I'm still waiting to see data that shows that there are less hours played in MMORPGs today than there were last year, or the year before that, or in 2004, or on any other date you want to pick as the peak. THAT is the only thing that would actually show a decline.
Meanwhile, confirmation bias...
To be honest after reading Bartle's essay I have to agree with some of what he says however empirically speaking I doubt that there has been an overall decline in the number of hours people have devoted to MMORPGs. It is just that they are devoting that time to more games meaning they do not stay in one game but are playing more MMORPGs and perhaps even spending more time but not on one game.
Of course the way the games were originally being played is no longer the way people play these games and that is to some people a decline in quality and that does not translate into a decline of the genre however there has been a clear drop in the amount of big investment meaning like SWTOR type big money games. There is however other entries from Asia and smaller games that are getting a slice of the pie. What has significantly changed is how loyal a player is to one game and that has skewed perceptions and anecdotal evidence.
"Decline," when spoken within the context of MMO's can be subjective.
There are far more choices in MMO's, and far more people playing MMO's today, than there have ever been. Some of us just don't feel any of them are as fun as they once where, or worth the investment in time. Given the rise in players playing MMO's today, many others obviously feel differently. Who here speaks for the millions?
A more accurate thread title might have been "The Decline of the Quality MMO." And even that is subjective as who is to say that the MMO of yesterday would be able to stand the scrutiny of MMO today.
Personal perception is personal reality. Of only that can we be truly certain.
Saying there are more is really a stretch. During WoW prime, all the biggest MMOs combined would have easily topped 20 million players across the top 10 MMOs. Good luck trying to find that in 2016. Maybe if you want to include some obscure Asian titles to inflate the numbers, but here in the West there are definitely not as many people playing MMORPGs.
Oh good. You sound so definite that you might actually have verifiable numbers... do you?
For some mysterious reason, no one tells their exact numbers anymore; but outside of WoW, no one is doing much more than a million at best. Even with B2P and F2P models.
FFXIV, B&S, Wildstar, AA, Guild Wars II, Tera, SWTOR, Rift, ESO, BDO, Neverwinter, none of them. ESO reported after the console launch to be approaching 500k simultaneous over a year ago, which is probably put them over a million total for a time. One can surmise considerably less now. FFXIV unofficial numbers are around half a million subs. It's unlikely anyone else is even close. BDO and GW2 sold a few million boxes as B2P. BDO servers died off pretty quickly, as did AA which sold nearly 2 million.
Just from the numbers they grudgingly release, it's quite clear MMOs are not doing as well today as they were in the past.
Are MMORPGs in decline, my
first impulse to disagree, but in some ways they are.
Not because of what they
are in general, but because of what they are right now.
Which is a lot of
underfunded, unoriginal ,poorly conceived, incomplete games. Of
course there is WoW, FFXIV and maybe a couple others that aren't that
bad, but while in other styles of games there are some really
excellent titles, I'd say the best MMORPGs right now are just
average.
To me a lot of the reasons
people bring up about why MMORPGs aren't doing that well are
misconceptions. And while I agree with some points of the article I
think others are inaccurate.
First my view of what
MMORPGs are, and what they need to be successful.
MMORPGs are one of the
most social types of games. One of the reasons WoW is so successful
is that is has facets that appeal to a wide variety of people. This
is important because being very social games they are susceptible to
chain reaction population decline. You lose a few players and
suddenly you lose some of those they play with. The more people that
are in your game playing the more likely the ones they socialize with
will enjoy themselves and keep playing. MMORPGs are unique in being
able to include almost any kind of game as a feature. MMORPGs should
have broad appeal and depth so that no matter what your mood you can
do something to sate it in game.
Cheaper doesn't mean more
likely to make a profit.
Sure you could make a
mobile game for a tiny fraction of the cost to make even the simplest
MMORPG. But lower cost to enter means much more competition.
Thousands of mobile games are in development right now, how many
actually make good money? If you move up to a bit more pricey games
there is still lots of competition. How much money are the new Moba's
and arena shooter's likely to make? The cheaper your game is the
stiffer the competition. MMORPGs actually have the least competition
of any type of game in a large part due to the cost. You may think
that everyone who likes MMORPGs is already playing one, which brings
me to the next point.
Just because people are
playing a game it doesn't mean they are satisfied with it.
There are a lot of
comments on how there are already so many MMORPGs, that getting the
audience for a new game is going to be difficult. I disagree, I think
it's the opposite. People play what's available. Players who like
what MMORPGs offer will play an MMORPG if they can stomach it. When
new games come out people will give it a try, any new game will have
enough to keep some players interested. The rest will be unsatisfied
and move on to something else. That is what I believe the true reason
is for the high turn over in recent MMORPGs. Not players with short
attention spans, but games not interesting enough to retain players.
I believe a large portion of the MMORPG population is waiting for the
next big thing. I also believe a lot of people aren't interested in
the current state of MMORPGs, but would be interested in something
better. Players might jump back to their old games after experiencing
the bulk of a new games content, but with some perseverance and
continuing development the newcomer could steadily increase their
customer base.
The players aren't to
blame for MMOs becoming single player experiences.
The blame for that falls
squarely on the designers who failed to make the group play
accessible, enjoyable, and productive. That is my biggest gripe with
recent games. It's to much of a hassle and not worth it to play in
groups for the bulk of the game.
There is nothing wrong
with Clones.
Some of the most popular
games ever have been clones. WoW, is a clone. Overwatch, is a clone.
And aren't sequels nothing but clones made by the same company? The
problem we have with the recent games isn't that they are clones,
but that they are bad clones. You can be a clone and still be
innovative. Blizzard makes very good clones, and they aren't even
that that innovative. The things we don't like about clones are the
things we didn't like in the original game. If a clone is good enough
it's acceptable. If it's its superior, it becomes the new original
Massive Multi-player is
overkill.
A lot of people bring up
the 200 person social circle statement that was recently discussed.
That seems misleading to me. The idea is that you only really need a
server that supports 200 people, because that's all the average
person interacts with in game. What isn't being considered is that
those 200 people were chosen out of a much larger pool, and each of
those 200 people don't have exactly the same pool. Personally I think
some of the magic of MMOs would be lost if you shrink the world. Less
chances for random encounters (not that kind D&D players!), less
chances to make an impression on the world.
Casuals aren't killing the
games.
Casuals are the same type
of people that could be hardcore. They just have less time. That
doesn't mean they like the game easy, or that they want everything
handed to them on a silver platter, but that they want more out of
their game time. So less repetitive grinding, no waiting around to
find teams to do basic content. WoW at release was already a casual
friendly game. Any player can be selfish, impatient, or lazy, and
there are a lot more casuals, so a lot of these people will be
casuals, that is the only relation. There are even casual raiding
guilds that take months longer to do content. Who is more patient now
then?
I think right now the industry is primed for a rich AAA level MMORPG. WoW is more than 10 years old and
it shows. The rest of the competition have limited appeal and feature
sets. There is also a lot of untapped technology that could enhance
the MMORPG experience. Unfortunately I don't believe that Indie
studios with their niche focused games, Amazon with it's Twich
focused US history based game, Star Citizen the graphic rich, feature
light space sim, or anything else that I'm aware of shows the
potential to be the next big thing.
I'm still waiting to see data that shows that there are less hours played in MMORPGs today than there were last year, or the year before that, or in 2004, or on any other date you want to pick as the peak. THAT is the only thing that would actually show a decline.
Meanwhile, confirmation bias...
To be honest after reading Bartle's essay I have to agree with some of what he says however empirically speaking I doubt that there has been an overall decline in the number of hours people have devoted to MMORPGs. It is just that they are devoting that time to more games meaning they do not stay in one game but are playing more MMORPGs and perhaps even spending more time but not on one game.
Of course the way the games were originally being played is no longer the way people play these games and that is to some people a decline in quality and that does not translate into a decline of the genre however there has been a clear drop in the amount of big investment meaning like SWTOR type big money games. There is however other entries from Asia and smaller games that are getting a slice of the pie. What has significantly changed is how loyal a player is to one game and that has skewed perceptions and anecdotal evidence.
The decline in investment, particularly AAA investment, is not really a mystery. It's exactly the same thing at play that brought us years of investment in wannabe "WOW killers" when WOW was the top dog. MOBAs and FPS characterized by quick matches are the current top dogs so that's where the investors are going. We're in the age of short attention span gaming.
As to your first part, I agree that there has been a decline in quality and permanence of specific MMORPG communities. Hell, the vast majority of large guilds have gone multi-game just going with the flow. But I don't see that as anything other than an inevitability brought on by greater choice. I mean... in the EQ, AC, UO, L1 days there just weren't a hell of a lot of other places to go. Communities were more stable and guilds were largely single-game guilds not because those games were far superior, but because they were the limited number of choices we had. Today there are many more choices so people... um... choose.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
WoW does release sub numbers, but often they don't say how many are $15 a month customers in US/EU and how many are internet cafe customers in Asia who on average pay much less than that.....Also whenver people use numbers in this industry its ALWAYS to make themsleves look better than what it really is.
"Decline," when spoken within the context of MMO's can be subjective.
There are far more choices in MMO's, and far more people playing MMO's today, than there have ever been. Some of us just don't feel any of them are as fun as they once where, or worth the investment in time. Given the rise in players playing MMO's today, many others obviously feel differently. Who here speaks for the millions?
A more accurate thread title might have been "The Decline of the Quality MMO." And even that is subjective as who is to say that the MMO of yesterday would be able to stand the scrutiny of MMO today.
Personal perception is personal reality. Of only that can we be truly certain.
Saying there are more is really a stretch. During WoW prime, all the biggest MMOs combined would have easily topped 20 million players across the top 10 MMOs. Good luck trying to find that in 2016. Maybe if you want to include some obscure Asian titles to inflate the numbers, but here in the West there are definitely not as many people playing MMORPGs.
Oh good. You sound so definite that you might actually have verifiable numbers... do you?
For some mysterious reason, no one tells their exact numbers anymore; but outside of WoW, no one is doing much more than a million at best. Even with B2P and F2P models.
FFXIV, B&S, Wildstar, AA, Guild Wars II, Tera, SWTOR, Rift, ESO, BDO, Neverwinter, none of them. ESO reported after the console launch to be approaching 500k simultaneous over a year ago, which is probably put them over a million total for a time. One can surmise considerably less now. FFXIV unofficial numbers are around half a million subs. It's unlikely anyone else is even close. BDO and GW2 sold a few million boxes as B2P. BDO servers died off pretty quickly, as did AA which sold nearly 2 million.
Just from the numbers they grudgingly release, it's quite clear MMOs are not doing as well today as they were in the past.
I'm not even going to get into the quality of your guesstimates but I'll just leave this here: when it was all about subs, people assume that if you were subbed that meant you were playing a lot. That disregards the large numbers of 3 or 6 month subs that were only played for a month or the many subs that were only played for a handful of hours per month.
That's just the beginning of the problem: the erroneous assumption that subs were more indicative of hours played than what we have now in the mostly no-sub world with, at best, unit sales reports. ESO alone has sold more than 7 million units so far and it is one of only a handful that sells "units" - most are just plain F2P and don't even have those numbers to look at.
My own extremely subjective assessment (which at least I characterize as so) is based solely on the enormous quantity of MMORPGs whose doors are open for business today compared to 10 years ago. I am assuming those doors would not be open if they weren't turning enough of a profit. That tells me the industry is thriving.
So, once again, absent any hard numbers on hours played on MMORPGs, I think it's much more likely that the numbers are bigger today than they have ever been.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Honestly, that sounds more like wishful thinking than anything. Even EQ sold millions of copies of both the original game and each expansion - back at the turn of the century - and they still had subscriptions on top of that.
A subscription is a subscription. It's a metric that can be directly tied to people paying, and people playing in most cases.
The fact that companies have devised ways to keep their doors open using cash shops and sporadic content updates is hardly indicative that things are healthy, let alone growing.
Honestly, that sounds more like wishful thinking than anything. Even EQ sold millions of copies of both the original game and each expansion - back at the turn of the century - and they still had subscriptions on top of that.
A subscription is a subscription. It's a metric that can be directly tied to people paying, and people playing in most cases.
The fact that companies have devised ways to keep their doors open using cash shops and sporadic content updates is hardly indicative that things are healthy, let alone growing.
Damn I fell into your trap. My bad. You said this:
Saying there are more is really a stretch. During WoW prime, all the biggest MMOs combined would have easily topped 20 million players across the top 10 MMOs. Good luck trying to find that in 2016. Maybe if you want to include some obscure Asian titles to inflate the numbers, but here in the West there are definitely not as many people playing MMORPGs.
I should have been less polite and instead of trying to reason using logic and qualifying what I said as subjective, I should have just left it at my "LOL" and moved on.
I mean since you're DEFINITE and I'm merely thinking out loud, you win... I guess.
I'm old enough to know not to argue with those whose faith makes them feel their subjectivity is a fact. Shame on me for my momentary lapse of reason.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
"Decline," when spoken within the context of MMO's can be subjective.
There are far more choices in MMO's, and far more people playing MMO's today, than there have ever been. Some of us just don't feel any of them are as fun as they once where, or worth the investment in time. Given the rise in players playing MMO's today, many others obviously feel differently. Who here speaks for the millions?
A more accurate thread title might have been "The Decline of the Quality MMO." And even that is subjective as who is to say that the MMO of yesterday would be able to stand the scrutiny of MMO today.
Personal perception is personal reality. Of only that can we be truly certain.
Saying there are more is really a stretch. During WoW prime, all the biggest MMOs combined would have easily topped 20 million players across the top 10 MMOs. Good luck trying to find that in 2016. Maybe if you want to include some obscure Asian titles to inflate the numbers, but here in the West there are definitely not as many people playing MMORPGs.
Oh good. You sound so definite that you might actually have verifiable numbers... do you?
For some mysterious reason, no one tells their exact numbers anymore; but outside of WoW, no one is doing much more than a million at best. Even with B2P and F2P models.
FFXIV, B&S, Wildstar, AA, Guild Wars II, Tera, SWTOR, Rift, ESO, BDO, Neverwinter, none of them. ESO reported after the console launch to be approaching 500k simultaneous over a year ago, which is probably put them over a million total for a time. One can surmise considerably less now. FFXIV unofficial numbers are around half a million subs. It's unlikely anyone else is even close. BDO and GW2 sold a few million boxes as B2P. BDO servers died off pretty quickly, as did AA which sold nearly 2 million.
Just from the numbers they grudgingly release, it's quite clear MMOs are not doing as well today as they were in the past.
I'm not even going to get into the quality of your guesstimates but I'll just leave this here: when it was all about subs, people assume that if you were subbed that meant you were playing a lot. That disregards the large numbers of 3 or 6 month subs that were only played for a month or the many subs that were only played for a handful of hours per month.
That's just the beginning of the problem: the erroneous assumption that subs were more indicative of hours played than what we have now in the mostly no-sub world with, at best, unit sales reports. ESO alone has sold more than 7 million units so far and it is one of only a handful that sells "units" - most are just plain F2P and don't even have those numbers to look at.
My own extremely subjective assessment (which at least I characterize as so) is based solely on the enormous quantity of MMORPGs whose doors are open for business today compared to 10 years ago. I am assuming those doors would not be open if they weren't turning enough of a profit. That tells me the industry is thriving.
So, once again, absent any hard numbers on hours played on MMORPGs, I think it's much more likely that the numbers are bigger today than they have ever been.
You and I are on the same page on this Iselin, and to be perfectly honest, I can't understand how anyone would think otherwise. I mean, just look at how many MMO's are on the MMORPG.com "Game List" right now. That's a massive list. And those games wouldn't be there if they weren't somehow providing an ROI for the developers and publishers behind them. And, of course, there is no such thing as a ROI if there isn't a sizable enough player base to support that ROI.
Not long ago, MMO's where a niche entertainment industry that was only played by not only "nerds," but "nerds" that owned or could afford a computer. It has grown exponentially to the point that today the MMO industry is a recognized mainstream multi-billion dollar entertainment industry that rivals any other entertainment industry on the planet. I understand that we are all entitled to our own personal opinions, and for conversation sake, its fun to do so. To steadfastly deny the obvious, however, is just an effort in futility given the powerhouse multi-billion dollar business industry that MMO gaming has become today.
Honestly, that sounds more like wishful thinking than anything. Even EQ sold millions of copies of both the original game and each expansion - back at the turn of the century - and they still had subscriptions on top of that.
A subscription is a subscription. It's a metric that can be directly tied to people paying, and people playing in most cases.
The fact that companies have devised ways to keep their doors open using cash shops and sporadic content updates is hardly indicative that things are healthy, let alone growing.
Damn I fell into your trap. My bad. You said this:
Saying there are more is really a stretch. During WoW prime, all the biggest MMOs combined would have easily topped 20 million players across the top 10 MMOs. Good luck trying to find that in 2016. Maybe if you want to include some obscure Asian titles to inflate the numbers, but here in the West there are definitely not as many people playing MMORPGs.
I should have been less polite and instead of trying to reason using logic and qualifying what I said as subjective, I should have just left it at my "LOL" and moved on.
I mean since you're DEFINITE and I'm merely thinking out loud, you win... I guess.
I'm old enough to know not to argue with those whose faith makes them feel their subjectivity is a fact. Shame on me for my momentary lapse of reason.
Enough with the condescension. Neither of us are speaking from a place of statistical certainty, but my supposition seems more supported by what little we do know than yours.
There are many of the opinion that MMOs are in decline simply because they don't see the large player bases that they used to see in MMOs of old. The tailoring down of these player bases in MMOs of today is no more indicative of a decline than the concept of a "split" is to a stock. For those who aren't familiar with "Stock Splits," this is a process whereby, for example, a $100 stock comprised of 1000 shares is split thereby becoming $50 stock comprised of 2000 shares.
Whereby an inexperienced investor might come away with the impression that the above stock had decreased in value because at a glance at the stock page in their newspaper they observed the share to now be selling for $50 dollars per share instead of $100 per share, or that the company was now thriving and become more popular because the amount of shares had suddenly increased from 1000 shares to now 2000 shares, the experienced investor is well aware that the change is merely a perception based on statistical change.
The same dynamic can be applied to an ever evolving MMO industry. Insofar, as wherein in the past there may have been a handful of AAA MMOs with player bases totaling in the millions, today we have hundreds of smaller MMOs with player bases totaling in the thousands. This phenomena is not, in and of itself, indicative of a decline in the MMO industry. It is merely a reflection of an expanding and fluctuating industry that is comprised of the many, as opposed to the patronage of the few.
I don't think people are being very honest when they talk about MMO decline. MMOs are a subgenera of a gaming. Gaming companies make games to make money, and MMOs are no exception. Player population no longer is the deciding factor in the success of an MMO. Micro transactions are king. Is the genera making more money than it did 10 years ago.......5 years ago?
How much money "MMOs" pull in is going to be limited to how you define MMOs. My guess is that, if you loosely define the genera, there is an incredible amount more money being spent on it in 2016 as opposed to 2006 or even 2011.
MMOs are making money. They have changed, but those changes are market driven. People in particular may not like the direction, but as a group they are driving it forward.
I myself if getting very tired of the gaming industry nickel and diming me, not releasing fully fledged games and having DLC day 1. I speak with my wallet. I have not been spending money on games and doing other things.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
I don't think people are being very honest when they talk about MMO decline. MMOs are a subgenera of a gaming. Gaming companies make games to make money, and MMOs are no exception. Player population no longer is the deciding factor in the success of an MMO. Micro transactions are king. Is the genera making more money than it did 10 years ago.......5 years ago?
How much money "MMOs" pull in is going to be limited to how you define MMOs. My guess is that, if you loosely define the genera, there is an incredible amount more money being spent on it in 2016 as opposed to 2006 or even 2011.
MMOs are making money. They have changed, but those changes are market driven. People in particular may not like the direction, but as a group they are driving it forward.
I myself if getting very tired of the gaming industry nickel and diming me, not releasing fully fledged games and having DLC day 1. I speak with my wallet. I have not been spending money on games and doing other things.
The above post is a prime example of attempting to assign the term "decline," to the MMO industry. While I agree in part with the above post, the poster, unintentionally I surmise, posits as good an argument for a "decline" in the MMO industry as he does for a successful, or positively progressing industry, particularly in the area of quality as opposed to the quantity of games in the MMO industry.
His post, however, succeeds in simplifying that subjectivity. Because it brings to light the problem with the MMO industry that we do not like to admit. And that is that the problem with the industry is not the games, because unquestionably they are bigger and better than they have ever been. Even the greatest of the old school MMOs have benefited greatly by updating their games with the improved technology that MMO games offer today.
So that the problem isn't the games. The problem is us people. Yes, us! We, the gamers, with our incessant needs as they pertain to our individual preferences and expectations, are the problem. We are the ones that advanced and promoted the F2P, cash shop business model, with our stubborn refusals to pay subscriptions fees. Much of the bastardized development, both positive and negative, of the current MMO business and gaming models where requested, advanced and promoted by us.
So next time you want to apply blame, look in the mirror. For the problem lies within, and not with the plethora of games that are being developed and shaped by your input, for your entertainment value, yet lie unappreciated by the entitled gaming needs of today's gaming demographic.
I don't think people are being very honest when they talk about MMO decline. MMOs are a subgenera of a gaming. Gaming companies make games to make money, and MMOs are no exception. Player population no longer is the deciding factor in the success of an MMO. Micro transactions are king. Is the genera making more money than it did 10 years ago.......5 years ago?
How much money "MMOs" pull in is going to be limited to how you define MMOs. My guess is that, if you loosely define the genera, there is an incredible amount more money being spent on it in 2016 as opposed to 2006 or even 2011.
MMOs are making money. They have changed, but those changes are market driven. People in particular may not like the direction, but as a group they are driving it forward.
I myself if getting very tired of the gaming industry nickel and diming me, not releasing fully fledged games and having DLC day 1. I speak with my wallet. I have not been spending money on games and doing other things.
The above post is a prime example of attempting to assign the term "decline" to the MMO industry. While I agree in part with the above post, the poster posits as good an argument for a "decline" in the MMO industry as he does for a successful, or positively progressing industry, particularly in the area of the quality as opposed to the quantity of games in the MMO industry.
My opinion seeks to simplify that subjectivity. The problem with the MMO industry is not the games, because unquestionably they are bigger and better than they have ever been. Even the greatest of the old school MMOs have benefitted greatly by updating their games with the improved technology that MMO games offer today. So that the problem isn't the games. The problem is us people. Yes, us! We, the gamers, with our incessant needs as they pertain to our individual preferences and expectations, are the problem.
So next time you want to apply blame, look in the mirror. For the problem lies within, and not with the plethora of games are being developed for your entertainment value, yet lie unappreciated by the entitled gaming demographic of today.
I guess that depends on your perspective. In EQ having no maps or auction house made the game more enjoyable IMO. I think we are being conditioned to reply upon maps to much now. It detracts from the exploration and adventure. The issue is that we are so used to being able to look something up if we can't then it's frustration. That frustration wouldn't be there if most games didn't have a map to begin with. You would just live with it and learn the area. That is just one of the mechanics that has change in EQ I don't like. I think the game is a mishmash of new and old ideals that does't work well. There are even some zones that are new art design and some that are old art design. Another big detractor is that everyone starts in the same place instead of different areas. I don't believe it has benefited from new ideas.
I noticed the same, @MMOman101. In the world of academic publishing, that's generally a no no. A very big no no. One source as prior works from yourself is about all that is tolerated. That his sources only include himself, my conclusion is that no one else in academia takes MMORPGs seriously. Even though there always seems to be a grad student (usually with dreadful survey creation skills) trying to analyze this crowd for a project/thesis every semester.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I noticed the same, @MMOman101. In the world of academic publishing, that's generally a no no. A very big no no. One source as prior works from yourself is about all that is tolerated. That his sources only include himself, my conclusion is that no one else in academia takes MMORPGs seriously. Even though there always seems to be a grad student (usually with dreadful survey creation skills) trying to analyze this crowd for a project/thesis every semester.
I can't take anyone seriously that only sites their own work.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
I havent even posted in this thread until now but before that I got a notification for some reason no idea why but mmos havent declined but they have changed yes, they've been simplified.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
I don't think people are being very honest when they talk about MMO decline. MMOs are a subgenera of a gaming. Gaming companies make games to make money, and MMOs are no exception. Player population no longer is the deciding factor in the success of an MMO. Micro transactions are king. Is the genera making more money than it did 10 years ago.......5 years ago?
How much money "MMOs" pull in is going to be limited to how you define MMOs. My guess is that, if you loosely define the genera, there is an incredible amount more money being spent on it in 2016 as opposed to 2006 or even 2011.
MMOs are making money. They have changed, but those changes are market driven. People in particular may not like the direction, but as a group they are driving it forward.
I myself if getting very tired of the gaming industry nickel and diming me, not releasing fully fledged games and having DLC day 1. I speak with my wallet. I have not been spending money on games and doing other things.
The above post is a prime example of attempting to assign the term "decline" to the MMO industry. While I agree in part with the above post, the poster posits as good an argument for a "decline" in the MMO industry as he does for a successful, or positively progressing industry, particularly in the area of the quality as opposed to the quantity of games in the MMO industry.
My opinion seeks to simplify that subjectivity. The problem with the MMO industry is not the games, because unquestionably they are bigger and better than they have ever been. Even the greatest of the old school MMOs have benefitted greatly by updating their games with the improved technology that MMO games offer today. So that the problem isn't the games. The problem is us people. Yes, us! We, the gamers, with our incessant needs as they pertain to our individual preferences and expectations, are the problem.
So next time you want to apply blame, look in the mirror. For the problem lies within, and not with the plethora of games are being developed for your entertainment value, yet lie unappreciated by the entitled gaming demographic of today.
I guess that depends on your perspective. In EQ having no maps or auction house made the game more enjoyable IMO. I think we are being conditioned to reply upon maps to much now. It detracts from the exploration and adventure. The issue is that we are so used to being able to look something up if we can't then it's frustration. That frustration wouldn't be there if most games didn't have a map to begin with. You would just live with it and learn the area. That is just one of the mechanics that has change in EQ I don't like. I think the game is a mishmash of new and old ideals that does't work well. There are even some zones that are new art design and some that are old art design. Another big detractor is that everyone starts in the same place instead of different areas. I don't believe it has benefited from new ideas.
That's in your opinion. There are also people enjoying maps and auction house.
And I think people are just upset the budget in the gaming industry isn't being used to make the games they like.
For example master of magic and symphony of night have been 2 of my favorite games. If you search around the net, many people felt the same way and hope for similar games or sequel. But at the same time, I'm sure there are as much if not more people that enjoy lords of shadow in the nrw castlevania series.
I don't think people are being very honest when they talk about MMO decline. MMOs are a subgenera of a gaming. Gaming companies make games to make money, and MMOs are no exception. Player population no longer is the deciding factor in the success of an MMO. Micro transactions are king. Is the genera making more money than it did 10 years ago.......5 years ago?
How much money "MMOs" pull in is going to be limited to how you define MMOs. My guess is that, if you loosely define the genera, there is an incredible amount more money being spent on it in 2016 as opposed to 2006 or even 2011.
MMOs are making money. They have changed, but those changes are market driven. People in particular may not like the direction, but as a group they are driving it forward.
I myself if getting very tired of the gaming industry nickel and diming me, not releasing fully fledged games and having DLC day 1. I speak with my wallet. I have not been spending money on games and doing other things.
The above post is a prime example of attempting to assign the term "decline" to the MMO industry. While I agree in part with the above post, the poster posits as good an argument for a "decline" in the MMO industry as he does for a successful, or positively progressing industry, particularly in the area of the quality as opposed to the quantity of games in the MMO industry.
My opinion seeks to simplify that subjectivity. The problem with the MMO industry is not the games, because unquestionably they are bigger and better than they have ever been. Even the greatest of the old school MMOs have benefitted greatly by updating their games with the improved technology that MMO games offer today. So that the problem isn't the games. The problem is us people. Yes, us! We, the gamers, with our incessant needs as they pertain to our individual preferences and expectations, are the problem.
So next time you want to apply blame, look in the mirror. For the problem lies within, and not with the plethora of games are being developed for your entertainment value, yet lie unappreciated by the entitled gaming demographic of today.
I guess that depends on your perspective. In EQ having no maps or auction house made the game more enjoyable IMO. I think we are being conditioned to reply upon maps to much now. It detracts from the exploration and adventure. The issue is that we are so used to being able to look something up if we can't then it's frustration. That frustration wouldn't be there if most games didn't have a map to begin with. You would just live with it and learn the area. That is just one of the mechanics that has change in EQ I don't like. I think the game is a mishmash of new and old ideals that does't work well. There are even some zones that are new art design and some that are old art design. Another big detractor is that everyone starts in the same place instead of different areas. I don't believe it has benefited from new ideas.
That's in your opinion. There are also people enjoying maps and auction house.
And I think people are just upset the budget in the gaming industry isn't being used to make the games they like.
For example master of magic and symphony of night have been 2 of my favorite games. If you search around the net, many people felt the same way and hope for similar games or sequel. But at the same time, I'm sure there are as much if not more people that enjoy lords of shadow in the nrw castlevania series.
Sometimes I think you don't understand how fun something is until it's gone. For instance some game mechanics in EQ seemed unenjoyable, but the experiences you had are ingrained into your mind. Probably part of that is because there were strong negative experiences to go along with the positive. I find that many games now only cater to the positive aspects and that makes for a game that is easily forgotten and easy to move on to the next game. I feel that way with most single player games I've played. I enjoyed playing the Uncharted Series on the Playstation a lot, but I barely remember much of a few months later. I can still remember some experiences I had in EQ in what must be close to 20 years later. Even games like Legend of Zelda and Mario don't really have the same pull. I'm certain it was to do partly with the freedom I experienced in the game, the difficult times I had trying to figure out how to level and what class to pick that would be able to solo, learning the landscapes/cities (no maps), having very unique classes/abilities, learning to live in an environment that was often run by the players as it was not instanced (causing strong emotions), etc. I don't think many people in their right mind would submit themselves to some the tortures the game had, but it ended up being more of an experience for those hardships IMO.
Hmm I can't seem to get the paper to load... any alt links?
nethervoid - Est. '97 [UO|EQ|SB|SWG|PS|HZ|EVE|NWN|WoW|VG|DF|AQW|DN|SWTOR|Dofus|SotA|BDO|AO|NW|LA] - Currently Playing EQ1 20k+ subs YouTube Gaming channel
I don't think people are being very honest when they talk about MMO decline. MMOs are a subgenera of a gaming. Gaming companies make games to make money, and MMOs are no exception. Player population no longer is the deciding factor in the success of an MMO. Micro transactions are king. Is the genera making more money than it did 10 years ago.......5 years ago?
How much money "MMOs" pull in is going to be limited to how you define MMOs. My guess is that, if you loosely define the genera, there is an incredible amount more money being spent on it in 2016 as opposed to 2006 or even 2011.
MMOs are making money. They have changed, but those changes are market driven. People in particular may not like the direction, but as a group they are driving it forward.
I myself if getting very tired of the gaming industry nickel and diming me, not releasing fully fledged games and having DLC day 1. I speak with my wallet. I have not been spending money on games and doing other things.
How does a gaming company determine what will sell if they have only limited information? Does that mean that they will only sell products that have a proven track record?
Is there some squad of game designers who are asking people what kind of game they want to play? Or is it basically that people play what is available to them? I think this argument that the market has the best sense of what is good is garbage. The market moves based on product, and the product design has largely been driven by market concepts rather than artistic concerns.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
I noticed the same, @MMOman101. In the world of academic publishing, that's generally a no no. A very big no no. One source as prior works from yourself is about all that is tolerated. That his sources only include himself, my conclusion is that no one else in academia takes MMORPGs seriously. Even though there always seems to be a grad student (usually with dreadful survey creation skills) trying to analyze this crowd for a project/thesis every semester.
I'm not sure if people know who Richard Bartle is. He is the father of online rpgs and the mmorpg genre. He literally created the muds that were used to create mmorpgs that we play today.
He is also a professor who has taught on them for probably close to 30 years. I'm sure he could go around and find other people who think the same as he does, but chances are, they're just repeating something he wrote about 20 years prior.
I don't think people are being very honest when they talk about MMO decline. MMOs are a subgenera of a gaming. Gaming companies make games to make money, and MMOs are no exception. Player population no longer is the deciding factor in the success of an MMO. Micro transactions are king. Is the genera making more money than it did 10 years ago.......5 years ago?
How much money "MMOs" pull in is going to be limited to how you define MMOs. My guess is that, if you loosely define the genera, there is an incredible amount more money being spent on it in 2016 as opposed to 2006 or even 2011.
MMOs are making money. They have changed, but those changes are market driven. People in particular may not like the direction, but as a group they are driving it forward.
I myself if getting very tired of the gaming industry nickel and diming me, not releasing fully fledged games and having DLC day 1. I speak with my wallet. I have not been spending money on games and doing other things.
How does a gaming company determine what will sell if they have only limited information? Does that mean that they will only sell products that have a proven track record?
Is there some squad of game designers who are asking people what kind of game they want to play? Or is it basically that people play what is available to them? I think this argument that the market has the best sense of what is good is garbage. The market moves based on product, and the product design has largely been driven by market concepts rather than artistic concerns.
Why would you assume they have limited information? There is so much information out there now, it is not that gathering that is the problem. It is the making sense of it.
the market is what people spend money on. Good v bad is only opinion. A person may not like where things are going, but where people spend their money defines where things to to some extent.
Obviously marketing, is huge. The point of marketing is to get uninformed people to make emotional decisions. Marketing obviously skews to some degree where markets go. Ultimately though customers (the collective group) tend to get more of what they spend money on and less of what they don't over time.
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
Comments
Of course the way the games were originally being played is no longer the way people play these games and that is to some people a decline in quality and that does not translate into a decline of the genre however there has been a clear drop in the amount of big investment meaning like SWTOR type big money games. There is however other entries from Asia and smaller games that are getting a slice of the pie. What has significantly changed is how loyal a player is to one game and that has skewed perceptions and anecdotal evidence.
FFXIV, B&S, Wildstar, AA, Guild Wars II, Tera, SWTOR, Rift, ESO, BDO, Neverwinter, none of them. ESO reported after the console launch to be approaching 500k simultaneous over a year ago, which is probably put them over a million total for a time. One can surmise considerably less now. FFXIV unofficial numbers are around half a million subs. It's unlikely anyone else is even close. BDO and GW2 sold a few million boxes as B2P. BDO servers died off pretty quickly, as did AA which sold nearly 2 million.
Just from the numbers they grudgingly release, it's quite clear MMOs are not doing as well today as they were in the past.
Are MMORPGs in decline, my first impulse to disagree, but in some ways they are.
Not because of what they are in general, but because of what they are right now.
Which is a lot of underfunded, unoriginal ,poorly conceived, incomplete games. Of course there is WoW, FFXIV and maybe a couple others that aren't that bad, but while in other styles of games there are some really excellent titles, I'd say the best MMORPGs right now are just average.
To me a lot of the reasons people bring up about why MMORPGs aren't doing that well are misconceptions. And while I agree with some points of the article I think others are inaccurate.
First my view of what MMORPGs are, and what they need to be successful.
MMORPGs are one of the most social types of games. One of the reasons WoW is so successful is that is has facets that appeal to a wide variety of people. This is important because being very social games they are susceptible to chain reaction population decline. You lose a few players and suddenly you lose some of those they play with. The more people that are in your game playing the more likely the ones they socialize with will enjoy themselves and keep playing. MMORPGs are unique in being able to include almost any kind of game as a feature. MMORPGs should have broad appeal and depth so that no matter what your mood you can do something to sate it in game.
Cheaper doesn't mean more likely to make a profit.
Sure you could make a mobile game for a tiny fraction of the cost to make even the simplest MMORPG. But lower cost to enter means much more competition. Thousands of mobile games are in development right now, how many actually make good money? If you move up to a bit more pricey games there is still lots of competition. How much money are the new Moba's and arena shooter's likely to make? The cheaper your game is the stiffer the competition. MMORPGs actually have the least competition of any type of game in a large part due to the cost. You may think that everyone who likes MMORPGs is already playing one, which brings me to the next point.
Just because people are playing a game it doesn't mean they are satisfied with it.
There are a lot of comments on how there are already so many MMORPGs, that getting the audience for a new game is going to be difficult. I disagree, I think it's the opposite. People play what's available. Players who like what MMORPGs offer will play an MMORPG if they can stomach it. When new games come out people will give it a try, any new game will have enough to keep some players interested. The rest will be unsatisfied and move on to something else. That is what I believe the true reason is for the high turn over in recent MMORPGs. Not players with short attention spans, but games not interesting enough to retain players. I believe a large portion of the MMORPG population is waiting for the next big thing. I also believe a lot of people aren't interested in the current state of MMORPGs, but would be interested in something better. Players might jump back to their old games after experiencing the bulk of a new games content, but with some perseverance and continuing development the newcomer could steadily increase their customer base.
The players aren't to blame for MMOs becoming single player experiences.
The blame for that falls squarely on the designers who failed to make the group play accessible, enjoyable, and productive. That is my biggest gripe with recent games. It's to much of a hassle and not worth it to play in groups for the bulk of the game.
There is nothing wrong with Clones.
Some of the most popular games ever have been clones. WoW, is a clone. Overwatch, is a clone. And aren't sequels nothing but clones made by the same company? The problem we have with the recent games isn't that they are clones, but that they are bad clones. You can be a clone and still be innovative. Blizzard makes very good clones, and they aren't even that that innovative. The things we don't like about clones are the things we didn't like in the original game. If a clone is good enough it's acceptable. If it's its superior, it becomes the new original
Massive Multi-player is overkill.
A lot of people bring up the 200 person social circle statement that was recently discussed. That seems misleading to me. The idea is that you only really need a server that supports 200 people, because that's all the average person interacts with in game. What isn't being considered is that those 200 people were chosen out of a much larger pool, and each of those 200 people don't have exactly the same pool. Personally I think some of the magic of MMOs would be lost if you shrink the world. Less chances for random encounters (not that kind D&D players!), less chances to make an impression on the world.
Casuals aren't killing the games.
Casuals are the same type of people that could be hardcore. They just have less time. That doesn't mean they like the game easy, or that they want everything handed to them on a silver platter, but that they want more out of their game time. So less repetitive grinding, no waiting around to find teams to do basic content. WoW at release was already a casual friendly game. Any player can be selfish, impatient, or lazy, and there are a lot more casuals, so a lot of these people will be casuals, that is the only relation. There are even casual raiding guilds that take months longer to do content. Who is more patient now then?
I think right now the industry is primed for a rich AAA level MMORPG. WoW is more than 10 years old and it shows. The rest of the competition have limited appeal and feature sets. There is also a lot of untapped technology that could enhance the MMORPG experience. Unfortunately I don't believe that Indie studios with their niche focused games, Amazon with it's Twich focused US history based game, Star Citizen the graphic rich, feature light space sim, or anything else that I'm aware of shows the potential to be the next big thing.
As to your first part, I agree that there has been a decline in quality and permanence of specific MMORPG communities. Hell, the vast majority of large guilds have gone multi-game just going with the flow. But I don't see that as anything other than an inevitability brought on by greater choice. I mean... in the EQ, AC, UO, L1 days there just weren't a hell of a lot of other places to go. Communities were more stable and guilds were largely single-game guilds not because those games were far superior, but because they were the limited number of choices we had. Today there are many more choices so people... um... choose.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Whether that's better or not is a matter of opinion, but it sure hasn't done player retention any favors or led to a sustainable model.
That's just the beginning of the problem: the erroneous assumption that subs were more indicative of hours played than what we have now in the mostly no-sub world with, at best, unit sales reports. ESO alone has sold more than 7 million units so far and it is one of only a handful that sells "units" - most are just plain F2P and don't even have those numbers to look at.
My own extremely subjective assessment (which at least I characterize as so) is based solely on the enormous quantity of MMORPGs whose doors are open for business today compared to 10 years ago. I am assuming those doors would not be open if they weren't turning enough of a profit. That tells me the industry is thriving.
So, once again, absent any hard numbers on hours played on MMORPGs, I think it's much more likely that the numbers are bigger today than they have ever been.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
A subscription is a subscription. It's a metric that can be directly tied to people paying, and people playing in most cases.
The fact that companies have devised ways to keep their doors open using cash shops and sporadic content updates is hardly indicative that things are healthy, let alone growing.
Saying there are more is really a stretch. During WoW prime, all the biggest MMOs combined would have easily topped 20 million players across the top 10 MMOs. Good luck trying to find that in 2016. Maybe if you want to include some obscure Asian titles to inflate the numbers, but here in the West there are definitely not as many people playing MMORPGs.
I should have been less polite and instead of trying to reason using logic and qualifying what I said as subjective, I should have just left it at my "LOL" and moved on.
I mean since you're DEFINITE and I'm merely thinking out loud, you win... I guess.
I'm old enough to know not to argue with those whose faith makes them feel their subjectivity is a fact. Shame on me for my momentary lapse of reason.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Not long ago, MMO's where a niche entertainment industry that was only played by not only "nerds," but "nerds" that owned or could afford a computer. It has grown exponentially to the point that today the MMO industry is a recognized mainstream multi-billion dollar entertainment industry that rivals any other entertainment industry on the planet. I understand that we are all entitled to our own personal opinions, and for conversation sake, its fun to do so. To steadfastly deny the obvious, however, is just an effort in futility given the powerhouse multi-billion dollar business industry that MMO gaming has become today.
Whereby an inexperienced investor might come away with the impression that the above stock had decreased in value because at a glance at the stock page in their newspaper they observed the share to now be selling for $50 dollars per share instead of $100 per share, or that the company was now thriving and become more popular because the amount of shares had suddenly increased from 1000 shares to now 2000 shares, the experienced investor is well aware that the change is merely a perception based on statistical change.
The same dynamic can be applied to an ever evolving MMO industry. Insofar, as wherein in the past there may have been a handful of AAA MMOs with player bases totaling in the millions, today we have hundreds of smaller MMOs with player bases totaling in the thousands. This phenomena is not, in and of itself, indicative of a decline in the MMO industry. It is merely a reflection of an expanding and fluctuating industry that is comprised of the many, as opposed to the patronage of the few.
I don't think people are being very honest when they talk about MMO decline. MMOs are a subgenera of a gaming. Gaming companies make games to make money, and MMOs are no exception. Player population no longer is the deciding factor in the success of an MMO. Micro transactions are king. Is the genera making more money than it did 10 years ago.......5 years ago?
How much money "MMOs" pull in is going to be limited to how you define MMOs. My guess is that, if you loosely define the genera, there is an incredible amount more money being spent on it in 2016 as opposed to 2006 or even 2011.
MMOs are making money. They have changed, but those changes are market driven. People in particular may not like the direction, but as a group they are driving it forward.
I myself if getting very tired of the gaming industry nickel and diming me, not releasing fully fledged games and having DLC day 1. I speak with my wallet. I have not been spending money on games and doing other things.
--John Ruskin
The above post is a prime example of attempting to assign the term "decline," to the MMO industry. While I agree in part with the above post, the poster, unintentionally I surmise, posits as good an argument for a "decline" in the MMO industry as he does for a successful, or positively progressing industry, particularly in the area of quality as opposed to the quantity of games in the MMO industry.
His post, however, succeeds in simplifying that subjectivity. Because it brings to light the problem with the MMO industry that we do not like to admit. And that is that the problem with the industry is not the games, because unquestionably they are bigger and better than they have ever been. Even the greatest of the old school MMOs have benefited greatly by updating their games with the improved technology that MMO games offer today.
So that the problem isn't the games. The problem is us people. Yes, us! We, the gamers, with our incessant needs as they pertain to our individual preferences and expectations, are the problem. We are the ones that advanced and promoted the F2P, cash shop business model, with our stubborn refusals to pay subscriptions fees. Much of the bastardized development, both positive and negative, of the current MMO business and gaming models where requested, advanced and promoted by us.
So next time you want to apply blame, look in the mirror. For the problem lies within, and not with the plethora of games that are being developed and shaped by your input, for your entertainment value, yet lie unappreciated by the entitled gaming needs of today's gaming demographic.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
--John Ruskin
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
And I think people are just upset the budget in the gaming industry isn't being used to make the games they like.
For example master of magic and symphony of night have been 2 of my favorite games. If you search around the net, many people felt the same way and hope for similar games or sequel. But at the same time, I'm sure there are as much if not more people that enjoy lords of shadow in the nrw castlevania series.
nethervoid - Est. '97
[UO|EQ|SB|SWG|PS|HZ|EVE|NWN|WoW|VG|DF|AQW|DN|SWTOR|Dofus|SotA|BDO|AO|NW|LA] - Currently Playing EQ1
20k+ subs YouTube Gaming channel
Is there some squad of game designers who are asking people what kind of game they want to play? Or is it basically that people play what is available to them? I think this argument that the market has the best sense of what is good is garbage. The market moves based on product, and the product design has largely been driven by market concepts rather than artistic concerns.
He is also a professor who has taught on them for probably close to 30 years. I'm sure he could go around and find other people who think the same as he does, but chances are, they're just repeating something he wrote about 20 years prior.
the market is what people spend money on. Good v bad is only opinion. A person may not like where things are going, but where people spend their money defines where things to to some extent.
Obviously marketing, is huge. The point of marketing is to get uninformed people to make emotional decisions. Marketing obviously skews to some degree where markets go. Ultimately though customers (the collective group) tend to get more of what they spend money on and less of what they don't over time.
--John Ruskin