I'd point out the same problem as always when talking about the subject.
The blockage of content moving from one game to the next, including currency, is a very designed problem. It didn't used to happen, not because it couldn't, but because the developers/publishers weren't profiting from the player interactions.
We've have cross-game currencies like Station/Daybreak cash for a long time. We've had random uses of RMAH systems as well.
The reason for a dedicated game/company currency or in-game auction is not for the convenience of the players, it's for the profit of the company.
Games could be made to transfer more content between them, but that's a lot of work and control limitations on the design of one game to the next to make asset libraries that are cross-compatible. On top of that it curbs the potential to make and sell players new things unless they intentionally play the vertical treadmill game not just within a single title, but as a launching point with subsequent titles.
Blockchain does not offer features that has not already existed in games before, and does not notably simplify developer or end-user solutions. There are many marketplace SDKs for solving game monetization, an entire chunk of the industry is dedicated to that alone. Blockchain is just another thing on the pile.
And it's a lot of talk without looking at it's drawbacks either. Formalization of item resale is also spread of it. Every (meaningful) item having a price tag means every (meaningful) item now becoming a pay-gated commodity subject to every individual that wants to dominate a given game's economy. Or even worse, an entire network of game economies. It takes what's already problematic about F2P and minnow/whale dynamics and cranks it up to 11.
And the more benign takes on the use of crypto just leads nowhere. Like there's no inherent value to TRV being a blockchain game. We've had ladder tournament games with payouts much larger than theirs for a long time. The difference that you can "cash out" and sell your champion means next to nothing.
As Weasel pointed out, there's already unofficial capacity to resale accounts. The only reason it wasn't official in general is because companies didn't bother making a framework to profit from those transactions previously.
The changes offered is not innovation of features, it's monetization of features.
The video heading "Future MMORPGs will have these five features", is more accurate than the thread heading "...Five features that will change the genre."
1. VR or MR is certainly on the cards, just a matter of time but no earlier than five to ten years.
2. AI mobs especially in MMOs have a problem, when was the last time you heard a studio say, "we are making our MMO's combat harder"? Thats what AI would do so I really only see AI in solo games and certain forms of multiplayer, not MMOs.
3. Is "Multi-universal currencies" the latest buzzword to avoid saying crypto? This could change the genre, turning gamers into bean counters, what an awful gaming world that would be.
4. Ad revenue will just be added to the many revenue streams that already exist. It will not be used to mitigate players exposure to abusive revenue models, that's for sure!
"every single gamer understands that developers need to make money to keep development going, and to keep the virtual lights on in our favorite MMORPGs. The sad thing is, in order to do that for some games, there has been a necessity to make cash shop models, like the despised gacha system, that are extremely predatory for players."
If this statement were correct only those games which were in dire straits would adopt new revenue models. Every new revenue model from the first microtransactions to EA eventually becomes ubiquitous. The entire gaming industry made $178.2 billion last year, they can't all be struggling to keep the lights on.
5. Cloud is the future, not because games would be better on it, but because it will be cheaper for players. Consoles games never outsold PC games because they had better graphics and control systems. So cloud will win out, we will have this new second rate gaming world in maybe as little as five years' time.
Or at least it will be cheaper at the start, once players cannot play without being online and depend on a handful of cloud services, what do you think will happen then? Will these gaming corporations say "right now we have them by the orchestras, let's keep the prices down?" I really don't know, but if you are sure they will keep prices down, then we are off to wishful thinking land again.
Of the five points in the article, I'm only interested in 2 of them, improved AI and Advertising in-game.
AI, which could herald a new generation of games, is still many years from widespread adoption. I see AI as a way forward. Now, let's see someone merge the single-player, text-based games where GPT is currently at with a graphics world.
As much as it would be intrusive and non-immersive, advertising could be here far soon than any of the other 4 elements. (Would it really be any more immersion-breaking that most global chat channels?)
VR is still more a case of someone trying to sell me something that doesn't come close to it's promise. Maybe in 4 or 5 more product generations, it will be worth a look. (If someone ports Pokemon Go to the reverse cameras on my car, will it be a crime if I back over them?)
Crypto seems more a case of a Cash shop on steroids, with the developers trying to print their own money (with your money). As has already been pointed out in this very thread, it's a bad idea, a high tech solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Besides, who really wants to own pixels? Not me.
Cloud-based gaming doesn't appeal to me as it streams graphics and/or code to me. Streaming is fine for movies and other static content, but for dynamic inputs and contextual interactions like a game, is far from ideal.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
From the time I started going to the arcade and playing qbert, joust and the like to playing my first Atari games like pitfall, grand prix and other, I've looked forward to what was coming. The enthusiasm of childhood has or course diminished somewhat. Great graphics sound and such is kind of expected now. Back then, there was more of a frontier atmosphere with these things.
However, I still look forward to see what is coming. Reading the forums, I think I'm the only person who looks forward to owning my own little digi-plot or lane and getting a house, farm and raise a few digi-pets. I look forward to mixed reality, and anything else they throw at me. Some will stick and some won't.
From what I've found, the legions or innovations aren't good or bad. It's the implementation that determines good v evil.
Come future, I'm looking forward to you.
You aren't the only one. I see this "frontier" happening in VR and I still get that "it's gonna be great when someone hits that sweet spot" feeling when I hear of new games.
Sadly, some people are inexplicably against the entire concept of VR, which makes no sense to me. I am still hopeful.
I think it depends on what you want to do. I think that there are chains that are secure, with SDKs that are already built to make a lot of these features work inherently so you're not trying to reinvent the wheel.
Blockchain tech (assuming one can find something less eco-hostile) can solve some rather thorny gaming problems (item dups, etc.) without involving crypto-currency.
It's when these companies stray into crypto-currency that it tars any beneficial uses and become customer hostile.
This article feels more than a little out of touch with the audience here.
NFT/blockchains are not for the average players - period. Try to spin it however you want, you're wrong.
Ad monetization isn't a good example as the vast majority of mobile MMORPGs (most of which don't even deserve the title as they are nonsense hero collection games) also combine ads with other systems to bleed players dry, FOMO, and comparable. This is not what we want in our games - they move further away from providing a game service and more towards incremental costs with diminished value of purchases over time. Let me pay for content, classes, and cosmetics, and keep the core gameplay away from this type of monitization.
New and improved AI is good, especially if we can get out of the world of predictable patterns in boss fights. I look forward to the day when mobs will suddenly do something surprising that forces you to react in a different way than the last time you fought them.
Mixed reality has potential but VR and comparable technologies suffer from very low adoption rates in the gaming community. Would I love a world where I no longer have to use keys or mouse to change my field of vision in all games? Absolutely - reaction time and immersion would be through the roof. I haven't seen a MMO do this well yet but am very much looking forward to it.
You don't need Blockchain technology to implement multi-game currencies. You just need multiple game developers willing to cooperate.
Blockchain does nothing to solve that last part. And again, this argument is couched in the fact that it was developers creating cash shops that conditioned gamers to feel loss in the first place. A problem, created by the industry, and a solution, created by the industry.
Agreed on this - you can absolutely create a linked currency/economy system without blockchain. However, I think the inherent data security challenges grow significantly when considering independent code bases trying to manage assets, values, and accounts unless they share an identical underlying API-based engine for managing this. This would be easiest to first do across a family of games run by a single developer (which I think Cryptic may have done? It has been a while).
Only about half of these are even gameplay related lmao.
That's not how you spark innovation in a game. That's how you find new ways to nickel and dime gamers.
How many gamers would love Facebook style targeted ads in their face when they're trying to play an MMORPG?
The largest barrier to innovation in this industry is that we have a large number of mediocre to bad, Frankensteinian products being floated by predatory monetization schemes diluting profit potential for any one project. Doubling down on that is not the way out. Allowing the market to actually cull the weak is.
You don't need Blockchain technology to implement multi-game currencies. You just need multiple game developers willing to cooperate.
Blockchain does nothing to solve that last part.
Yeah, even the article says that.
But just because you don't need it doesn't mean you shouldn't use it.
So what you're saying is, the best way to do multi-game currencies is to use Blockchain that results in, like, a dozen convoluted steps?
Instead of, say, just creating a secure asset market using traditional security methods? What is the benefit of including complexity for the sake of complexity in a consumer product?
I think it depends on what you want to do. I think that there are chains that are secure, with SDKs that are already built to make a lot of these features work inherently so you're not trying to reinvent the wheel.
But the argument isn't "should you use blockchain" really. The reason a lot of these "features" cropped up recently is because they were all advertised as inherent benefits to blockchain. (on top of the security, etc.)
But it is a very difficult system to use. I've played a lot of blockchain games and only one of them made buying and selling easy.. without jumping through all those hoops.
But if developers decide that they can do this all without blockchain, I'm for that too. It just seems like the ones that are seriously putting in the effort are the blockchain studios.
I am not for the continued pollution of game worlds with the worst parts of digital life.
Games are escapes from reality, little breaks from the mundane and commonplace. I want games designed based on what's fun, not what coerces players to buy the most non-existent assets given value defined by the whims of developers who know nothing about asset investment.
These marketplaces are the same vein as in-game ads. Ready Player One was not a utopia, it was a dystopia.
Ready Player One had to be a dystopia. Not because virtual game economies are inherently dystopian, but because it's a story, and it only works if there's inherent conflict.
I find it very strange that out of the 5 features listed, so many people grasp onto the blockchain portion, when the article doesn't even really say that blockchain is the only future.
I do believe that there is a big disconnect between the kind of oldschool MMO players we have here, and what the industry is looking at.
Game studios are starting to realize there's a huge benefit to being the MCU. Multiple properties meshing together.
The article talks about how poor wemix games are, but wemix probably has one of the better systems to interconnect their games.
But if we take blockchain out of the equation entirely, and developers want to use another proprietary currency system throughout all of their games, or "multi-unversal currency" transfers between multiple game worlds, I don't see why that's a bad thing.
Because there are game systems in place already, like Guild Wars 2, where you have to buy gems to get in game cosmetics. And you won't use all the gems you buy, and you can't sell the gems to other players, but the system is in place to where you're stuck with the currency you paid for.
The whole idea of a multi game currency is the same principles but you get to use that paid currency on multiple games.
The one step further scenario is allowing players that paid 30 dollars for 3000 gems to buy a hat for 2000 gems, and then allowing them to turn around and resell that hat to regain their gems when they decide they no longer want the hat.
Here's where everyone misunderstands the system. In the current system, scarcity runs the market prices. But that doesn't mean that it has to. There are algorithmic systems that can set the maximum price on items for you, ensuring that whatever is resold, isn't resold to be overwhelmingly profitable.
Because the developers still get paid either way, because gems still require cash to buy, so whether you buy a product from a player or the developer, the money is still exchanged at a same rate. But you end up with less item and inventory waste, and you also enable players to move between games more freely.
It's not a "new" system.
But it's an underused system that has only really just been woken up due to blockchain.
I still see a lot of hate for blockchain on these forums and elsewhere, and the hate is extremely misguided. The article didn't even promote crypto at all, it actually kind of railed against it... but it did say the features of blockchain would be the future....
and if you look at how many companies want to run after metaverses and build game libraries and provide virtual player economies I don't think anything in the article is out of line.
It's a continuation and exacerbation of monetization schemes that seem, at their worst, to be something that renders the average gamer an irrelevant addition to the playerbase in favor of those who are so addicted they spend unreasonable amounts of money. I've already shared evidence in these forums of how folks are fooling themselves believing the whales are the unbelievably rich- they're merely problem spenders, and many are not rich, they're suffering from a financially crippling addiction.
At its best, it perverts design priorities to fuel the microtransaction machine.
I don't care what system is used, I don't see a need to support a more complex and more encompassing version of that monetization scheme in this hobby.
It's a continuation and exacerbation of monetization schemes that seem, at their worst, to be something that renders the average gamer an irrelevant addition to the playerbase in favor of those who are so addicted they spend unreasonable amounts of money. I've already shared evidence in these forums of how folks are fooling themselves believing the whales are the unbelievably rich- they're merely problem spenders, and many are not rich, they're suffering from a financially crippling addiction.
At its best, it perverts design priorities to fuel the microtransaction machine.
I don't care what system is used, I don't see a need to support a more complex and more encompassing version of that monetization scheme in this hobby.
But it's actually the opposite of a predatory monetization scheme. So I don't really understand your perspective. It gives actual long term players options to spend less money. Not more.
Only if some form of cost-control is implemented against the blockchain/currency. Otherwise you're just as likely to have wild spinouts on price of items leading to problems more broadly with the in-game economy.
We already see it in non-RMT economies in games constantly with their player auctions. The one's that work, generally do so via some measure of regulation.
Only if some form of cost-control is implemented against the blockchain/currency. Otherwise you're just as likely to have wild spinouts on price of items leading to problems more broadly with the in-game economy.
We already see it in non-RMT economies in games constantly with their player auctions. The one's that work, generally do so via some measure of regulation.
That's why you can't rely on players to set the price of items.
You're right, there needs to be an algorithmic regulation of initial item cost, plus scarcity of the market, time on the market, and time since the item was last available.
That way the set price can fluctuate, but it can automatically list at the buy price or in some cases, less.
I think what a lot of people see are the crypto token projects that intend to prop up prices with market fluctuations. It doesn't do the technology or genre any favors, and it's cause a lot more trouble than it's worth.
I don't think that's the future, but I do expect some Blockchain features to find their way into more games.
NFT's are really the only thing people are going to worry about from this list.
Also, @StevenWeber : I'm a active (since 2019)Shadow PC costumer; so...
..if you have any direct questions and are looking for information you won't get from an out-of-date news article, you might want to try actually talking to the people who pay for/use the service regularly to play mmorpg's like Final Fantasy XIV, ESO, WoW, and so forth, and the newest high end PC games.
(Except for Genshin Impact... *Shakes fist at MiHoYo and that stupid Anti-VM engine that no other PC game on the market uses so frivolously.)
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013 Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005 Fishing in RL since 1992 Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
NFT's are really the only thing people are going to worry about from this list.
Also, @StevenWeber : I'm a active (since 2019)Shadow PC costumer; so...
..if you have any direct questions and are looking for information you won't get from an out-of-date news article, you might want to try actually talking to the people who pay for/use the service regularly to play mmorpg's like Final Fantasy XIV, ESO, WoW, and so forth, and the newest high end PC games.
(Except for Genshin Impact... *Shakes fist at MiHoYo and that stupid Anti-VM engine that no other PC game on the market uses so frivolously.)
Thank you for summoning me brave MMORPGer!
Like you, I was a Shadow Cloud customer! I touted the benefits of shadow cloud for a number of years, but I was also at the forefront of the problems Shadow went through. During that period of uncertainty I canceled my subscription, and when I attempted to resubscribe I was forced back on a waiting list of nearly 3 months before I was able to regain access to the service! I have since canceled the service again, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking for a more customized cloud option.
In most of my previous tests, the Shadow service was by far a better option to several other services, though in an apples to apples comparison of the same game, GeForce Now is superior in my opinion, even if it doesn't have as many capabilities.
Thank you for offering your assistance though, MMORPG Friend, if ever the need arises I will definitely let you know.
And for all those who have commented on the article thus far, I love hearing your thoughts. Keep up the conversation, and let us know what the future of MMORPGs should look like to you!
From the time I started going to the arcade and playing qbert, joust and the like to playing my first Atari games like pitfall, grand prix and other, I've looked forward to what was coming. The enthusiasm of childhood has or course diminished somewhat. Great graphics sound and such is kind of expected now. Back then, there was more of a frontier atmosphere with these things.
However, I still look forward to see what is coming. Reading the forums, I think I'm the only person who looks forward to owning my own little digi-plot or lane and getting a house, farm and raise a few digi-pets. I look forward to mixed reality, and anything else they throw at me. Some will stick and some won't.
From what I've found, the legions or innovations aren't good or bad. It's the implementation that determines good v evil.
Come future, I'm looking forward to you.
You aren't the only one. I see this "frontier" happening in VR and I still get that "it's gonna be great when someone hits that sweet spot" feeling when I hear of new games.
Sadly, some people are inexplicably against the entire concept of VR, which makes no sense to me. I am still hopeful.
It isn't about being against it but more the fact that for me I am quite afraid of it. This total disconnect from the real world is to put it frankly terrifying for me and not a state I ever want to be in.
I have so many things going on there is never a time I can simply spend a few hours completely oblivious to what is going on about me while I play and immerse myself in a virtual reality. It isn't practical.
Even in movies the way I have seen VR it seems just a terrible disconnect and inability to react and interact with the real world while you're in VR. The whole apparatus covering your eyes is already a big red sign for me. I am merely relating why I cannot get excited about VR. I am not speaking for anyone else.
It may not make sense to you but these are real concerns.
From the time I started going to the arcade and playing qbert, joust and the like to playing my first Atari games like pitfall, grand prix and other, I've looked forward to what was coming. The enthusiasm of childhood has or course diminished somewhat. Great graphics sound and such is kind of expected now. Back then, there was more of a frontier atmosphere with these things.
However, I still look forward to see what is coming. Reading the forums, I think I'm the only person who looks forward to owning my own little digi-plot or lane and getting a house, farm and raise a few digi-pets. I look forward to mixed reality, and anything else they throw at me. Some will stick and some won't.
From what I've found, the legions or innovations aren't good or bad. It's the implementation that determines good v evil.
Come future, I'm looking forward to you.
You aren't the only one. I see this "frontier" happening in VR and I still get that "it's gonna be great when someone hits that sweet spot" feeling when I hear of new games.
Sadly, some people are inexplicably against the entire concept of VR, which makes no sense to me. I am still hopeful.
It isn't about being against it but more the fact that for me I am quite afraid of it. This total disconnect from the real world is to put it frankly terrifying for me and not a state I ever want to be in.
I have so many things going on there is never a time I can simply spend a few hours completely oblivious to what is going on about me while I play and immerse myself in a virtual reality. It isn't practical.
Even in movies the way I have seen VR it seems just a terrible disconnect and inability to react and interact with the real world while you're in VR. The whole apparatus covering your eyes is already a big red sign for me. I am merely relating why I cannot get excited about VR. I am not speaking for anyone else.
It may not make sense to you but these are real concerns.
I think if you can put an hour aside for gaming, you can put an hour aside for VR. That assumes you are not doing phones calls, texts and telling the husband the bin needs emptying while playing a game. Maybe our gamer girls are going to have to put this old adage on hold "a women's work is never done", so they can have the time and space to play a VR game.
From the time I started going to the arcade and playing qbert, joust and the like to playing my first Atari games like pitfall, grand prix and other, I've looked forward to what was coming. The enthusiasm of childhood has or course diminished somewhat. Great graphics sound and such is kind of expected now. Back then, there was more of a frontier atmosphere with these things.
However, I still look forward to see what is coming. Reading the forums, I think I'm the only person who looks forward to owning my own little digi-plot or lane and getting a house, farm and raise a few digi-pets. I look forward to mixed reality, and anything else they throw at me. Some will stick and some won't.
From what I've found, the legions or innovations aren't good or bad. It's the implementation that determines good v evil.
Come future, I'm looking forward to you.
You aren't the only one. I see this "frontier" happening in VR and I still get that "it's gonna be great when someone hits that sweet spot" feeling when I hear of new games.
Sadly, some people are inexplicably against the entire concept of VR, which makes no sense to me. I am still hopeful.
It isn't about being against it but more the fact that for me I am quite afraid of it. This total disconnect from the real world is to put it frankly terrifying for me and not a state I ever want to be in.
I have so many things going on there is never a time I can simply spend a few hours completely oblivious to what is going on about me while I play and immerse myself in a virtual reality. It isn't practical.
Even in movies the way I have seen VR it seems just a terrible disconnect and inability to react and interact with the real world while you're in VR. The whole apparatus covering your eyes is already a big red sign for me. I am merely relating why I cannot get excited about VR. I am not speaking for anyone else.
It may not make sense to you but these are real concerns.
Oddly enough, that is my biggest obstacle when I play VR... setting aside the "do nothing but game" time. Part of that is due to having dedicated a VR room that is upstairs, at the far end of a fairly large house (empty nester). If you need anything from me when I'm playing VR, you have to stick your head into the room and yell at me. Part of me feels bad completely "checking out" like that.
That said, I have grown comfortable telling my wife "I'm going upstairs to the VR room for a bit if you need me". She now does the same, just less often.
Also, both of my HMDs have off ear headphones, meaning the earphones sit about an inch away from my ear (but still sound great), so I can hear a bit of what's going on, such as one of my dogs walking in and laying at my feet when I forget to close the door. It isn't terribly hard to do a quick tilt of the headset to look around. Some headsets you can actually see own the nose line a decent amount.
That said, VR gaming is significantly more physically strenuous than sitting at a computer. While you may get to a place where you want to game for hours, the first month or so it will be more like 30 minutes to an hour session, during which time you become much more adept at tracking the outside environment.
Truth be told, it sounds like you could use a little disconnect...lol
Anyone that think all these nft games or blockchains in games is to the benefit of the gamer is frankly delusional...it's entirely there to fork over gamers and find another way to squeeze out more money from them.
It's like a magicians trick where you are fooled into thinking you have control, or tricked into thinking you have a choice that actually matters etc etc.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Computers today are on the order of a thousand times as powerful as they were in the days of the earliest MMORPGs. They could use a thousand times as much processing power and memory to handle AI now as they could then. Even using ten times as much processing power and memory now as then would have a fairly trivial cost. The reason why games mostly haven't made AI smarter is that they don't want to.
The article mentions AI text generation. But text generation is actually really hard. You can make coherent sentences, but not a good story. You wouldn't want to read a novel generated by AI unless you were solely interested in seeing just how bad it was at the current level of AI sophistication. There are a lot of other, easier things that games could do with smarter AI and mostly aren't interested in doing.
Comments
The blockage of content moving from one game to the next, including currency, is a very designed problem. It didn't used to happen, not because it couldn't, but because the developers/publishers weren't profiting from the player interactions.
We've have cross-game currencies like Station/Daybreak cash for a long time. We've had random uses of RMAH systems as well.
The reason for a dedicated game/company currency or in-game auction is not for the convenience of the players, it's for the profit of the company.
Games could be made to transfer more content between them, but that's a lot of work and control limitations on the design of one game to the next to make asset libraries that are cross-compatible. On top of that it curbs the potential to make and sell players new things unless they intentionally play the vertical treadmill game not just within a single title, but as a launching point with subsequent titles.
Blockchain does not offer features that has not already existed in games before, and does not notably simplify developer or end-user solutions. There are many marketplace SDKs for solving game monetization, an entire chunk of the industry is dedicated to that alone. Blockchain is just another thing on the pile.
And it's a lot of talk without looking at it's drawbacks either. Formalization of item resale is also spread of it. Every (meaningful) item having a price tag means every (meaningful) item now becoming a pay-gated commodity subject to every individual that wants to dominate a given game's economy. Or even worse, an entire network of game economies. It takes what's already problematic about F2P and minnow/whale dynamics and cranks it up to 11.
And the more benign takes on the use of crypto just leads nowhere. Like there's no inherent value to TRV being a blockchain game. We've had ladder tournament games with payouts much larger than theirs for a long time. The difference that you can "cash out" and sell your champion means next to nothing.
As Weasel pointed out, there's already unofficial capacity to resale accounts. The only reason it wasn't official in general is because companies didn't bother making a framework to profit from those transactions previously.
The changes offered is not innovation of features, it's monetization of features.
1. VR or MR is certainly on the cards, just a matter of time but no earlier than five to ten years.
2. AI mobs especially in MMOs have a problem, when was the last time you heard a studio say, "we are making our MMO's combat harder"? Thats what AI would do so I really only see AI in solo games and certain forms of multiplayer, not MMOs.
3. Is "Multi-universal currencies" the latest buzzword to avoid saying crypto? This could change the genre, turning gamers into bean counters, what an awful gaming world that would be.
4. Ad revenue will just be added to the many revenue streams that already exist. It will not be used to mitigate players exposure to abusive revenue models, that's for sure!
"every single gamer understands that developers need to make money to keep development going, and to keep the virtual lights on in our favorite MMORPGs. The sad thing is, in order to do that for some games, there has been a necessity to make cash shop models, like the despised gacha system, that are extremely predatory for players."
If this statement were correct only those games which were in dire straits would adopt new revenue models. Every new revenue model from the first microtransactions to EA eventually becomes ubiquitous. The entire gaming industry made $178.2 billion last year, they can't all be struggling to keep the lights on.
5. Cloud is the future, not because games would be better on it, but because it will be cheaper for players. Consoles games never outsold PC games because they had better graphics and control systems. So cloud will win out, we will have this new second rate gaming world in maybe as little as five years' time.
Or at least it will be cheaper at the start, once players cannot play without being online and depend on a handful of cloud services, what do you think will happen then? Will these gaming corporations say "right now we have them by the orchestras, let's keep the prices down?" I really don't know, but if you are sure they will keep prices down, then we are off to wishful thinking land again.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Sadly, some people are inexplicably against the entire concept of VR, which makes no sense to me. I am still hopeful.
Blockchain tech (assuming one can find something less eco-hostile) can solve some rather thorny gaming problems (item dups, etc.) without involving crypto-currency.
It's when these companies stray into crypto-currency that it tars any beneficial uses and become customer hostile.
Serious question.
NFT/blockchains are not for the average players - period. Try to spin it however you want, you're wrong.
Ad monetization isn't a good example as the vast majority of mobile MMORPGs (most of which don't even deserve the title as they are nonsense hero collection games) also combine ads with other systems to bleed players dry, FOMO, and comparable. This is not what we want in our games - they move further away from providing a game service and more towards incremental costs with diminished value of purchases over time. Let me pay for content, classes, and cosmetics, and keep the core gameplay away from this type of monitization.
New and improved AI is good, especially if we can get out of the world of predictable patterns in boss fights. I look forward to the day when mobs will suddenly do something surprising that forces you to react in a different way than the last time you fought them.
Mixed reality has potential but VR and comparable technologies suffer from very low adoption rates in the gaming community. Would I love a world where I no longer have to use keys or mouse to change my field of vision in all games? Absolutely - reaction time and immersion would be through the roof. I haven't seen a MMO do this well yet but am very much looking forward to it.
Agreed on this - you can absolutely create a linked currency/economy system without blockchain. However, I think the inherent data security challenges grow significantly when considering independent code bases trying to manage assets, values, and accounts unless they share an identical underlying API-based engine for managing this. This would be easiest to first do across a family of games run by a single developer (which I think Cryptic may have done? It has been a while).
you are spot on .
The Stranger: It's what people know about themselves inside that makes 'em afraid.
I find it very strange that out of the 5 features listed, so many people grasp onto the blockchain portion, when the article doesn't even really say that blockchain is the only future.
I do believe that there is a big disconnect between the kind of oldschool MMO players we have here, and what the industry is looking at.
Game studios are starting to realize there's a huge benefit to being the MCU. Multiple properties meshing together.
The article talks about how poor wemix games are, but wemix probably has one of the better systems to interconnect their games.
But if we take blockchain out of the equation entirely, and developers want to use another proprietary currency system throughout all of their games, or "multi-unversal currency" transfers between multiple game worlds, I don't see why that's a bad thing.
Because there are game systems in place already, like Guild Wars 2, where you have to buy gems to get in game cosmetics. And you won't use all the gems you buy, and you can't sell the gems to other players, but the system is in place to where you're stuck with the currency you paid for.
The whole idea of a multi game currency is the same principles but you get to use that paid currency on multiple games.
The one step further scenario is allowing players that paid 30 dollars for 3000 gems to buy a hat for 2000 gems, and then allowing them to turn around and resell that hat to regain their gems when they decide they no longer want the hat.
Here's where everyone misunderstands the system. In the current system, scarcity runs the market prices. But that doesn't mean that it has to. There are algorithmic systems that can set the maximum price on items for you, ensuring that whatever is resold, isn't resold to be overwhelmingly profitable.
Because the developers still get paid either way, because gems still require cash to buy, so whether you buy a product from a player or the developer, the money is still exchanged at a same rate. But you end up with less item and inventory waste, and you also enable players to move between games more freely.
It's not a "new" system.
But it's an underused system that has only really just been woken up due to blockchain.
I still see a lot of hate for blockchain on these forums and elsewhere, and the hate is extremely misguided. The article didn't even promote crypto at all, it actually kind of railed against it... but it did say the features of blockchain would be the future....
and if you look at how many companies want to run after metaverses and build game libraries and provide virtual player economies I don't think anything in the article is out of line.
At its best, it perverts design priorities to fuel the microtransaction machine.
I don't care what system is used, I don't see a need to support a more complex and more encompassing version of that monetization scheme in this hobby.
We already see it in non-RMT economies in games constantly with their player auctions. The one's that work, generally do so via some measure of regulation.
You're right, there needs to be an algorithmic regulation of initial item cost, plus scarcity of the market, time on the market, and time since the item was last available.
That way the set price can fluctuate, but it can automatically list at the buy price or in some cases, less.
I think what a lot of people see are the crypto token projects that intend to prop up prices with market fluctuations. It doesn't do the technology or genre any favors, and it's cause a lot more trouble than it's worth.
I don't think that's the future, but I do expect some Blockchain features to find their way into more games.
Also, @StevenWeber : I'm a active (since 2019)Shadow PC costumer; so...
..if you have any direct questions and are looking for information you won't get from an out-of-date news article, you might want to try actually talking to the people who pay for/use the service regularly to play mmorpg's like Final Fantasy XIV, ESO, WoW, and so forth, and the newest high end PC games.
(Except for Genshin Impact... *Shakes fist at MiHoYo and that stupid Anti-VM engine that no other PC game on the market uses so frivolously.)
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
Like you, I was a Shadow Cloud customer! I touted the benefits of shadow cloud for a number of years, but I was also at the forefront of the problems Shadow went through. During that period of uncertainty I canceled my subscription, and when I attempted to resubscribe I was forced back on a waiting list of nearly 3 months before I was able to regain access to the service! I have since canceled the service again, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking for a more customized cloud option.
In most of my previous tests, the Shadow service was by far a better option to several other services, though in an apples to apples comparison of the same game, GeForce Now is superior in my opinion, even if it doesn't have as many capabilities.
Thank you for offering your assistance though, MMORPG Friend, if ever the need arises I will definitely let you know.
And for all those who have commented on the article thus far, I love hearing your thoughts. Keep up the conversation, and let us know what the future of MMORPGs should look like to you!
Happy Posting!
What new monetization models have been introduced in the past ten years?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I have so many things going on there is never a time I can simply spend a few hours completely oblivious to what is going on about me while I play and immerse myself in a virtual reality. It isn't practical.
Even in movies the way I have seen VR it seems just a terrible disconnect and inability to react and interact with the real world while you're in VR. The whole apparatus covering your eyes is already a big red sign for me. I am merely relating why I cannot get excited about VR. I am not speaking for anyone else.
It may not make sense to you but these are real concerns.
That said, I have grown comfortable telling my wife "I'm going upstairs to the VR room for a bit if you need me". She now does the same, just less often.
Also, both of my HMDs have off ear headphones, meaning the earphones sit about an inch away from my ear (but still sound great), so I can hear a bit of what's going on, such as one of my dogs walking in and laying at my feet when I forget to close the door. It isn't terribly hard to do a quick tilt of the headset to look around. Some headsets you can actually see own the nose line a decent amount.
That said, VR gaming is significantly more physically strenuous than sitting at a computer. While you may get to a place where you want to game for hours, the first month or so it will be more like 30 minutes to an hour session, during which time you become much more adept at tracking the outside environment.
Truth be told, it sounds like you could use a little disconnect...lol
Anyone that think all these nft games or blockchains in games is to the benefit of the gamer is frankly delusional...it's entirely there to fork over gamers and find another way to squeeze out more money from them.
It's like a magicians trick where you are fooled into thinking you have control, or tricked into thinking you have a choice that actually matters etc etc.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
The article mentions AI text generation. But text generation is actually really hard. You can make coherent sentences, but not a good story. You wouldn't want to read a novel generated by AI unless you were solely interested in seeing just how bad it was at the current level of AI sophistication. There are a lot of other, easier things that games could do with smarter AI and mostly aren't interested in doing.