What players want and what they need is a different thing. Players think they want this and that, but what they really want is totally different. Problem is that most players don't really have any clue to what kind of game they would be willing to play for thousands of hours on end.
IMO games need to take step back from this easy piece give casual gamers a chance too approach. Not everything and everyone want a game that is only about end game content. My most pleasurable game experiences have been getting to that end game, and not when I have reached the current max level.
So why are game companies focusing mostly on the end game and making games that even casual players will max out in less than a month? What about making a games that hard core gamers will max in 3-6 months and casual at 6 to 12 months? Game companies focus a lot on stories, but isn't a journey a story also?
It seems they only say they are focusing on epic stories, but in reality that will be done in few weeks by even casual gamers and then there is nothing but end content grinding. Then why do they expect us to dish out monthly fees or buy upgrades from their shops when we have actually seen 90% of the game in the first few weeks. Is spending a 60€ for few weeks entertainment ok for most of the gamers? Sadly it seems so.
IMO, the best thing that could happen to this industry....and this applies to any industry, really....is to drive a stake through the heart of buzzwords. Even though I'm a guy who definately is interested in more sandbox style games, I don't want to see "sandbox" become the new buzzword either.
I'm an engineer by trade. Working on the technical side of the SaaS, I see more buzzwords every day then one can shake a stick at. The dirty rotten truth is most are more fiction then reality. There is often some kernel of truth to them...in that they often are good at addressing very specific issues.... but unless you are in a very specific situation where you need to address that specific issue and that particular solution fits well within the overall framework of your project...they are worse then useless, trying to incorporate them will often do alot of harm to the overall project.
The problem is, unless you are very well grounded in the nuts and bolts of building whatever product you are producing, it's often very difficult to understand that. For executives and managers that don't have that nuts and bolts grounding, buzzwords are things to be chased after like bright beautiful exotic butterflies. They are things that will "solve all thier problems", "must haves" that will bring windfalls of success to the project. They sound almost too good to be true (because they often are) and the marketing and PR guys love to include them in the take-aways about the product. The problem here, of course, is without that solid nuts and bolts engineering/design background, which many managers and executives lack, they don't have any way to judge when the buzzword is usefull to a project and when it isn't. Often these managers and executives find it difficult to step back and take a hands off approach with things they don't really know and the result often is trying to pound a square peg in a round hole.
I suspect the same scenario is very much true in the MMO/Game Design World as well. Bill's article seems to allude that there is some recognition of this now. What the industry really needs most.....I think.... is not so much a substitution of buzzword X for buzzword Y......but a recognition that each individual product is it's own unique creation....and will need to forge it's own unique path to being successfull (whatever that means for it)..... it also means stepping back and letting the game designers actualy design.....which, I think, is one of the things that made the earlier generation of MMO's so successfull. Some will stink and fail.....and the industry will have to be ready for that..... but others will shine, if given the opportunity to do so rather then being shackled to formulas that just can't work for that individual project. YMMV.
Where the industry is headed is Single player games in an MMOs clothing. They project how many $60 licenses will be bought up front. Of late, content has given way to features, graphics and combat systems. So the games are small and the projections of what money is spent in development are compared to that initial hit and the F2P models cash shops or the P2P models sub. Bottom line...they still get their initial hit at or close to release of their new game.
I used to be all excited to jump into a beta and then pre-order a game. Now...I'm more apt to wait and see what others say and do. Against better judgement I tried SWTOR. Bought it, bought the sub and...after 2 months, dailies...really? And I am not a heavy gamer putting in heavy hours per week. Rift was same thing. *sighs*
I am very concerned about EQ:N. It's graphics look...like other games code was cut and pasted and their big hype was a mini game Landmark tool and F2P price model. FFARR, Neverwinter and others to seem to have mixed reviews. Most games are fun...for a while but not seeing evidence that publishers are headed in the right direction.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Where the industry is headed is Single player games in an MMOs clothing. They project how many $60 licenses will be bought up front. Of late, content has given way to features, graphics and combat systems. So the games are small and the projections of what money is spent in development are compared to that initial hit and the F2P models cash shops or the P2P models sub. Bottom line...they still get their initial hit at or close to release of their new game.
I used to be all excited to jump into a beta and then pre-order a game. Now...I'm more apt to wait and see what others say and do. Against better judgement I tried SWTOR. Bought it, bought the sub and...after 2 months, dailies...really? And I am not a heavy gamer putting in heavy hours per week. Rift was same thing. *sighs*
I am very concerned about EQ:N. It's graphics look...like other games code was cut and pasted and their big hype was a mini game Landmark tool and F2P price model. FFARR, Neverwinter and others to seem to have mixed reviews. Most games are fun...for a while but not seeing evidence that publishers are headed in the right direction.
Looks that way. Future looks pretty bleak.
___________________________ Have flask; will travel.
So most of last year's panel is now bankrupt,fired,retired. How do you think this year's panel will fare?
One guy made one statement that could sum up the entire industry,he said there is a LOT of contradictions in the industry and that is so true.
You even see it in the forums,everyone tries to figure WHY a game succeeds while another doing the same thing does not.
This is why developers should NOT look at other games that succeed but simply come up with their own ideas and make a great game.I doubt any of these guys are dummies,i think they all know what would make a truly great game,the truth is MOST devs cannot afford to make a really great game.So what ends up happening is you get all these devs with low budgets spinning PR/media to make it sound like they have a triple a game.
I know it might be shallow thinking but my opinion is all devs should strive for an amazing game but make the size of the game fit their budget.Point is if you only have 5 million,then only make a few maps at a time,build the game space over time.Be honest with the consumers,tell them exactly what you are striving to accomplish.If you make a real quality SMALL game i am sure you will have supporters willing to stick around allow you to build the game over time.
One area i wish developer would just forget is anything related to PVP factions.They can't afford to do it properly,so don't do it at all.You should have at least 10 factions to have a real meaningful pvp game,not 2 or 3.I look at it just like a professional sports league,would you be interested in a league that only 2 or 3 teams,i know i wouldn't.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Anything I look at in the future of an MMO has to have meaning full PVP. Otherwise I'll just waste my time on a non DRM title. Of course the balancing act of one sided fights has been the achillies heel of any MMO that has PVP.
I gave up on Mmo about a month ago. I think the challenge concept is key for me as I hit my mid-thirties. I'm having fun with some single-player titles, but I'm finding the best challenges in fps multiplayer modes. That's just the truth. I want that success and failure effect. I was an Mmo addict, but I realize they are ALL mostly grinds at this point. The most fun I had was always being active with guilds (like GW2 in WvW where you felt like things hung in the balance).
i think a lot of us know what we want; maybe an industry effort to build games for these niche desires will give it to me and us .
I think Bill is right that mmos will become super specialised. Like Champions of Regnum has been highly focussed on RvR open PvP, probably the best in the industry in this. No crafting or social features. I suspect many mmos may try to specialise in some form.
It's interesting that even in this small number of posts, players are asking for a wide variety of things that they enjoy.
Many of the requests from these posts about what some players enjoy are the opposite of what I enjoy. That makes neither of us right, it just means that there is room in the market for very different types of MMOs.
For example:
I prefer soloable content over group content, or at least, content that doesn't require a group.
I enjoy leveling, I want that feeling of progress and slowly growing power at ALL stages of the game, including endgame.
I care nothing at all for PvP, and would happily play in a decent MMO where it didn't exist.
Comments
What players want and what they need is a different thing. Players think they want this and that, but what they really want is totally different. Problem is that most players don't really have any clue to what kind of game they would be willing to play for thousands of hours on end.
IMO games need to take step back from this easy piece give casual gamers a chance too approach. Not everything and everyone want a game that is only about end game content. My most pleasurable game experiences have been getting to that end game, and not when I have reached the current max level.
So why are game companies focusing mostly on the end game and making games that even casual players will max out in less than a month? What about making a games that hard core gamers will max in 3-6 months and casual at 6 to 12 months? Game companies focus a lot on stories, but isn't a journey a story also?
It seems they only say they are focusing on epic stories, but in reality that will be done in few weeks by even casual gamers and then there is nothing but end content grinding. Then why do they expect us to dish out monthly fees or buy upgrades from their shops when we have actually seen 90% of the game in the first few weeks. Is spending a 60€ for few weeks entertainment ok for most of the gamers? Sadly it seems so.
IMO, the best thing that could happen to this industry....and this applies to any industry, really....is to drive a stake through the heart of buzzwords. Even though I'm a guy who definately is interested in more sandbox style games, I don't want to see "sandbox" become the new buzzword either.
I'm an engineer by trade. Working on the technical side of the SaaS, I see more buzzwords every day then one can shake a stick at. The dirty rotten truth is most are more fiction then reality. There is often some kernel of truth to them...in that they often are good at addressing very specific issues.... but unless you are in a very specific situation where you need to address that specific issue and that particular solution fits well within the overall framework of your project...they are worse then useless, trying to incorporate them will often do alot of harm to the overall project.
The problem is, unless you are very well grounded in the nuts and bolts of building whatever product you are producing, it's often very difficult to understand that. For executives and managers that don't have that nuts and bolts grounding, buzzwords are things to be chased after like bright beautiful exotic butterflies. They are things that will "solve all thier problems", "must haves" that will bring windfalls of success to the project. They sound almost too good to be true (because they often are) and the marketing and PR guys love to include them in the take-aways about the product. The problem here, of course, is without that solid nuts and bolts engineering/design background, which many managers and executives lack, they don't have any way to judge when the buzzword is usefull to a project and when it isn't. Often these managers and executives find it difficult to step back and take a hands off approach with things they don't really know and the result often is trying to pound a square peg in a round hole.
I suspect the same scenario is very much true in the MMO/Game Design World as well. Bill's article seems to allude that there is some recognition of this now. What the industry really needs most.....I think.... is not so much a substitution of buzzword X for buzzword Y......but a recognition that each individual product is it's own unique creation....and will need to forge it's own unique path to being successfull (whatever that means for it)..... it also means stepping back and letting the game designers actualy design.....which, I think, is one of the things that made the earlier generation of MMO's so successfull. Some will stink and fail.....and the industry will have to be ready for that..... but others will shine, if given the opportunity to do so rather then being shackled to formulas that just can't work for that individual project. YMMV.
Where the industry is headed is Single player games in an MMOs clothing. They project how many $60 licenses will be bought up front. Of late, content has given way to features, graphics and combat systems. So the games are small and the projections of what money is spent in development are compared to that initial hit and the F2P models cash shops or the P2P models sub. Bottom line...they still get their initial hit at or close to release of their new game.
I used to be all excited to jump into a beta and then pre-order a game. Now...I'm more apt to wait and see what others say and do. Against better judgement I tried SWTOR. Bought it, bought the sub and...after 2 months, dailies...really? And I am not a heavy gamer putting in heavy hours per week. Rift was same thing. *sighs*
I am very concerned about EQ:N. It's graphics look...like other games code was cut and pasted and their big hype was a mini game Landmark tool and F2P price model. FFARR, Neverwinter and others to seem to have mixed reviews. Most games are fun...for a while but not seeing evidence that publishers are headed in the right direction.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Looks that way. Future looks pretty bleak.
___________________________
Have flask; will travel.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
One guy made one statement that could sum up the entire industry,he said there is a LOT of contradictions in the industry and that is so true.
You even see it in the forums,everyone tries to figure WHY a game succeeds while another doing the same thing does not.
This is why developers should NOT look at other games that succeed but simply come up with their own ideas and make a great game.I doubt any of these guys are dummies,i think they all know what would make a truly great game,the truth is MOST devs cannot afford to make a really great game.So what ends up happening is you get all these devs with low budgets spinning PR/media to make it sound like they have a triple a game.
I know it might be shallow thinking but my opinion is all devs should strive for an amazing game but make the size of the game fit their budget.Point is if you only have 5 million,then only make a few maps at a time,build the game space over time.Be honest with the consumers,tell them exactly what you are striving to accomplish.If you make a real quality SMALL game i am sure you will have supporters willing to stick around allow you to build the game over time.
One area i wish developer would just forget is anything related to PVP factions.They can't afford to do it properly,so don't do it at all.You should have at least 10 factions to have a real meaningful pvp game,not 2 or 3.I look at it just like a professional sports league,would you be interested in a league that only 2 or 3 teams,i know i wouldn't.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Anything I look at in the future of an MMO has to have meaning full PVP. Otherwise I'll just waste my time on a non DRM title. Of course the balancing act of one sided fights has been the achillies heel of any MMO that has PVP.
"Yea, I've been drinking again.."
I gave up on Mmo about a month ago. I think the challenge concept is key for me as I hit my mid-thirties. I'm having fun with some single-player titles, but I'm finding the best challenges in fps multiplayer modes. That's just the truth. I want that success and failure effect. I was an Mmo addict, but I realize they are ALL mostly grinds at this point. The most fun I had was always being active with guilds (like GW2 in WvW where you felt like things hung in the balance).
i think a lot of us know what we want; maybe an industry effort to build games for these niche desires will give it to me and us .
Gaming since 1985; Online gaming since 1995; No End in Sight! My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8POVoJ8fdOseuJ4U1ZX-oA
It's interesting that even in this small number of posts, players are asking for a wide variety of things that they enjoy.
Many of the requests from these posts about what some players enjoy are the opposite of what I enjoy. That makes neither of us right, it just means that there is room in the market for very different types of MMOs.
For example:
I prefer soloable content over group content, or at least, content that doesn't require a group.
I enjoy leveling, I want that feeling of progress and slowly growing power at ALL stages of the game, including endgame.
I care nothing at all for PvP, and would happily play in a decent MMO where it didn't exist.
To each his own.