most damage (or attacking the player spamming the taunt), still respawning with exactly the same characteristics and abilities in exactly the same numbers as before. ESO and some others have done work with the static world, but it's work is done in the form of a singleplayer game and not in a manner which meshes well with a shared world.
In-game, of course.
Re: #2 -Of course, we're talking about the content that is fun to do. To repeat the example I gave before: I can log into UO, do some logging, make a few bows, and throw them on a vendor (with descriptions and my chosen placement because UO will ALWAYS be that far ahead of most MMOs) inside of a few minutes. Maybe recall to Yew to BS with a few people at the Abbey and then log out. 15-20 minutes of bite-sized content, none of it remotely relevant to the "length" of the game's content.
"MMORPG genre has become more about the promise of a reward at the end of the content than it has about actually experiencing said content."
That's been a big part of the shift from tabletop to CRPG in general - less emphasis on the narrative and more on the progression.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm not sure where your response in #1 really contradicts anything I said. All you disputed seemed to be a matter of perspective, unless you were implying that you would get the same caliber reward 5-50 times for 5-50 smaller tasks in 2 hours as you would 3-4 times for accomplishing 3-4 larger tasks for that same timeframe. My original point applies, specifically, to the future of the genre; games like Pathfinder (emphasizing player construction, interaction, and group dynamics) and Camelot Unchained (massive-scale PvP). Both of those, due to their vision, will naturally require a higher session length commitment. If for nothing else, due to the logistics of moving that many players into organization. However, we may also find that the tasks (i.e. quests, certainly RvR objectives in CU) in these games become more lengthy as the demographic their shooting for is the more focused core of the genre. If statistics cited are any evidence, it makes a strong case for those developers' visions being implemented successfully (barring other, unrelated issues). Contrary to what many posters I've seen here have said about the genre (namely, it's moved the direction it has because the majority of players do not have as much time to play anymore and/or are not willing to commit so much time to these types of games because they have other things they would rather do instead), the sites I included actually show quite the opposite: more folks are increasingly spending time on this particular hobby (video games), and aren't afraid to sink a couple hours at a time in an MMORPG.
As for #2, if you enjoy that, then so be it. It works for you since you've mastered the craft you needed to make said bows. But still, compared to a player that crafts those bows for 2 hours, you will not make as much cash or progress in your craft. And certainly, if the progression for crafting is of any notable length, you would've made almost immeasurable progress along that craft line making just a few bows. So that doesn't show a developer really catering to players who want to play and make significant progress in 15-20 minutes of playtime so much as it just shows the traditional manner of crafting takes less time (due to the very nature of the thing) per item/task finished than pretty much all other content in an MMORPG.
As for the bolded part of your post, I certainly don't disagree. Do you think it was the best route to take? The experience taking a backseat to the carrot? Leaving Mob AI and the world so static and years behind what game developers (at least in other genres, including RPGs) are capable of?