Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMO theory via Raph Koster
Esquire1980
Member UncommonPosts: 568
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXliVs0JCR4&feature=related
Thought you all might be interested. WARNING, it's rather long, almost 45 minutes.
Comments
Nice find mate, thanks for this
I watched about 20 mins last night. Some pretty interesting stuff.
great find!
best part for me was 35 - 40 mins when Koster discusses the differences between sandbox and themepark games; arguing that "play" is fostered by "constraint and boundedness", clear rules/objectives and repeatable experiences and that it is the responsibility in sandbox games with regards to the role you play in them that has some people regarding them as "work".
i guess nothing that hasn't been discussed before but its interesting to see it from a psicological point of view and I guess a bit pessimistic for sandbox enthusiasts such as myself if Koster's predictions fall true that more and more MMORPGs will continue to bound the player into specific tasks and roles with limited inter-dependancy or cooperation.
for people interested in MMOs theories and koster's philosophy here you can find his laws of online world design:
http://mmofringe.com/index.php?option=com_joobb&view=topic&topic=98&Itemid=55
I find it interesting that for someone so "in tune" with MMOs, that he had to close down his Metaplace project. Left the entire MMO market for that matter.
Koster wouldnt know fun if it smacked him upside the head.
Granted I would have to give him props for his insight on setting up sims.
And he is right about the growing trend of themeparks. Kind of obvious really. A themepark has ruled MMO subs since the launch of EQ1, and doesnt look to change anytime soon.
The majority of gamers look to "game" for entertainment....not as a virtual simulator.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
believe it or not, many regard simulation as "fun".
otherwise there wouldn't be so many simulation games out there would there?
believe it or not, many regard simulation as "fun".
otherwise there wouldn't be so many simulation games out there would there?
Yes indeed there are...but not in the MMO genre.
There is a reason for that....it doesnt work.
MMOs attract folks who want to unwind for a day of work/school/PB Crunchering.....they dont log in to work more.
Which Koster found out when he had to not only watch SWG fail, but see the Metaplace MMO project collapse as well.
Heck the Sims is one of the best selling games of all time....yet even it couldnt make it as a MMO.
A lot of SWG vets saw their sims as fun....the rest of us couldnt stand the game.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
No, the reason for that is companies chasing the WoW-money. They want a piece of that 11 million sub base, and they aren't going to deviate from the "magic formula" as a result.
There was a time when PC games meant depth and complexity. Realism, and immersion. After WoW and games like it, the console/casual generation has taken over, and with their bloated sense of entitlement, DEMAND to have everything handed to them as soon as they stomp their childish little feet.
And companies are all too happy to cater to them, as long the money keeps rolling in.
If you don't want to put effort into playing a game, and think everything needs to be easy-mode cartoon shit, maybe you'd be better off playing the games DESIGNED for that kind of entertainment, and stop attempting to impose your will on the MMORPG industry??
Because MMOs are finally starting to recover.....FE, MO, Darkfall, Xsyon, WURM, EVE, to name a few....are finally starting to bring this genre back where it belongs.
And if you think the future of the MMORPG is themepark crap....just look at how well STO is (or isn't) doing at the moment. Look at the people leaving LoTRO and Aion and WAR and AoC in droves, searching for something "more".
Yeah...maybe the masses will leave....back to their consoles, and their FPS games, and finally we can get back to the virtual worlds that this genre used to embody.
He's most definitely "in-tune" with what would make a LASTING game. Not the typical 3-6month "quick cash" MMO crap you see released lately.
The problem with Raph is, he knows what a game needs to last past the initial 6 months. Sadly, MMO designers don't really seem interested in creating "long term" software like that these days.
8 years ago, when $15 EXTRA per month was new, holy SH!T was it a brilliant idea. That's when they focused on making sure they appealed to you LONG term and people like Raph made sure you had plenty to do. I don't think that's the case any longer. Now it's "appeal to as many people as possible, make as much cash as possible, release additional content to drain base, release new MMO, repeat." Basically, they just replace single player games with an element of "co-op" and call it an "MMO".
THAT is why you don't see "sandbox" games any longer...economically they just don't make as much. The industry isn't looking to keep you playing 2,3,4 or 8 years...they want your money NOW! If the release didn't "snag you", why would any expansion?
He's most definitely "in-tune" with what would make a LASTING game. Not the typical 3-6month "quick cash" MMO crap you see released lately.
The problem with Raph is, he knows what a game needs to last past the initial 6 months. Sadly, MMO designers don't really seem interested in creating "long term" software like that these days.
8 years ago, when $15 EXTRA per month was new, holy SH!T was it a brilliant idea. That's when they focused on making sure they appealed to you LONG term and people like Raph made sure you had plenty to do. I don't think that's the case any longer. Now it's "appeal to as many people as possible, make as much cash as possible, release additional content to drain base, release new MMO, repeat." Basically, they just replace single player games with an element of "co-op" and call it an "MMO".
THAT is why you don't see "sandbox" games any longer...economically they just don't make as much. The industry isn't looking to keep you playing 2,3,4 or 8 years...they want your money NOW! If the release didn't "snag you", why would any expansion?
Good points all...
I was thinking though...I read a rumor on the STO Forums that Cryptic had set up the Business model for Star Trek Online so that it could run profitably forever on 50K Subs per Month...And my initial response was 50K Subs? That's small!!! Then I did the simple math and 50K in Subs means $750K PER MONTH in gross revenue and $9 million per year. That does not count one penny from Micro Transactions or anything else...
So anyway I was thinking...$750K per Month is a heck of a lot of gross revenue for just about anything I would think...Admittedly I'm not up on the overall costs of developing and maintaining an MMO...But how much can it be? STO has one Server...lol...I know the development spending has to be paid back, but a decent Launch will likely offset most, if not all of that...So while I totally agree with your take I really have to wonder why based on the sheer numbers? Why are we seeing SO much of these cash-grap monsters nowadays when obviously a Game that has content that can stand the test of time will provide HUGE returns if done correctly?
I guess it's just about taking the easy way out in the long run huh? Kinda gives me hope for SWTOR though...Hopefully close to 6 years of developement = LOTS of content for years, and years, and years...
believe it or not, many regard simulation as "fun".
otherwise there wouldn't be so many simulation games out there would there?
Yes indeed there are...but not in the MMO genre.
There is a reason for that....it doesnt work.
MMOs attract folks who want to unwind for a day of work/school/PB Crunchering.....they dont log in to work more.
Which Koster found out when he had to not only watch SWG fail, but see the Metaplace MMO project collapse as well.
Heck the Sims is one of the best selling games of all time....yet even it couldnt make it as a MMO.
A lot of SWG vets saw their sims as fun....the rest of us couldnt stand the game.
SWG failed, because it was released at least a year before it was even close to being ready and was managed by a team that treat their customers like cattle. The same reason as many failed theme park games.
Metaplace is just another example of why you don't put designers in charge of the business. Just like Garriot and MacQuaids theme parks failed. That is what happens when you put a fat kid in charge of the candy store.
MMOs attract people from all walks of life and any game that is good can do well: Sandbox or themepark.
No, the reason for that is companies chasing the WoW-money. They want a piece of that 11 million sub base, and they aren't going to deviate from the "magic formula" as a result.
There was a time when PC games meant depth and complexity. Realism, and immersion. After WoW and games like it, the console/casual generation has taken over, and with their bloated sense of entitlement, DEMAND to have everything handed to them as soon as they stomp their childish little feet.
And companies are all too happy to cater to them, as long the money keeps rolling in.
If you don't want to put effort into playing a game, and think everything needs to be easy-mode cartoon shit, maybe you'd be better off playing the games DESIGNED for that kind of entertainment, and stop attempting to impose your will on the MMORPG industry??
Because MMOs are finally starting to recover.....FE, MO, Darkfall, Xsyon, WURM, EVE, to name a few....are finally starting to bring this genre back where it belongs.
And if you think the future of the MMORPG is themepark crap....just look at how well STO is (or isn't) doing at the moment. Look at the people leaving LoTRO and Aion and WAR and AoC in droves, searching for something "more".
Yeah...maybe the masses will leave....back to their consoles, and their FPS games, and finally we can get back to the virtual worlds that this genre used to embody.
Do the letters FO mean anything to you?
Dont come on here trying to ram some projected stereotype onto me Skippy. Just cause you dont like facts, doesnt mean you have to nerd-rage on me.
My game of choice has always been EQ1. I dont remember anything about that game being "easy".
What I do remember is a game full of content...unlike what is found in sandboxes,
Themeparks have ruled for over 10 yrs now...EQ from launch until launch of WOW...and WOW till present.
But I am sure that is going to change any second now....yep any second.
I like facts just fine, bud. I used them in my argument.
Sandboxes have plenty of content...it's just not spoon fed to you. In fact, by their very nature, they have MORE content, since they allow the player to do things other than quest grind and raid all day.
I think it's because so few DO stand the tests of time. The return on investment just doesn't seem like it would be worth even trying on anything other than a MASSIVE title release (Star Trek, Star Wars, LOTRO). So yeah, I'm not suggesting any are developed to fail, but I don't think many plan past the 6-12mo mark and it's obvious by the lack of top level stuff to do...<---that's another topic.
SWTOR breaks this mold...maybe. Aside from the years of development, consider that they also seem to have arguably the LARGEST staff likely to have ever worked on an MMO. I'm interested to see if it follows the industry trend of late or tries for longevity and purpose like Raph envisioned. Hell, Raph may be wrong...maybe there's a better "model" and Bioware found it, but I have to think any improvement needs to be based on Raph's philosophy.
No, the reason for that is companies chasing the WoW-money. They want a piece of that 11 million sub base, and they aren't going to deviate from the "magic formula" as a result.
There was a time when PC games meant depth and complexity. Realism, and immersion. After WoW and games like it, the console/casual generation has taken over, and with their bloated sense of entitlement, DEMAND to have everything handed to them as soon as they stomp their childish little feet.
And companies are all too happy to cater to them, as long the money keeps rolling in.
If you don't want to put effort into playing a game, and think everything needs to be easy-mode cartoon shit, maybe you'd be better off playing the games DESIGNED for that kind of entertainment, and stop attempting to impose your will on the MMORPG industry??
Because MMOs are finally starting to recover.....FE, MO, Darkfall, Xsyon, WURM, EVE, to name a few....are finally starting to bring this genre back where it belongs.
And if you think the future of the MMORPG is themepark crap....just look at how well STO is (or isn't) doing at the moment. Look at the people leaving LoTRO and Aion and WAR and AoC in droves, searching for something "more".
Yeah...maybe the masses will leave....back to their consoles, and their FPS games, and finally we can get back to the virtual worlds that this genre used to embody.
Do the letters FO mean anything to you?
Dont come on here trying to ram some projected stereotype onto me Skippy. Just cause you dont like facts, doesnt mean you have to nerd-rage on me.
My game of choice has always been EQ1. I dont remember anything about that game being "easy".
What I do remember is a game full of content...unlike what is found in sandboxes,
Themeparks have ruled for over 10 yrs now...EQ from launch until launch of WOW...and WOW till present.
But I am sure that is going to change any second now....yep any second.
I like facts just fine, bud. I used them in my argument.
Sandboxes have plenty of content...it's just not spoon fed to you. In fact, by their very nature, they have MORE content, since they allow the player to do things other than quest grind and raid all day.
# DDO
# Tabula Rasa
# Auto Assault
# Dark and Light
# Darkfall
# AgeofConan
# Seed
# Gods and Heroes
# Crimecraft
# RomaVictor
# Wish
# Mythica
# Vanguard
# The Chronicles of spellborn
# Metaplace
# Hellgate:london
# Prates of the burning sea
# Fallen earth
# Wizard101
# Toon Town
If you like facts so much, then why do you blame everything on console gamers, wow or something other than the poor condition of non theme parks mmos? Here are 20 post-wow non theme park (edit: meant to say non-wow clone) mmo that I listed from another thread where people (including yourself) claimed nothing but wow clone or theme parks were being released.
The lack of success doesn't mean companies are not trying. It means they are not achieving. Just because they are not achieving, doesn't mean they have stopped trying. This "recovery" you speak of is nothing new. It has been going on for years, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge it for whatever reasons.
Can we stop pushing blame for the failure of so many companies onto the few that have managed to find success?
SWG didn't fail because it was sandbox. It failed for other reasons.
Themeparks didnt have the MMO market since EQ1. It was pretty even at that time. WoW is when the tide really turned.
Ultimately the issue is money. And because the issue is money, the focus isn't in long term money. Its in short-term. Ask anyone who runs a business. Do they want a lump sum now or smaller amounts that add up greater than the lump sum to be distributed to them over a long time? They will go for the lump sum. More money now equals 2 things; 1: Money in the bank. 2: Funding for the next project.
Basically the idea is that they will make so many initial sales and then a % will be retained for subs after that. Some companys focus more on the inital sales and care less about retention, others care more about retention.
Failure from the community perspective may be meaningless to the suits that are going shopping on your dime.
Well, lemme see...it must have just been pure coincidence that after WoW netted their first 8 million subs suddenly companies that never even considered making an MMORPG before were cranking out WoW clones??
No, I don't think so. Easy-mode crap attracted the "casual" (as they like to think of themselves) gamer, who before then were playing console games and puring derision on MMO gamers. (remember the term "evercrack"??)
Now these people expect EVERY game to cater to their "casual" interests. Hell forbid a game should be released with a bit of challenge....they cry and cry that they "don't want to work" in their games, they just want to have a couple hours of fun and log off.
If you can't see how this hurts the quality of MMORPGs in general, then dude, you need to open your eyes a bit and look around.
Yeah, I use facts to support my argument, and observing those facts draw a conclusion which I use to form an opinion. And the fact is that in recent years we've been given one wow clone after another, and the entire industry has been sliding down the shitter. Now, finally, small companies are startng to make real games again, ignoring the cries of the "casual" gamer, and MMORPGs are on the way to recovery.
I just showed you 20 games that directly contradict your "fact" that no one is making anything but wow clones, yet you still rampage on about it.
I don't think you could be any more misleading if you even tried. Wow is nothing more than an EQ clone and guess what? EQ was massively successful and attracted many companies to make mmos that had never made mmos before. Something you blame on wow and casual players was already happening for years.
Furthermore, the entire market was already heading towards a more casual gameplay. Even SOE was aiming EQ2 at the casual market. That is exactly what soe billed EQ2 as, but they just don't understand players. Again, something you blame on wow that was already happening.
Even the players of EQ were heading to a more solo oriented playstyle. That is why so many people had multiple accounts so they could play by themselves and not be forced into wandering around hoping to find someone to play with.
You are selectively using "facts" about the last 5 years of mmos and completely ignoring that it was already happening 5 years prior to wow. Not only that, but you also ignore other aspects like how many games that are completely different from wow so you can try to make your point look valid.
Sorry you don't like crap ez-mode games and that there is a real lack of quality in games that do appeal to your taste. That however is not the fault of casual games.
No, the reason for that is companies chasing the WoW-money. They want a piece of that 11 million sub base, and they aren't going to deviate from the "magic formula" as a result.
There was a time when PC games meant depth and complexity. Realism, and immersion. After WoW and games like it, the console/casual generation has taken over, and with their bloated sense of entitlement, DEMAND to have everything handed to them as soon as they stomp their childish little feet.
And companies are all too happy to cater to them, as long the money keeps rolling in.
If you don't want to put effort into playing a game, and think everything needs to be easy-mode cartoon shit, maybe you'd be better off playing the games DESIGNED for that kind of entertainment, and stop attempting to impose your will on the MMORPG industry??
Because MMOs are finally starting to recover.....FE, MO, Darkfall, Xsyon, WURM, EVE, to name a few....are finally starting to bring this genre back where it belongs.
And if you think the future of the MMORPG is themepark crap....just look at how well STO is (or isn't) doing at the moment. Look at the people leaving LoTRO and Aion and WAR and AoC in droves, searching for something "more".
Yeah...maybe the masses will leave....back to their consoles, and their FPS games, and finally we can get back to the virtual worlds that this genre used to embody.
Do the letters FO mean anything to you?
Dont come on here trying to ram some projected stereotype onto me Skippy. Just cause you dont like facts, doesnt mean you have to nerd-rage on me.
My game of choice has always been EQ1. I dont remember anything about that game being "easy".
What I do remember is a game full of content...unlike what is found in sandboxes,
Themeparks have ruled for over 10 yrs now...EQ from launch until launch of WOW...and WOW till present.
But I am sure that is going to change any second now....yep any second.
I like facts just fine, bud. I used them in my argument.
Sandboxes have plenty of content...it's just not spoon fed to you. In fact, by their very nature, they have MORE content, since they allow the player to do things other than quest grind and raid all day.
# DDO
# Tabula Rasa
# Auto Assault
# Dark and Light
# Darkfall
# AgeofConan
# Seed
# Gods and Heroes
# Crimecraft
# RomaVictor
# Wish
# Mythica
# Vanguard
# The Chronicles of spellborn
# Metaplace
# Hellgate:london
# Prates of the burning sea
# Fallen earth
# Wizard101
# Toon Town
If you like facts so much, then why do you blame everything on console gamers, wow or something other than the poor condition of non theme parks mmos? Here are 20 post-wow non theme park mmo that I listed from another thread where people (including yourself) claimed nothing but wow clone or theme parks were being released.
The lack of success doesn't mean companies are not trying. It means they are not achieving. Just because they are not achieving, doesn't mean they have stopped trying. This "recovery" you speak of is nothing new. It has been going on for years, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge it for whatever reasons.
Can we stop pushing blame for the failure of so many companies onto the few that have managed to find success?
this list has so many mistakes...
lets see....
#DDO: THEMEPARK!
#Tabula Rasa: FPS
#Auto Assault: FPS
#Dark & Light: Scam
#Darkfall: purely pvp combat oriented - is there any other way of making such a game?
#Age of Conan: OMG THEMEPARK!
#Seed: ?
#Gods & Heroes: Not Released THEMEPARK
# Crimecraft: ?
# RomaVictor: Indy Company Sandbox.
# Wish: ?
# Mythica: ?
# Vanguard: Initially a mixture of sandbox elements and themepark - nerfed by soe towards a more themepark oriented game.
# The Chronicles of spellborn: THEMEPARK
# Metaplace: ??? Why is this listed? This is not a "game" per se but an engine to create simulation games online.
# Hellgate:london: FPS
# Prates of the burning sea: THEMEPARK with end-game PVP
# Fallen earth: Sandbox/FPS
# Wizard101: ?
# Toon Town: ?
If you like facts
As you can see your list needs revising. ill be happy to clarify any doubts you may have.
I just showed you 20 games that directly contradict your "fact" that no one is making anything but wow clones, yet you still rampage on about it.
I don't think you could be any more misleading if you even tried. Wow is nothing more than an EQ clone and guess what? EQ was massively successful and attracted many companies to make mmos that had never made mmos before. Something you blame on wow and casual players was already happening for years.
Furthermore, the entire market was already heading towards a more casual gameplay. Even SOE was aiming EQ2 at the casual market. That is exactly what soe billed EQ2 as, but they just don't understand players. Again, something you blame on wow that was already happening.
Even the players of EQ were heading to a more solo oriented playstyle. That is why so many people had multiple accounts so they could play by themselves and not be forced into wandering around hoping to find someone to play with.
You are selectively using "facts" about the last 5 years of mmos and completely ignoring that it was already happening 5 years prior to wow. Not only that, but you also ignore other aspects like how many games that are completely different from wow so you can try to make your point look valid.
Sorry you don't like crap ez-mode games and that there is a real lack of quality in games that do appeal to your taste. That however is not the fault of casual games.
I didn't say EVERYONE was making WoW clones. I myself listed a few games that are finally braking the trend.
As for EQ 2, when it was released, it was challengine, and had depth. It was subjected to an "NGE" just like SWG was in attempt to cater to the WoW kids.
EQ was subject to multi-boxing for the same reason that games like AO were...it was a pain to shout for a healer for hours on end. This is a flaw in the class-based system....yet another point for sandbox games, which often are skill-based.
No one can claim that EQ was easy mode at all, and therefore it's use for your argument is rather invalid.
As for WoW....I can't say that it's an EQ clone. WoW took some ideas from it, and tossed them into an overly simplified package, painted in cartoon colors. Any challenge was stripped away in an effort to appeal to those with ADD and entitlement syndrom.
Daffid it's great that you can come up with a short list of games that aren't necessarily WOW clones, but they are the exceptions. By and large too many companies have been looking at Blizzard's success and have obviously decided to follow the "WOW path" in the hopes of stealing a piece of their pie.
EQ no doubt opened many eyes in the industry, but it took WOW to open the true floodgate. I was an avid gamer when EQ was released, and aside from seeing the odd box on the shelves, I knew absolutely nothing about the game. With WOW, I couldn't avoid encountering the many advertisements in gaming magazines that were printed months before the game even launched. EQ may have started the us on our current path, but when WOW came out it quickly grabbed the machete and took over where EQ left off.
EQ's population peaked around the 4 year mark with 450,000 subs. After 4 years WOW had 11.5 million subs (still does actually). Do you really think all of the clones that have been developped over the last few years had EQ as their template? It's amazing you can't seem to understand why so many of us use the term "WOW clone".
Don't take it personally, but WOW has earned that right, if you want to call it that.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I did not mean to imply that these were all sandbox games, but rather that they all represent games that have been released/developed post wow era that tried to do something different than wow. Just to show that comments about the industry being taken over by whining babies or companies being incapable of trying anything new are overblown.
People seem to equate that lack of a decent non eq influenced theme park game as some evidence to things that are not true.
Most of the above games did not find great success, because there were just plain bad. It had nothing to do with the instant gratification crowd or players at all.
(editing my comment above to clarify my mistake)
I'm curious if my list is really the exception as you think it is. How many wow clones can you list?
I fully agree with the term wow clone and I recognize the trend in some games. This sort of emulation isn't some new phenom that just sprang up as a result of wow as is being claimed here. Some companies are going to emulate the market leader, just like they did with EQ and are doing now with wow. It wasn't a real secret that there were piles of money to be made with mmos and the floodgates were open a long time ago, long before wow. We are just in a continuation of that and not the birth of it.
Also, I'm not saying wow hasn't had a big impact on the market, because it has. Yet there are still plenty of other companies trying to do their own style of mmo, but for a large number of reasons most are failures. None of which is the fault of wow or blizzard.
I simply think people are equating the lack of success in so many other games as being the fault of 1 game and that one game has made it impossible for companies to do anything differently. Which obviously isn't the case.
I'm curious if my list is really the exception as you think it is. How many wow clones can you list?
I fully agree with the term wow clone and I recognize the trend in some games. This sort of emulation isn't some new phenom that just sprang up as a result of wow as is being claimed here. Some companies are going to emulate the market leader, just like they did with EQ and are doing now with wow. It wasn't a real secret that there were piles of money to be made with mmos and the floodgates were open a long time ago, long before wow. We are just in a continuation of that and not the birth of it.
Also, I'm not saying wow hasn't had a big impact on the market, because it has. Yet there are still plenty of other companies trying to do their own style of mmo, but for a large number of reasons most are failures. None of which is the fault of wow or blizzard.
I simply think people are equating the lack of success in so many other games as being the fault of 1 game and that one game has made it impossible for companies to do anything differently. Which obviously isn't the case.
Personally I think the term is used far too liberally these days, especially considering some later releases that have nothing in common with WoW apart from the very fact that they include even the most basic versions of MMO elements. To me, that doesn't define them as a "clone", just a poor relative.
In my opinion, a Ferrari isn't a clone of the very first cars, it should be considered more of an evolution. Likewise, just because some games incorporate traditional elements such as a user friendly UI, a quest system, classes, etc, I wouldn't necessarily claim they were WoW clones.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I was right there with you in every post until this sentence. With that sentence you proved the point you were arguing against to be completely true, in a way.
The reason every one of those games failed isn't because they were bad. Most of them were lead to crappy releases due to circumstance, and leadership. Look at Darkfall or AOC today as two examples, very polished games that have grown ten fold, over the last year or so. Because either the leaders focused on what was important, rather than hype, or listened to feedback and adjusted accordingly.
The WOW generation is used to a company having the budget the size of a country. They're used to everything being perfect (seemingly) because funding allows it. They're not used to MMO releases period because WOW was their first game and they started when it was popular to. They don't understand the growing pains MMO's go through over their first year. As WOW (even with its budget) and EVE did in their infancy.
Games fail for many reasons one important one is that players expect perfection. Even when there's no way for that to happen regardless of budget. Another important factor is WOW did bring a new form of casualness to the genre, players who do not find it do not stick around, meaning games based on harsh rulesets remain in the niche, regardless of their production value.
It also leads developers to a harsh reality, because there's really three large groups to please when thinking about creating an mMO. Each group has a unique play-style and approach to MMO gaming.
Group one would be your EQ/WOW/LOTRO gamers used to what theme-parks offer, casual game-play(excluding EQ) with loot oriented progression.
Group two are your old-school sandbox gamers who want complex and harsh rule-sets, deep involving world dynamics as well as social function and a economy based on crafting.
Group three are your MMO newcomers, who are used to console gaming and consoles all together. Those who do not understand hardware issues, do not understand updating drivers and do not understand MMO's grow as they age. They don't realize you play to be social and make friends and build communities. A lot of these gamers have played one MMO,WOW, they're used to beating the game and being rewarded. They don't understand sandbox game play one bit. They can't grasp that the point is to have a virtual society, and politics.
Those three groups will never like the same game, plain and simple. Yet most developers still try and create something to please them all.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Erm, am I reading this right? You are claiming AOC and Darkfall to be two examples of very polished games that have grown ten fold?
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I was right there with you in every post until this sentence. With that sentence you proved the point you were arguing against to be completely true, in a way.
The reason every one of those games failed isn't because they were bad. Most of them were lead to crappy releases due to circumstance, and leadership. Look at Darkfall or AOC today as two examples, very polished games that have grown ten fold, over the last year or so. Because either the leaders focused on what was important, rather than hype, or listened to feedback and adjusted accordingly.
The WOW generation is used to a company having the budget the size of a country. They're used to everything being perfect (seemingly) because funding allows it. They're not used to MMO releases period because WOW was their first game and they started when it was popular to. They don't understand the growing pains MMO's go through over their first year. As WOW (even with its budget) and EVE did in their infancy.
Games fail for many reasons one important one is that players expect perfection. Even when there's no way for that to happen regardless of budget. Another important factor is WOW did bring a new form of casualness to the genre, players who do not find it do not stick around, meaning games based on harsh rulesets remain in the niche, regardless of their production value.
It also leads developers to a harsh reality, because there's really three large groups to please when thinking about creating an mMO. Each group has a unique play-style and approach to MMO gaming.
Group one would be your EQ/WOW/LOTRO gamers used to what theme-parks offer, casual game-play(excluding EQ) with loot oriented progression.
Group two are your old-school sandbox gamers who want complex and harsh rule-sets, deep involving world dynamics as well as social function and a economy based on crafting.
Group three are your MMO newcomers, who are used to console gaming and consoles all together. Those who do not understand hardware issues, do not understand updating drivers and do not understand MMO's grow as they age. They don't realize you play to be social and make friends and build communities. A lot of these gamers have played one MMO,WOW, they're used to beating the game and being rewarded. They don't understand sandbox game play one bit. They can't grasp that the point is to have a virtual society, and politics.
Those three groups will never like the same game, plain and simple. Yet most developers still try and create something to please them all.
Me saying bad didn't just mean in terms of gameplay and it most certainly included quality. Quality has perhaps been the biggest downfall of most games.
Wow wasn't perfect at release and had its share of problems, so I think the wow generation is able to give games a chance as you say.
However wow was fun right out of the box, despite its problems. These other games we are talking about games were not suffering from small growing pains. We are talking about games with multiple serious core issues. The list of problems in most games is staggering. Developers continue to rush out games that are terribly broken and there is no reason to put the blame of failure on players for not paying for broken products and wasting their valuable time so that developers might get their acts together in 6 or 12 months after the game has released.
Are games really failing, because players now demand perfection or are they failing, because developers are not getting their games done and expect things to be like 1999 where players would waste money and time on the hopes that some game eventually gets fixed and becomes more fun than it is hassle?
Why should players stick around a game that sucks when they can spend the same amount of time and money on a game they enjoy? Personally I think rewarding developers with money for releasing poorly developed games is what has help hold back much of the genre.