Well, the reason MMO became solo games is because of several things I think:
-influence of Korean MMO that are about looks instand of substance -influence of fast-paced action combat over slow strategic trinity, that is about flash instead of cooperation -MMO going mainstream, the average player is now a super casual -cash shops that have replaced adventure with taking out your VISA card
within those changes, you can dig deeper, and point to a loss of difficulty, a loss of class interdependence, a loss of travel, a loss of large difficult raids, a loss of death penalty, speeding up of combat which stops socializing
DMKano said: Not always true. The people to be involved in charting the course of MMORPG as a genre were thrown a curveball. WOW changed the bell curve of the genre's audience.
Being "social" doesn't mean "grouping with others to kill mobs". That's not social, that's using others to achieve your own goals.
Furthering your own goals and socializing are the same thing.
Humans are by nature social,we have a much larger Neocortex, brain region for socializing, than other animals.
That's one of the reasons we are at the top of the food chain. There is strength in numbers, we are social because of self interest.
Socialzing and making groups, vastly increased our own survival chances, that's why humans are social, it is a self-serving evolutionary mechanic. It's no different in MMO.
This is why more dangerous and difficult MMO create a stronger community.
Games follow the changing preference of the players, not the other way around. Games do not drive change of the behavior in society.
False
Can you show us one country where culture and behavior of people are dictated by the norm of a game?
Monster Hunter.
It's so popular in Japan that the reason why MH3U on 3DS didn't have online was because it was a waste of resources due to the target audience playing locally at coffee shops and while on trains for business trip.
Since then it's turned into one of the largest and fastest growing IPs. So of course every version since has included online okay to reach a larger audience outside of Japan.
There were plenty of anti social solo players in the early days, I was one of them. I very much enjoyed going lone wolf.
Yes, but the games weren't designed for anti social players. You had solo combat players but there is a different level to being solo player MMORPG.
Being "social" doesn't mean "grouping with others to kill mobs". That's not social, that's using others to achieve your own goals.
But there is still a possibility of positive social interaction but there is none in solo content.
Incorrect.
I play ESO solo and I still trade with others. I help others complete crafting effects and ask others to help me with same.
I also group with others from trials to group dungeons to a static group of un-optimized characters that has a great time doing normal content.
If you just shut off your brain then don't blame the game for being stupid.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
Humans don't change much, it's silly to assume that centuries of evolution and basic desires humans have, would change. It hasn't.
The speed at which technology changed society has far far outpaced evolution. The basic needs and desires of humans are still the same.
There has been a drastic shift towards more casual players with the advent of WoW, the demographics have changed, that's true. But the basic desires of humans have not.
DMKano said: Not always true. The people to be involved in charting the course of MMORPG as a genre were thrown a curveball. WOW changed the bell curve of the genre's audience.
You're reversing cause and effect.
Yes and no. There was a cause and effect reaction... but the reaction was incorrect. A decade of trying to be WOW failed in producing non niche titles. We had WOW players who were not into MMORPG become the core audience. WOW was also a cultural phenomenon.
But the genre remained niche for everyone else. There are a handful of MMORPG that have had the numbers even EQ had. Some like Warhammer and Conan sold higher but crashed immediately. You have games like STWOR, GW2 and etc. manage to do well. But it's handful of of games over 10 years to have substantial numbers.
If you told people in 1999 that 17 years later people would obsess with their smart phones even when sitting in the same room glued to their screen instead of talking face to face - people would laugh at you.
True
Games follow the changing preference of the players, not the other way around. Games do not drive change of the behavior in society.
False
It's not false at all.
I'll add that the problem here is that people on forums think that "people" have changed when it's just a different demographic of people driving game sales/tendencies.
I see this all the time on these forums. Someone makes a blanket remark "aren't you these the players who wanted x, y and z" when "yes" there are some players who want x, y and z but there are players who absolutely DON'T want x, y and z.
Don't you see that's my point?
You're right it is a different demographic of people playing mmo's now but you fail to see is that everybody else has to assimilate. How many times have you seen those "mmo's are too easy, no challenge" threads? Those threads are from players trying to conform the direction the gaming industry have taken the genre for the sake of doing what they love.
Okay next question, how many times in those threads have you seen the comment "oh well, mmo's aren't for you anymore" or the "rose colored glasses need to come off". Basically you either accept the change in mmo's or you can go golfing.
The original premise said people drove the game changes. They did. Part of it was a new demographic and part of it was that some from the original demographic wanted changes. So it's a more complex combination that drove the changes. Game companies changed to meet that demand and revenue source.
What got left behind is the smaller niche that didn't want changes. They didn't really want mmorpgs either. MMORPGs change and evolve over time. Those people, as a generalization, don't want change. They don't want a living breathing world, even if they say they do. They want a snapshot in history of a game at a certain period, and they don't want it to change at all. That's the popularity of the EMU servers.
The problem with that latter group is they want new games that replicate that old experience, but developers and publishers don't see the revenue potential there. The demographic is too fragmented on its demands outside of a couple of small exceptions: CU and maybe Pantheon.
Do you wonder what will happen when this glut of indie titles finally gets released? I think the initial reaction will be hugely popular, but then reality will set in and they'll realize they share aquality with every other game: change. That and either they won't replicate the experience accurately enough or they'll replicate it too accurately and people will remember those things they didn't like so long ago.
Change is inevitable in everything. You either bend with the wind or knocks you down.
If EQ and UO were niche the vast majority of the market is niche because even F2P most MMORPG are in their range of subs/"active users" is not much different.
The reason why developers didn't see the profit in older experiences was World of Warcraft. Like I said earlier it changes the bell curve. A quarter of WOW peak audience is 8 times greater than the previous kings peak. It simplely became a gold rush.
Didn't mean older style of game play wouldn't produce what how many other "low" sub WoW clone did/do. Just how do you pitch a game that's shown potential is 26 times less than making a WOW clone?
If you told people in 1999 that 17 years later people would obsess with their smart phones even when sitting in the same room glued to their screen instead of talking face to face - people would laugh at you.
True
Games follow the changing preference of the players, not the other way around. Games do not drive change of the behavior in society.
False
It's not false at all.
I'll add that the problem here is that people on forums think that "people" have changed when it's just a different demographic of people driving game sales/tendencies.
I see this all the time on these forums. Someone makes a blanket remark "aren't you these the players who wanted x, y and z" when "yes" there are some players who want x, y and z but there are players who absolutely DON'T want x, y and z.
Don't you see that's my point?
You're right it is a different demographic of people playing mmo's now but you fail to see is that everybody else has to assimilate. How many times have you seen those "mmo's are too easy, no challenge" threads? Those threads are from players trying to conform the direction the gaming industry have taken the genre for the sake of doing what they love.
Okay next question, how many times in those threads have you seen the comment "oh well, mmo's aren't for you anymore" or the "rose colored glasses need to come off". Basically you either accept the change in mmo's or you can go golfing.
The original premise said people drove the game changes. They did. Part of it was a new demographic and part of it was that some from the original demographic wanted changes. So it's a more complex combination that drove the changes. Game companies changed to meet that demand and revenue source.
What got left behind is the smaller niche that didn't want changes. They didn't really want mmorpgs either. MMORPGs change and evolve over time. Those people, as a generalization, don't want change. They don't want a living breathing world, even if they say they do. They want a snapshot in history of a game at a certain period, and they don't want it to change at all. That's the popularity of the EMU servers.
The problem with that latter group is they want new games that replicate that old experience, but developers and publishers don't see the revenue potential there. The demographic is too fragmented on its demands outside of a couple of small exceptions: CU and maybe Pantheon.
Do you wonder what will happen when this glut of indie titles finally gets released? I think the initial reaction will be hugely popular, but then reality will set in and they'll realize they share aquality with every other game: change. That and either they won't replicate the experience accurately enough or they'll replicate it too accurately and people will remember those things they didn't like so long ago.
Change is inevitable in everything. You either bend with the wind or knocks you down.
I'll agree that change inevitable, i'm not arguing that.
I don't agree with your assessment of the change of the genre being attributed to the original demographic, or at least the vagueness of it. The "parts" as you described were mainly based on the new demographic and the comparison is insurmountable.
The genre was here and people were happy with it, the problem was it wasn't going to appeal to a larger demographic that didn't exist in the mmo gaming world.
One could say the game had to change to bring on the people or one could say that the game change because of the people.
Games follow the changing preference of the players
Games tend to follow what makes the most amount of money and costs the least amount of money to make.
Cash shops were introduced because it makes more money, not because of player preference.
Epic quests were replaced with fetch quests, because it's costs less time and money to implement.
Strategic trinity combat was replaced with solo action combat since it's much easier to balance.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. MMO's became the way they are purely based on a marketing decision more than a creative one. I still feel that they need to bring back the concept that if something looks big and bad, it's going to be bad news for a single player to take on. That added more to the game immersion than a lot of people realized originally and felt like a big loss when WoW ended up doing away with world based elite monsters.
I also find it perplexing why developers desire to give us more freedom in the game world by introducing strange new systems, when they made such great efforts to take away freedom by leashing monsters, preventing guilds from uniformly taking on greater challenges without having loot claim issues, turning interesting zones into linear corridors, etc.
mmorpgs were already a popular item before Wow,they were just not accessible yet.Simple reason is DSL was still costly and not everyone had it yet or could afford it yet.Buying a real cheap PC a game and the DSL would run you well over 2k back then so yeah not many were going to be playing mmorpg's just yet but we definitely knew of them and followed the scene.
I do not believe for one second developers are catering to anyone,i believe they simply are making what is cost effective and going on what little skills they have as game developers.When i see some of the silly ideas in mmorpg's i think ...ok those system guys haven't got an inkling of what RPG stands for.I know they know what the MMO stands for,to them it means login screen lmao and that is about it.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
@OP, let me guess - before even reading the title of the article - it is some negative anti-something rant!? People around the interwebz like agreeing with such.
(30 sec later) Ah, I was right. Even the classical soapbox theme was quite predictable
hell i was an avid group 100% of the time player , as soon as i went online , i was asking for a group didnt even cared what was for , leveling , questing , farming , helping on low lvl stuff , i didnt mind i wanted to have fun , some laughs and whatnot....
fast forward 10 years ~ , when i play (or go back ) to a mmorpg i roll the best solo class just to being able to solo dungeons or bosses , only group if forced and cant advance (dungeons , raids , and impossible to solo outworld bosses) , i still enjoy grouping? yes but with friends , randoms are half afk , dont even talk , or just steal loot from u...
the playerbase didnt mind wasting 1h helping u with something ( FFXI AF quests , or limit break quests? ect) now? they dont care , and wont waste even 10s helping u out...but will waste 30 min gank/ camp your lvl 20,or killing NPCs so u cant finish quests ect....
@OP, let me guess - before even reading the title of the article - it is some negative anti-something rant!? People around the interwebz like agreeing with such.
(30 sec later) Ah, I was right. Even the classical soapbox theme was quite predictable
You do realize the irony of your post don't you.
Yes, people complain on the internet, just like water is wet and the sun is hot.
What's your point?
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Being "social" doesn't mean "grouping with others to kill mobs". That's not social, that's using others to achieve your own goals.
Furthering your own goals and socializing are the same thing.
Humans are by nature social,we have a much larger Neocortex, brain region for socializing, than other animals.
That's one of the reasons we are at the top of the food chain. There is strength in numbers, we are social because of self interest.
Socialzing and making groups, vastly increased our own survival chances, that's why humans are social, it is a self-serving evolutionary mechanic. It's no different in MMO.
This is why more dangerous and difficult MMO create a stronger community.
There is also nothing wrong with it.
People try to further their own goals alone or in a group.
Humans by nature are no more social than animals. Our brain affects our perception and beliefs as we cast judgement and opinions.
We are at the top of the food chain because we are smarter than other earth animals. There is certainly animals stronger than us.
True, just watch any post apocalyptic movie or tv show or life ending circumstance, usually it's everyone for themselves when crap hits the fan, then groups form later.
Speaking of EVE, it actually has many of the features the author laments, but as many who make his same complaint, won't acknowledge or play it because its "not fantasy", "don't want to be a spaceship", or some other nonsensical reasoning for not really sticking with it since there are so few good options out there if this is really the gameplay designs you favor.
Excuse me? How does not liking a game based on the setting or avatar appearance make any less sense than not liking it for it's systems? I think EVE is right in there along with the other bad options.
There were plenty of anti social solo players in the early days, I was one of them. I very much enjoyed going lone wolf.
Me too, my first MMO was in 1999 and it Was Asheron's Call and it was tailored to solo play. Theres nothing that says MMO's must be group only play some of us want a massive RPG and not necessarily multi-player experience. The others around us are there to add to the realism and liveliness of the experience.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Speaking of EVE, it actually has many of the features the author laments, but as many who make his same complaint, won't acknowledge or play it because its "not fantasy", "don't want to be a spaceship", or some other nonsensical reasoning for not really sticking with it since there are so few good options out there if this is really the gameplay designs you favor.
Excuse me? How does not liking a game based on the setting or avatar appearance make any less sense than not liking it for it's systems? I think EVE is right in there along with the other bad options.
There are good reasons to not like games, even EVE, (like it's combat mechanics) but setting and avatar appearance are just silly ones.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There is only one thing at the end everyone should ask themselves is " is it the customers fault for not enjoying a product that's purpose is to be enjoyable?
Simple questions like these answer many very important questions. Some folks here continuously wish to argue/defend these developers/producers that fail to do that and blame it on the individuals for not finding or having or seeing this "enjoyment" that they see within these same products.
Well guess what, that too is the job of the these developers/producers...and if they cannot create a market for their product, if they cannot make their product appealing, they will try harder and invest more or do something else they are better at than this, allowing more space for the rest, more skilled and hungrier competitors.
There is always competition, there is always risks, there is always many things that for some might be discouraging for others are normal and acceptable. The fact remains for 5 years and 1 month no one managed to open my wallet yet on a new product. I still had fun through these years gaming as much as before. So, as the winner I'm I'll continue to be the winner...and if someone wants to open my wallet they have to do better than what's out there available for free.
Speaking of EVE, it actually has many of the features the author laments, but as many who make his same complaint, won't acknowledge or play it because its "not fantasy", "don't want to be a spaceship", or some other nonsensical reasoning for not really sticking with it since there are so few good options out there if this is really the gameplay designs you favor.
Excuse me? How does not liking a game based on the setting or avatar appearance make any less sense than not liking it for it's systems? I think EVE is right in there along with the other bad options.
There are good reasons to not like games, even EVE, (like it's combat mechanics) but setting and avatar appearance are just silly ones.
Of course, because only one's own opinion matters. And thinking that way isn't silly at all.
Pack of wolves, herd of elephants, colony of ants, flock of birds, school of fish, I would say animals are pretty damn social.
Many animals aren't social, and none have the social skills we do.
You mention fish, fish don't recognize their owners, nor do they understand individualism within their own species. One study showed that Focal fish might recognize their owner but that would be an exception to the rule, and it's a controversial study that others haven't been able to repeat.
Here is one of the study excerpts that tried to prove these fish can recognize individual patterns and remember them.
And this type of fish would be the exception. Outside of this controversial study, there has never been proof of any kind that fish recognize each other.
They are anything but social. They might swim together, but they have no idea who they're swimming with. They know it's the same species, but that's pretty much where it stops, they don't understand individualism.
The majority of animals can't recognize others as individuals. Insect can't identify and remember others as individuals, they understand the difference between species, they don't understand individualism. Several mammals and most birds can. But many of those fail the mirror test, they don't understand they're looking at themselves.
Succeeding in the mirror test is a pretty important requirement if you want to prove a certain type of animal shows social behavior that is anything like humans. Very few animals consistently succeed in the mirror test, only some mammals and a few birds do, no insects or fish succeed in it.
Even monkeys, they need a lot of time to consistently succeed in the mirror test, and those are supposed to be the intelligent animals, and they have a really hard time even recognizing themselves, let alone others.
What you're left with is a very small subsection of animals who are truly capable of socializing. Within that group there are very few animals who are monogamous, and very few who show a sense of long-term loss if their partner passes away. One of the exceptions is the jackdaw, you will always see it with one partner, it only has one partner for life, if that partner passes away, they will mourn, and become very attached to humans.
In the end, for me, it's irrelevant whether it's the players that changed or the industry. However, it IS up the players now to enact that change. The problem lies in the sheer spectrum of preferences now, which makes it rather difficult to have a game please everyone. Ex. FFIX. Many play it and it is sub only, yet people still degrade as a 'theme park' like it's afflicted with leprosy. SWTOR is still played, went F2P after a rough start, and seems to be making money. Another leper to some. WoW (taboo to mention I know) yet even if not as popular as years back still garners a lot of players, yet is also the pinnacle of casual and what's "bad" with the genre. See a pattern? To say that the genre is bad and the devs are solely to blame is as silly as saying all those players liking the aforementioned games are clueless. It's hypocritical if you think about it since those players are driving the market and letting the devs know to continue making content for those games. Players that are a part of our community. Gaming community. To segregate them and belittle their choices only weakens the community as a whole. You dislike the genre now? That's fine. Like life though, the only one responsible for changing anything is yourself. Expecting anyone else to do it for you is an exercise in futility.
Comments
-influence of Korean MMO that are about looks instand of substance
-influence of fast-paced action combat over slow strategic trinity, that is about flash instead of cooperation
-MMO going mainstream, the average player is now a super casual
-cash shops that have replaced adventure with taking out your VISA card
within those changes, you can dig deeper, and point to a loss of difficulty, a loss of class interdependence, a loss of travel, a loss of large difficult raids, a loss of death penalty, speeding up of combat which stops socializing
Cash shops were introduced because it makes more money, not because of player preference.
Epic quests were replaced with fetch quests, because it's costs less time and money to implement.
Strategic trinity combat was replaced with solo action combat since it's much easier to balance.
Humans are by nature social,we have a much larger Neocortex, brain region for socializing, than other animals.
That's one of the reasons we are at the top of the food chain. There is strength in numbers, we are social because of self interest.
Socialzing and making groups, vastly increased our own survival chances, that's why humans are social, it is a self-serving evolutionary mechanic. It's no different in MMO.
This is why more dangerous and difficult MMO create a stronger community.
There is also nothing wrong with it.
I play ESO solo and I still trade with others. I help others complete crafting effects and ask others to help me with same.
I also group with others from trials to group dungeons to a static group of un-optimized characters that has a great time doing normal content.
If you just shut off your brain then don't blame the game for being stupid.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
Humans don't change much, it's silly to assume that centuries of evolution and basic desires humans have, would change. It hasn't.
The speed at which technology changed society has far far outpaced evolution. The basic needs and desires of humans are still the same.
There has been a drastic shift towards more casual players with the advent of WoW, the demographics have changed, that's true. But the basic desires of humans have not.
But the genre remained niche for everyone else. There are a handful of MMORPG that have had the numbers even EQ had. Some like Warhammer and Conan sold higher but crashed immediately. You have games like STWOR, GW2 and etc. manage to do well. But it's handful of of games over 10 years to have substantial numbers.
It depends on whether a player likes pve or pvp though some just pvx.
If EQ and UO were niche the vast majority of the market is niche because even F2P most MMORPG are in their range of subs/"active users" is not much different.
The reason why developers didn't see the profit in older experiences was World of Warcraft. Like I said earlier it changes the bell curve. A quarter of WOW peak audience is 8 times greater than the previous kings peak. It simplely became a gold rush.
Didn't mean older style of game play wouldn't produce what how many other "low" sub WoW clone did/do. Just how do you pitch a game that's shown potential is 26 times less than making a WOW clone?
I don't agree with your assessment of the change of the genre being attributed to the original demographic, or at least the vagueness of it. The "parts" as you described were mainly based on the new demographic and the comparison is insurmountable.
The genre was here and people were happy with it, the problem was it wasn't going to appeal to a larger demographic that didn't exist in the mmo gaming world.
One could say the game had to change to bring on the people or one could say that the game change because of the people.
I also find it perplexing why developers desire to give us more freedom in the game world by introducing strange new systems, when they made such great efforts to take away freedom by leashing monsters, preventing guilds from uniformly taking on greater challenges without having loot claim issues, turning interesting zones into linear corridors, etc.
I do not believe for one second developers are catering to anyone,i believe they simply are making what is cost effective and going on what little skills they have as game developers.When i see some of the silly ideas in mmorpg's i think ...ok those system guys haven't got an inkling of what RPG stands for.I know they know what the MMO stands for,to them it means login screen lmao and that is about it.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
social
playSimple Definition of social
: relating to or involving activities in which people spend time talking to each other or doing enjoyable things with each other
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(30 sec later) Ah, I was right. Even the classical soapbox theme was quite predictable
hell i was an avid group 100% of the time player , as soon as i went online , i was asking for a group didnt even cared what was for , leveling , questing , farming , helping on low lvl stuff , i didnt mind i wanted to have fun , some laughs and whatnot....
fast forward 10 years ~ , when i play (or go back ) to a mmorpg i roll the best solo class just to being able to solo dungeons or bosses , only group if forced and cant advance (dungeons , raids , and impossible to solo outworld bosses) , i still enjoy grouping? yes but with friends , randoms are half afk , dont even talk , or just steal loot from u...
the playerbase didnt mind wasting 1h helping u with something ( FFXI AF quests , or limit break quests? ect)
now? they dont care , and wont waste even 10s helping u out...but will waste 30 min gank/ camp your lvl 20,or killing NPCs so u cant finish quests ect....
Yes, people complain on the internet, just like water is wet and the sun is hot.
What's your point?
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Humans by nature are no more social than animals. Our brain affects our perception and beliefs as we cast judgement and opinions.
We are at the top of the food chain because we are smarter than other earth animals. There is certainly animals stronger than us.
True, just watch any post apocalyptic movie or tv show or life ending circumstance, usually it's everyone for themselves when crap hits the fan, then groups form later.
Me too, my first MMO was in 1999 and it Was Asheron's Call and it was tailored to solo play. Theres nothing that says MMO's must be group only play some of us want a massive RPG and not necessarily multi-player experience. The others around us are there to add to the realism and liveliness of the experience.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Simple questions like these answer many very important questions. Some folks here continuously wish to argue/defend these developers/producers that fail to do that and blame it on the individuals for not finding or having or seeing this "enjoyment" that they see within these same products.
Well guess what, that too is the job of the these developers/producers...and if they cannot create a market for their product, if they cannot make their product appealing, they will try harder and invest more or do something else they are better at than this, allowing more space for the rest, more skilled and hungrier competitors.
There is always competition, there is always risks, there is always many things that for some might be discouraging for others are normal and acceptable. The fact remains for 5 years and 1 month no one managed to open my wallet yet on a new product. I still had fun through these years gaming as much as before. So, as the winner I'm I'll continue to be the winner...and if someone wants to open my wallet they have to do better than what's out there available for free.
Many animals aren't social, and none have the social skills we do.
You mention fish, fish don't recognize their owners, nor do they understand individualism within their own species. One study showed that Focal fish might recognize their owner but that would be an exception to the rule, and it's a controversial study that others haven't been able to repeat.
Here is one of the study excerpts that tried to prove these fish can recognize individual patterns and remember them.
And this type of fish would be the exception. Outside of this controversial study, there has never been proof of any kind that fish recognize each other.
They are anything but social. They might swim together, but they have no idea who they're swimming with. They know it's the same species, but that's pretty much where it stops, they don't understand individualism.
The majority of animals can't recognize others as individuals. Insect can't identify and remember others as individuals, they understand the difference between species, they don't understand individualism. Several mammals and most birds can. But many of those fail the mirror test, they don't understand they're looking at themselves.
Succeeding in the mirror test is a pretty important requirement if you want to prove a certain type of animal shows social behavior that is anything like humans. Very few animals consistently succeed in the mirror test, only some mammals and a few birds do, no insects or fish succeed in it.
Even monkeys, they need a lot of time to consistently succeed in the mirror test, and those are supposed to be the intelligent animals, and they have a really hard time even recognizing themselves, let alone others.
What you're left with is a very small subsection of animals who are truly capable of socializing. Within that group there are very few animals who are monogamous, and very few who show a sense of long-term loss if their partner passes away. One of the exceptions is the jackdaw, you will always see it with one partner, it only has one partner for life, if that partner passes away, they will mourn, and become very attached to humans.
The problem lies in the sheer spectrum of preferences now, which makes it rather difficult to have a game please everyone.
Ex. FFIX. Many play it and it is sub only, yet people still degrade as a 'theme park' like it's afflicted with leprosy.
SWTOR is still played, went F2P after a rough start, and seems to be making money. Another leper to some.
WoW (taboo to mention I know) yet even if not as popular as years back still garners a lot of players, yet is also the pinnacle of casual and what's "bad" with the genre.
See a pattern? To say that the genre is bad and the devs are solely to blame is as silly as saying all those players liking the aforementioned games are clueless. It's hypocritical if you think about it since those players are driving the market and letting the devs know to continue making content for those games. Players that are a part of our community. Gaming community. To segregate them and belittle their choices only weakens the community as a whole.
You dislike the genre now? That's fine. Like life though, the only one responsible for changing anything is yourself. Expecting anyone else to do it for you is an exercise in futility.