Passive data collection is still a metric that can be evaluated. The same questions still apply.
you absolutely need a talentent business intelligence team which in the context of what we are talking about are the skills of data evaluation NOT data collection. Just to be clear.
as example, focus groups is data collection, not data evaluation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Oh, wait!! And then finally, their answers are always the same.
1. It's a business, it's job is to make money. 2. You don't have to participate if you don't want to. 3. It's your own fault in some way.
Meanwhile with the other hand they are giving you the reach around and trying to act like they really want your business.
Red alert, need damage control asap! I SAID RED ALERT!
LoLz, well said jesad. Been saying this for years, and it never seizes to amaze me the amount of denial in people. It's mildly amusing.
Yea I dont know what happened in the last 6 months but before then if you ever said anything like this you would get 15 shills attacking you trying to get you banned and 5 people being blinded by it, I guess ive always been ahead of everyone else, its a little late for a revolution on mmorpgs now isnt it?
I guess it just depends on how you want to define depth. If you define it as just shear number of things to do, then yes, i would agree with you on WoW. However, i would argue that saying that is depth is like saying that a buffet is s "good restaurant" because it has a ton of options. Well if all of them taste mediocre, its not really a great restaurant.
I think (or at least hope) that people would rather pay a little more for quality over quantity. Then again, the current state of P2W cash shop laden mmo's releasing and doing relatively well tells me otherwise. I hope its just that people are so starved for a good MMO they're willing to try just about anything, but i have suspicions thats its just not the case.
Edit: I wanted to mention i only played up to cataclysm and didn't raid in cata, though i did raid extensively prior to that. I can say personally nothing in WoW ever provided a serious challenge to me. The real challenge was trying to get 24 people of a proper skill level together to do hard mode raids in a massive ocean of mediocrity.
That ocean of mediocrity was created by a faceroll easy leveling and dungeon process. So its not exactly suprising that when those players tried to transition to raiding and were absolutely terrible at it. It's like bringing a new skier to the bunny slopes and then slapping him on a black diamond after he spent all day on the bunny slopes.
Depth is how difficult to master something is. WOW's depth isn't simply a measure of things to do (in fact it takes flak every expansion or two for reducing/simplifying the count of abilities any given class has) but rather a complexity of interactions between those abilities that takes more time to master than other MMORPGs.
But sure, if your motivation for an MMORPG is to provide a shallow relaxation activity then this won't be appealing because pattern mastery won't be your primary motivator. But it's the primary motivator for most players in most games.
So WOW is that quality-over-quantity game, and yes players absolutely would pay for another WOW-quality game.
Though I'd agree with the general take on raiding. That's why I've always wanted very difficult small-scale group content in my RPGs (they don't even have to be MMORPGs.) I'm not really interested in "management skill" challenges (assembling 24 non-bad players) but love teamplay and love a good personal skill challenge. WOW has provided that better than any other MMORPG I've found (and if you've found any MMORPGs that challenge personal skill to a higher degree, feel free to mention them as that's the primary thing I look for in my MMORPGs.)
I can tell you that the group and raid content in TSW was heads and tails above anything I did in wow, as far as skill level required (and seriously a lot more fun). Its just a bummer the rest of the game is so mediocre.
As far as the depth thing I just have to disagree. If we were talking WoW circa 2004-2008 or so, I would agree with you. While it wasn't ridiculous mode, it definitely took a good bit of skill, even in some of the dungeons. However, like you said that's gone WAY downhill in later expansion. WoW is essentially in a free fall at this point as is trying to do everything it can to keep the ultra casuals as those are the people making them money at this point. They're also the ones who are still succumbing to the sunk cost fallacy and only play the game not because they enjoy it, but because they have a decade or more "invested" into the game, and the thought of leaving is unpalatable to them.
"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."
Others have eloquently defended our position. I will only say, you seem to be suggesting that we want it all back? Lock stock and barrel. I have only ever argued for a hybrid, a MMO which takes the best of old school and keeps the best of new school.
So for example; no casino gameplay but nothing wrong with a more "arcade style" combat. Likewise no permadeath but gameplay activities which made players want to be in social hubs would be good.
I am not sure you will see many on here that wants to see EQ 1.0 or UO 1.0 without any change what so ever, just souped-up graphics.
The problem is developers aren't swayed by eloquence speeches rooted in emotion and nostalgia.
They're swayed by the business case. While not every case for a business is visible in the historic data, when it comes to things which have already been tried we have a pretty good sense of what will work and what won't.
On top of that the vocal minority lacks one clear vision of what it is they actually want. And many of the individual ideas presented which are clear are also clearly bad ideas (sometimes there's good evidence that they've been tried and failed, and/or sometimes there's strong understanding of what makes games fun and the idea is the exact opposite of that.)
Yep.
We hang out here. In this microcosm, we develop an inflated sense of our worth as consumers. "We gab about this shit a lot, therefore we are the guys they should be listening to."
The industry, on the other hand, is following the money.
The problem is developers aren't swayed by eloquence speeches rooted in emotion and nostalgia.
They're swayed by the business case. While not every case for a business is visible in the historic data, when it comes to things which have already been tried we have a pretty good sense of what will work and what won't.
On top of that the vocal minority lacks one clear vision of what it is they actually want. And many of the individual ideas presented which are clear are also clearly bad ideas (sometimes there's good evidence that they've been tried and failed, and/or sometimes there's strong understanding of what makes games fun and the idea is the exact opposite of that.)
Yep.
We hang out here. In this microcosm, we develop an inflated sense of our worth as consumers. "We gab about this shit a lot, therefore we are the guys they should be listening to."
The industry, on the other hand, is following the money.
Truth is people who aren't fans of the state of gaming industry aren't aware that they can stop supporting it by spending money and time on it, or even complaining about minor things all the time. Gaming industry is going to complete shit at an alarming rate with companies pushing ever more abusive practices. It has come to the point where a product being praised by the vocal groups or reviewers means literally nothing. It will be even worse when the games people have been playing all their lives without financial interests are invaded by these suits. Soon it will be "pay for a license to play [insert anything here] or we won't let you."
I have always said wait for the reviews before you buy, wait till you see what your friends are saying about it. Even back when I was happy with the state of gaming. What you are saying is where some of my concerns are.
Is this sustainable? Are new "MMOS" making as much money as they used to? And we lose our ability do demonstrate our disappointment with the way games are going be pre-ordering.
The industry has always followed the money, even the early MMO pioneers were trying to make money you know. The difference is just how far they were prepared to go to do it. There has been the suggestion that MMO casino gameplay breaks gambling laws in many countries, could well be the case.
Still no answer to my question, did WoW have a good business case? Did WoW have historical data to go on to tell It how best to make a MMO and make a great one that would break records? Tying gaming to a business case is allowing the suits to direct a creative project. If you want to be like WoW in terms of success, don't use a business case, it cannot predicate what new entertainment people will like, only how to make more of the same. Follow you vision, like Minecraft, H1Z1, be bold.
And I should add, I do realise I am not the one who has to be bold. My roleplaying hat/helmet is of to anyone who follows their vision, not the numbers.
Still no answer to my question, did WoW have a good business case? Did WoW have historical data to go on to tell It how best to make a MMO and make a great one that would break records?
Doubtful, since if there was some formula, it would have been found and used yet none of the post-WoW games show that kind of success, so I guess not. Also, if WoW did have the data, wouldn't they have used to simply grow every year, rather than fluctuating? Showing the original formula (if there was such a thing) became obsolete and no 'tweaking' of it showed much improvement. :P
Still no answer to my question, did WoW have a good business case? Did WoW have historical data to go on to tell It how best to make a MMO and make a great one that would break records?
Doubtful, since if there was some formula, it would have been found and used yet none of the post-WoW games show that kind of success, so I guess not. Also, if WoW did have the data, wouldn't they have used to simply grow every year, rather than fluctuating? Showing the original formula (if there was such a thing) became obsolete and no 'tweaking' of it showed much improvement. :P
The case was made on here that you follow the metrics and the business case or you can't have success. Comments like "we know what people want" etc. Clearly WoW did not, Minecraft and H1Z1 went against the grain. Just think about business outside of gaming, huge success comes from those who offered something new, like a stylish smartphone. We all knew gadget lovers were not that concerned about style, they just wanted to be early adopters and have lots of techie functions. Apple comes along and blows that out of the water.
The business case, metrics are no different from a battle plan or for that matter any other sort of plan. Do something new or combine the old with the new in a dazzling way and the plans disintegrate on first contact.
Gaming is in an era very similar to supermarkets using business practice to cut costs, at the expense of service and best product. We have seen executives brought into gaming houses to do just that. And we have also seen industry cannibalism, the failures (no doubt nearly all with a good business case), the job loses. Not a healthy model for any industry in the long term.
Wow did have a case. darn good one to. They had seen the success of up eq disc a.c... They knew that they could make money with an mmo. They had previous success with their own games. They believed they could make a good one.
They did not expect to get as big as they did
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Wow did have a case. darn good one to. They had seen the success of up eq disc a.c... They knew that they could make money with an mmo. They had previous success with their own games. They believed they could make a good one.
They did not expect to get as big as they did
WoW was not built on ideas from metrics about EQ. It was a big shift in MMO direction. Your statement "They knew they could make money with a MMO" I agree with. What I am saying is, with so much of WoW being their ideas of how to make a MMO, they went out on a limb.
They could have made another EQ in the World of Warcraft universe. They forged their own path. There is an expression " You need to spend money to make it" They did they were bold. Today is the era of the tinyMMO on the cheap, designed using what metrics tell you are fun. Is that a sustainable model for an industry? With so many closures and staff lay offs (I do realise some are part of the MMO making cycle) I would say not.
I am not saying I expect the MMO industry to give us a WoW every year. What I think is that if you design on metrics, focus groups and business case, we may never see another such ground breaking MMO again.
Scot said: Follow you vision, like Minecraft, H1Z1, be bold.
People did. It's called stop making mmorpg.
Wow was build upon the metrics of what "most" people wants. That's why it is a huge success. And that's why only wow clones after it manage to have decent amount of players. "Oh a few hundred thousands players what a failure", that's what people call wow clones. If it is a non wow clone type mmorpg, people would call it huge success.
Honestly listen to the QQ on the forum...
"I don't play darkfall because it is too hardcore eventhough I want to play a hardcore game."
"I dont' play archeage, because eventhough it is perfect it is pay to win."
That's the problem with the industry. You are taking a niche of a niche who want another niche.
The problem is that what a lot of people want in an MMORPG is stuff that it simply isn't practical to program computers to do. It's reasonable to want such things, but not to expect them. Anything that game developers look at and say, we can't do that whether we wanted to or not, will get dismissed out of hand. And then game developers pursue what players will buy from within the set of thing that they can reasonably expect to deliver.
Some Kickstarters promise crazy, impossible things that established developers shy away from precisely because they're crazy and impossible. Sure, it would be a lot of fun if someone delivered it, but if even the best developers just can't do it, amateurs with zero experience have no shot.
I can agree with everything you say except the last sentence. It is usually the amateur that hasn't been lead down the same path over and over again that usually creates innovative things. It isn't the professionals that create most innovative things because they do what they know works, why would they try and do something that would most likely fail and cost them time and money. It takes outside of the box thinking to come up with new ideas and concepts of how to tackle things and people that have been doing the same thing for years have a hard time thinking that way.
Any example would be look at what happened with minecraft. How many people are copying that game now, you even had major MMO companies trying to figure out how to cash in on its success, Trove, Landmark, etc... Minecraft did not come from some major studio, nor have most of the innovative games lately. They are coming from the smaller development teams that are trying the things the people with experience say can not be done.
^ I remember the line from sword art online, "the only difference between VR and actually reality is how many details there are."
minecraft precisely shows it.
The point is not about innovation. The point is if you are expecting lego graphic, no problem. But if you are expecting innovation + graphic + on a grand scale, that's where it start getting hard. That's what the poster is probably talking about.
Remember the maker of UO can't make UO2. Just like the maker of Eve can't transit a space game into a fantasy game.
Scot said: Follow you vision, like Minecraft, H1Z1, be bold.
People did. It's called stop making mmorpg.
Wow was build upon the metrics of what "most" people wants. That's why it is a huge success. And that's why only wow clones after it manage to have decent amount of players. "Oh a few hundred thousands players what a failure", that's what people call wow clones. If it is a non wow clone type mmorpg, people would call it huge success.
You can't really compare WoW to what it is now. It focused the grind into the questing. It was far more playable. Already having a huge online fanatical player base from Battlenet was probably their biggest advantage. Its very overlooked. Yes, we can view games that cost 10s-100s of millions of dollars to copy WoW failing to surpass Everquest as failures even if they are profitable.
"I don't play darkfall because it is too hardcore eventhough I want to play a hardcore game."
No, people like me don't play Darkfall because it wasn't well done technically and game play wise. I also want FFA PvP that has meaning and direction. Not just a gladiator world or you will chase off everyone and have no population but a few people playing Doom 2. Better of playing Planetside.
"I dont' play archeage, because eventhough it is perfect it is pay to win."
P2W is a principle I am against. AA probably is the best MMORPG out right now but the cash shop ruins it. If I joined a basketball league that had the best players and I found out you can pay for more time outs, more allowed fouls before you foul out, more free throw attempt... I am not playing in that league. To me games are about fair competition especially with PvP.
That's the problem with the industry. You are taking a niche of a niche who want another niche.
No, it the fact that nobody has served any niche but WOW clone with any type of budge or execution. Its a lot easier to come up niches of niches if the niche itself has been modernized. We have enough themepark clones to go around that could have served many different directions.
Scot said: Follow you vision, like Minecraft, H1Z1, be bold.
People did. It's called stop making mmorpg.
Wow was build upon the metrics of what "most" people wants. That's why it is a huge success. And that's why only wow clones after it manage to have decent amount of players. "Oh a few hundred thousands players what a failure", that's what people call wow clones. If it is a non wow clone type mmorpg, people would call it huge success.
You can't really compare WoW to what it is now. It focused the grind into the questing. It was far more playable. Already having a huge online fanatical player base from Battlenet was probably their biggest advantage. Its very overlooked. Yes, we can view games that cost 10s-100s of millions of dollars to copy WoW failing to surpass Everquest as failures even if they are profitable.
"I don't play darkfall because it is too hardcore eventhough I want to play a hardcore game."
No, people like me don't play Darkfall because it wasn't well done technically and game play wise. I also want FFA PvP that has meaning and direction. Not just a gladiator world or you will chase off everyone and have no population but a few people playing Doom 2. Better of playing Planetside.
"I dont' play archeage, because eventhough it is perfect it is pay to win."
P2W is a principle I am against. AA probably is the best MMORPG out right now but the cash shop ruins it. If I joined a basketball league that had the best players and I found out you can pay for more time outs, more allowed fouls before you foul out, more free throw attempt... I am not playing in that league. To me games are about fair competition especially with PvP.
That's the problem with the industry. You are taking a niche of a niche who want another niche.
No, it the fact that nobody has served any niche but WOW clone with any type of budge or execution. Its a lot easier to come up niches of niches if the niche itself has been modernized. We have enough themepark clones to go around that could have served many different directions.
you do realize 90% of the mmorpg made in asia are pay 2 win. of coarse you are a niche.
it's funny you need asian developers to make games you want because western market is too small.
regardless of blizzard's brand, making a mmorpg most people want is actually better don't you think?
a few of the wow clone are probably actually successful depend if internet rumor on their budget are real.
you want ffa pvp games to kill pve players? i think that's what stop working.
the most true line about your comment is execution. probably why most mmorpg fail.
I would think a good developer would want to make a game others think is fun. Metrics are the best tool to tell you what others find fun.
They are the same thing.
What metric tells you what players find fun? I think metrics can tell you things like what players spend the most time on, but that would lead to the conclusion that the most fun thing to do in WoW is grind daily quests. As far as I know 'fun' isn't measurable in statistical data unless you are talking about direct player feedback via surveys or something, but that isn't directly a metric, and even if you consider it to be that in practice it isn't widely used post-release.
I agree with the previous posters that design from metric data or formulas feels sterile. That doesn't mean developers can't reuse ideas, but we've reached a point where every time I see the 800th permeation of the WoW crafting system (that isn't remotely deep or engaging or 'fun' to begin with) I just roll my eyes. Metric data suggests that that system 'works' because players play those games and craft in those games, but that doesn't reflect it's 'funness' in my experience. People used to grind crafting in WoW to get individual boni like an extra gem slot on a belt or JC specific gems, not because of any 'funness'. People spend the most time (an extremely easy metric to track) doing whatever is the most rewarding.
Metric data is good in a way at telling us what worked in the past, but I firmly believe that in gaming rehashing old ideas has drastically diminishing funness. It's one of the reasons IMO that WoW-clones have such an abysmal success rate. One of the reasons WoW was so successful is that Blizzard took all the best ideas from a decade of MMOs and polished them and introduced them to a new audience who hadn't seen them before.
The last decade of AAA games have largely been based on metric development; keep all the status-quo features and introduce that one twist (action combat, voiced quests, multi-classes, etc) and in all the games I remember that twist was the only redeeming part of the game. Developers (indie at least) have realized over time that those metrics mean nothing but exactly what they say, what was successful or failed in the past. Time will tell if the games they develop that break the mold are successful or not.
Is it about metrics as much as it is about what has been discovered to work as game-play and what hasn't.. as well as what has not been discovered through R&D (which most companies have no time or budget for)? Creating new forms of game-play is not easy, and it is not cheap.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
i just find that people keep blaming budget. but none of the old game actually have big budget.
and it's laughable calling wow clones with 100 million sales per year not reaching expectation. The problem is probaly they invested too much if internet rumor on their budget is even true.
you do realize 90% of the mmorpg made in asia are pay 2 win. of coarse you are a niche.
That's really irrelevant because they have a different gaming culture. There is much less tolerance to P2W in the Western Market.
it's funny you need asian developers to make games you want because western market is too small.
Different culture. Economics of producing more WoW clones in the US isn't really smart.
I dont' think it's so much about wow clones. It's that very few studios is even making big budget mmorpg in the west.
You can't blame asians for making wow clones because they actually survive, for example Aion(if it is even a wow clone).
lotro, aoc, swtor, ESO, wildstar(if it even have huge budget). Because really, how many huge budget mmorpg are even made in the last 10 years. And I'm not sure if that many even failed. Because as long as sales>budget, it's hard to call them fail.
I can tell you that the group and raid content in TSW was heads and tails above anything I did in wow, as far as skill level required (and seriously a lot more fun). Its just a bummer the rest of the game is so mediocre.
As far as the depth thing I just have to disagree. If we were talking WoW circa 2004-2008 or so, I would agree with you. While it wasn't ridiculous mode, it definitely took a good bit of skill, even in some of the dungeons. However, like you said that's gone WAY downhill in later expansion. WoW is essentially in a free fall at this point as is trying to do everything it can to keep the ultra casuals as those are the people making them money at this point. They're also the ones who are still succumbing to the sunk cost fallacy and only play the game not because they enjoy it, but because they have a decade or more "invested" into the game, and the thought of leaving is unpalatable to them.
As usual I'd welcome hard evidence of that as people love writing out a handful of details about games they consider deep, but it often bears little relevance to the actual depth of a game. Whereas a guide online walking through the specifics of the game mechanics involved tends to be far better at measuring how truly deep a game is.
Calling 2004-2008 WOW deep is a bit awkward, given that that was objectively the shallowest period of WOW. The rotations were barely deeper than pre-existing MMORPGs at that point, and were generally quite simple and easy to master. So the game really didn't become deep until after 2008 (classes didn't even generally have 3 viable specs until 2007's release of Burning Crusade.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Long before MMORPGs became a homogenized cultural phenomenon thanks
to World of Warcraft, pioneering virtual world players felt they were
embarking on a journey in a genre that had no boundaries or limits. It
was only natural to believe that this unique participatory virtual
existence — only possible in fantasy MMORPGs — was the start of
something special. Even though the first MMORPGs were very basic, we had
a sense of anticipation that more exciting, immersive, living and
breathing virtual worlds were ahead on the horizon.
It never happened. Instead, it got worse.
I have never in my life disagreed with an article more.
It never happened. Instead, it got better. MMOs are finally games, and not a pretense of virtual worlds.
Long before MMORPGs became a homogenized cultural phenomenon thanks
to World of Warcraft, pioneering virtual world players felt they were
embarking on a journey in a genre that had no boundaries or limits. It
was only natural to believe that this unique participatory virtual
existence — only possible in fantasy MMORPGs — was the start of
something special. Even though the first MMORPGs were very basic, we had
a sense of anticipation that more exciting, immersive, living and
breathing virtual worlds were ahead on the horizon.
It never happened. Instead, it got worse.
I have never in my life disagreed with an article more.
It never happened. Instead, it got better. MMOs are finally games, and not a pretense of virtual worlds.
I have to admit, i was extremely surprised to see this response from you...
"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."
Comments
as example, focus groups is data collection, not data evaluation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I can tell you that the group and raid content in TSW was heads and tails above anything I did in wow, as far as skill level required (and seriously a lot more fun). Its just a bummer the rest of the game is so mediocre.
As far as the depth thing I just have to disagree. If we were talking WoW circa 2004-2008 or so, I would agree with you. While it wasn't ridiculous mode, it definitely took a good bit of skill, even in some of the dungeons. However, like you said that's gone WAY downhill in later expansion. WoW is essentially in a free fall at this point as is trying to do everything it can to keep the ultra casuals as those are the people making them money at this point. They're also the ones who are still succumbing to the sunk cost fallacy and only play the game not because they enjoy it, but because they have a decade or more "invested" into the game, and the thought of leaving is unpalatable to them.
"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
We hang out here. In this microcosm, we develop an inflated sense of our worth as consumers. "We gab about this shit a lot, therefore we are the guys they should be listening to."
The industry, on the other hand, is following the money.
I have always said wait for the reviews before you buy, wait till you see what your friends are saying about it. Even back when I was happy with the state of gaming. What you are saying is where some of my concerns are.
Is this sustainable? Are new "MMOS" making as much money as they used to? And we lose our ability do demonstrate our disappointment with the way games are going be pre-ordering.
The industry has always followed the money, even the early MMO pioneers were trying to make money you know. The difference is just how far they were prepared to go to do it. There has been the suggestion that MMO casino gameplay breaks gambling laws in many countries, could well be the case.
Still no answer to my question, did WoW have a good business case? Did WoW have historical data to go on to tell It how best to make a MMO and make a great one that would break records? Tying gaming to a business case is allowing the suits to direct a creative project. If you want to be like WoW in terms of success, don't use a business case, it cannot predicate what new entertainment people will like, only how to make more of the same. Follow you vision, like Minecraft, H1Z1, be bold.
And I should add, I do realise I am not the one who has to be bold. My roleplaying hat/helmet is of to anyone who follows their vision, not the numbers.
Also, if WoW did have the data, wouldn't they have used to simply grow every year, rather than fluctuating? Showing the original formula (if there was such a thing) became obsolete and no 'tweaking' of it showed much improvement.
:P
The case was made on here that you follow the metrics and the business case or you can't have success. Comments like "we know what people want" etc. Clearly WoW did not, Minecraft and H1Z1 went against the grain. Just think about business outside of gaming, huge success comes from those who offered something new, like a stylish smartphone. We all knew gadget lovers were not that concerned about style, they just wanted to be early adopters and have lots of techie functions. Apple comes along and blows that out of the water.
The business case, metrics are no different from a battle plan or for that matter any other sort of plan. Do something new or combine the old with the new in a dazzling way and the plans disintegrate on first contact.
Gaming is in an era very similar to supermarkets using business practice to cut costs, at the expense of service and best product. We have seen executives brought into gaming houses to do just that. And we have also seen industry cannibalism, the failures (no doubt nearly all with a good business case), the job loses. Not a healthy model for any industry in the long term.
They did not expect to get as big as they did
WoW was not built on ideas from metrics about EQ. It was a big shift in MMO direction. Your statement "They knew they could make money with a MMO" I agree with. What I am saying is, with so much of WoW being their ideas of how to make a MMO, they went out on a limb.
They could have made another EQ in the World of Warcraft universe. They forged their own path. There is an expression " You need to spend money to make it" They did they were bold. Today is the era of the tinyMMO on the cheap, designed using what metrics tell you are fun. Is that a sustainable model for an industry? With so many closures and staff lay offs (I do realise some are part of the MMO making cycle) I would say not.
I am not saying I expect the MMO industry to give us a WoW every year. What I think is that if you design on metrics, focus groups and business case, we may never see another such ground breaking MMO again.
People did. It's called stop making mmorpg.
Wow was build upon the metrics of what "most" people wants. That's why it is a huge success. And that's why only wow clones after it manage to have decent amount of players. "Oh a few hundred thousands players what a failure", that's what people call wow clones. If it is a non wow clone type mmorpg, people would call it huge success.
Honestly listen to the QQ on the forum...
"I don't play darkfall because it is too hardcore eventhough I want to play a hardcore game."
"I dont' play archeage, because eventhough it is perfect it is pay to win."
That's the problem with the industry. You are taking a niche of a niche who want another niche.
Any example would be look at what happened with minecraft. How many people are copying that game now, you even had major MMO companies trying to figure out how to cash in on its success, Trove, Landmark, etc... Minecraft did not come from some major studio, nor have most of the innovative games lately. They are coming from the smaller development teams that are trying the things the people with experience say can not be done.
It is the amateurs that usually drive invention.
minecraft precisely shows it.
The point is not about innovation. The point is if you are expecting lego graphic, no problem. But if you are expecting innovation + graphic + on a grand scale, that's where it start getting hard. That's what the poster is probably talking about.
Remember the maker of UO can't make UO2. Just like the maker of Eve can't transit a space game into a fantasy game.
You can't really compare WoW to what it is now. It focused the grind into the questing. It was far more playable. Already having a huge online fanatical player base from Battlenet was probably their biggest advantage. Its very overlooked. Yes, we can view games that cost 10s-100s of millions of dollars to copy WoW failing to surpass Everquest as failures even if they are profitable.
No, people like me don't play Darkfall because it wasn't well done technically and game play wise. I also want FFA PvP that has meaning and direction. Not just a gladiator world or you will chase off everyone and have no population but a few people playing Doom 2. Better of playing Planetside.
P2W is a principle I am against. AA probably is the best MMORPG out right now but the cash shop ruins it. If I joined a basketball league that had the best players and I found out you can pay for more time outs, more allowed fouls before you foul out, more free throw attempt... I am not playing in that league. To me games are about fair competition especially with PvP.
No, it the fact that nobody has served any niche but WOW clone with any type of budge or execution. Its a lot easier to come up niches of niches if the niche itself has been modernized. We have enough themepark clones to go around that could have served many different directions.
it's funny you need asian developers to make games you want because western market is too small.
regardless of blizzard's brand, making a mmorpg most people want is actually better don't you think?
a few of the wow clone are probably actually successful depend if internet rumor on their budget are real.
you want ffa pvp games to kill pve players? i think that's what stop working.
the most true line about your comment is execution. probably why most mmorpg fail.
That's really irrelevant because they have a different gaming culture. There is much less tolerance to P2W in the Western Market.
Different culture. Economics of producing more WoW clones in the US isn't really smart.
I doubt it. Making a profit yes. Reaching goals probably not so much.
Yes, execution > MMORPG type. Not playing a MMORPG because its a sandbox if it sucks.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
and it's laughable calling wow clones with 100 million sales per year not reaching expectation. The problem is probaly they invested too much if internet rumor on their budget is even true.
and honestly how many aaa wow clone even exist?
I dont' think it's so much about wow clones. It's that very few studios is even making big budget mmorpg in the west.
You can't blame asians for making wow clones because they actually survive, for example Aion(if it is even a wow clone).
lotro, aoc, swtor, ESO, wildstar(if it even have huge budget). Because really, how many huge budget mmorpg are even made in the last 10 years. And I'm not sure if that many even failed. Because as long as sales>budget, it's hard to call them fail.
Calling 2004-2008 WOW deep is a bit awkward, given that that was objectively the shallowest period of WOW. The rotations were barely deeper than pre-existing MMORPGs at that point, and were generally quite simple and easy to master. So the game really didn't become deep until after 2008 (classes didn't even generally have 3 viable specs until 2007's release of Burning Crusade.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It never happened. Instead, it got better. MMOs are finally games, and not a pretense of virtual worlds.
"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