Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
1000000% agree.
Companies just are afraid to take chances anymore. They think going the safe route is the correct route. However, this strategy has been failing for a long time, and companies don't know what to do anymore.
I think back in the day it was about creativity. Today, it's more about the bottom line. So sad......
I did not read through 6 pages but I want to drop my 2 cents.
If you make an MMO that is lets say 1<50th of the polish of an AAA game. You do not make any super innovative changes to the the features. (Ie. you reskin somthing that has been done before, and it just feels like the other game.) Then you have the balls to make people pay the same price (box sales and Sub fees.) for a game that when faced with a 6 year old game just looks inferior, you are bound to catch backlash
Some games out there are fun and good. However if it is not a AAA game out the door. Do not charge a AAA price for service. I bet if some of the more "shitty" games out there did $20 box fee and 9.99/month sub more people would be a little more forgiving.
However if I pay $45-50 for lets use AoC as an example. (I just picked a game) and $14.95/month fee. And out the gate it is not as good as WoW $45 box and $14.95/month then your game is charging the same price for a lesser product.
Basic rule if your product does not meet or exceed your competition do not charge the same price.
As long as players keep comparing freshly released games to ones that released three years ago, they will be too dissappointed to like the game.
Its technically impossible for a MMO to release with just as much content and polish as a mmo that has been in market for 3-6 years yet people still keep expecting that of them.
Pretty sure people are more upset about the lack of innovation, and how those "six year old polished MMOs" are STILL more primtive than many MMORPGs were at LAUNCH back in 1999. Still don't see any housing in WoW... and all its flaws are getting fixed up by instancing instead of solving the real problem.
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
1000000% agree.
Companies just are afraid to take chances anymore. They think going the safe route is the correct route. However, this strategy has been failing for a long time, and companies don't know what to do anymore.
I think back in the day it was about creativity. Today, it's more about the bottom line. So sad......
I would tend to agree with both of you but let's face it...it's pretty much all been done before. Sure, there might be tweaks here and there but all MMOs are essentially the same. Also, making a game of any substance, whether it be an MMO, single player, whatever...takes cash. To get that cash it takes peeps to spend on the game or game items...etc. Which takes us to the post below:
Originally posted by mrputts
I did not read through 6 pages but I want to drop my 2 cents.
If you make an MMO that is lets say 1<50th of the polish of an AAA game. You do not make any super innovative changes to the the features. (Ie. you reskin somthing that has been done before, and it just feels like the other game.) Then you have the balls to make people pay the same price (box sales and Sub fees.) for a game that when faced with a 6 year old game just looks inferior, you are bound to catch backlash
Some games out there are fun and good. However if it is not a AAA game out the door. Do not charge a AAA price for service. I bet if some of the more "shitty" games out there did $20 box fee and 9.99/month sub more people would be a little more forgiving.
However if I pay $45-50 for lets use AoC as an example. (I just picked a game) and $14.95/month fee. And out the gate it is not as good as WoW $45 box and $14.95/month then your game is charging the same price for a lesser product.
Basic rule if your product does not meet or exceed your competition do not charge the same price.
At least that is how I look at it.
Who determines what is a AAA game? You? Me? Gaming sites? I know there are games that I've never heard of that do incredibly well. And by well I mean that there's a sufficient fan base to allow the game to make money and keep it's players reasonably happy. Would those players say their game is AAA? Ultimately, it's a game's community that decides if its a AAA game and worth paying for and playing. And, as I stated above, companies are there to make money and they know that to do that they have to put out a quality product. Does it always work out....nope. Do companies try like hell...yeah. Nobody sets out to make a subpar game.
And yet it seems that is all that can be produced. Of course companies want to make money. But selling a turd at the same price as a golden egg is just rediculous.
And I am sorry it's fucking 2011. We can make robots that play the violin, cars that can be driven by an android app, and Hell we can even shoot Laser beams into people's eyes to correct vision. I do not want to hear that games can not come out polished the ground work is layed out in every polished game out there. A president is set on video game technology exceed it or get out of the way for someone that can.
Thats like if Sony came out with a 1080p Flatscreen 3d television. And then samsung came out with a 15" Black and White Radio with pictures and charged the same price for it.
Basic rule if your product does not meet or exceed your competition do not charge the same price.
At least that is how I look at it.
Who decides who the competition is? For example, I tried WoW and didn't like it. Therfore, in my eyes, it's not competion against any MMO I'm trying. That perspective thing comes back into play. Along with each player's own perspective, now you have the companies perspective on who they think their competition is.
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
'Better' for who?
'Better' is an objective term and I find it hilarious that a game that doesn't suit your taste is 'average at best'.
Is it really bad that companies are catering to what the demand of the market is? Free market/capitalism and all that.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
'Better' for who?
'Better' is an objective term and I find it hilarious that a game that doesn't suit your taste is 'average at best'.
Is it really bad that companies are catering to what the demand of the market is? Free market/capitalism and all that.
What has changed since Everquest other adding microtransactions ? All I see is Everquest clones with a new skin.
As long as players keep comparing freshly released games to ones that released three years ago, they will be too dissappointed to like the game.
Its technically impossible for a MMO to release with just as much content and polish as a mmo that has been in market for 3-6 years yet people still keep expecting that of them.
Newer players are ignorant, therefore what they know, is their game. They do not place things in context of frameworks, mechanics, etc. Therefore, it becomes a comparison of superficial means. Forum banter.
If the framework is solid, than a MMORPG can grow. So end-content doesn't matter, because one does not finish a MMO. If the egnine is good, adding to their game becomes easy.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
'Better' for who?
'Better' is an objective term and I find it hilarious that a game that doesn't suit your taste is 'average at best'.
Is it really bad that companies are catering to what the demand of the market is? Free market/capitalism and all that.
What has changed since Everquest other adding microtransactions ? All I see is Everquest clones with a new skin.
You can call them 'EQ-clones' all you want but I see evolution in a lot of MMO games. Instances, getting rid of the 'grind', phasing, more dynamic questing, removing the 'out of game' stuff so people can enjoy playing the game, daily quests to open up content etc.
What you are essentially saying is that all FPS hasn't evolved since DOOM and we are all still playing DOOM clones with a new skin. Yeah.. Half Life would like to have a word with you.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
'Better' for who?
'Better' is an objective term and I find it hilarious that a game that doesn't suit your taste is 'average at best'.
Is it really bad that companies are catering to what the demand of the market is? Free market/capitalism and all that.
Let's say your town only had Burger King's in it. So, according to numbers, the demand in your town is for BK. Why? That's all there is. Does this mean your town should keep adding more BK's?
Every now and again, someone has to take a chance and try selling some fried chicken. You might find a new demand for it. Markets change based on what's available at the time.
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
'Better' for who?
'Better' is an objective term and I find it hilarious that a game that doesn't suit your taste is 'average at best'.
Is it really bad that companies are catering to what the demand of the market is? Free market/capitalism and all that.
Let's say your town only had Burger King's in it. So, according to numbers, the demand in your town is for BK. Why? That's all there is. Does this mean your town should keep adding more BK's?
Every now and again, someone has to take a chance and try selling some fried chicken. You might find a new demand for it. Markets change based on what's available at the time.
Yea... I'm hungry.
This analogy doesn't really work cause there are heaps of Sandbox games (at the very least with sandbox mechanics) out.
MO? EVE? RYZOM? Darkfall?
The sub numbers just doesn't stackup between Thempark and Sandbox even if we take out the giant WoW.
You can debate the 'quality' of sandbox games and say why this sandbox game is 'fail' but at the end of the day, MMOs with lots of sandbox mechanics don't have a large sub numbers.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
MMOs are about perspective. Usually, when a person starts an MMO for the first time and it is ALSO their first MMO they tend to like it the most. This is simply because this is all they've ever known. Their perspective is only focused on what they have now. If you only have 1 thing then that's the best you'll ever have.
A person gets into the game...levels up, gets weapons, is involved in the community...etc. A new MMO comes on line. Depending on how long a person has played and biased they've become determines how that new MMO will be received. Comparisons between MMOs can ONLY happen when people have played two or more MMOs. So, a person's first MMO will usually cause them to be biased to that one and no other MMO will ever "live up to" their favorite. Hell, it doesn't even matter if they are fundamentaly different games, only that they have MMO as a description.
I agree with this. As someone that has tried countless MMO's, I still haven't found one that gives me the same feeling that I had with my first MMO. It's all about perspective as you stated.
Any time I try a new MMO for the first time, I try my damnedest to go into with an open mind. It's extremely hard to do though. In all honesty, I'm only looking for one thing. I want that feeling I had so long ago. It's not about game structure or graphics or pieces of the puzzle like that. My first MMO was SWG (flamesuit on). I played for 5.5 years. During the last year or two, I experimented with other MMO's. None gave me that same feeling. I still test MMO's quite frequently today, but alas none has made it more than a couple of weeks.
This may sound weird, but this is what I want in a MMO. I want to feel like I'm actually living in my fantasy world, not just playing a game. I hope this makes sense to someone out there searching like myself. In hindsight, it takes so many pieces to come together to make that happen, and it varies depending on who you ask. Give me that, and I'll gladly pay any monthly fee that the game charges.
Great post. My first MMO was EVE and though I left that game a few years back I still keep looking for the feeling I had of launching my ship into the unknown for the first time.
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
'Better' for who?
'Better' is an objective term and I find it hilarious that a game that doesn't suit your taste is 'average at best'.
Is it really bad that companies are catering to what the demand of the market is? Free market/capitalism and all that.
Let's say your town only had Burger King's in it. So, according to numbers, the demand in your town is for BK. Why? That's all there is. Does this mean your town should keep adding more BK's?
Every now and again, someone has to take a chance and try selling some fried chicken. You might find a new demand for it. Markets change based on what's available at the time.
Yea... I'm hungry.
This analogy doesn't really work cause there are heaps of Sandbox games (at the very least with sandbox mechanics) out.
MO? EVE? RYZOM? Darkfall?
The sub numbers just doesn't stackup between Thempark and Sandbox even if we take out the giant WoW.
You can debate the 'quality' of sandbox games and say why this sandbox game is 'fail' but at the end of the day, MMOs with lots of sandbox mechanics don't have a large sub numbers.
Very true. They don't have large sub numbers. However, at least on some of the games you listed (at least the ones I know), they have steady numbers. Eve, for example, has done nothing but slowly increase over the years.
Since I've only played Eve out of the games you listed, I'm basing my response of that game as an example. Based off the very first thing that SaintViktorsaid, this game didn't cater to the masses. They tried to find a different area of the market. It's seems to be working pretty well for them.
Everyone is trying to cater to the masses right now, and that's the problem. They're shooting for the big numbers from the get go and kill that giant, and that's why they failing. Adding basically a clone of the big dawg just doesn't cut it. No one wants to play a clone. Yea... pretty much all games nowadays are clones of another. We need some inovation somewhere (afterthought).
Try catering to a small market at first, design your game around that particular market, provide a quality product (generally speaking), and build from there.
They do, it's just over the last 4 ~6 years, themepark style mmorpg's overloaded the market. Themepark is all the industry knows. Oldschool players never follow that trend. We saw it for what it was.
None of the early game were themepark, not a one. Blizzard oversold the market on 12 year olds... now they are all 18. Still ignorant of history and progeny.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
This analogy doesn't really work cause there are heaps of Sandbox games (at the very least with sandbox mechanics) out.
MO? EVE? RYZOM? Darkfall?
The sub numbers just doesn't stackup between Thempark and Sandbox even if we take out the giant WoW.
You can debate the 'quality' of sandbox games and say why this sandbox game is 'fail' but at the end of the day, MMOs with lots of sandbox mechanics don't have a large sub numbers.
Very true. They don't have large sub numbers. However, at least on some of the games you listed (at least the ones I know), they have steady numbers. Eve, for example, has done nothing but slowly increase over the years.
Since I've only played Eve out of the games you listed, I'm basing my response of that game as an example. Based off the very first thing that SaintViktorsaid, this game didn't cater to the masses. They tried to find a different area of the market. It's seems to be working pretty well for them.
Everyone is trying to cater to the masses right now, and that's the problem. They're shooting for the big numbers from the get go and kill that giant, and that's why they failing. Adding basically a clone of the big dawg just doesn't cut it. No one wants to play a clone. Yea... pretty much all games nowadays are clones of another. We need some inovation somewhere (afterthought).
Try catering to a small market at first, design your game around that particular market, provide a quality product (generally speaking), and build from there.
Just my opinion....
EVE actually has a sub of 350k (max) i think.
Aion on the other hand came out way later and had 3.5 million at one point, last year i think?
No one will 'kill' WoW and the financial market won't believe you anyway. But look at the sub numbers, demand for themepark games is higher than sandbox. And I doubt you can call Aion a failure with a sub of 3.5M.
It is what it is and market will dictate what gets made.
I am very happy with MMOs actually, millions more are enjoying this genre I love; so no I do not see this 'problem' at all.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You're not the minority Kyleraan, if you were those people playing WoW would have quit long ago or force Blizzard to upgrade their dated graphics engine.
I believe people like me who want the best posible looking world our computers can handle are the minority. Very few games push the boundaries of what's achievable with today's machines, most of the being single player games. I remember back in the days of EQ2 and SWG, no computer could handle the ultra settings. Nowadays, we not only demand that our current computers can play everything on ultra, but that they are lighning fast as well.
Scalability for most folks is an afterthought.
I see what you are saying, in fact, the excuse that too much money is spent on the more complicated graphics of today's games is actually false. As evidenced by WOW, players will accept graphics that should be fairly easy to emulate with today's technology leaving more money to add features and better gameplay.
Guess all the money is being spent on Ferrarri's and Gaming Conventions.
Yeah, I agree, the argument that the graphics force us to leave out in depth features is weak. They are being left out by intelligent (or perhaps not intelligent) design as they've been deemed as undesireable by the target subscriber audience. (no return on the investment)
I think that the product has to be evaluated by its fullness. Not by its individual contents, or individual value.
This means that a sandbox whose certain features were removed will lose more than the individual value of said features.
Sandbox is worth 100. Remove a feature that individually is worth 1. This doesnt make the sandbox worth 99, but make it worth 70, or so. The idea is that todays games removed all the features they thought were worth 1, and thats how we ended up with the current MMOs, wich have very low value.
Im not saying you are wrong. Im saying the people evaluating what is deemed as worth investing are wrong.
do all people in those forum´s always listen to those beta tester ?
(i played rift to level 20 and its not me , maybe if this going to change at level 50 i maybe give it a try again ???) so you say you listen to so fanboys if the game are good or not ?
This analogy doesn't really work cause there are heaps of Sandbox games (at the very least with sandbox mechanics) out.
MO? EVE? RYZOM? Darkfall?
The sub numbers just doesn't stackup between Thempark and Sandbox even if we take out the giant WoW.
You can debate the 'quality' of sandbox games and say why this sandbox game is 'fail' but at the end of the day, MMOs with lots of sandbox mechanics don't have a large sub numbers.
Very true. They don't have large sub numbers. However, at least on some of the games you listed (at least the ones I know), they have steady numbers. Eve, for example, has done nothing but slowly increase over the years.
Since I've only played Eve out of the games you listed, I'm basing my response of that game as an example. Based off the very first thing that SaintViktorsaid, this game didn't cater to the masses. They tried to find a different area of the market. It's seems to be working pretty well for them.
Everyone is trying to cater to the masses right now, and that's the problem. They're shooting for the big numbers from the get go and kill that giant, and that's why they failing. Adding basically a clone of the big dawg just doesn't cut it. No one wants to play a clone. Yea... pretty much all games nowadays are clones of another. We need some inovation somewhere (afterthought).
Try catering to a small market at first, design your game around that particular market, provide a quality product (generally speaking), and build from there.
Just my opinion....
EVE actually has a sub of 350k (max) i think.
Aion on the other hand came out way later and had 3.5 million at one point, last year i think?
No one will 'kill' WoW and the financial market won't believe you anyway. But look at the sub numbers, demand for themepark games is higher than sandbox. And I doubt you can call Aion a failure with a sub of 3.5M.
It is what it is and market will dictate what gets made.
I am very happy with MMOs actually, millions more are enjoying this genre I love; so no I do not see this 'problem' at all.
It seems, to me at least, more and more games are failing over the past couple of years. Piss poor development, bad customer service, too high of expectations....whatever the reason. Again my opinion, but it seems majority of the failures are those trying to copy WoW. Thempark....sandbox....doesn't matter. Things just don't seem to end well for companies when they go straight after the big kid on the block. If a company wants to suceed, they just need to put the big dawg out of it's sights. Get a foothold somewhere first.... That's all I'm saying.
It's funny how sandbox vs themepark got brought up. I was just reading some other threads about it. I know this is off-topic, but two quick observations: I know their not MMO's, but they are definitely sandbox games. Red Dead Redemption and Grand Theft Auto IV are basic sandbox games. It's kinda hard to deny their numbers if you overlook that they're not MMO's lol. Lastly, when's the last time anything but a small developer made a sandbox MMO? It's hard to say that there isn't a market for it if none of the major studios have made any in years. I'm probably wrong and someone will point it out, but no games are coming to mind atm.
Back on topic....
As you said, it is what it is and market will dictate what gets made. So what happens when the market is completed flooded with the same types of games? How can new games even get a foothold? These questions are not about thempark or sandbox MMO's. They are for MMO's in general.
Grand Theft Auto is not a sandbox, it a amusement park. So given it's context, it just gets lumped in with themepark. I wish you kids learned about terminology. Themepark is not derogatory, it is a style of mmorpg. Why some people try to defend their position, is pointless. Game types have names.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
As long as players keep comparing freshly released games to ones that released three years ago, they will be too dissappointed to like the game.
Its technically impossible for a MMO to release with just as much content and polish as a mmo that has been in market for 3-6 years yet people still keep expecting that of them.
As long as players keep comparing freshly released games to ones that released three years ago, they will be too dissappointed to like the game.
Its technically impossible for a MMO to release with just as much content and polish as a mmo that has been in market for 3-6 years yet people still keep expecting that of them.
3-6 years ago it was already crap and i see them as new generation mmo's with a whole army of new generation players started around 2004-5.
When i say mmo's where in my view better i go back to 2002 and older(still my best vote and year is '99 Asherons call 1) hehe.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
As long as players keep comparing freshly released games to ones that released three years ago, they will be too dissappointed to like the game.
Its technically impossible for a MMO to release with just as much content and polish as a mmo that has been in market for 3-6 years yet people still keep expecting that of them.
Polish is perhaps part of the problem for some mmos but I would hardly say it's the main issue. I expect quite a lot of people would tolerate bugs and broken features if the game itself is interesting enough. Unfortunately the multiplayer aspect of mmos just isnt as important as it used to be. Depth is generally lacking in most mmos, and when there is any complexity to be found it is usually focused into the player characters themselves. The players are only interested in levelling up, choosing skills and gaining gear......as thats the only thing they can really influence. Themselves.
No I think the main problem is simply because most mmos are now designed like single player games. Players cant contribute to or influence the gameworld or each other in any noticeable way in most of these so-called mmos. The other players they encounter dont matter to them. Everyone is just busy reading through the story that the devs have prepared for them as it guides them through the "gameworld".....just like a single player game. It seems that solo play is the main way to play multiplayer rpgs now, with the multiplayer aspect as a side option.
I used to group up and interact with players all the time back in the old days when I played EQ1. The game world was a dangerous place and death was costly. There also wasnt an epic story to tell people what to do and there was a limited number of quests too. I felt that this made players more interested in each other. Sure you could travel alone if you wished, and many times I did.....but then I would see a cave that I wanted to explore and find it was inhabited by lots of scary beasts, so I would seek out other adventurers to explore it with.
I dont find that sense of adventure in mmos now. There is still fun to be had from them but it seems like a different brand of fun to me. The heavy focus on story telling just seems to encourage solo play and for me makes it feel awkward and unnatural to group with other players. All those players just simply dont belong in the story that the game is telling me. They only serve to break my immersion in the story......and remind me that the story itself is irrelevant. I some times play an mmo for a while but then I usually end up drifting back to a single player game which does solo play (the main aspect of mmos now) much better.
I dont want to play a single player game on line. I would rather play a multiplayer one.
Comments
Stop trying to cater to the masses and mmos will bet a ton better but as long as they keep dumbing down for the sake of sales we'll always be average at best.
1000000% agree.
Companies just are afraid to take chances anymore. They think going the safe route is the correct route. However, this strategy has been failing for a long time, and companies don't know what to do anymore.
I think back in the day it was about creativity. Today, it's more about the bottom line. So sad......
I did not read through 6 pages but I want to drop my 2 cents.
If you make an MMO that is lets say 1<50th of the polish of an AAA game. You do not make any super innovative changes to the the features. (Ie. you reskin somthing that has been done before, and it just feels like the other game.) Then you have the balls to make people pay the same price (box sales and Sub fees.) for a game that when faced with a 6 year old game just looks inferior, you are bound to catch backlash
Some games out there are fun and good. However if it is not a AAA game out the door. Do not charge a AAA price for service. I bet if some of the more "shitty" games out there did $20 box fee and 9.99/month sub more people would be a little more forgiving.
However if I pay $45-50 for lets use AoC as an example. (I just picked a game) and $14.95/month fee. And out the gate it is not as good as WoW $45 box and $14.95/month then your game is charging the same price for a lesser product.
Basic rule if your product does not meet or exceed your competition do not charge the same price.
At least that is how I look at it.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
Pretty sure people are more upset about the lack of innovation, and how those "six year old polished MMOs" are STILL more primtive than many MMORPGs were at LAUNCH back in 1999. Still don't see any housing in WoW... and all its flaws are getting fixed up by instancing instead of solving the real problem.
Who determines what is a AAA game? You? Me? Gaming sites? I know there are games that I've never heard of that do incredibly well. And by well I mean that there's a sufficient fan base to allow the game to make money and keep it's players reasonably happy. Would those players say their game is AAA? Ultimately, it's a game's community that decides if its a AAA game and worth paying for and playing. And, as I stated above, companies are there to make money and they know that to do that they have to put out a quality product. Does it always work out....nope. Do companies try like hell...yeah. Nobody sets out to make a subpar game.
And yet it seems that is all that can be produced. Of course companies want to make money. But selling a turd at the same price as a golden egg is just rediculous.
And I am sorry it's fucking 2011. We can make robots that play the violin, cars that can be driven by an android app, and Hell we can even shoot Laser beams into people's eyes to correct vision. I do not want to hear that games can not come out polished the ground work is layed out in every polished game out there. A president is set on video game technology exceed it or get out of the way for someone that can.
Thats like if Sony came out with a 1080p Flatscreen 3d television. And then samsung came out with a 15" Black and White Radio with pictures and charged the same price for it.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
Who decides who the competition is? For example, I tried WoW and didn't like it. Therfore, in my eyes, it's not competion against any MMO I'm trying. That perspective thing comes back into play. Along with each player's own perspective, now you have the companies perspective on who they think their competition is.
'Better' for who?
'Better' is an objective term and I find it hilarious that a game that doesn't suit your taste is 'average at best'.
Is it really bad that companies are catering to what the demand of the market is? Free market/capitalism and all that.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
What has changed since Everquest other adding microtransactions ? All I see is Everquest clones with a new skin.
Newer players are ignorant, therefore what they know, is their game. They do not place things in context of frameworks, mechanics, etc. Therefore, it becomes a comparison of superficial means. Forum banter.
If the framework is solid, than a MMORPG can grow. So end-content doesn't matter, because one does not finish a MMO. If the egnine is good, adding to their game becomes easy.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
You can call them 'EQ-clones' all you want but I see evolution in a lot of MMO games. Instances, getting rid of the 'grind', phasing, more dynamic questing, removing the 'out of game' stuff so people can enjoy playing the game, daily quests to open up content etc.
What you are essentially saying is that all FPS hasn't evolved since DOOM and we are all still playing DOOM clones with a new skin. Yeah.. Half Life would like to have a word with you.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Let's say your town only had Burger King's in it. So, according to numbers, the demand in your town is for BK. Why? That's all there is. Does this mean your town should keep adding more BK's?
Every now and again, someone has to take a chance and try selling some fried chicken. You might find a new demand for it. Markets change based on what's available at the time.
Yea... I'm hungry.
This analogy doesn't really work cause there are heaps of Sandbox games (at the very least with sandbox mechanics) out.
MO? EVE? RYZOM? Darkfall?
The sub numbers just doesn't stackup between Thempark and Sandbox even if we take out the giant WoW.
You can debate the 'quality' of sandbox games and say why this sandbox game is 'fail' but at the end of the day, MMOs with lots of sandbox mechanics don't have a large sub numbers.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Great post. My first MMO was EVE and though I left that game a few years back I still keep looking for the feeling I had of launching my ship into the unknown for the first time.
Very true. They don't have large sub numbers. However, at least on some of the games you listed (at least the ones I know), they have steady numbers. Eve, for example, has done nothing but slowly increase over the years.
Since I've only played Eve out of the games you listed, I'm basing my response of that game as an example. Based off the very first thing that SaintViktorsaid, this game didn't cater to the masses. They tried to find a different area of the market. It's seems to be working pretty well for them.
Everyone is trying to cater to the masses right now, and that's the problem. They're shooting for the big numbers from the get go and kill that giant, and that's why they failing. Adding basically a clone of the big dawg just doesn't cut it. No one wants to play a clone. Yea... pretty much all games nowadays are clones of another. We need some inovation somewhere (afterthought).
Try catering to a small market at first, design your game around that particular market, provide a quality product (generally speaking), and build from there.
Just my opinion....
They do, it's just over the last 4 ~6 years, themepark style mmorpg's overloaded the market. Themepark is all the industry knows. Oldschool players never follow that trend. We saw it for what it was.
None of the early game were themepark, not a one. Blizzard oversold the market on 12 year olds... now they are all 18. Still ignorant of history and progeny.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
EVE actually has a sub of 350k (max) i think.
Aion on the other hand came out way later and had 3.5 million at one point, last year i think?
No one will 'kill' WoW and the financial market won't believe you anyway. But look at the sub numbers, demand for themepark games is higher than sandbox. And I doubt you can call Aion a failure with a sub of 3.5M.
It is what it is and market will dictate what gets made.
I am very happy with MMOs actually, millions more are enjoying this genre I love; so no I do not see this 'problem' at all.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I think that the product has to be evaluated by its fullness. Not by its individual contents, or individual value.
This means that a sandbox whose certain features were removed will lose more than the individual value of said features.
Sandbox is worth 100. Remove a feature that individually is worth 1. This doesnt make the sandbox worth 99, but make it worth 70, or so. The idea is that todays games removed all the features they thought were worth 1, and thats how we ended up with the current MMOs, wich have very low value.
Im not saying you are wrong. Im saying the people evaluating what is deemed as worth investing are wrong.
do all people in those forum´s always listen to those beta tester ?
(i played rift to level 20 and its not me , maybe if this going to change at level 50 i maybe give it a try again ???) so you say you listen to so fanboys if the game are good or not ?
It seems, to me at least, more and more games are failing over the past couple of years. Piss poor development, bad customer service, too high of expectations....whatever the reason. Again my opinion, but it seems majority of the failures are those trying to copy WoW. Thempark....sandbox....doesn't matter. Things just don't seem to end well for companies when they go straight after the big kid on the block. If a company wants to suceed, they just need to put the big dawg out of it's sights. Get a foothold somewhere first.... That's all I'm saying.
It's funny how sandbox vs themepark got brought up. I was just reading some other threads about it. I know this is off-topic, but two quick observations: I know their not MMO's, but they are definitely sandbox games. Red Dead Redemption and Grand Theft Auto IV are basic sandbox games. It's kinda hard to deny their numbers if you overlook that they're not MMO's lol. Lastly, when's the last time anything but a small developer made a sandbox MMO? It's hard to say that there isn't a market for it if none of the major studios have made any in years. I'm probably wrong and someone will point it out, but no games are coming to mind atm.
Back on topic....
As you said, it is what it is and market will dictate what gets made. So what happens when the market is completed flooded with the same types of games? How can new games even get a foothold? These questions are not about thempark or sandbox MMO's. They are for MMO's in general.
Grand Theft Auto is not a sandbox, it a amusement park. So given it's context, it just gets lumped in with themepark. I wish you kids learned about terminology. Themepark is not derogatory, it is a style of mmorpg. Why some people try to defend their position, is pointless. Game types have names.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
i agree with that...because that is true.
3-6 years ago it was already crap and i see them as new generation mmo's with a whole army of new generation players started around 2004-5.
When i say mmo's where in my view better i go back to 2002 and older(still my best vote and year is '99 Asherons call 1) hehe.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
MMOs may also never be good enough because companies see only as far as the next profit.
Polish is perhaps part of the problem for some mmos but I would hardly say it's the main issue. I expect quite a lot of people would tolerate bugs and broken features if the game itself is interesting enough. Unfortunately the multiplayer aspect of mmos just isnt as important as it used to be. Depth is generally lacking in most mmos, and when there is any complexity to be found it is usually focused into the player characters themselves. The players are only interested in levelling up, choosing skills and gaining gear......as thats the only thing they can really influence. Themselves.
No I think the main problem is simply because most mmos are now designed like single player games. Players cant contribute to or influence the gameworld or each other in any noticeable way in most of these so-called mmos. The other players they encounter dont matter to them. Everyone is just busy reading through the story that the devs have prepared for them as it guides them through the "gameworld".....just like a single player game. It seems that solo play is the main way to play multiplayer rpgs now, with the multiplayer aspect as a side option.
I used to group up and interact with players all the time back in the old days when I played EQ1. The game world was a dangerous place and death was costly. There also wasnt an epic story to tell people what to do and there was a limited number of quests too. I felt that this made players more interested in each other. Sure you could travel alone if you wished, and many times I did.....but then I would see a cave that I wanted to explore and find it was inhabited by lots of scary beasts, so I would seek out other adventurers to explore it with.
I dont find that sense of adventure in mmos now. There is still fun to be had from them but it seems like a different brand of fun to me. The heavy focus on story telling just seems to encourage solo play and for me makes it feel awkward and unnatural to group with other players. All those players just simply dont belong in the story that the game is telling me. They only serve to break my immersion in the story......and remind me that the story itself is irrelevant. I some times play an mmo for a while but then I usually end up drifting back to a single player game which does solo play (the main aspect of mmos now) much better.
I dont want to play a single player game on line. I would rather play a multiplayer one.