Dishonor took less than a month to finish. It sold tons, and it is a huge success. Who says a MMO cannot be more like SP games? Shorter time to "finish", less investment .. make more money.
Then make another one. Dragging stuff out to years is not necessarily fun.
And why does a single game needs to entertain the same players for years? Even the look term successful games like WOW has a lot of churn. Do you think the 10M currently players are the same from the beginning?
Debatable, for the most part we are talking about games that have some secondary source of revenue, not just the sales, may it be subs, cash shop, freemium or whatever, within that category, longer is best.
Now if we want to talk just about box sales, then yes, a smaller faster game that still can attract enough people is a choice worth considering.
But that kind of game will not have a large world to explore or much stuff to try out, which "we" want to have and do.
And last but not least, it is kinda a low blow to drag bethesda into this, their games were the exception to rules for years, take just the elder scrolls series, all games singleplayer, but still offering nearly the kind and diversity of content only a mmo can offer from other companies.
So if you are really arguing that mmos should be singleplayer like skyrim, then bring it on, you have my vote, i can live with that
But they wont be, they wil be like, dunno, cant even remember the name of that last fps that hit me with a black screen and "RETURN TO MISSION AREA", uninstalled it right away
Because in the end the problem is not what kind of game what should be, but that the devs or creators or whatsoever are trying to slack off as much as possible within their respective categories, the end effect in mmos being that they are singleplayer and short, that is why genres seem so similar these days, everyone plays safe and is shy of ideas and even thinking (enrage timers in an arpg should sound familiar).
Dishonor took less than a month to finish. It sold tons, and it is a huge success. Who says a MMO cannot be more like SP games? Shorter time to "finish", less investment .. make more money.
Then make another one. Dragging stuff out to years is not necessarily fun.
And why does a single game needs to entertain the same players for years? Even the look term successful games like WOW has a lot of churn. Do you think the 10M currently players are the same from the beginning?
Debatable, for the most part we are talking about games that have some secondary source of revenue, not just the sales, may it be subs, cash shop, freemium or whatever, within that category, longer is best.
Now if we want to talk just about box sales, then yes, a smaller faster game that still can attract enough people is a choice worth considering.
From a business point of view, it is about net present value (which is a standard measure of financial performance over time). You can also do a NPV version of ROI. In both cases, you trade-off longer term revenue and short term gain, and factor the cost into it.
Thus, it is not automatic than a longer term game will provide better NPV or ROI.
But that kind of game will not have a large world to explore or much stuff to try out, which "we" want to have and do.
And long term does not necessarily equate to big world. Diablo 1 & 2 were played for a long term, with long term box sales, and expansion pak sales. The "world" is small compared to many MMOs.
And last but not least, it is kinda a low blow to drag bethesda into this, their games were the exception to rules for years, take just the elder scrolls series, all games singleplayer, but still offering nearly the kind and diversity of content only a mmo can offer from other companies.
So if you are really arguing that mmos should be singleplayer like skyrim, then bring it on, you have my vote, i can live with that
No. I am not evening arguing what it should be. I am only saying a good game, including MMOs, does not necessarily involve a long playing duration. If a SP game can be good for 3 weeks, so can a MMO.
But they wont be, they wil be like, dunno, cant even remember the name of that last fps that hit me with a black screen and "RETURN TO MISSION AREA", uninstalled it right away
That is just you. Dishonor has much smaller areas than some MMOs .. you don't see me uninstall it because of that. If the gameplay is good, and i am having fun, i really don't care if the area is huge, or it is just 3 rooms.
Because in the end the problem is not what kind of game what should be, but that the devs or creators or whatsoever are trying to slack off as much as possible within their respective categories, the end effect in mmos being that they are singleplayer and short, that is why genres seem so similar these days, everyone plays safe and is shy of ideas and even thinking (enrage timers in an arpg should sound familiar).
Slack off? Video games is a highly competitive market place. I don't see why every dev has to compete on duration. If a dev can convince me that it is the most fun 2 weeks i am going to have, i am more than happy to shelf out $40 or $60 for it. Whether it is a MMO or a FPS, or a stealth game is irreleavnt.
And i disagree that everyone plays safe. In fact, just look at the different variations of online games from MOBA, to Mechwarrior online, to PS2.
They don't do a virtual world (which is an old idea) does not mean they don't have new ones.
Debatable, for the most part we are talking about games that have some secondary source of revenue, not just the sales, may it be subs, cash shop, freemium or whatever, within that category, longer is best.
Now if we want to talk just about box sales, then yes, a smaller faster game that still can attract enough people is a choice worth considering.
From a business point of view, it is about net present value (which is a standard measure of financial performance over time). You can also do a NPV version of ROI. In both cases, you trade-off longer term revenue and short term gain, and factor the cost into it.
Thus, it is not automatic than a longer term game will provide better NPV or ROI.
A long winded version of "if your game sucks it does not matter how long it lasts", which is true, but what is your point? I just said, that if the main part of your revenue is NOT box sales, longevity is better.
But that kind of game will not have a large world to explore or much stuff to try out, which "we" want to have and do.
And long term does not necessarily equate to big world. Diablo 1 & 2 were played for a long term, with long term box sales, and expansion pak sales. The "world" is small compared to many MMOs.
Diablo is not a mmo (last i checked).
I am not foolish to think, that devs will embark on creating a larger world with much stuff in it WHILE expecting everyone to stay around just for 3 months, or that many people will buy the game if it costs 200 bucks, even if i personally would, did (subs) and you probably did, too.
And last but not least, it is kinda a low blow to drag bethesda into this, their games were the exception to rules for years, take just the elder scrolls series, all games singleplayer, but still offering nearly the kind and diversity of content only a mmo can offer from other companies.
So if you are really arguing that mmos should be singleplayer like skyrim, then bring it on, you have my vote, i can live with that
No. I am not evening arguing what it should be. I am only saying a good game, including MMOs, does not necessarily involve a long playing duration. If a SP game can be good for 3 weeks, so can a MMO.
There is the disconnect, that i talk about longevity and you talk about playtime, which is not the same, as you have pointed out in your last point about diablo.
But they wont be, they wil be like, dunno, cant even remember the name of that last fps that hit me with a black screen and "RETURN TO MISSION AREA", uninstalled it right away
That is just you. Dishonor has much smaller areas than some MMOs .. you don't see me uninstall it because of that. If the gameplay is good, and i am having fun, i really don't care if the area is huge, or it is just 3 rooms.
You are focusing too much on the area thing, i just mentioned it as a example of lazy design (not being willing to come up with boundaries that make sense).
Because in the end the problem is not what kind of game what should be, but that the devs or creators or whatsoever are trying to slack off as much as possible within their respective categories, the end effect in mmos being that they are singleplayer and short, that is why genres seem so similar these days, everyone plays safe and is shy of ideas and even thinking (enrage timers in an arpg should sound familiar).
Slack off? Video games is a highly competitive market place. I don't see why every dev has to compete on duration. If a dev can convince me that it is the most fun 2 weeks i am going to have, i am more than happy to shelf out $40 or $60 for it. Whether it is a MMO or a FPS, or a stealth game is irreleavnt.
And i disagree that everyone plays safe. In fact, just look at the different variations of online games from MOBA, to Mechwarrior online, to PS2.
They don't do a virtual world (which is an old idea) does not mean they don't have new ones.
Within that paragraph i specifically meant safe as releasing shorter games with less duration, for the reason you preach, less cost, and slacking off in term of overuse of mechanics that i mentioned in the last paragraph.
The variability is debatable, if we take a different environment itself a "completely different" we have a completely different argument
I would argue, that the market is not competitve enough, if something like d3 or swtor can be competitive.
I don't care about players rushing to max lvl. But I do care when they start bitching about being bored and a new game not having enough endgame blah blah blah. You know what you were doing and you know that no gamecompany can keep up with players rushing through their game. So why start bitching about lack of endgame/content? Especially if you went out of your way to ignore most content during lvling? This is what annoys me about SOME of those 'content locusts'. The ones that just move on to the next game, thats their call ofc.
Also even in a game where you are scaled down in lvl, you see the same behaviour. The rush to max lvl means there is a lot of content for their level (because of the downscaling) they probably haven't seen yet, but because it doesn't offer the next step in power, they ignore it. Fine. But then they shouldnt be surprised to become bored fast if you play a game from a company that is more interested in releasing content that you obviously don't care about.
So in a way yes, even old players like me have evolved I do play several MMO's now days, a bit of WoT, a bit of PS2, a bit of GW2...but, I am not playing 3 MMO's that offer the same experience, I play three that offer three distinct experiences. What I am longing for however is for the world MMO where I could build allong with my friends something that is ours, where I can play consistently, where we could use our immagination to innovate as well...share our experiences with the opther players of that world, cooperate together or compete, depending on our ambitions or values we choose to Champion.
Thati s your problem. What you describe is usually too much work for many players. 2 hours having some fun on WOT is what a lot wants. And they also want different experience, instead of being stuck in the same world for a long time. I bet many who play WOT is also playing LOL, and PS2, and Diablo.
In fact, even you admit to play these games. If devs can entertain by focusing on slices of good experiences (and not even need a MMO for), why would they spend the effort to make a huge world MMO with many systems, and more things that can go wrong?
This thinking is Busines Fail. Why would they spemnd the effort? Umm lets see..maybe because it is their job to make games that people could enjoy for mor ethan three months?
No. It is their job to make good game that sells.
Dishonor took less than a month to finish. It sold tons, and it is a huge success. Who says a MMO cannot be more like SP games? Shorter time to "finish", less investment .. make more money.
Then make another one. Dragging stuff out to years is not necessarily fun.
And why does a single game needs to entertain the same players for years? Even the look term successful games like WOW has a lot of churn. Do you think the 10M currently players are the same from the beginning?
Well, why make an MMO then? Make a single player game like, Skyrim it had much success, people will play it for a month or two and move and you made a ton of money.
The thinking of going throughthe trouble to launch an MMO that quacks and Walks like a single player game in order to make a short term profit is Business fail.
I play SPGs still, I consume them I spend money on them. But when I play an MMO I expect to get an MMO experience not a SPG experience.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Time is irrelevant; I can finish a game within an afternoon and still think its a great game. Same with books, movies and other forms of entertainment. Stretching it won't make it better, only last longer.
I wish I could read a page with one glance like some people can. That way I could do a lot more reading. It is preposterous to claim that the people who do this are not enjoying the books they read, or they are reading wrong.
Subscription based games have a bad habit of either stretching the content or adding downtime. But they only do this so that you would pay more money. They are not better games by any means. They don't have higher quality either.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Time is irrelevant; I can finish a game within an afternoon and still think its a great game. Same with books, movies and other forms of entertainment. Stretching it won't make it better, only last longer.
I wish I could read a page with one glance like some people can. That way I could do a lot more reading. It is preposterous to claim that the people who do this are not enjoying the books they read, or they are reading wrong.
Subscription based games have a bad habit of either stretching the content or adding downtime. But they only do this so that you would pay more money. They are not better games by any means. They don't have higher quality either.
In general i think where we talk about content locust, we talk about players that ignore everything but the end, in your metaphors, that would be a reader that glances over a page and skips it if he does not see anything regarding the main storyline.
Mmos make these stops in an effort that the particular player will enjoy the current page, and/or get lost in it, which may be to someones liking or not.
The first lotr book features several dozens of pages at the beginning, where the group just scales a hill, rather dull, yet would you argue that if we would skip everything someone would find dull from the books, they would be much better?
In this sense, yes, it does not matter how long a game is in regards of it being good or not, it matters only in the sense that if it is a much too fast ride, many people will simply not notice that it is good, like drivinng at 200mph trough disneyland.
I do not have a silver bullet, I do not think anyone here who thinks we need MMO’s other than easymode ones thinks it is going to be that easy to fix.
On the example I gave you would of course increase the XP needed to get to top level. How much? That’s the question, like I said baby steps not suddenly taking 6 months to get on avatar to top level.
Time does matter, if we could finish a game in an afternoon, you would run out of games to play very quickly. This is the dilemma the industry is now finding themselves in, they are not putting the games or updates out more quickly but we are devouring them faster and faster. Turning the gaming industry into a glorified producer of lower quality or cloned games has been their answer so far.
Hey I would like to see a casual solo player do their version of some great works of literature:
Lord of the Rings: Got quest to get rid of ring. Picked up some NPC’s for hire. One died but I managed to rez him. Managed to avoid a lot of needless side quests. Dropped ring in volcano. Top level now and all I have to do is garden in the shire…not renewing sub.
Comments
Debatable, for the most part we are talking about games that have some secondary source of revenue, not just the sales, may it be subs, cash shop, freemium or whatever, within that category, longer is best.
Now if we want to talk just about box sales, then yes, a smaller faster game that still can attract enough people is a choice worth considering.
But that kind of game will not have a large world to explore or much stuff to try out, which "we" want to have and do.
And last but not least, it is kinda a low blow to drag bethesda into this, their games were the exception to rules for years, take just the elder scrolls series, all games singleplayer, but still offering nearly the kind and diversity of content only a mmo can offer from other companies.
So if you are really arguing that mmos should be singleplayer like skyrim, then bring it on, you have my vote, i can live with that
But they wont be, they wil be like, dunno, cant even remember the name of that last fps that hit me with a black screen and "RETURN TO MISSION AREA", uninstalled it right away
Because in the end the problem is not what kind of game what should be, but that the devs or creators or whatsoever are trying to slack off as much as possible within their respective categories, the end effect in mmos being that they are singleplayer and short, that is why genres seem so similar these days, everyone plays safe and is shy of ideas and even thinking (enrage timers in an arpg should sound familiar).
Flame on!
Civ and Sim city didn't require you to pay a sub.
Greed isn't always good. Being blatantly greedy is never good.
Flame on!
I don't care about players rushing to max lvl. But I do care when they start bitching about being bored and a new game not having enough endgame blah blah blah. You know what you were doing and you know that no gamecompany can keep up with players rushing through their game. So why start bitching about lack of endgame/content? Especially if you went out of your way to ignore most content during lvling? This is what annoys me about SOME of those 'content locusts'. The ones that just move on to the next game, thats their call ofc.
Also even in a game where you are scaled down in lvl, you see the same behaviour. The rush to max lvl means there is a lot of content for their level (because of the downscaling) they probably haven't seen yet, but because it doesn't offer the next step in power, they ignore it. Fine. But then they shouldnt be surprised to become bored fast if you play a game from a company that is more interested in releasing content that you obviously don't care about.
Well, why make an MMO then? Make a single player game like, Skyrim it had much success, people will play it for a month or two and move and you made a ton of money.
The thinking of going throughthe trouble to launch an MMO that quacks and Walks like a single player game in order to make a short term profit is Business fail.
I play SPGs still, I consume them I spend money on them. But when I play an MMO I expect to get an MMO experience not a SPG experience.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Time is irrelevant; I can finish a game within an afternoon and still think its a great game. Same with books, movies and other forms of entertainment. Stretching it won't make it better, only last longer.
I wish I could read a page with one glance like some people can. That way I could do a lot more reading. It is preposterous to claim that the people who do this are not enjoying the books they read, or they are reading wrong.
Subscription based games have a bad habit of either stretching the content or adding downtime. But they only do this so that you would pay more money. They are not better games by any means. They don't have higher quality either.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
In general i think where we talk about content locust, we talk about players that ignore everything but the end, in your metaphors, that would be a reader that glances over a page and skips it if he does not see anything regarding the main storyline.
Mmos make these stops in an effort that the particular player will enjoy the current page, and/or get lost in it, which may be to someones liking or not.
The first lotr book features several dozens of pages at the beginning, where the group just scales a hill, rather dull, yet would you argue that if we would skip everything someone would find dull from the books, they would be much better?
In this sense, yes, it does not matter how long a game is in regards of it being good or not, it matters only in the sense that if it is a much too fast ride, many people will simply not notice that it is good, like drivinng at 200mph trough disneyland.
Everything in moderation.
Flame on!
I do not have a silver bullet, I do not think anyone here who thinks we need MMO’s other than easymode ones thinks it is going to be that easy to fix.
On the example I gave you would of course increase the XP needed to get to top level. How much? That’s the question, like I said baby steps not suddenly taking 6 months to get on avatar to top level.
Time does matter, if we could finish a game in an afternoon, you would run out of games to play very quickly. This is the dilemma the industry is now finding themselves in, they are not putting the games or updates out more quickly but we are devouring them faster and faster. Turning the gaming industry into a glorified producer of lower quality or cloned games has been their answer so far.
Hey I would like to see a casual solo player do their version of some great works of literature:
Lord of the Rings: Got quest to get rid of ring. Picked up some NPC’s for hire. One died but I managed to rez him. Managed to avoid a lot of needless side quests. Dropped ring in volcano. Top level now and all I have to do is garden in the shire…not renewing sub.