FFXIV raids its players wallet by making them pay for the same game on multiple platforms, and then charging them a subscription for it.
To begin playing WoW, I pay for it once and can access it on my PC and Mac. For FFXIV, I have to pay 2x as much - 3x as much if I want to play on my PS4. This is how they get a lot of money, and this is one reason why I've never played the game. It's too much. I can use that extra $60 to buy an entire other game (or two, or three) which works just fine on other platforms.
I can use the $120 that I'd need to play it on my Mac and PS4 to buy a new 1080p monitor. I can fly round trip to Chicago from here to visit RL friends for less cash, actually...
I just don't see a point in paying $180 + Tax to play the same game - the same account, the same characters - on whichever platform/machine I have that is most convenient for me at the time.
Maybe I want to play on my Mac and it's 21.5" Monitor when at home. Maybe I'd want to play on my Windows Notebook when I travel? Maybe I'd want to play on my PS4 when I'm relaxing in my room, in bed... Or on the living room couch.
This is not the type of convenience I'm willing to pay for.
---
Beyond that. I think MMORPGs are boring because the Lore for many of them is shallow and there is nothing really pulling players to invest in them beyond superficial gains. Many of them are trying to exploit the competitive drive of players, but that only pulls in fickle players who will easily jump to the "next big thing."
---
Another reason is that the genre has atrophied. We had a good 6-7 years of games that did nothing but copy older games and slap it on top of awful programming and crappy graphics engines with astronomical system requirements.
---
Lastly, many other genres are taking RPG elements and using them to pull from the MMORPG fanbase. ARPGs are doing this (Diablo III, Path of Exile, etc.). FPS games are doing this (Destiny, Overwatch).
Consoles are also bigger than ever, and MMORPGs are not really targeting those form factors/platform well, yet. When they do, they generally have "second class citizen" status, which is actually a reason to avoid them - not invest in them.
Lack of cross-play is also an issue, as well as the need to rebuy the game for PC and console (something Microsoft is addressing on Xbox, but Sony likely will never address - which is why I'm likely to replace my PS4 with a new Xbox instead of getting a PS Pro... soonish).
As a Long Time MMO player, started with MUD's and moved up to MMOs with EQ.
I think some of the new stuff is great. some of it sucks too.. but there are some great gems out there, if you look.
Also, different people have different tastes, what I may love another may hate.. and vice versa.
More variety, more choices, but like anything more choices also means there are more bad choices, but also some great choices.
Just keep looking.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The problem is the business model that is used today, it's basically anti MMORPG. The games that have come out in the last 5 to 10 years could be debated as not even being RPG based. The problem that you are experiencing is basically a bait and switch.. that's why everything sucks for you.
Oh golly let me answer this one. I know the answer! It cuz they are ALL more or less the SAME. Every last MMORPG game makes you trade your valuable time to grind for rewards you won't see for weeks or maybe months. They only differ in the way they execute it. Only games without the word "massively" in the online game part can truly break out of the monotony.
(FULL DISCLAIMER: first MMORPG I played was Ragnarok 1 over 15 years ago and since then I've played every type of game there is.... so I guess I'm a little biased cuz after a while all games start to seem the same).
FFXIV raids its players wallet by making them pay for the same game on multiple platforms, and then charging them a subscription for it.
To begin playing WoW, I pay for it once and can access it on my PC and Mac. For FFXIV, I have to pay 2x as much - 3x as much if I want to play on my PS4. This is how they get a lot of money, and this is one reason why I've never played the game. It's too much. I can use that extra $60 to buy an entire other game (or two, or three) which works just fine on other platforms.
I can use the $120 that I'd need to play it on my Mac and PS4 to buy a new 1080p monitor. I can fly round trip to Chicago from here to visit RL friends for less cash, actually...
I just don't see a point in paying $180 + Tax to play the same game - the same account, the same characters - on whichever platform/machine I have that is most convenient for me at the time.
Maybe I want to play on my Mac and it's 21.5" Monitor when at home. Maybe I'd want to play on my Windows Notebook when I travel? Maybe I'd want to play on my PS4 when I'm relaxing in my room, in bed... Or on the living room couch.
This is not the type of convenience I'm willing to pay for.
---
Beyond that. I think MMORPGs are boring because the Lore for many of them is shallow and there is nothing really pulling players to invest in them beyond superficial gains. Many of them are trying to exploit the competitive drive of players, but that only pulls in fickle players who will easily jump to the "next big thing."
---
Another reason is that the genre has atrophied. We had a good 6-7 years of games that did nothing but copy older games and slap it on top of awful programming and crappy graphics engines with astronomical system requirements.
---
Lastly, many other genres are taking RPG elements and using them to pull from the MMORPG fanbase. ARPGs are doing this (Diablo III, Path of Exile, etc.). FPS games are doing this (Destiny, Overwatch).
Consoles are also bigger than ever, and MMORPGs are not really targeting those form factors/platform well, yet. When they do, they generally have "second class citizen" status, which is actually a reason to avoid them - not invest in them.
Lack of cross-play is also an issue, as well as the need to rebuy the game for PC and console (something Microsoft is addressing on Xbox, but Sony likely will never address - which is why I'm likely to replace my PS4 with a new Xbox instead of getting a PS Pro... soonish).
Consoles might be more capable now than they have been in the past, but they don't remotely compare to a gaming PC, that much has not changed at all, if anything the argument is now more in favour of getting a Switch than either a PS4 or an Xbox, it would be great if more games were cross platform, but afaik only FFXIV:ARR has that capability, and while you need to buy the game for PS4 you don't need a seperate subscription to do so, though honestly if you have a PC that is the best version of the game anyway, though you can plug a standard mouse and keyboard into a PS4 to play FFXIV:ARR with, which is something i think most do anyway if only because you really need to have a keyboard to use the chat functionality in the game, technically you can use text chat with a gamepad but its a very slow next to useless method of doing so, something that is a problem inherent to gamepads generally regardless of platform. As for gaming on a Mac, they aren't designed for it so your going to find problems there anyway, its not something that i would recommend unless you buy the most expensive desktop mac out there, and even then it won't compare to a gaming PC of lower value. But if you are intending to 'game on the go' then you are probably better off getting a switch than an xbox or ps4, but if you are set on getting an xbox i would advise getting the newer more powerful version, the old one is really not worth having and is likely to not support some of the better upcoming games.
An endless environment of pervasive negativity tends to cyclically reinforce itself such that the focus of many players is so fixed on the flaws of games they gloss over their merits.
Oh golly let me answer this one. I know the answer! It cuz they are ALL more or less the SAME. Every last MMORPG game makes you trade your valuable time to grind for rewards you won't see for weeks or maybe months. They only differ in the way they execute it. Only games without the word "massively" in the online game part can truly break out of the monotony.
(FULL DISCLAIMER: first MMORPG I played was Ragnarok 1 over 15 years ago and since then I've played every type of game there is.... so I guess I'm a little biased cuz after a while all games start to seem the same).
Not sure what games you have been playing lately but most games released in the past 5 to 10 years you could just buy you want to the top skipping most content. There hasn't been a grind in a game in a long time.. it's all about letting you pay to get to the end game where you can do a few instances over and over again trying to get 1 item. That sums up the last 10 years.
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
While that might have been the case for UO, for EQ1 at least there was no per minute charge for connecting to the internet but a set monthly fee for doing so, at least in the UK.
they are about to stop sucking once crowfall, camelot unchained, and lost ark come out, at least one of them will in the next 1-2 years
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
So EQ and UO which both had monthly subscriptions were designed to make money for internet providers who billed by the minute?
Suuuure.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
They scream for the near impossible things like human like AI instead of demanding the development of deep, layered player driven systems system.
Uh, the current mob AI is dumb as a doornail and almost all singleplayer games have far better AI then MMORPGs. Getting all mobs exactly like humens so you don't notice the difference is indeed nearly impossible but improving it is rather easy.
As far as I see PvP wise does a lot of the problem come from the huge powergap between new characters and veterans but most of the "PvP fans" don't want to change that which gives us a rather bad PvP experience in MMOs compared to other genres.
Just blaming a single group of players isn't really fair in any case. PvP fans usually whine and want PvP servers in PvE focused games just as PvEers want PvE servers in PvP focused games. Both things make the games worse, any game that wont put an equal amount of work into both playstyles will have terrible PvE or PvP anyways and it will make the focused playstyle less fun as well. It is better to make an awesome focused game then an average game with mixed gameplay.
But the real problem is still the publlishers as I said above.
FFXIV raids its players wallet by making them pay for the same game on multiple platforms, and then charging them a subscription for it.
To begin playing WoW, I pay for it once and can access it on my PC and Mac. For FFXIV, I have to pay 2x as much - 3x as much if I want to play on my PS4. This is how they get a lot of money, and this is one reason why I've never played the game. It's too much. I can use that extra $60 to buy an entire other game (or two, or three) which works just fine on other platforms.
I can use the $120 that I'd need to play it on my Mac and PS4 to buy a new 1080p monitor. I can fly round trip to Chicago from here to visit RL friends for less cash, actually...
I just don't see a point in paying $180 + Tax to play the same game - the same account, the same characters - on whichever platform/machine I have that is most convenient for me at the time.
Maybe I want to play on my Mac and it's 21.5" Monitor when at home. Maybe I'd want to play on my Windows Notebook when I travel? Maybe I'd want to play on my PS4 when I'm relaxing in my room, in bed... Or on the living room couch.
This is not the type of convenience I'm willing to pay for.
---
Beyond that. I think MMORPGs are boring because the Lore for many of them is shallow and there is nothing really pulling players to invest in them beyond superficial gains. Many of them are trying to exploit the competitive drive of players, but that only pulls in fickle players who will easily jump to the "next big thing."
---
Another reason is that the genre has atrophied. We had a good 6-7 years of games that did nothing but copy older games and slap it on top of awful programming and crappy graphics engines with astronomical system requirements.
---
Lastly, many other genres are taking RPG elements and using them to pull from the MMORPG fanbase. ARPGs are doing this (Diablo III, Path of Exile, etc.). FPS games are doing this (Destiny, Overwatch).
Consoles are also bigger than ever, and MMORPGs are not really targeting those form factors/platform well, yet. When they do, they generally have "second class citizen" status, which is actually a reason to avoid them - not invest in them.
Lack of cross-play is also an issue, as well as the need to rebuy the game for PC and console (something Microsoft is addressing on Xbox, but Sony likely will never address - which is why I'm likely to replace my PS4 with a new Xbox instead of getting a PS Pro... soonish).
Consoles might be more capable now than they have been in the past, but they don't remotely compare to a gaming PC, that much has not changed at all, if anything the argument is now more in favour of getting a Switch than either a PS4 or an Xbox, it would be great if more games were cross platform, but afaik only FFXIV:ARR has that capability, and while you need to buy the game for PS4 you don't need a seperate subscription to do so, though honestly if you have a PC that is the best version of the game anyway, though you can plug a standard mouse and keyboard into a PS4 to play FFXIV:ARR with, which is something i think most do anyway if only because you really need to have a keyboard to use the chat functionality in the game, technically you can use text chat with a gamepad but its a very slow next to useless method of doing so, something that is a problem inherent to gamepads generally regardless of platform. As for gaming on a Mac, they aren't designed for it so your going to find problems there anyway, its not something that i would recommend unless you buy the most expensive desktop mac out there, and even then it won't compare to a gaming PC of lower value. But if you are intending to 'game on the go' then you are probably better off getting a switch than an xbox or ps4, but if you are set on getting an xbox i would advise getting the newer more powerful version, the old one is really not worth having and is likely to not support some of the better upcoming games.
MMORPGs need to be designed for lower specs.
They're social games, and their viability is directly affected by the size of their player bases. Witcher 3 is always going to be good, even if you're the only person playing it, because it doesn't depend on a massive amount of players to be good. MMORPGs are not like that.
WoW is actually a better game when you're not on a dead server, and so is every other MMORPG. This is why people specifically avoid "dead" games.
A lot of casual players have moved to consoles. A lot of FFXIV streamers play on PS4, not PC.
The specs of a console should be more than good enough for MMORPGs - FFXIV is a clear display of that. They are actually beyond what a lot of casual desktop MMORPG players use. A lot of these desktop MMORPGs are unattractive simply because they are over speced and look like dirt on the PCs that the majority of casual players have to play them on.
They aren't going to pay $1,400 for a new PC to play the game (and don't tell them to piece together a PC...), and this negatively effects the experience we players have in those games - especially when the game is decent but starving for a player base. A lot of games in the 2005-2010 era died due to system requirements.
The comparison of consoles with "gaming PCs" is short-sighted... and pretty damn stupid, to be frank.
A console - especially the newer revisions - is about as good as an entry-level gaming laptop with an i5, HD, and GTX 1050 or equivalent AMD card. A PC like that plays most MMORPGs without issue, on High+ at 1080p.
They are good enough.
The only thing holding them back was the input mechanism - controllers. But, both Xbox and PS4 support KB/Mouse at this point, so that is no longer a factor. FFXIV supports this on PS4, as stated, and it's more than playable on that console. So, I'm not buying what you're saying... Developers simply haven't caught up, and they don't get as much help/funding developing for those platforms (i.e. from companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Razer, etc.).
Casual Playerbase is moving more and more to consoles. It's less hassle, and the graphics are really good particularly at the price point those consoles are sold. Controller gameplay is also a lot more friendly to many (even newer) players, as they find it more logical than games with WASD movement, etc. - in my experience.
As for Mac. I have gamed on Macs, and the games run fine. FFXIV is available for Mac. WoW is available for Mac. Diablo III is available for Mac. GW2 is available for Mac. ESO is available for Mac. StarCraft, is available for Mac. League of Legends is available for Mac. Hearthstone is available for Mac.
The bullcrap about not being built for gaming is FUD and bordering on propaganda. You've always been able to get Macs with discrete graphics cards. They use Intel Processors. Macs are basically PCs running a different operating system. If you want to game on your Mac, then pay the money to get the Specs to game. I have. Some of us like having a machine that doesn't run Windows for productivity work - and being able to run games on it is a bonus.
They're social games, and their viability is directly affected by the size of their player bases. Witcher 3 is always going to be good, even if you're the only person playing it, because it doesn't depend on a massive amount of players to be good. MMORPGs are not like that.
WoW is actually a better game when you're not on a dead server, and so is every other MMORPG. This is why people specifically avoid "dead" games.
A lot of casual players have moved to consoles. A lot of FFXIV streamers play on PS4, not PC.
The specs of a console should be more than good enough for MMORPGs - FFXIV is a clear display of that. They are actually beyond what a lot of casual desktop MMORPG players use. A lot of these desktop MMORPGs are unattractive simply because they are over speced and look like dirt on the PCs that the majority of casual players have to play them on.
They aren't going to pay $1,400 for a new PC to play the game (and don't tell them to piece together a PC...), and this negatively effects the experience we players have in those games - especially when the game is decent but starving for a player base. A lot of games in the 2005-2010 era died due to system requirements.
The comparison of consoles with "gaming PCs" is short-sighted... and pretty damn stupid, to be frank.
A console - especially the newer revisions - is about as good as an entry-level gaming laptop with an i5, HD, and GTX 1050 or equivalent AMD card. A PC like that plays most MMORPGs without issue, on High+ at 1080p.
They are good enough.
The only thing holding them back was the input mechanism - controllers. But, both Xbox and PS4 support KB/Mouse at this point, so that is no longer a factor. FFXIV supports this on PS4, as stated, and it's more than playable on that console. So, I'm not buying what you're saying... Developers simply haven't caught up, and they don't get as much help/funding developing for those platforms (i.e. from companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Razer, etc.).
Casual Playerbase is moving more and more to consoles. It's less hassle, and the graphics are really good particularly at the price point those consoles are sold. Controller gameplay is also a lot more friendly to many (even newer) players, as they find it more logical than games with WASD movement, etc. - in my experience.
As for Mac. I have gamed on Macs, and the games run fine. FFXIV is available for Mac. WoW is available for Mac. Diablo III is available for Mac. GW2 is available for Mac. ESO is available for Mac. StarCraft, is available for Mac. League of Legends is available for Mac. Hearthstone is available for Mac.
The bullcrap about not being built for gaming is FUD and bordering on propaganda. You've always been able to get Macs with discrete graphics cards. They use Intel Processors. Macs are basically PCs running a different operating system. If you want to game on your Mac, then pay the money to get the Specs to game. I have. Some of us like having a machine that doesn't run Windows for productivity work - and being able to run games on it is a bonus.
There isn't a single perfect solution that works for all MMOs and neither should it be.
A few high end games, a few that can run on anything and most in between is really how things should be and since MMOs will be around for years putting all of them in the lowest speccs possible means they don't age that well. You can get pretty far with good programing and a creative artsyle but there is still a limit.
It is clearly not the lack of low end MMOs that is the problem anyways, fewer and fewer western AAA games are being made and the only explanation for that is that the profit for each invested dollar is down compared to 10 years ago.
And I can run most MMOs well on my laptop from 2009 (actually played a lot of GW2 for instance on it when my desktop got killed by thunder last summer). It was high end when it was new and I put a SSD in it but still, anything it can run acceptable even at low settings is not a demanding game.
We certainly had a few games launching with demanding speccs like EQ2, AoC and the first launch of FF XIV but those games are more an exception then a rule and a lot of the low end problems really came fromm poor coding, AoCs speccs for running well got lowered a lot a year after launch due to optimization and EQ2 never gets great FPS even with a modern high end computer 14 years after launch.
Also, a Final fantasy game is probably not the best example of PC Vs console, the serie have always been focused on consoles and the IPs fans are way more numeral there then with PC gamers.
I don't know if games outright suck but they are going in the wrong direction,more monetary,micro transactions than quality.
Most of us already knew that devs rush out their games,every day not in circuit is a lot of money investors don't get.Now a days it sure looks like they are managing the profits before any game is even made and designs around the monetary seem to have more thought put into them than the actual game designs.
Look at Diablo3,build a really cheap game with intent on not releasing any content,just release a new class and make tons of money for little effort,same goes for all these hero games selling hero's in cash shops.
Look at SC,how much GAME is there really inside of that package?I say VERY little,mostly just an online store selling virtual ships,at least WAY more value on the cash shop than the actual game.
VERY poor spending habits also drives bad game design,far too many people are buying these low budget 1990's looking games,many of them just 2D side scrollers.So you can partially blame terrible spenders as well as the MANY cheats ruining your games.Stop supporting half assed efforts and devs are forced to do a better job.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I don't know if games outright suck but they are going in the wrong direction,more monetary,micro transactions than quality.
Most of us already knew that devs rush out their games,every day not in circuit is a lot of money investors don't get.Now a days it sure looks like they are managing the profits before any game is even made and designs around the monetary seem to have more thought put into them than the actual game designs.
Look at Diablo3,build a really cheap game with intent on not releasing any content,just release a new class and make tons of money for little effort,same goes for all these hero games selling hero's in cash shops.
Look at SC,how much GAME is there really inside of that package?I say VERY little,mostly just an online store selling virtual ships,at least WAY more value on the cash shop than the actual game.
VERY poor spending habits also drives bad game design,far too many people are buying these low budget 1990's looking games,many of them just 2D side scrollers.So you can partially blame terrible spenders as well as the MANY cheats ruining your games.Stop supporting half assed efforts and devs are forced to do a better job.
I think you are mostly right, besides with the low budget games. While I rarely played any of them myself (except the death road to Canada or something like that) if they are popular they are probably doing something right or people wouldn't bother playing them.
Also, D3 is popular and I am not sure how much more popular it would be if they put more effort into it. I am not sure Diablo fans want serious improvements so it might just be a waste of time. Then again, maybe it would be way more popular if they put more work into it, hard to say.
What we do know is that Wow had to improve it's updating, a few years ago the players got almost nothing for an entire year and it bleed players like nothing else that time. Putting in to work both before release and after it is clearly needed for a successful MMO. We seen a few games come back from a terrible launch, I think FF XIVs relaunch is the best example but Eve and AO did the same thing. Most games however don't come back.
And if you put a skeleton crew on a game or don't update it regularly enough you will bleed players.
Releasing a large enough game in good shape is just important and will still give you better returns on each invested dollar then a cheap buggy mess.
Because the true lovers of the genre who started out with UO, EQ, AC, AO, DAOC, etc are a niche customer base and not where the $$$$$ is. The masses just started getting into MMO's when WoW made them more accessible and casual, even though vanilla WoW was hardcore compared to today's crap. MMO's were meant to be virtual, persistent communities where you actually cared about what was going on without you while you were at school or work. Sadly, there is more money to be had by catering to the "play for a month f2p/p2w" crowds than the original MMORPG design....so that is what we get.
In before the "it's just nostalgia" turds.
This guy gets it..... Sadly only 1 out of 20 on this site hits the nail like this guy.
It's not about old school, it's not about old people or nostalgia, but what an mmo is.
The only thing he didn't cover is the FORCED changes to make the new crap work, like easy on rails story telling and cash shops.
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
While that might have been the case for UO, for EQ1 at least there was no per minute charge for connecting to the internet but a set monthly fee for doing so, at least in the UK.
With what is happening with Casino Shops, sorry Cash shops, I would not be surprised if pay minute was introduced to gaming.
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
While that might have been the case for UO, for EQ1 at least there was no per minute charge for connecting to the internet but a set monthly fee for doing so, at least in the UK.
With what is happening with Casino Shops, sorry Cash shops, I would not be surprised if pay minute was introduced to gaming.
So who do you think would try that first, EA or Activision
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
While that might have been the case for UO, for EQ1 at least there was no per minute charge for connecting to the internet but a set monthly fee for doing so, at least in the UK.
No. I had to pay per minute and a subscription to play EQ here in the UK. I was still using 56k dial up at that time.
Everquest did not provide a free dial up service number to play on.
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
While that might have been the case for UO, for EQ1 at least there was no per minute charge for connecting to the internet but a set monthly fee for doing so, at least in the UK.
No. I had to pay per minute and a subscription to play EQ here in the UK. I was still using 56k dial up at that time.
Everquest did not provide a free dial up service number to play on.
i kind of bypassed the whole 56k modem thing, and went straight from 33k to 64k isdn, which at the time was probably the best kind of internet connection you could get, the point is that most ISP's at that time were doing monthly deals, not per minute ones, even AOL was an unlimited deal for a monthly fee.
They're social games, and their viability is directly affected by the size of their player bases. Witcher 3 is always going to be good, even if you're the only person playing it, because it doesn't depend on a massive amount of players to be good. MMORPGs are not like that.
WoW is actually a better game when you're not on a dead server, and so is every other MMORPG. This is why people specifically avoid "dead" games.
A lot of casual players have moved to consoles. A lot of FFXIV streamers play on PS4, not PC.
The specs of a console should be more than good enough for MMORPGs - FFXIV is a clear display of that. They are actually beyond what a lot of casual desktop MMORPG players use. A lot of these desktop MMORPGs are unattractive simply because they are over speced and look like dirt on the PCs that the majority of casual players have to play them on.
They aren't going to pay $1,400 for a new PC to play the game (and don't tell them to piece together a PC...), and this negatively effects the experience we players have in those games - especially when the game is decent but starving for a player base. A lot of games in the 2005-2010 era died due to system requirements.
The comparison of consoles with "gaming PCs" is short-sighted... and pretty damn stupid, to be frank.
A console - especially the newer revisions - is about as good as an entry-level gaming laptop with an i5, HD, and GTX 1050 or equivalent AMD card. A PC like that plays most MMORPGs without issue, on High+ at 1080p.
They are good enough.
The only thing holding them back was the input mechanism - controllers. But, both Xbox and PS4 support KB/Mouse at this point, so that is no longer a factor. FFXIV supports this on PS4, as stated, and it's more than playable on that console. So, I'm not buying what you're saying... Developers simply haven't caught up, and they don't get as much help/funding developing for those platforms (i.e. from companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Razer, etc.).
Casual Playerbase is moving more and more to consoles. It's less hassle, and the graphics are really good particularly at the price point those consoles are sold. Controller gameplay is also a lot more friendly to many (even newer) players, as they find it more logical than games with WASD movement, etc. - in my experience.
As for Mac. I have gamed on Macs, and the games run fine. FFXIV is available for Mac. WoW is available for Mac. Diablo III is available for Mac. GW2 is available for Mac. ESO is available for Mac. StarCraft, is available for Mac. League of Legends is available for Mac. Hearthstone is available for Mac.
The bullcrap about not being built for gaming is FUD and bordering on propaganda. You've always been able to get Macs with discrete graphics cards. They use Intel Processors. Macs are basically PCs running a different operating system. If you want to game on your Mac, then pay the money to get the Specs to game. I have. Some of us like having a machine that doesn't run Windows for productivity work - and being able to run games on it is a bonus.
There isn't a single perfect solution that works for all MMOs and neither should it be.
A few high end games, a few that can run on anything and most in between is really how things should be and since MMOs will be around for years putting all of them in the lowest speccs possible means they don't age that well. You can get pretty far with good programing and a creative artsyle but there is still a limit.
It is clearly not the lack of low end MMOs that is the problem anyways, fewer and fewer western AAA games are being made and the only explanation for that is that the profit for each invested dollar is down compared to 10 years ago.
And I can run most MMOs well on my laptop from 2009 (actually played a lot of GW2 for instance on it when my desktop got killed by thunder last summer). It was high end when it was new and I put a SSD in it but still, anything it can run acceptable even at low settings is not a demanding game.
We certainly had a few games launching with demanding speccs like EQ2, AoC and the first launch of FF XIV but those games are more an exception then a rule and a lot of the low end problems really came fromm poor coding, AoCs speccs for running well got lowered a lot a year after launch due to optimization and EQ2 never gets great FPS even with a modern high end computer 14 years after launch.
Also, a Final fantasy game is probably not the best example of PC Vs console, the serie have always been focused on consoles and the IPs fans are way more numeral there then with PC gamers.
What is a "low end MMORPG?" I'm talking about the system requirements locking out a large number of casuals. Games like Overwatch, for example, are huge and a lot of that has to do with the fact that almost anyone with a PC built after 2014 can play it decently - even with integrated graphics.
I'm not even sure what that moniker is supposed to mean.
I'm talking about the viability of MMORPGs which are specced and developed in a way that disallows even interested parties from playing the game. If the game looks terrible and runs terrible, then people won't play it. They aren't single player games. Even if it's the best game in the world, I'm not going to play it if there is barely a community there.
Everyone wants to talk like they're some "veteran," but casuals pay the bills.
GW2 runs terribly on any laptop from 2009. I have two older laptops here - one Intel, and one AMD. It is unplayable without putting it on low settings, and running reduced resolution (i.e. 800x600, etc.). That's the problem I'm pointing out. GW2 is a demanding game. The game was developed with an emphasis on eye candy. It looks terrible when you cannot run with those things turned on. That's typical of AAA titles.
Those games were not exceptions...
Rift was awfully optimized, this was well known. Warhammer. Vanguard was a mess because it required PCs that were too powerful - the developers speak of this mistake. Age of Conan. EQ2. GW2.
I don't believe that a 2009 machine runs that game acceptably, given I have newer laptops which choke on it - and the CPUs and iGPUs in those machines are way better than the CPUs and discrete graphics available in any 2009-era laptop, easily. I have SSDs in my Machines. SSDs don't matter in a laptop that old, it's likely running off a SATA 2 Bus, anyways. The bottleneck is usually the CPU, usually, not the GPU or Storage ;-)
Consumer PC specs increased quite a bit post-Vista release. You were noticing the general increase of PC power across the market. Funcom did fix bugs, but they didn't really lower the requirements. The requirements just became more attainable as the average PC caught up with it. iGPUs also increased massively in performance following Vista's release.
And yes, the strength of the IP is a huge bonus. I've mentioned this in other threads and posts on this forum. They capitalized well on their IP, while games like AoC didn't and companies like SOE/DBG allow theirs to atrophy.
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
While that might have been the case for UO, for EQ1 at least there was no per minute charge for connecting to the internet but a set monthly fee for doing so, at least in the UK.
No. I had to pay per minute and a subscription to play EQ here in the UK. I was still using 56k dial up at that time.
Everquest did not provide a free dial up service number to play on.
i kind of bypassed the whole 56k modem thing, and went straight from 33k to 64k isdn, which at the time was probably the best kind of internet connection you could get, the point is that most ISP's at that time were doing monthly deals, not per minute ones, even AOL was an unlimited deal for a monthly fee.
He's from the UK.
I think things are different there. They still complain about text message fees, and use services like WhatsApp which aren't used that much in the US because SMS/MMS is unlimited with every cell phone package, and has been for over a decade.
I will add to my earlier post that the entire 2007-2011 era was filled with games that the average casual couldn't run.
A large part of this was because the distinction between Indie and AAA games has always been made via the graphics fidelity of those games, and the system requirements of those games.
This is fine for FPS games and other genres who targeted a specific player base likely to have machines equipped for this, but it became a huge issue when MMORPGs got on that bandwagon, because this genre is dependent on Casuals to fund them.
There aren't enough "competitive raiders" and "competitive PvPers" in the market to do it with them alone - especially as the market became more and more saturated with increasing numbers of competing MMORPG games.
In that timeframe, games overspending their target market WAS THE NORM. This persists, to a large degree. The only difference now is that PCs are much cheaper (so the average PC offers considerably more comparative power today than it did back then), which renders it less of an issue.
Back then, it was a huge issue.
PS3 and Xbox 360 were a Godsend to a lot of people, because of the way games were being developed in relation to the Computing Power they had at their disposal.
I played RPG games like Dragon Age and Elder Scrolls predominantly on Consoles back then, and pretty much continue to do that as this trend has not really let up recently.
BTW, here is some food for thought. The first MMORPGs like UO, EQ1 etc were designed to keep you logged in and engaged in the game, they were designed to make you feel like you were missing something if you logged off. You might think the devs were doing this to build some mega RPG based MMO or something but the reality is back then many people were still paying for internet by the minute.. think America Online etc.. so these games were trying to monetize off the players by keeping them logged in.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
So EQ and UO which both had monthly subscriptions were designed to make money for internet providers who billed by the minute?
Suuuure.
Absolutely, who do you think originally funded them and encouraged the development? These massive content filled games just didn't get built out of a garage. In many parts of the US we were still on pay per minute internet (dial up etc) when EQ1 was released... think Prodigy!
What was cool though was the industry undercut themselves though when they went to a monthly model.. but that's in the past now. There is a reason why they called it 'Evercrack' you know and back then kids were dropping out of school left and right to play it. At my college and many others it was banned to play the game.
Comments
To begin playing WoW, I pay for it once and can access it on my PC and Mac. For FFXIV, I have to pay 2x as much - 3x as much if I want to play on my PS4. This is how they get a lot of money, and this is one reason why I've never played the game. It's too much. I can use that extra $60 to buy an entire other game (or two, or three) which works just fine on other platforms.
I can use the $120 that I'd need to play it on my Mac and PS4 to buy a new 1080p monitor. I can fly round trip to Chicago from here to visit RL friends for less cash, actually...
I just don't see a point in paying $180 + Tax to play the same game - the same account, the same characters - on whichever platform/machine I have that is most convenient for me at the time.
Maybe I want to play on my Mac and it's 21.5" Monitor when at home. Maybe I'd want to play on my Windows Notebook when I travel? Maybe I'd want to play on my PS4 when I'm relaxing in my room, in bed... Or on the living room couch.
This is not the type of convenience I'm willing to pay for.
---
Beyond that. I think MMORPGs are boring because the Lore for many of them is shallow and there is nothing really pulling players to invest in them beyond superficial gains. Many of them are trying to exploit the competitive drive of players, but that only pulls in fickle players who will easily jump to the "next big thing."
---
Another reason is that the genre has atrophied. We had a good 6-7 years of games that did nothing but copy older games and slap it on top of awful programming and crappy graphics engines with astronomical system requirements.
---
Lastly, many other genres are taking RPG elements and using them to pull from the MMORPG fanbase. ARPGs are doing this (Diablo III, Path of Exile, etc.). FPS games are doing this (Destiny, Overwatch).
Consoles are also bigger than ever, and MMORPGs are not really targeting those form factors/platform well, yet. When they do, they generally have "second class citizen" status, which is actually a reason to avoid them - not invest in them.
Lack of cross-play is also an issue, as well as the need to rebuy the game for PC and console (something Microsoft is addressing on Xbox, but Sony likely will never address - which is why I'm likely to replace my PS4 with a new Xbox instead of getting a PS Pro... soonish).
I think some of the new stuff is great. some of it sucks too.. but there are some great gems out there, if you look.
Also, different people have different tastes, what I may love another may hate.. and vice versa.
More variety, more choices, but like anything more choices also means there are more bad choices, but also some great choices.
Just keep looking.
(FULL DISCLAIMER: first MMORPG I played was Ragnarok 1 over 15 years ago and since then I've played every type of game there is.... so I guess I'm a little biased cuz after a while all games start to seem the same).
But if you are intending to 'game on the go' then you are probably better off getting a switch than an xbox or ps4, but if you are set on getting an xbox i would advise getting the newer more powerful version, the old one is really not worth having and is likely to not support some of the better upcoming games.
An endless environment of pervasive negativity tends to cyclically reinforce itself such that the focus of many players is so fixed on the flaws of games they gloss over their merits.
That business model fell apart though once internet quickly went to a sub based service, I believe this started happening right when EQ1 was released or before it was released.. but the original design of the game kept you logged in so you were paying more.
Suuuure.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/As far as I see PvP wise does a lot of the problem come from the huge powergap between new characters and veterans but most of the "PvP fans" don't want to change that which gives us a rather bad PvP experience in MMOs compared to other genres.
Just blaming a single group of players isn't really fair in any case. PvP fans usually whine and want PvP servers in PvE focused games just as PvEers want PvE servers in PvP focused games. Both things make the games worse, any game that wont put an equal amount of work into both playstyles will have terrible PvE or PvP anyways and it will make the focused playstyle less fun as well. It is better to make an awesome focused game then an average game with mixed gameplay.
But the real problem is still the publlishers as I said above.
MMORPGs need to be designed for lower specs.
They're social games, and their viability is directly affected by the size of their player bases. Witcher 3 is always going to be good, even if you're the only person playing it, because it doesn't depend on a massive amount of players to be good. MMORPGs are not like that.
WoW is actually a better game when you're not on a dead server, and so is every other MMORPG. This is why people specifically avoid "dead" games.
A lot of casual players have moved to consoles. A lot of FFXIV streamers play on PS4, not PC.
The specs of a console should be more than good enough for MMORPGs - FFXIV is a clear display of that. They are actually beyond what a lot of casual desktop MMORPG players use. A lot of these desktop MMORPGs are unattractive simply because they are over speced and look like dirt on the PCs that the majority of casual players have to play them on.
They aren't going to pay $1,400 for a new PC to play the game (and don't tell them to piece together a PC...), and this negatively effects the experience we players have in those games - especially when the game is decent but starving for a player base. A lot of games in the 2005-2010 era died due to system requirements.
The comparison of consoles with "gaming PCs" is short-sighted... and pretty damn stupid, to be frank.
A console - especially the newer revisions - is about as good as an entry-level gaming laptop with an i5, HD, and GTX 1050 or equivalent AMD card. A PC like that plays most MMORPGs without issue, on High+ at 1080p.
They are good enough.
The only thing holding them back was the input mechanism - controllers. But, both Xbox and PS4 support KB/Mouse at this point, so that is no longer a factor. FFXIV supports this on PS4, as stated, and it's more than playable on that console. So, I'm not buying what you're saying... Developers simply haven't caught up, and they don't get as much help/funding developing for those platforms (i.e. from companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Razer, etc.).
Casual Playerbase is moving more and more to consoles. It's less hassle, and the graphics are really good particularly at the price point those consoles are sold. Controller gameplay is also a lot more friendly to many (even newer) players, as they find it more logical than games with WASD movement, etc. - in my experience.
As for Mac. I have gamed on Macs, and the games run fine. FFXIV is available for Mac. WoW is available for Mac. Diablo III is available for Mac. GW2 is available for Mac. ESO is available for Mac. StarCraft, is available for Mac. League of Legends is available for Mac. Hearthstone is available for Mac.
The bullcrap about not being built for gaming is FUD and bordering on propaganda. You've always been able to get Macs with discrete graphics cards. They use Intel Processors. Macs are basically PCs running a different operating system. If you want to game on your Mac, then pay the money to get the Specs to game. I have. Some of us like having a machine that doesn't run Windows for productivity work - and being able to run games on it is a bonus.
A few high end games, a few that can run on anything and most in between is really how things should be and since MMOs will be around for years putting all of them in the lowest speccs possible means they don't age that well. You can get pretty far with good programing and a creative artsyle but there is still a limit.
It is clearly not the lack of low end MMOs that is the problem anyways, fewer and fewer western AAA games are being made and the only explanation for that is that the profit for each invested dollar is down compared to 10 years ago.
And I can run most MMOs well on my laptop from 2009 (actually played a lot of GW2 for instance on it when my desktop got killed by thunder last summer). It was high end when it was new and I put a SSD in it but still, anything it can run acceptable even at low settings is not a demanding game.
We certainly had a few games launching with demanding speccs like EQ2, AoC and the first launch of FF XIV but those games are more an exception then a rule and a lot of the low end problems really came fromm poor coding, AoCs speccs for running well got lowered a lot a year after launch due to optimization and EQ2 never gets great FPS even with a modern high end computer 14 years after launch.
Also, a Final fantasy game is probably not the best example of PC Vs console, the serie have always been focused on consoles and the IPs fans are way more numeral there then with PC gamers.
Most of us already knew that devs rush out their games,every day not in circuit is a lot of money investors don't get.Now a days it sure looks like they are managing the profits before any game is even made and designs around the monetary seem to have more thought put into them than the actual game designs.
Look at Diablo3,build a really cheap game with intent on not releasing any content,just release a new class and make tons of money for little effort,same goes for all these hero games selling hero's in cash shops.
Look at SC,how much GAME is there really inside of that package?I say VERY little,mostly just an online store selling virtual ships,at least WAY more value on the cash shop than the actual game.
VERY poor spending habits also drives bad game design,far too many people are buying these low budget 1990's looking games,many of them just 2D side scrollers.So you can partially blame terrible spenders as well as the MANY cheats ruining your games.Stop supporting half assed efforts and devs are forced to do a better job.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Also, D3 is popular and I am not sure how much more popular it would be if they put more effort into it. I am not sure Diablo fans want serious improvements so it might just be a waste of time. Then again, maybe it would be way more popular if they put more work into it, hard to say.
What we do know is that Wow had to improve it's updating, a few years ago the players got almost nothing for an entire year and it bleed players like nothing else that time. Putting in to work both before release and after it is clearly needed for a successful MMO. We seen a few games come back from a terrible launch, I think FF XIVs relaunch is the best example but Eve and AO did the same thing. Most games however don't come back.
And if you put a skeleton crew on a game or don't update it regularly enough you will bleed players.
Releasing a large enough game in good shape is just important and will still give you better returns on each invested dollar then a cheap buggy mess.
This guy gets it..... Sadly only 1 out of 20 on this site hits the nail like this guy.
It's not about old school, it's not about old people or nostalgia, but what an mmo is.
The only thing he didn't cover is the FORCED changes to make the new crap work, like easy on rails story telling and cash shops.
With what is happening with Casino Shops, sorry Cash shops, I would not be surprised if pay minute was introduced to gaming.
Everquest did not provide a free dial up service number to play on.
I'm not even sure what that moniker is supposed to mean.
I'm talking about the viability of MMORPGs which are specced and developed in a way that disallows even interested parties from playing the game. If the game looks terrible and runs terrible, then people won't play it. They aren't single player games. Even if it's the best game in the world, I'm not going to play it if there is barely a community there.
Everyone wants to talk like they're some "veteran," but casuals pay the bills.
GW2 runs terribly on any laptop from 2009. I have two older laptops here - one Intel, and one AMD. It is unplayable without putting it on low settings, and running reduced resolution (i.e. 800x600, etc.). That's the problem I'm pointing out. GW2 is a demanding game. The game was developed with an emphasis on eye candy. It looks terrible when you cannot run with those things turned on. That's typical of AAA titles.
Those games were not exceptions...
Rift was awfully optimized, this was well known. Warhammer. Vanguard was a mess because it required PCs that were too powerful - the developers speak of this mistake. Age of Conan. EQ2. GW2.
I don't believe that a 2009 machine runs that game acceptably, given I have newer laptops which choke on it - and the CPUs and iGPUs in those machines are way better than the CPUs and discrete graphics available in any 2009-era laptop, easily. I have SSDs in my Machines. SSDs don't matter in a laptop that old, it's likely running off a SATA 2 Bus, anyways. The bottleneck is usually the CPU, usually, not the GPU or Storage ;-)
Consumer PC specs increased quite a bit post-Vista release. You were noticing the general increase of PC power across the market. Funcom did fix bugs, but they didn't really lower the requirements. The requirements just became more attainable as the average PC caught up with it. iGPUs also increased massively in performance following Vista's release.
And yes, the strength of the IP is a huge bonus. I've mentioned this in other threads and posts on this forum. They capitalized well on their IP, while games like AoC didn't and companies like SOE/DBG allow theirs to atrophy.
He's from the UK.
I think things are different there. They still complain about text message fees, and use services like WhatsApp which aren't used that much in the US because SMS/MMS is unlimited with every cell phone package, and has been for over a decade.
A large part of this was because the distinction between Indie and AAA games has always been made via the graphics fidelity of those games, and the system requirements of those games.
This is fine for FPS games and other genres who targeted a specific player base likely to have machines equipped for this, but it became a huge issue when MMORPGs got on that bandwagon, because this genre is dependent on Casuals to fund them.
There aren't enough "competitive raiders" and "competitive PvPers" in the market to do it with them alone - especially as the market became more and more saturated with increasing numbers of competing MMORPG games.
In that timeframe, games overspending their target market WAS THE NORM. This persists, to a large degree. The only difference now is that PCs are much cheaper (so the average PC offers considerably more comparative power today than it did back then), which renders it less of an issue.
Back then, it was a huge issue.
PS3 and Xbox 360 were a Godsend to a lot of people, because of the way games were being developed in relation to the Computing Power they had at their disposal.
I played RPG games like Dragon Age and Elder Scrolls predominantly on Consoles back then, and pretty much continue to do that as this trend has not really let up recently.
What was cool though was the industry undercut themselves though when they went to a monthly model.. but that's in the past now. There is a reason why they called it 'Evercrack' you know and back then kids were dropping out of school left and right to play it. At my college and many others it was banned to play the game.