Oh look another person that thinks the sun rises and sets on their ass. Do be careful when you get off your high horse. Wouldn't want you fall and hurt yourself.
Since when has MMO meant you have to do it as a group? I'm pretty sure the term was meant to describe a game world in which many people play or coexist in. Besides the only people that want to see solo content gone from online games are anti-social people that are too inept to make friends of their own. They need the developers, and game to do it for them.
Certainly the industry changed but it would be disingenuous to claim the MMOs were founded around group play. Going back to the earliest MMOs (Black Sun, The Realms, Merdian 59, UO, AC, EQ, DAOC...) you will see the foundations of group play and the systems that supported it. The genre may have drastically changed over the last 10+ years but it is tough to dispute that grouping wasn't at it's core back then and if you have a hard time believing that then check out the the writings of the original MMOs DEVs.
There was nothing forcing you to group but the game was designed to encourage it, support it and reward it beyond what was achievable by playing solo. Developers even protected group play and nerfed many of the solo strategies, added high end content and Epic gear that was ONLY obtainable by playing in HUGE groups.
So yea times have changed and the genre chased the casual money, but no matter how much you hate player interdependence and grouping you simply can't erase history to support your solo argument.
Honestly, I cant see why anyone still agrees that solo is better.
At this point, after all the threads you've created and participated in on the topic, it's obviously because you simply don't want to see why.
+100
Burn baby burn, disco inferno.
Originally posted by laokoko "if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
WoW became more popular after adding group finders and removing the barrier to entry of needing to manually make groups. It then added the ability to get some end game gear from solo reputation grinds.
SWTOR failed for lots of reasons. They indeed spent an exorbitant amount of money on individual class stories but then made you redo 80% of the content on alts of the same faction. The game lacked group finders, had a poor engine and was filled with major PVP exploits. They released a WOW clone and ignored true 3D space combat.
In the end they failed for the same reasons many games do, they released the game far too soon.
Originally posted by JohnP0100 You must be looking at a fictional 'market' cause over here in the real world solo focused Mmos are doing just fine. Gw2 sold 5 million Swtor makes 100-200 million in revenue every year Wow still has 7 million subs
Guild wars 2 is rumored to have costed upwards of 150M+ 3 years ago. 5 million box sales @ even $50 (it currently costs $40) is only 250M. Sorry, but that is mediocre at best from an MMO.
SWToR... really? Its now a F2P game and its been known to be struggling for years now. The game cost over 200M to make, and it lost popularity well before it even recuperated that amount. 100M-200M may sound like a lot to you, but its not impressive at all considering the cost to create, maintain and continue developing for such an enterprise.
WoW is still doing well, as I said. However, it was "reported" to have 7M subs several months ago, and over half of those "subs" are not actually subs, but Pay per play users from eastern countries that account for less than 10% of their annual revenue.
Many of these themepark games are still new enough to continue on for now, but there is a reason why they have to transform into F2P games, and (hint) its not because F2P is a more profitable way to monetize MMOs in the long term.
Looks like I'm living in reality, and you only want to believe otherwise.
WoW became more popular after adding group finders and removing the barrier to entry of needing to manually make groups. It then added the ability to get some end game gear from solo reputation grinds.
SWTOR failed for lots of reasons. They indeed spent an exorbitant amount of money on individual class stories but then made you redo 80% of the content on alts of the same faction. The game lacked group finders, had a poor engine and was filled with major PVP exploits. They released a WOW clone and ignored true 3D space combat.
In the end they failed for the same reasons many games do, they released the game far too soon.
Red parts
1) Group finders are a great addition to mmos, I would hate to have to manually look for a group again.
2) All that money they are making undermines your notion of SWTOR failing.
Originally posted by laokoko "if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
I am convinced that most, if not all, of these "force" group-centric people are looking at grouping with rose-colored glasses.
While I would certainly agree that the "force" grouping crown is a minority, it seems to be very focused on what it wants and when fully supports the play style when given the option like with the recently release of the EQ1 progression servers and hundreds of thousands of dollars being thrown around to Kickstarters for group focus play. I think the Rose colored glass meme is just a reaction to the playstyle you dislike and an easy way for you to out of hand dismiss it.
I know that is can hard to fathom but some people actually enjoy the player interdependence and challenging game play that group focused play provides. Sure there are many for casual / solo players out there but I remind myself that there are many more McDonalds restaurants out there but you would be hard pressed to claim that the food product they offer is better than the old fashioned Diners or Pubs.
Just because more people eat it or play it doesn't mean that its good.
I am convinced that most, if not all, of these "force" group-centric people are looking at grouping with rose-colored glasses.
While I would certainly agree that the "force" grouping crown is a minority, it seems to be very focused on what it wants and when fully supports the play style when given the option like with the recently release of the EQ1 progression servers and hundreds of thousands of dollars being thrown around to Kickstarters for group focus play. I think the Rose colored glass meme is just a reaction to the playstyle you dislike and an easy way for you to out of hand dismiss it.
I know that is can hard to fathom but some people actually enjoy the player interdependence and challenging game play that group focused play provides. Sure there are many for casual / solo players out there but I remind myself that there are many more McDonalds restaurants out there but you would be hard pressed to claim that the food product they offer is better than the old fashioned Diners or Pubs.
Just because more people eat it or play it doesn't mean that its good.
The focused and vocal "forced-group" crowd is a niche group not unlike the focused and vocal "forced" OWPvP crowd. Nothing "forced" has a chance of succeeding in the MMORPG genre. The "massive" in MMORPG is all-inclusive and pretty much says it all, and the "massively" in MMORPG" can only succeed when a massive amount of people are playing. That objective is obviously not satisfied with only a niche group like "forced-grouping," or "forced-OWPvP" crowds. That "massive" is obviously better represented in the majority than it is in that "niche" minority regardless of how focused or vocal that minority may be. And the money will always follow the majority.
The few "inspired" progression servers of "group-centric" games are nothing but a cash grab to capitalize on the "rose-colored" interest of the "niche" minority of group of players you speak of. Even so, developers are well aware that the "resurgence" of one or two progression servers of an older game do not warrant the attention, interest, and most importantly the necessary funding of AAA development. No matter how much you wish for it, its just not there anymore. The player demographic has changed. It is simply an unsustainable business model for today's player demographic.
The focused and vocal "forced-group" crowd is a niche group not unlike the focused and vocal "forced" OWPvP crowd. Nothing "forced" has a chance of succeeding in the MMORPG genre. The "massive" in MMORPG is all-inclusive and pretty much says it all, and the "massively" in MMORPG" can only succeed when a massive amount of people are playing. That objective is obviously not satisfied with only a niche group like "forced-grouping," or "forced-OWPvP" crowds. That "massive" is obviously better represented in the majority than it is in that "niche" minority regardless of how focused or vocal that minority may be. And the money will always follow the majority.
The few "inspired" progression servers of "group-centric" games are nothing but a cash grab to capitalize on the "rose-colored" interest of the "niche" minority of group of players you speak of. Even so, developers are well aware that the "resurgence" of one or two progression servers of an older game do not warrant the attention, interest, and most importantly the necessary funding of AAA development. No matter how much you wish for it, its just not there anymore. The player demographic has changed. It is simply an unsustainable business model for today's player demographic.
Stick a fork in it. It's done. Over with. Kaput.
LoL seriously your debate ends with something as trite as...
( I don't agree with you, the type of MMO you like is dead ) Stick a fork in itm It's done. Over with. Kaput.
Well somebody better alert the media and let all the developers know. I mean Daybreak Studios just announced that the Progression servers were so overwhelmingly successful they are going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to build even more for EQ2 . You know so they can waste money chasing something that has no importance because that type of game is Kpaut and all.
Again enjoy your McMMO with the extra large solo focus and flithy casual sauce. I have more complex tastes and will instead enjoy my group focused fare in a nice MMO that forgoes the AAA glitz so they can have a healthy sustainable business that caters to their core customers and doesn't try to provide the bland over-processed all you can buffet.
Some days you want to go to the Sports Bar, drink beer with your friends and talk or watch 'Sports' (Football / Baseball / Basketball / whatever).
Some days you'd rather have a gathering at your place with the BBQ at the backyard and your TV on with whatever Sports.
Some days you'd rather watch the game in private with your family.
Gasp! It is as if people have a CHOICE now and they can play to their preference!
You like forced grouping? Play games that does that.
You like solo-focused gameplay? Play games that does that.
The only 'problem' I see is your insistence that people like what you like and play games that you like.
Can someone point me toward the MMO that the majority of the game play is forced grouping? One currently playable in that state? I would like to sign up for it now....
Originally posted by JohnP0100 You must be looking at a fictional 'market' cause over here in the real world solo focused Mmos are doing just fine. Gw2 sold 5 million Swtor makes 100-200 million in revenue every year Wow still has 7 million subs
Guild wars 2 is rumored to have costed upwards of 150M+ 3 years ago. 5 million box sales @ even $50 (it currently costs $40) is only 250M. Sorry, but that is mediocre at best from an MMO.
Nice job ignoring all the money that GW2 makes from microtransactions and only focusing on the box sales.
Now who's going out of their way to support their argument? And I fully believe you're smart enough to know that GW2's made quite a bit of money on those.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
The focused and vocal "forced-group" crowd is a niche group not unlike the focused and vocal "forced" OWPvP crowd. Nothing "forced" has a chance of succeeding in the MMORPG genre. The "massive" in MMORPG is all-inclusive and pretty much says it all, and the "massively" in MMORPG" can only succeed when a massive amount of people are playing. That objective is obviously not satisfied with only a niche group like "forced-grouping," or "forced-OWPvP" crowds. That "massive" is obviously better represented in the majority than it is in that "niche" minority regardless of how focused or vocal that minority may be. And the money will always follow the majority.
The few "inspired" progression servers of "group-centric" games are nothing but a cash grab to capitalize on the "rose-colored" interest of the "niche" minority of group of players you speak of. Even so, developers are well aware that the "resurgence" of one or two progression servers of an older game do not warrant the attention, interest, and most importantly the necessary funding of AAA development. No matter how much you wish for it, its just not there anymore. The player demographic has changed. It is simply an unsustainable business model for today's player demographic.
Stick a fork in it. It's done. Over with. Kaput.
LoL seriously your debate ends with something as trite as...
( I don't agree with you, the type of MMO you like is dead ) Stick a fork in itm It's done. Over with. Kaput.
Well somebody better alert the media and let all the developers know. I mean Daybreak Studios just announced that the Progression servers were so overwhelmingly successful they are going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to build even more for EQ2 . You know so they can waste money chasing something that has no importance because that type of game is Kpaut and all.
Cheers.
Hundreds of thousands for a couple of extra servers to run a game with system requirements from the dark ages? Seriously?
They'd spent more on those servers than they get from their subscriptions if that were the case.
Clearly someone's a little out of touch with today's technology.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Some days you want to go to the Sports Bar, drink beer with your friends and talk or watch 'Sports' (Football / Baseball / Basketball / whatever).
Some days you'd rather have a gathering at your place with the BBQ at the backyard and your TV on with whatever Sports.
Some days you'd rather watch the game in private with your family.
Gasp! It is as if people have a CHOICE now and they can play to their preference!
You like forced grouping? Play games that does that.
You like solo-focused gameplay? Play games that does that.
The only 'problem' I see is your insistence that people like what you like and play games that you like.
Can someone point me toward the MMO that the majority of the game play is forced grouping? One currently playable in that state? I would like to sign up for it now....
I heard FFXIV:ARR has forced grouping, but that is probably relevant to dungeons only, just like every other MMO. I never got far enough in that game though to know. Back in the day, it was LIneage that forced grouping.
The problem with threads like these, is that they never discuss details as to which content should be group-only.
Originally posted by JohnP0100 You must be looking at a fictional 'market' cause over here in the real world solo focused Mmos are doing just fine. Gw2 sold 5 million Swtor makes 100-200 million in revenue every year Wow still has 7 million subs
Guild wars 2 is rumored to have costed upwards of 150M+ 3 years ago. 5 million box sales @ even $50 (it currently costs $40) is only 250M. Sorry, but that is mediocre at best from an MMO.
Nice job ignoring all the money that GW2 makes from microtransactions and only focusing on the box sales.
Now who's going out of their way to support their argument? And I fully believe you're smart enough to know that GW2's made quite a bit of money on those.
I know they've made money from it, yet whatever level of success its brought them, its still obviously not enough to convince game companies to develop new MMOs around that same casual "solo-play" design.
Lets step back and look at this objectively. If the current leaders in this genre are so successful, why has their popularity waned, why did they switched to F2P, and why have the number of games based on this design philosophy decreased so substantially? Its self evident.
Originally posted by JohnP0100 You must be looking at a fictional 'market' cause over here in the real world solo focused Mmos are doing just fine. Gw2 sold 5 million Swtor makes 100-200 million in revenue every year Wow still has 7 million subs
Guild wars 2 is rumored to have costed upwards of 150M+ 3 years ago. 5 million box sales @ even $50 (it currently costs $40) is only 250M. Sorry, but that is mediocre at best from an MMO.
Nice job ignoring all the money that GW2 makes from microtransactions and only focusing on the box sales.
Now who's going out of their way to support their argument? And I fully believe you're smart enough to know that GW2's made quite a bit of money on those.
I know they've made money from it, yet whatever level of success its brought them, its still obviously not enough to convince game companies to develop new MMOs around that same casual "solo-play" design.
Lets step back and look at this objectively. If the current leaders in this genre were so successful, why has their popularity waned, have they switched to F2P, and the number of games based on this design philosophy decreased so substantially? Its self evident.
Over-inflation would be my theory. There's simply too many MMOs all revolving around the same concept. We've gotten to the point where shooting for a more niche audience is starting to look far more appealing than trying to compete with the already established titans of the industry. (not to mention the gazillion smaller sized ones)
Despite appearances, a lot of people are actually very loyal to their chosen MMO. Sure, they'll try something new for a month or two when it goes live, but once the new and shiny wears off they tend to return to their favorite MMO. The one where they have the most time and money invested in.
You see the above behavior with WoW a lot, with GW2 as well. And with any number of other games.
It's also worth noting that while there aren't any AAA themeparks, solo friendly, or whatever you want to call them MMO's coming up, there also aren't any group focused ones either. All those are coming from Indies.
The people who claim the MMO genre is "dead" are probably closer to the truth than those who believe that forced grouping is the future.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Over-inflation would be my theory. There's simply too many MMOs all revolving around the same concept. We've gotten to the point where shooting for a more niche audience is starting to look far more appealing than trying to compete with the already established titans of the industry. (not to mention the gazillion smaller sized ones)
Despite appearances, a lot of people are actually very loyal to their chosen MMO. Sure, they'll try something new for a month or two when it goes live, but once the new and shiny wears off they tend to return to their favorite MMO. The one where they have the most time and money invested in.
You see the above behavior with WoW a lot, with GW2 as well. And with any number of other games.
Do you actually have data on this? Didn't someone mentioned that most players don't play MMO for more then a few months, if they do indeed. Didn't most of WOW players didn't reach level 10 and quit?
And you also assume players will just play MMO. May be it is more appealing to do a single player game since it is a lot less costly. In fact, if you look at indie dev, 99.999% are not MMOs probably because of that.
Over-inflation would be my theory. There's simply too many MMOs all revolving around the same concept. We've gotten to the point where shooting for a more niche audience is starting to look far more appealing than trying to compete with the already established titans of the industry. (not to mention the gazillion smaller sized ones)
Despite appearances, a lot of people are actually very loyal to their chosen MMO. Sure, they'll try something new for a month or two when it goes live, but once the new and shiny wears off they tend to return to their favorite MMO. The one where they have the most time and money invested in.
You see the above behavior with WoW a lot, with GW2 as well. And with any number of other games.
Do you actually have data on this? Didn't someone mentioned that most players don't play MMO for more then a few months, if they do indeed. Didn't most of WOW players didn't reach level 10 and quit?
And you also assume players will just play MMO. May be it is more appealing to do a single player game since it is a lot less costly. In fact, if you look at indie dev, 99.999% are not MMOs probably because of that.
It's more speculation than anything, based on interactions with people I've known both IRL and online.
Besides, how would someone do the math? Lets say you're like a former colleague of mine. Huge GW2 fan, but also a huge gamer as well. He checked out new MMOs for a month or two, along with single & multi player games, and then went back to GW2.
For the MMOs where he only sticks around for the free month he'd obviously fall into the game hopper category, but for GW2 specifically he'd be a loyal player. Where does that put him in the grand scheme of things?
Another thing I've noticed about these players is that they actively look for flaws in the new MMOs that they play, where they can say that WoW/GW2/otherMMO did it a lot better. Their way of looking for an excuse to return to their familiar playground perhaps.
And of course, the vast majority of players probably didn't reach level 10, as it would include everyone that's ever tried a trial as well.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
And of course, the vast majority of players probably didn't reach level 10, as it would include everyone that's ever tried a trial as well.
then how would they be loyal to MMOs since they probably just try and don't even play MMOs seriously?
How do you know that? And how does the person who did the metrics?
For all we know they went "Bah, EQ's much better than this crap, I'm going to go back and play over there some more instead." Or that particular MMO simply didn't appeal to them.
Everyone gets burnout sometimes. It's also important to note that by "loyal" in this case I mean they play it long term, not that they play it exclusively and touch nothing else.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I am convinced that most, if not all, of these "force" group-centric people are looking at grouping with rose-colored glasses.
While I would certainly agree that the "force" grouping crown is a minority, it seems to be very focused on what it wants and when fully supports the play style when given the option like with the recently release of the EQ1 progression servers and hundreds of thousands of dollars being thrown around to Kickstarters for group focus play. I think the Rose colored glass meme is just a reaction to the playstyle you dislike and an easy way for you to out of hand dismiss it.
I know that is can hard to fathom but some people actually enjoy the player interdependence and challenging game play that group focused play provides. Sure there are many for casual / solo players out there but I remind myself that there are many more McDonalds restaurants out there but you would be hard pressed to claim that the food product they offer is better than the old fashioned Diners or Pubs.
Just because more people eat it or play it doesn't mean that its good.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Can someone please lock this thread? Nothing good can come out of it...
Plus, there's (at least one) thread about this exact topic already.
Really? How many threads have you come by this week that are analogizing MMO's and Club Dance Partys?
Also If you see a "Pattern" to someones posts, maybe thats because, they have an opinion and vocalize it, and this is a forum which is what you are supposed to do!?
Now to the topic at hand, anyone saying Solo-games are doing well is just 100% incorrect, and heres why.
The market change for F2P transition would never have occurred in a Sandbox/Group centric market.
Why? Because those games were built around subs because of the long term needs of the developers to maintain servers, provide new content, etc.
Does anyone here work in the industry? I have a friend who works on an MMO, which I will not disclose, but he described "Mega-servers" to me, and you know what they are?
A Short-cut, its a way to cut the heavy server costs for MMO's and to make it more cost-efficient for developers. And hey! Thats fine, but when games are F2P, using Megaservers, and allowing for No Group content at all, when the players are divided this much, stop calling it an MMO.
Call it a "CORPG" or "Co-operative Roleplaying Game" and be done with it. Guild Wars 1 is the only MMO to date that uses this term, and I dont understand why.
O no I do understand why, Money. Anyone defending 90% solo MMO's is just defending Big Corporations and Big Money saturating the MMO market, and all that is doing is putting us back down the hole and into an MMO depression.
The amount of people concerned with what i spend my money on is hilarious.
Currently subscribed to Swtor and apparently this will cause MMO depression or something. The power of me!!! Lol!
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
Can someone please lock this thread? Nothing good can come out of it...
Plus, there's (at least one) thread about this exact topic already.
Really? How many threads have you come by this week that are analogizing MMO's and Club Dance Partys?
Also If you see a "Pattern" to someones posts, maybe thats because, they have an opinion and vocalize it, and this is a forum which is what you are supposed to do!?
Now to the topic at hand, anyone saying Solo-games are doing well is just 100% incorrect, and heres why.
The market change for F2P transition would never have occurred in a Sandbox/Group centric market.
Why? Because those games were built around subs because of the long term needs of the developers to maintain servers, provide new content, etc.
Does anyone here work in the industry? I have a friend who works on an MMO, which I will not disclose, but he described "Mega-servers" to me, and you know what they are?
A Short-cut, its a way to cut the heavy server costs for MMO's and to make it more cost-efficient for developers. And hey! Thats fine, but when games are F2P, using Megaservers, and allowing for No Group content at all, when the players are divided this much, stop calling it an MMO.
Call it a "CORPG" or "Co-operative Roleplaying Game" and be done with it. Guild Wars 1 is the only MMO to date that uses this term, and I dont understand why.
O no I do understand why, Money. Anyone defending 90% solo MMO's is just defending Big Corporations and Big Money saturating the MMO market, and all that is doing is putting us back down the hole and into an MMO depression.
What exactly should be group-oriented content? Nobody wants to be specific. What is the proper balance between group and solo gameplay? 50/50? Or should it be 100% group? If so, how would you do that then? Are you talking about questing? Grinding? Instances?
You talk about a "Sandbox/Group centric market", but never define specifically what it even means. It seems contradictory to me.
To claim that solo-centric gameplay is the reason for F2P and megaservers, is just ridiculous.
Originally posted by JohnP0100 You must be looking at a fictional 'market' cause over here in the real world solo focused Mmos are doing just fine. Gw2 sold 5 million Swtor makes 100-200 million in revenue every year Wow still has 7 million subs
Guild wars 2 is rumored to have costed upwards of 150M+ 3 years ago. 5 million box sales @ even $50 (it currently costs $40) is only 250M. Sorry, but that is mediocre at best from an MMO.
Nice job ignoring all the money that GW2 makes from microtransactions and only focusing on the box sales.
Now who's going out of their way to support their argument? And I fully believe you're smart enough to know that GW2's made quite a bit of money on those.
I know they've made money from it, yet whatever level of success its brought them, its still obviously not enough to convince game companies to develop new MMOs around that same casual "solo-play" design.
Lets step back and look at this objectively. If the current leaders in this genre are so successful, why has their popularity waned, why did they switched to F2P, and why have the number of games based on this design philosophy decreased so substantially? Its self evident.
Umm.. I'm sorry to break this to you everyone can see your post!
So we went from "MMOs that revolve around solo play are struggling, scraping up whatever they can from new players on the F2P monetization."
To 'They've made money from it'.
You know, I normally find other posts by DIFFERENT POSTERS to contradict someone but this is probably my first where I can just point to the SAME POSTER on contradiction in their posts. IN the same thread too! WOW!
ROFL!
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
Comments
Certainly the industry changed but it would be disingenuous to claim the MMOs were founded around group play. Going back to the earliest MMOs (Black Sun, The Realms, Merdian 59, UO, AC, EQ, DAOC...) you will see the foundations of group play and the systems that supported it. The genre may have drastically changed over the last 10+ years but it is tough to dispute that grouping wasn't at it's core back then and if you have a hard time believing that then check out the the writings of the original MMOs DEVs.
There was nothing forcing you to group but the game was designed to encourage it, support it and reward it beyond what was achievable by playing solo. Developers even protected group play and nerfed many of the solo strategies, added high end content and Epic gear that was ONLY obtainable by playing in HUGE groups.
So yea times have changed and the genre chased the casual money, but no matter how much you hate player interdependence and grouping you simply can't erase history to support your solo argument.
Burn baby burn, disco inferno.
Originally posted by laokoko
"if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
WoW became more popular after adding group finders and removing the barrier to entry of needing to manually make groups. It then added the ability to get some end game gear from solo reputation grinds.
SWTOR failed for lots of reasons. They indeed spent an exorbitant amount of money on individual class stories but then made you redo 80% of the content on alts of the same faction. The game lacked group finders, had a poor engine and was filled with major PVP exploits. They released a WOW clone and ignored true 3D space combat.
In the end they failed for the same reasons many games do, they released the game far too soon.
Guild wars 2 is rumored to have costed upwards of 150M+ 3 years ago. 5 million box sales @ even $50 (it currently costs $40) is only 250M. Sorry, but that is mediocre at best from an MMO.
SWToR... really? Its now a F2P game and its been known to be struggling for years now. The game cost over 200M to make, and it lost popularity well before it even recuperated that amount. 100M-200M may sound like a lot to you, but its not impressive at all considering the cost to create, maintain and continue developing for such an enterprise.
WoW is still doing well, as I said. However, it was "reported" to have 7M subs several months ago, and over half of those "subs" are not actually subs, but Pay per play users from eastern countries that account for less than 10% of their annual revenue.
Many of these themepark games are still new enough to continue on for now, but there is a reason why they have to transform into F2P games, and (hint) its not because F2P is a more profitable way to monetize MMOs in the long term.
Looks like I'm living in reality, and you only want to believe otherwise.
Red parts
1) Group finders are a great addition to mmos, I would hate to have to manually look for a group again.
2) All that money they are making undermines your notion of SWTOR failing.
Originally posted by laokoko
"if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
While I would certainly agree that the "force" grouping crown is a minority, it seems to be very focused on what it wants and when fully supports the play style when given the option like with the recently release of the EQ1 progression servers and hundreds of thousands of dollars being thrown around to Kickstarters for group focus play. I think the Rose colored glass meme is just a reaction to the playstyle you dislike and an easy way for you to out of hand dismiss it.
I know that is can hard to fathom but some people actually enjoy the player interdependence and challenging game play that group focused play provides. Sure there are many for casual / solo players out there but I remind myself that there are many more McDonalds restaurants out there but you would be hard pressed to claim that the food product they offer is better than the old fashioned Diners or Pubs.
Just because more people eat it or play it doesn't mean that its good.
The focused and vocal "forced-group" crowd is a niche group not unlike the focused and vocal "forced" OWPvP crowd. Nothing "forced" has a chance of succeeding in the MMORPG genre. The "massive" in MMORPG is all-inclusive and pretty much says it all, and the "massively" in MMORPG" can only succeed when a massive amount of people are playing. That objective is obviously not satisfied with only a niche group like "forced-grouping," or "forced-OWPvP" crowds. That "massive" is obviously better represented in the majority than it is in that "niche" minority regardless of how focused or vocal that minority may be. And the money will always follow the majority.
The few "inspired" progression servers of "group-centric" games are nothing but a cash grab to capitalize on the "rose-colored" interest of the "niche" minority of group of players you speak of. Even so, developers are well aware that the "resurgence" of one or two progression servers of an older game do not warrant the attention, interest, and most importantly the necessary funding of AAA development. No matter how much you wish for it, its just not there anymore. The player demographic has changed. It is simply an unsustainable business model for today's player demographic.
Stick a fork in it. It's done. Over with. Kaput.
LoL seriously your debate ends with something as trite as...
( I don't agree with you, the type of MMO you like is dead ) Stick a fork in itm It's done. Over with. Kaput.
Well somebody better alert the media and let all the developers know. I mean Daybreak Studios just announced that the Progression servers were so overwhelmingly successful they are going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to build even more for EQ2 . You know so they can waste money chasing something that has no importance because that type of game is Kpaut and all.
Again enjoy your McMMO with the extra large solo focus and flithy casual sauce. I have more complex tastes and will instead enjoy my group focused fare in a nice MMO that forgoes the AAA glitz so they can have a healthy sustainable business that caters to their core customers and doesn't try to provide the bland over-processed all you can buffet.
Cheers.
Can someone point me toward the MMO that the majority of the game play is forced grouping? One currently playable in that state? I would like to sign up for it now....
Nice job ignoring all the money that GW2 makes from microtransactions and only focusing on the box sales.
Now who's going out of their way to support their argument? And I fully believe you're smart enough to know that GW2's made quite a bit of money on those.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
This
God these type of post are so elitist. My way or nothing.
Hundreds of thousands for a couple of extra servers to run a game with system requirements from the dark ages? Seriously?
They'd spent more on those servers than they get from their subscriptions if that were the case.
Clearly someone's a little out of touch with today's technology.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
I heard FFXIV:ARR has forced grouping, but that is probably relevant to dungeons only, just like every other MMO. I never got far enough in that game though to know. Back in the day, it was LIneage that forced grouping.
The problem with threads like these, is that they never discuss details as to which content should be group-only.
I know they've made money from it, yet whatever level of success its brought them, its still obviously not enough to convince game companies to develop new MMOs around that same casual "solo-play" design.
Lets step back and look at this objectively. If the current leaders in this genre are so successful, why has their popularity waned, why did they switched to F2P, and why have the number of games based on this design philosophy decreased so substantially? Its self evident.
"good" is subjective. More people play it means that more people like it.
Over-inflation would be my theory. There's simply too many MMOs all revolving around the same concept. We've gotten to the point where shooting for a more niche audience is starting to look far more appealing than trying to compete with the already established titans of the industry. (not to mention the gazillion smaller sized ones)
Despite appearances, a lot of people are actually very loyal to their chosen MMO. Sure, they'll try something new for a month or two when it goes live, but once the new and shiny wears off they tend to return to their favorite MMO. The one where they have the most time and money invested in.
You see the above behavior with WoW a lot, with GW2 as well. And with any number of other games.
It's also worth noting that while there aren't any AAA themeparks, solo friendly, or whatever you want to call them MMO's coming up, there also aren't any group focused ones either. All those are coming from Indies.
The people who claim the MMO genre is "dead" are probably closer to the truth than those who believe that forced grouping is the future.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Do you actually have data on this? Didn't someone mentioned that most players don't play MMO for more then a few months, if they do indeed. Didn't most of WOW players didn't reach level 10 and quit?
And you also assume players will just play MMO. May be it is more appealing to do a single player game since it is a lot less costly. In fact, if you look at indie dev, 99.999% are not MMOs probably because of that.
It's more speculation than anything, based on interactions with people I've known both IRL and online.
Besides, how would someone do the math? Lets say you're like a former colleague of mine. Huge GW2 fan, but also a huge gamer as well. He checked out new MMOs for a month or two, along with single & multi player games, and then went back to GW2.
For the MMOs where he only sticks around for the free month he'd obviously fall into the game hopper category, but for GW2 specifically he'd be a loyal player. Where does that put him in the grand scheme of things?
Another thing I've noticed about these players is that they actively look for flaws in the new MMOs that they play, where they can say that WoW/GW2/otherMMO did it a lot better. Their way of looking for an excuse to return to their familiar playground perhaps.
And of course, the vast majority of players probably didn't reach level 10, as it would include everyone that's ever tried a trial as well.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
then how would they be loyal to MMOs since they probably just try and don't even play MMOs seriously?
How do you know that? And how does the person who did the metrics?
For all we know they went "Bah, EQ's much better than this crap, I'm going to go back and play over there some more instead." Or that particular MMO simply didn't appeal to them.
Everyone gets burnout sometimes. It's also important to note that by "loyal" in this case I mean they play it long term, not that they play it exclusively and touch nothing else.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
But apparently it is enough to condemn it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Really? How many threads have you come by this week that are analogizing MMO's and Club Dance Partys?
Also If you see a "Pattern" to someones posts, maybe thats because, they have an opinion and vocalize it, and this is a forum which is what you are supposed to do!?
Now to the topic at hand, anyone saying Solo-games are doing well is just 100% incorrect, and heres why.
The market change for F2P transition would never have occurred in a Sandbox/Group centric market.
Why? Because those games were built around subs because of the long term needs of the developers to maintain servers, provide new content, etc.
Does anyone here work in the industry? I have a friend who works on an MMO, which I will not disclose, but he described "Mega-servers" to me, and you know what they are?
A Short-cut, its a way to cut the heavy server costs for MMO's and to make it more cost-efficient for developers. And hey! Thats fine, but when games are F2P, using Megaservers, and allowing for No Group content at all, when the players are divided this much, stop calling it an MMO.
Call it a "CORPG" or "Co-operative Roleplaying Game" and be done with it. Guild Wars 1 is the only MMO to date that uses this term, and I dont understand why.
O no I do understand why, Money. Anyone defending 90% solo MMO's is just defending Big Corporations and Big Money saturating the MMO market, and all that is doing is putting us back down the hole and into an MMO depression.
Currently subscribed to Swtor and apparently this will cause MMO depression or something. The power of me!!! Lol!
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
What exactly should be group-oriented content? Nobody wants to be specific. What is the proper balance between group and solo gameplay? 50/50? Or should it be 100% group? If so, how would you do that then? Are you talking about questing? Grinding? Instances?
You talk about a "Sandbox/Group centric market", but never define specifically what it even means. It seems contradictory to me.
To claim that solo-centric gameplay is the reason for F2P and megaservers, is just ridiculous.
Umm.. I'm sorry to break this to you everyone can see your post!
So we went from "MMOs that revolve around solo play are struggling, scraping up whatever they can from new players on the F2P monetization."
To 'They've made money from it'.
You know, I normally find other posts by DIFFERENT POSTERS to contradict someone but this is probably my first where I can just point to the SAME POSTER on contradiction in their posts. IN the same thread too! WOW!
ROFL!
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