I'm not going through a pages of this just to see, but just curious: in this back-and-forth between "mmorpgs are dead/no they're not" did anyone ask the question whether they deserve to live?
whether they deserve to live depends on individual prefernces. I am sure dev who are making money off them says "yes", and so do those who enjoy the games.
There shouldn't even BE an endgame. It shouldn't be a month to max and then get stuck in 5 dungeons on repeat, but this is what gamers have allowed and been taught is how it is done.
If I want a "journey" I'll play a single player game, watch a movie, read a book, or heck go for a walk. If I want to play with the people I want to play with without requiring us to be in progression lock-step, well then end-game is right where I want to be.
I don't think MMOs are in a great place at the moment, but they aren't dead. Games developers will have to drastically change what has become common place to stop the genre from shrinking.
This is very accurate.With the exception that everything is about mmorpg's. MMO Moba's if anything are only growing.
MMORPG's tho, except handfull, there hasnt been a good game+publisher duo in many many years.
Its simply becoming money-milking genre. With 0 imagination.
Except maybe GW2/ FF,some nice ideas and effort. Rest either generic or p2w or both.
I don't think MMOs are in a great place at the moment, but they aren't dead. Games developers will have to drastically change what has become common place to stop the genre from shrinking.
This is very accurate.With the exception that everything is about mmorpg's. MMO Moba's if anything are only growing.
MMORPG's tho, except handfull, there hasnt been a good game+publisher duo in many many years.
Its simply becoming money-milking genre. With 0 imagination.
Except maybe GW2/ FF,some nice ideas and effort. Rest either generic or p2w or both.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Themepark elements that offer quality tailored experiences, sprinkled into an otherwise Sandbox environment.
But hey... I've been saying that for like 10 years, waiting for it to be done well by a developer. Star Citizen looks like it might deliver on that sort of idea.
Why do I write, create, fantasize, dream and daydream about other worlds? Because I hate what humanity does with this one.
MMORPGs, in the way older players remember them, were built to catch and retain customers for decades (if possible). No one is making those anymore, and even Blizzard seems to be backing away from that model.
But the industry still has a huge number of new titles, particularly FTP "quickies". And they're doing far more than just dabbling with other models entirely, MOBAs and shooters and hybrids and TCGs. Anything and everything that you can approach with the same kind of art assets, the same high fantasy flavor.
Games built to capture (briefly) a far, far more mobile sort of customer.
The oldsters can only rage against time. How dare the world change without my permission?
It's very clear mmorpg.com is over run with non-mmo players. Just people looking for games.
Ok, I will bite. How did you come to this conclusion? I play a lot of different games, I do not limit myself to one genre but I am certain by any definition I am an MMO player and have been since 2001.
What is your definition of a MMO player? What qualifies you to assign that title? I have more questions, but I will wait in extreme anticipation for your response.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
It's very clear the audience that's paying for the games is different.
We didn't grow up with smart phones. We're encountering millennials who did. (We don't have much to offer that they actually want, with our game models originally built for hourly rates. Just like MUDs didn't have much to offer MMORPG players, the earlier model just ages out of general use.)
Don't change world, I liked the status quo ante. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The fact that the younger MMORPG fans can't see the writing on the wall is pretty terrible. AAA studios will no longer throw their money and labor behind MMORPGs because the industry is collapsing and they aren't stupid. MMORPGs became so mainstream that people move between them the same way they move between shooters, and with the amount of money and time spent building giant open, living worlds, that is not a sustainable model. These games aren't built to be played for 3 weeks and then on to the next, yet that is how the community plays them.
Blizzard canned Titan (at least as an MMO), Daybreak canned EQN, CCP canned that Vampire one they were working on.... all the big names in the industry are getting as far away from MMORPGs as fast as they can. Anyone who can't see the shift to arena-style games (MOBA, shooter, survival) is simply not paying attention.
Just ask yourselves - what was the last MMORPG launch that kept massive amounts of people playing longer than a month? Even BDO, which is lauded as some huge achievement, is losing players rapidly becausethese games are not designed to immerse you and keep you playing, they are designed to get you to buy crap from the cash shop. Asian games are the biggest culprit here, and they also happen to be the only MMORPGs we are getting anymore (another sign that the age of the MMORPG is over).
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
This only opens the door for new innovation and concepts to breathe life back in. It'll most likely be a recycling effect, small studios make something, it becomes a huge success and then big players come in to try and get in on the action.
It's very clear mmorpg.com is over run with non-mmo players. Just people looking for games.
Ok, I will bite. How did you come to this conclusion? I play a lot of different games, I do not limit myself to one genre but I am certain by any definition I am an MMO player and have been since 2001.
What is your definition of a MMO player? What qualifies you to assign that title? I have more questions, but I will wait in extreme anticipation for your response.
I don't have much time, but since your waiting with extreme anticipation I'll respond.
I see people saying
- Hybrid is the future
- People don't like journeys
Stuff like that is telling me they are looking for games, not mmos. Yes hybrids are the future, this is true. Because they are EASEY TO MAKE. Giving the real mmo player nothing to play. Most of the real mmo players are gone from this site. This leaves the few that choose to stick having to argue with the ones just looking for games.
Here's a little secret, many here at mmorpg.com are looking for FREE GAMES, and will fight to keep them rolling.
The genre has been stagnant and dying for a decade. What passes for a good game now is a miniscule world with loading zones everywhere, artificial borders everywhere, a short level based system, where gear rules and an endgame. There shouldn't even BE an endgame. It shouldn't be a month to max and then get stuck in 5 dungeons on repeat, but this is what gamers have allowed and been taught is how it is done.
There is no universal "should". Your subjective taste is just your subjective taste and nothing more.
Games you don't like can be great. Yes you might hate them, simply because they are not targeting you and thus are not designed for your subjective taste and preferences. Just keep in mind that you hating them says absolutely nothing about their quality. They are tailored to someone else's taste.
The whole subjective taste thing is all well and good for discussion but in practical application, the issues brought up by @shadow9d9 have gone seemingly hand and hand with struggling MMOs.
In the end, if people aren't sticking around playing those games and they haven't been particularly successful, then one can conclude that they aren't really good in general from a design or business standpoint.
When I was a kid in Malaysia my father bought only Schaub Lorenz and Volkswagen. He swore German technology and engineering bar none was the best and even when he changed the car he got another Volkswagen . Over time however he started buying Japanese cars and he said they were more reliable and modern and then started changing them more often. When he first decided to get a Japanese car I remember thinking that we would have less break downs and having to stop in the middle of our trips from Kota Bahru to Kuala Lumper .
I think the majority of people in life go through changes and they also change their habits. Playing a game like I did Everquest for years no longer appeals to me because I cantry out different games and no longer only playing one game for long periods of time does not mean the genre is dying or that people are leaving these types of games . People's habits have changed because there are choices .There are different games everywhere and we enjoy trying them out. Not playing one game for a long time is only evidence that people have become more inclined to change the things they do.
I have friends who change their phone every 6 months to a year . That does not mean that their phones are lousy or that the phone industry is losing people . It just means people enjoy variety.
The fact that we enjoy hopping from one game to another does not make us not enjoy the games we are currently playing. There seems to be some kind of cult mentality that when you play a game and not stick to it then it means the game has failed and the genre is dying. Can't it mean we like to try out different games and come back frequently to games when they introduce an expansion . Must we remain faithful to our games to show we like the genre or that the game entertained us.
I do not agree with this litmus at all. I think that when we have more choices that it is only human nature to want to try out the new games and play them for awhile . There is no shame nor guilt in leaving for another game because we can play another. Why should there be a necessity to show how we like a genre by slavishly playing just one game for long periods of time. I certainly would never have played Everquest for so long if there were other choices I liked.
Dullahan said:
In the end, if people aren't sticking around playing those games and they haven't been particularly successful, then one can conclude that they aren't really good in general from a design or business standpoint.
Indeed, it is good that it isn't the case tho - people are still playing, there more games on the market and people are spending more money on MMOs than ever before.
The thing with MMORPG is you dont need a large budget with top of the line graphics to make an amazing game that feels alive. I think thats where devs went the wrong way trying to make the game look gorgous instead of making a good system that works well. tbh they make the game worst imo simply because whats the basis of an MMO, mass muilti online games means alot of people. By doing amazing graphics you make the game harder to run with alot of poeple on the screen without lagging everyone to death. The older games did these games well because they put more time and effort in how the game works and function over how shiny it looks. Some example here
Everquest: Those people who are aware and played this game the faction in that game was obserd there was so many of them and many of the action you did influenced this in just one city there was more than 20 factions in there each could be raised and lowered. raising faction could give you access to a kill on site city that normal people of ur race wouildnt be able to get into without dieing. Or you could even lower your faction to the point where some NPC in they city would Attack you on site. This system takes alot of time to put into a game and is often left out of new games or atleast greatly reduced. i can safely say the original game with no patches had well over 500 different factions that npc belonged to (Mobs also had a seperate faction like black burrow gnolls)
Runescape: Harvesting system in the game is quite possibly my favorite type of harvesting ive ever seen in a game, it was most likly removed from games now a days simply cause you had to have a inventory limit of say20-30 items to make it work which was an inconvient (which is another thing they shouldnt remove from MMORPG) like is inconvient at times the game should also have some inconviences aswell.
All of the major subscription based mmos that lost their players and moved to f2p in the last decade would beg to differ.
All? really we are just talking about a few games, some of which actually use a hybrid system rather than F2P, so not sure they really qualify. Prime example is SW:TOR, a P2P/F2P hybrid that is more of a 'free to try' rather than 'free to play' as much of the games features are only accessible to subscribers unless a 1 week pass is purchased in the cash shop. All in all there doesn't appear to have been a massive shift towards F2P, instead we seem to be seeing more games being released as B2P, and we're still seeing games with a subscription option. I put this down to 'F2P' not really being all that free, but often with lots of added microtransactions, that more often than not, need to be repeated on a regular basis, with B2P the attractions seems to be that by paying up front for the content, your less likely to be nickel and dimed on a constant basis.
All of the major subscription based mmos that lost their players and moved to f2p in the last decade would beg to differ.
...that is like saying the MMOs has failed because they had to update their graphics to remain appealing.
Market, the customer needs, are always changing, they are demanding and business is responding - there are design changes, graphics changes and as well payment model changes.
That is how the world works...
You might burry your head in sand and moan about market and life changes but at the end of the day, you are just a guy that is left behind.
I think there is some degree of standing to question why a game isn't holding population or growing. If the game is good then people won't be running around trying other games- they will be having to much fun in the game they are playing.
I think there is some degree of standing to question why a game isn't holding population or growing. If the game is good then people won't be running around trying other games- they will be having to much fun in the game they are playing.
I think there is some degree of standing to question why a game isn't holding population or growing. If the game is good then people won't be running around trying other games- they will be having to much fun in the game they are playing.
There is no need to eat same pizza every day...
It's not a pizza. We're talking about games. Apples and oranges here.
The investment that you make in a game is not lost. You can always come back and play it later. There's no harm in checking out other games. I don't see this type of gaming detrimental at all. Why do you consider that something is not worth it unless you stay playing the game for a long period of time.
The investment that you make in a game is not lost. You can always come back and play it later. There's no harm in checking out other games. I don't see this type of gaming detrimental at all. Why do you consider that something is not worth it unless you stay playing the game for a long period of time.
I think it's interesting that we always blame the players. "They're locusts with short attention spans."
We don't ever blame the devs for losing the attention of millions upon millions of players. But clearly a lot of players have moved on from the mmorpg market. Possibly (almost certainly) more than the population that remained.
Available evidence indicates "traditional" mmorpg is a losing design, for at least a goodly sized chunk players of what (was) the total market.
"We're better than them," we reassure ourselves. "They must be inferior in some way!"
Comments
whether they deserve to live depends on individual prefernces. I am sure dev who are making money off them says "yes", and so do those who enjoy the games.
MMO Moba's if anything are only growing.
MMORPG's tho, except handfull, there hasnt been a good game+publisher duo in many many years.
Its simply becoming money-milking genre. With 0 imagination.
Except maybe GW2/ FF,some nice ideas and effort. Rest either generic or p2w or both.
Massively Multiplayer Online Multiplayer Online Battle Arena? Jesus, lol.
I think MOBA covers it just fine.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Themepark elements that offer quality tailored experiences, sprinkled into an otherwise Sandbox environment.
But hey... I've been saying that for like 10 years, waiting for it to be done well by a developer. Star Citizen looks like it might deliver on that sort of idea.
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
MMORPGs, in the way older players remember them, were built to catch and retain customers for decades (if possible). No one is making those anymore, and even Blizzard seems to be backing away from that model.
But the industry still has a huge number of new titles, particularly FTP "quickies". And they're doing far more than just dabbling with other models entirely, MOBAs and shooters and hybrids and TCGs. Anything and everything that you can approach with the same kind of art assets, the same high fantasy flavor.
Games built to capture (briefly) a far, far more mobile sort of customer.
The oldsters can only rage against time. How dare the world change without my permission?
Using this post and reading the response's.
It's very clear mmorpg.com is over run with non-mmo players. Just people looking for games.
What is your definition of a MMO player? What qualifies you to assign that title? I have more questions, but I will wait in extreme anticipation for your response.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
We didn't grow up with smart phones. We're encountering millennials who did. (We don't have much to offer that they actually want, with our game models originally built for hourly rates. Just like MUDs didn't have much to offer MMORPG players, the earlier model just ages out of general use.)
Don't change world, I liked the status quo ante. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Blizzard canned Titan (at least as an MMO), Daybreak canned EQN, CCP canned that Vampire one they were working on.... all the big names in the industry are getting as far away from MMORPGs as fast as they can. Anyone who can't see the shift to arena-style games (MOBA, shooter, survival) is simply not paying attention.
Just ask yourselves - what was the last MMORPG launch that kept massive amounts of people playing longer than a month? Even BDO, which is lauded as some huge achievement, is losing players rapidly because these games are not designed to immerse you and keep you playing, they are designed to get you to buy crap from the cash shop. Asian games are the biggest culprit here, and they also happen to be the only MMORPGs we are getting anymore (another sign that the age of the MMORPG is over).
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQoK5VZlwBBzpsksmXtjMQ
I don't have much time, but since your waiting with extreme anticipation I'll respond.
I see people saying
- Hybrid is the future
- People don't like journeys
Stuff like that is telling me they are looking for games, not mmos. Yes hybrids are the future, this is true. Because they are EASEY TO MAKE. Giving the real mmo player nothing to play. Most of the real mmo players are gone from this site. This leaves the few that choose to stick having to argue with the ones just looking for games.
Here's a little secret, many here at mmorpg.com are looking for FREE GAMES, and will fight to keep them rolling.
I'll check back later if you have any questions
In the end, if people aren't sticking around playing those games and they haven't been particularly successful, then one can conclude that they aren't really good in general from a design or business standpoint.
I think the majority of people in life go through changes and they also change their habits. Playing a game like I did Everquest for years no longer appeals to me because I can try out different games and no longer only playing one game for long periods of time does not mean the genre is dying or that people are leaving these types of games . People's habits have changed because there are choices .There are different games everywhere and we enjoy trying them out. Not playing one game for a long time is only evidence that people have become more inclined to change the things they do.
I have friends who change their phone every 6 months to a year . That does not mean that their phones are lousy or that the phone industry is losing people . It just means people enjoy variety.
The fact that we enjoy hopping from one game to another does not make us not enjoy the games we are currently playing. There seems to be some kind of cult mentality that when you play a game and not stick to it then it means the game has failed and the genre is dying. Can't it mean we like to try out different games and come back frequently to games when they introduce an expansion . Must we remain faithful to our games to show we like the genre or that the game entertained us.
I do not agree with this litmus at all. I think that when we have more choices that it is only human nature to want to try out the new games and play them for awhile . There is no shame nor guilt in leaving for another game because we can play another. Why should there be a necessity to show how we like a genre by slavishly playing just one game for long periods of time. I certainly would never have played Everquest for so long if there were other choices I liked.
You can sell that to the air force.
I think thats where devs went the wrong way trying to make the game look gorgous instead of making a good system that works well. tbh they make the game worst imo simply because whats the basis of an MMO, mass muilti online games means alot of people. By doing amazing graphics you make the game harder to run with alot of poeple on the screen without lagging everyone to death.
The older games did these games well because they put more time and effort in how the game works and function over how shiny it looks. Some example here
Everquest: Those people who are aware and played this game the faction in that game was obserd there was so many of them and many of the action you did influenced this in just one city there was more than 20 factions in there each could be raised and lowered. raising faction could give you access to a kill on site city that normal people of ur race wouildnt be able to get into without dieing. Or you could even lower your faction to the point where some NPC in they city would Attack you on site. This system takes alot of time to put into a game and is often left out of new games or atleast greatly reduced. i can safely say the original game with no patches had well over 500 different factions that npc belonged to (Mobs also had a seperate faction like black burrow gnolls)
Runescape: Harvesting system in the game is quite possibly my favorite type of harvesting ive ever seen in a game, it was most likly removed from games now a days simply cause you had to have a inventory limit of say20-30 items to make it work which was an inconvient (which is another thing they shouldnt remove from MMORPG) like is inconvient at times the game should also have some inconviences aswell.
Prime example is SW:TOR, a P2P/F2P hybrid that is more of a 'free to try' rather than 'free to play' as much of the games features are only accessible to subscribers unless a 1 week pass is purchased in the cash shop.
All in all there doesn't appear to have been a massive shift towards F2P, instead we seem to be seeing more games being released as B2P, and we're still seeing games with a subscription option.
I put this down to 'F2P' not really being all that free, but often with lots of added microtransactions, that more often than not, need to be repeated on a regular basis, with B2P the attractions seems to be that by paying up front for the content, your less likely to be nickel and dimed on a constant basis.
Market, the customer needs, are always changing, they are demanding and business is responding - there are design changes, graphics changes and as well payment model changes.
That is how the world works...
You might burry your head in sand and moan about market and life changes but at the end of the day, you are just a guy that is left behind.
We don't ever blame the devs for losing the attention of millions upon millions of players. But clearly a lot of players have moved on from the mmorpg market. Possibly (almost certainly) more than the population that remained.
Available evidence indicates "traditional" mmorpg is a losing design, for at least a goodly sized chunk players of what (was) the total market.
"We're better than them," we reassure ourselves. "They must be inferior in some way!"
Confirmation bias :P