Could MMOs Benefit from Less Scope? They could, at the cost of ripping off the customers even more than they do right now.
MMOs are expected to be constantly making money in order to stay alive and available for the people paying for it. That money right there should provide everyone with more content and a balanced focus on all aspects of the game. If a massive game full of varied content is only going to focus on a linear/narrow path, sacrificing the rest of the game, then why not just make a smaller/cheaper offline game? That way they stop taking peoples money over and over with micro transactions or subscriptions and inevitably taking the game away from payers when servers shut down.
I love mmos, but offline games (or LAN supported games) are always more appealing to me because i can spend money on the game as long as they keep creating DLC and the game will never die. Spending money to keep mmo servers alive i expect good enough content everywhere i look.
MMOs make money either through retention or through high player churn
An individual's needs change over time
If you reduce the scope of a game, for example, removing PvP, or removing crafting, housing etc, then you force your players down a narrow route of gameplay. That is fine whilst they enjoy that gameplay, but eventually that player's needs will change. Maybe they got bored? Maybe they completed something? Maybe today they feel creative rather than destructive.
If you reduce the scope, people will leave when they get bored of the main activities or when their mood changes because you offer them minimal alternatives. This means your retention rate drops, forcing the developers to rely on player churn to generate money. If people are leaving out of boredom, you aren't going to be getting that much word-of-mouth hype, so you have to rely on advertising which is expensive, leaving less money to actually develop the game.
For example, when I was playing LotRO, 60-70% of my in game time was spent doing group pve - either 6man dungeons or 12man raids. It is where I found most of my enjoyment. However, some nights I just didn't feel like PvE. Other nights I didn't feel like grouping up. Other nights still I just couldn't be arsed with combat. Eventually, I also ran out of group PvE content.
However, LotRO offered me alternatives. When I didn't fancy PvE, I'd go to the Ettenmoors and PvP for hours. When I didn't want to group up, I'd go crafting, or level an alt. When I didn't want combat, I'd go hunting for achievements, or mess about with the music system, or do the chicken quests etc.
All these things contrived to keep me playing the game for literally years longer than expected. It catered to me as a human being with changable needs. Even when I was consuming fluff content, like the music system, I was still in game, still part of the community and contributing to the overall "MMO" feel of the game, which in turn helps other people feel like they're playing an MMO. It all feeds back into creating a diverse community which increases retention and thus profits.
I compare this to something like SW:TOR. On the surface it has scope, but it really doesn't. It has the bland leveling process (quest grind + instanced pvp) followed by endgame (dungeons and raids + instanced pvp). It lacks the fluff - hobbies, music - to keep you entertained during "off" moments as well as lacking depth to its main activities. Even crafting involves very little human interaction so can't consume your time. When I was still playing, my guild would clear every raid in a single night, so for the other 6 nights a week my only other options were instanced pvp or leveling another alt. That lack of variety, combined with lack of depth in main activities, resulted in a quick exodus from most people.
Now, having said all that, having a large scope is difficult and expensive. I firmly believe the fault lies with the top game designers / producers when it comes to failed promises. The actual developers (artists, modellers, programmers) are all extremely talented and generally capable of doing everything asked, but more often than not the main designers have a clear vision for only a few aspects of the game, then tack on everything else.
In most games I've played, their vision seems focused on the world itself, the leveling process and the combat. These things get the most attention and are usually well crafted, but everything else suffers. Mindless gear grinds, daily reputation grinds, unbalanced pvp, pointless world pvp, crafting systems with 99% useless output.....these are the results of untalented designers. I think far more time needs to be spent at the start of development in creating a cohesive MMO world, where all systems interact with each other to form a natural ecosystem. It is very difficult to do, but not impossible.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
No because MMO games are massive for a reason, including number of things to do when you're not feeling particularly in the mood for one or the other. Less scope means either bad design which forces you to do things that aren't really necessary or the player is lazy and doesn't want to be bothered. Either way, less scope isn't the problem.
Now, I said yes to some extent because I speak from a developing (sort of) perspective where you have to cater to everyone in order for your game to be a success. I am a part of a small team that's working on a MMORPG game and with our limited budget, you have to mind almost everyone and everything. Naturally, having a quality product is the real focus here, but that is only one variable in the whole equation so yes would be for that reason solely.
I think it depends on the MMO. Puzzle Pirates, ATITD, Wizard 101, and Furcadia have done well with a very focused experience. These were all relatively inexpensive to create, niche games with a very specific audience in mind. That's probably what it's going to take to dial it back.
Personally, I like both. I enjoy the small community and focus of a game like Puzzle Pirates. I also have fun in high population amusement parks like Guild Wars 2. We seem to get very few of the former, and NO, I don't consider feature-incomplete indie "survival" MMOs to be even remotely in the same league as any of the games I've listed.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
If you want a focused PvP experience, there are MOBAs now. I would like to see a focused, team/co-op PvE game, suitable for very casual play. But I think these are in addition to full-featured MMORPGs. I think some thought could go into making the experience less "cluttered" and more viable for players to take their own focused approach, and to have simplified, intuitive play. Not so many different tool bars, power bars, keys for logs and journals and quests, etc. I think with some hard thinking and skillful programming, games could be more natural and simple point-click affairs.
By definition I think MMOs need to have a broad scope, otherwise they are just glorified MOBAs / lobby games. MMOs have to be on a large scale with multiple systems (e.g. group combat, crafting, questing, building, factions, guilds, exploring, etc.) all working together to create a cohesive (and immersive) world that is more than just the sum of it's parts.
And it's the cohesive part that I feel a lot of MMOs recently have fallen down on; feeling more like a collection of 'must have' features (Quests, check; Arena, check; ...) than a good and well put together game. If the OP is a criticism of the 'must have' feature list then I agree, it is perfectly acceptable to drop some ill fitting features to focus on others and have a 'PvE MMO' or a 'PvP MMO', or even a 'Crafting MMO', but they still need to be broad in scope within their chosen focus.
NB. And obviously the ultimate MMO is one that can successfully tie a broad range of different gameplay types together and make it a compelling experience for everyone.
The ROI is typically captured from the casual gamers that want to "do everything." Niche games are great, if they are done correctly, but they are typically cash shop heavy due to their lack of longevity.
Their are two major camps for niche games: PvE and PvP. PvE usually touts more longevity due to the varying boss mechanics, hard modes, raid dungeons, story, etc. Players dump significant time into them, and it tides most, save for the most hardcore of gamers, over until the next big content release. PvP is a different story. The mentality is very similar to CoD and BF players. They beat the hell out of each other for a month or two, and then they run off to the next latest and greatest new shiny.
While that PvP and PvE crowd are the most vocal in whining about their niche games (I am in the PvE crowd), we are also the minority of gaming. The third category is Fluff; all that other stuff like crafting, harvesting, building, house decorating, breeding pets, etc. This fluff is what appeals to the casual gamer, by far the largest demographic. So, while they like to target a specific niche (PvE or PvP), they will need to "include everything" (Fluff) to target the casual gamers, because that is where their money will come from.
Have to disagree as I'm not looking to play games, but rather inhabit virtual worlds so the broader the number and variety of activities the better, at least in my view.
Perhaps, but perhaps you would have an even more immersive virtual world if people were not "queueing for Capture the Flag".
I think they key is that MMORPGs should STOP trying to be all things to all people.
How do we determine what is included and what to discard?
I enjoyed DAOCs "open" battle grounds, WOWs more scripted version's not so much.
But my son loved WOWs BGs, so exclude or not?
I'm no fan of in game housing, but look more favorably on in game vs instanced. What to choose I don't know, but I'd rather have housing than not.
True, if you are going to include a feature do it well, or just don't do it all
But if the feature set is too small I won't be playing.
In fact I'm an alpha KS backer for CU, but really have little interest in playing due to its more focused scope.
Did it mostly for nostalgia reasons, would much rather have DAOC 2 which this game will never be.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Could MMOs Benefit from Less Scope? They could, at the cost of ripping off the customers even more than they do right now.
MMOs are expected to be constantly making money in order to stay alive and available for the people paying for it. That money right there should provide everyone with more content and a balanced focus on all aspects of the game. If a massive game full of varied content is only going to focus on a linear/narrow path, sacrificing the rest of the game, then why not just make a smaller/cheaper offline game? That way they stop taking peoples money over and over with micro transactions or subscriptions and inevitably taking the game away from payers when servers shut down.
I love mmos, but offline games (or LAN supported games) are always more appealing to me because i can spend money on the game as long as they keep creating DLC and the game will never die. Spending money to keep mmo servers alive i expect good enough content everywhere i look.
I'm basing my response on a few assumptions:
- MMOs make money either through retention or through high player churn
- An individual's needs change over time
If you reduce the scope of a game, for example, removing PvP, or removing crafting, housing etc, then you force your players down a narrow route of gameplay. That is fine whilst they enjoy that gameplay, but eventually that player's needs will change. Maybe they got bored? Maybe they completed something? Maybe today they feel creative rather than destructive.If you reduce the scope, people will leave when they get bored of the main activities or when their mood changes because you offer them minimal alternatives. This means your retention rate drops, forcing the developers to rely on player churn to generate money. If people are leaving out of boredom, you aren't going to be getting that much word-of-mouth hype, so you have to rely on advertising which is expensive, leaving less money to actually develop the game.
For example, when I was playing LotRO, 60-70% of my in game time was spent doing group pve - either 6man dungeons or 12man raids. It is where I found most of my enjoyment. However, some nights I just didn't feel like PvE. Other nights I didn't feel like grouping up. Other nights still I just couldn't be arsed with combat. Eventually, I also ran out of group PvE content.
However, LotRO offered me alternatives. When I didn't fancy PvE, I'd go to the Ettenmoors and PvP for hours. When I didn't want to group up, I'd go crafting, or level an alt. When I didn't want combat, I'd go hunting for achievements, or mess about with the music system, or do the chicken quests etc.
All these things contrived to keep me playing the game for literally years longer than expected. It catered to me as a human being with changable needs. Even when I was consuming fluff content, like the music system, I was still in game, still part of the community and contributing to the overall "MMO" feel of the game, which in turn helps other people feel like they're playing an MMO. It all feeds back into creating a diverse community which increases retention and thus profits.
I compare this to something like SW:TOR. On the surface it has scope, but it really doesn't. It has the bland leveling process (quest grind + instanced pvp) followed by endgame (dungeons and raids + instanced pvp). It lacks the fluff - hobbies, music - to keep you entertained during "off" moments as well as lacking depth to its main activities. Even crafting involves very little human interaction so can't consume your time. When I was still playing, my guild would clear every raid in a single night, so for the other 6 nights a week my only other options were instanced pvp or leveling another alt. That lack of variety, combined with lack of depth in main activities, resulted in a quick exodus from most people.
Now, having said all that, having a large scope is difficult and expensive. I firmly believe the fault lies with the top game designers / producers when it comes to failed promises. The actual developers (artists, modellers, programmers) are all extremely talented and generally capable of doing everything asked, but more often than not the main designers have a clear vision for only a few aspects of the game, then tack on everything else.
In most games I've played, their vision seems focused on the world itself, the leveling process and the combat. These things get the most attention and are usually well crafted, but everything else suffers. Mindless gear grinds, daily reputation grinds, unbalanced pvp, pointless world pvp, crafting systems with 99% useless output.....these are the results of untalented designers. I think far more time needs to be spent at the start of development in creating a cohesive MMO world, where all systems interact with each other to form a natural ecosystem. It is very difficult to do, but not impossible.
No because MMO games are massive for a reason, including number of things to do when you're not feeling particularly in the mood for one or the other. Less scope means either bad design which forces you to do things that aren't really necessary or the player is lazy and doesn't want to be bothered. Either way, less scope isn't the problem.
Now, I said yes to some extent because I speak from a developing (sort of) perspective where you have to cater to everyone in order for your game to be a success. I am a part of a small team that's working on a MMORPG game and with our limited budget, you have to mind almost everyone and everything. Naturally, having a quality product is the real focus here, but that is only one variable in the whole equation so yes would be for that reason solely.
Personally, I like both. I enjoy the small community and focus of a game like Puzzle Pirates. I also have fun in high population amusement parks like Guild Wars 2. We seem to get very few of the former, and NO, I don't consider feature-incomplete indie "survival" MMOs to be even remotely in the same league as any of the games I've listed.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
And it's the cohesive part that I feel a lot of MMOs recently have fallen down on; feeling more like a collection of 'must have' features (Quests, check; Arena, check; ...) than a good and well put together game. If the OP is a criticism of the 'must have' feature list then I agree, it is perfectly acceptable to drop some ill fitting features to focus on others and have a 'PvE MMO' or a 'PvP MMO', or even a 'Crafting MMO', but they still need to be broad in scope within their chosen focus.
NB. And obviously the ultimate MMO is one that can successfully tie a broad range of different gameplay types together and make it a compelling experience for everyone.
Their are two major camps for niche games: PvE and PvP. PvE usually touts more longevity due to the varying boss mechanics, hard modes, raid dungeons, story, etc. Players dump significant time into them, and it tides most, save for the most hardcore of gamers, over until the next big content release. PvP is a different story. The mentality is very similar to CoD and BF players. They beat the hell out of each other for a month or two, and then they run off to the next latest and greatest new shiny.
While that PvP and PvE crowd are the most vocal in whining about their niche games (I am in the PvE crowd), we are also the minority of gaming. The third category is Fluff; all that other stuff like crafting, harvesting, building, house decorating, breeding pets, etc. This fluff is what appeals to the casual gamer, by far the largest demographic. So, while they like to target a specific niche (PvE or PvP), they will need to "include everything" (Fluff) to target the casual gamers, because that is where their money will come from.
I enjoyed DAOCs "open" battle grounds, WOWs more scripted version's not so much.
But my son loved WOWs BGs, so exclude or not?
I'm no fan of in game housing, but look more favorably on in game vs instanced. What to choose I don't know, but I'd rather have housing than not.
True, if you are going to include a feature do it well, or just don't do it all
But if the feature set is too small I won't be playing.
In fact I'm an alpha KS backer for CU, but really have little interest in playing due to its more focused scope.
Did it mostly for nostalgia reasons, would much rather have DAOC 2 which this game will never be.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon