Originally posted by Robokapp Originally posted by Antiquated
Originally posted by Robokapp"can MMOs capture that 'something' ? hint: community ties are critical."
Critical to whom? Seems to be something of a key question that never really gets asked.
It doesn't appear to be critical to the game producers, or to their profitability.
critical to the MMOs. The context should've revealed this.
can you name an MMO that's older than 5 years with healthy population but without a community?
But it isn't critical to MMOs (in the simplest sense: massive online games). The industry is growing, despite the constant cries of doom. The products are changing, the profit models are shifting, and the approach appears to be aimed at a totally different target than the games of last century.
The products the "cater to the solo player" are not only successful, but they are hugely so.
The most profitable new products simply aren't mmorpg's. But if the companies can make even more cash--hell yes, mmorpg's are going to be left for dead (in favor of more flexible and profitable income models) by the side of the road.
Just like board games. There will be a few made, every year, for the customers who favor "ye olden dayze style" games. Grandma still pulls out the Scrabble board with the girls once a month. My buds from college will keep pulling out the dice bags, once in a while.
But there will never again be another Monopoly-level 'hit' in the board game market; technology has passed them by, consumers (largely) are also passing them by.
I think he said "the mmos" because he was talking about their individual success.
Originally posted by HolophonistI think he said "the mmos" because he was talking about their individual success.
So let's deal with them one title at a time. :shrug: The acronyms are more for arguing about than useful anyway.
For any new title that comes down the pike, the reactions we see on this site:
60% of gamers will reject at the mention of the title. (If it's not EQ6 or AC11 or SWG9 or something old, familiar, and comfortable).
30% will reject it because it's Not X (themepark, sandbox, FFAFULLOOTLOLZ, whatever).
9% will reject it for a single feature that it either has or does not have. Key does not fit the lock.
0.9% will reject it after trying it in alpha or beta, and deciding it's not enough like Old Reliable.
That just leaves a few, a precious few, individuals who can evaluate a title announced without the prejudicial expectation of failure.
Tbh I don't really see your point. I think his point was that community helps a game's chances at being successful, particularly in helping its longevity.
"can MMOs capture that 'something' ? hint: community ties are critical."
Critical to whom? Seems to be something of a key question that never really gets asked.
It doesn't appear to be critical to the game producers, or to their profitability.
critical to the MMOs. The context should've revealed this.
can you name an MMO that's older than 5 years with healthy population but without a community?
But it isn't critical to MMOs (in the simplest sense: massive online games). The industry is growing, despite the constant cries of doom. The products are changing, the profit models are shifting, and the approach appears to be aimed at a totally different target than the games of last century.
The products the "cater to the solo player" are not only successful, but they are hugely so.
The most profitable new products simply aren't mmorpg's. But if the companies can make even more cash--hell yes, mmorpg's are going to be left for dead (in favor of more flexible and profitable income models) by the side of the road.
Just like board games. There will be a few made, every year, for the customers who favor "ye olden dayze style" games. Grandma still pulls out the Scrabble board with the girls once a month. My buds from college will keep pulling out the dice bags, once in a while.
But there will never again be another Monopoly-level 'hit' in the board game market; technology has passed them by, consumers (largely) are also passing them by.
Argument aside, your analogy is poorly set up. This is a golden age for new board games, and they are selling very very well. Claiming Monopoly as a standard is pretty much the same as wondering why every computer game isn't as big as WoW. Anomolous events are not the baseline.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Argument aside, your analogy is poorly set up. This is a golden age for new board games, and they are selling very very well. Claiming Monopoly as a standard is pretty much the same as wondering why every computer game isn't as big as WoW. Anomolous events are not the baseline.
The rallying cry of "came in second", right?
Incidentally, Monopoly is currently behind Scrabble. And backgammon, and checkers, and chess.
And WoW isn't all that anomalous, against some of the larger (and more prolific) series titles on consoles... But there's another blurry line we need acronyms for.
Argument aside, your analogy is poorly set up. This is a golden age for new board games, and they are selling very very well. Claiming Monopoly as a standard is pretty much the same as wondering why every computer game isn't as big as WoW. Anomolous events are not the baseline.
The rallying cry of "came in second", right?
Incidentally, Monopoly is currently behind Scrabble. And backgammon, and checkers, and chess.
And WoW isn't all that anomalous, against some of the larger (and more prolific) series titles on consoles... But there's another blurry line we need acronyms for.
The world is made up of blurry lines....
Scrabble, backgammon, checkers, chess, etc, are much more abstracted than Monopoly, Risk, Settlers of Cataan, and so on. Being 70 years old helps your sales numbers some as well. In 70 more years we'll see what's lasted through the test of time.
As far as the OP's point, I am in the 'that's what games normally do' camp. They sell, they lose share, they plateau. Accurately predicting the user base vs the production expense leads to gold or doom.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
As long as gaming companies keep making games that are not challenging we will continue to see this trend in my opinion. Players need to be challenged, to struggling at goals, without that it is just a matter of time before they get bored and leave.
That is really why folks leave for the next game, the challenge of learning the new game. Keep providing a challenge, give us tough content that is just within reach if we work at it, find a way.
Not everyone will get to see that content, but the fact that it is there, that you can work towards it, that is what makes a game last.
As long as gaming companies keep making games that are not challenging we will continue to see this trend in my opinion. Players need to be challenged, to struggling at goals, without that it is just a matter of time before they get bored and leave.
I don't know about you ... every game, no matter how challenging, is getting boring sooner or later.
I don't need a game to last forever, i want it to be fun (for me) for whatever amount of time i am playing it, MMO or not. In fact, i much more prefer a very fun 1 week game, than a 2 years so-so one.
I read the title and thought you were going in a different direction.
I most certainly do not care if a game grows population wise,i want a game that grows both in effort and technical standards.
Really the first ten years from the DSL boom have been the honeymoon years,now i expect a much better advancement in the genre.
Every game has been created identical,player creation,vee line straight for a QUEST ,then bore yourself to death until the developer gives us more levels and more maps with VERY little to creativity or NEW unique ideas.
I believe 100% this trend will eventually change,it is just right now,NOBODY is pushing the envelope so everyone else is sort of just sailing on the same ship.I do not believe F2p is the answer to get players,you need some good ideas and keep the game size within your budget.
Developers have no excuse for the crap they have been feeding us,they could make a smallish game with tons of depth in it's systems and just add more maps after release when the money is coming in.Instead devs have been making large worlds with really cheap game play,that is NOT a formula for success.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Recently all MMOs we have seen has started big and dropped big time a couple of months. Here are some examples including SWTOR and GW2. I will use Google but there are plenty of other sources:
So can we actually see an MMO that launches and grows? Or is that era over, in this over saturated market?
I hope we wont see. It used to be 50k people gradually increasing over time to 70k and then dropping to 40k etc. Now we have 1 million people dropping to 300k, I call that progress. I hope we won't get back to the dark ages, when mmorpg was labeled to geeks.
Give me example of "old" mmorpgs, that have larger player base than the ones you mentioned as "dropping". It is normal, the bigger number of players, the bigger the drop. Back in the days there was nothing to drop from. Of course we are not using exceptions as any reliable statistic source (WoW etc.)
You do realize you just proved why older MMO's were better right? By your own reasoning the older MMO's were not only able to maintain their initial player base but also increase it. Even after the inevitable crash. Going from 1 million to 300k is a horrible retention rate that has nothing to do with being a bigger number. Look at it in percentages. The newer games lose players at a HUGE percent compared to older games. If I were in charge of a newer MMO I would be asking why that is happening and looking back at old games to see what they did right in regard to player retention.
^ This was along the line of my thoughts as well. Glad you brought it up.
If I were to see a MMO start today with 100K and gradually build up to 300K in the course of a short time. I would think to myself, "hmm, they must be doing something RIGHT", and probably give that one a hard looking into. Now take nearly every MMO that's been released in the past few years. The typical scenario is they start with 1M (possibly due to the IP and unrealistic hype) and within 2 months are down to 300K (or less). I always say to myself, "figures, another typical failure pattern. Another same old, same old MMO. No wonder they can't retain subscribers". Can anyone please tell me more than one recently released MMO that has actually grown in subscribers past the first 2 months?
Take EVE as an example of an "old time" MMO, and I don't even like EVE. However, I can still see they are doing something right. It's different, and you actually have to think in that game and rely on others, at least more so than in other MMOs of today (and I use that term loosely). If a new game would come out where they can put that same type of challenging game play in a traditional fantasy or sci-fi MMO, the genre actually may be refreshed. Instead, we get the McDonald's/Candyland games of today that all look the same as they try to nickel and dime you to death.
I think the trend will stay for "blockbusters" but that doesn't mean the product isn't good. It just means marketing did their job and got x more people in the door than they would have.
I think the problem comes with expecting, and funding, the idea that an MMO will be the next multimillion sub/sign up that is like WoW. It that happens then the crash will mean hits to production, lost jobs and a major black eye reputation wise. The "industry" as a whole is no fool, they are already adjusting which is why titles haven't been served like hotcakes anymore. I imagine most titles will take longer and try to get up front funding so they have a base before launch.
I think the innovation of toolsets will be how the genre thrives both financially and game replayablity. Program more automation into MMOs and create enough points of change that it seems random. There also needs to be more difficulty IMO. LoL is a great example of this concept. I don't think anyone would call it a "hardcore" game yet when you're first learning to play expect to die, a lot. When is the last time that happened in a "blockbuster" MMO?
To answer the IP more specifically I think EQN & Landmark will break the trend. It will be free, have a huge explorable world many levels deep, host 40 classes that swap around and have content that fed through events where people help the content along.
Of course, this is on paper except the Landmark building but it's a good start. Speaking of Landmark the "build your own piece of MMO" sounds pretty darn fantastic as well, maybe more so
I don't think they still care about retention of customers.
They mostly seem to aim at huge box sales only.
Exactly, MMO design is now based on the solo game model. So next time you wonder why a MMO had zero glitches at launch, but the end game looks half baked, now you know. Anything that engages players only over the long term such as end game, crafting, late game mounts, faction wars, faction control; has been removed or is an afterthought.
Yeh .. they are much better solo games now.
I just had some solo fun in GW2 ... in fact, you can do an event without even talking to anyone. May be it would be a good 1 to 2 month game. At $30, it is a steal.
You paid for a MMO! Are you sure Santa did not give it to you for Xmas? Good to see you back, your old cronies were missing you when I was taking them to task about casino gambling with lockboxes.
I like the open spaces in GW2, so many MMOs are just like rat runs now. In that game you have a feel of adventuring in open vistas. The feel and lore is good as is the little stories that get told by NPC's involving you in quests, I am a big fan of quest text and even I thought that was great. Mostly though you get a "quest" which tells you nothing, you have to go to quest NPCs to find out what is going on, which was a bit lame. The combat is a bit poor, if you are going to cut down on the buttons and go a bit arcade, then do it like Tera. GW2 is dreadfully easymode, that's its one big flaw, and the combat is an easymode version of what could be done.
I think he said "the mmos" because he was talking about their individual success.
So let's deal with them one title at a time. :shrug: The acronyms are more for arguing about than useful anyway.
For any new title that comes down the pike, the reactions we see on this site:
60% of gamers will reject at the mention of the title. (If it's not EQ6 or AC11 or SWG9 or something old, familiar, and comfortable).
30% will reject it because it's Not X (themepark, sandbox, FFAFULLOOTLOLZ, whatever).
9% will reject it for a single feature that it either has or does not have. Key does not fit the lock.
0.9% will reject it after trying it in alpha or beta, and deciding it's not enough like Old Reliable.
That just leaves a few, a precious few, individuals who can evaluate a title announced without the prejudicial expectation of failure.
Tbh I don't really see your point. I think his point was that community helps a game's chances at being successful, particularly in helping its longevity.
yes.
it smoothens that "level 60, now what? I do 2k dps, everyone does 8k dps and has the achievement". If you have a guild helping you through, the mountain that you need to climb gets more approachable.
Not only that but developers may get this crazy idea that if people play in a virtual space with other people... they may just enjoy it and make acquaintances with them. Now you've created a loyalty due to association. Community is a pretty big deal and it actually lessens the amount of people you need playing at one time. A game that encourages a strong community is a huge boon.
Originally posted by Dren_Utogi wird how all of this talk is going on and yet Vanguard remains untried by so many.... Loktofiet's Thumb Up Smiley
This is something that really puzzles me. There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. I see people post how it missed its window of opportunity (I see that phrase used a lot around here and I find it irritating). The game is right there to play right now.
I don't see a downward spiral at all. I think the OP is manipulating factoids and bits to support an agenda of invented crises. Revenue charts show that video gaming is increasing in revenue annually.
No one plays a game forever. Games see a surge, decline as people move on, and then a plateau of core players. The message of "downward trend" in the OP isn't the same. There is no downward trend. Games aren't failures because they plateau. They're healthy when the revenue generation is self-supporting and profitable. There are a few that don't fare well and shutter, but those seem to be the exception and not the rule.
There is this odd perception that we need to see an industry shaker annually. People wonder why there is a perception of downward spiral yet they look to jump on a new game every winter season.
Why does it boggle you? Vanguard may have 1-5 features players may be looking for, but is pretty narrow minded to think that it implements these features in a way these players may actually enjoy.
If a player seeks Full Loot Open World PvP, is ANY/EVERY game with this feature what they want?
I like deep crafting. ArcheAge and Darfall have this in place. Does that mean you think these 2 games meet my desires? Remember now, I dislike forced PvP with a passion.
CalmOceans made a great post in another thread:
Originally posted by CalmOceans Most of the self-published games don't lack the ideas, they come short on the technical side.
Vanguard had no shortage of ideas and good gameplay, they didn't have the engineers / programmers / animators....people who are technically skilled....people who know stuff....people who could turn all those ideas into a working game.
Vanguard failed, not because it was a bad game, it was an amazing game, it failed because you crashed 5 minutes into the game, it was an open world that lagged, the animations were bad, there were server issues, etc
Does this help explain it a little bit?
As far as the "downward Spiral" point, I don't see this at all. Business-wise, not in the least bit true. More players, more games, more money flowing into Publishers coffers are all on the rise. Gameplay-wise, it is true for me, the opposite for others.
That does not indicate a "Downward Spiral" in my eyes
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I just had some solo fun in GW2 ... in fact, you can do an event without even talking to anyone. May be it would be a good 1 to 2 month game. At $30, it is a steal.
You paid for a MMO! Are you sure Santa did not give it to you for Xmas? Good to see you back, your old cronies were missing you when I was taking them to task about casino gambling with lockboxes.
I like the open spaces in GW2, so many MMOs are just like rat runs now. In that game you have a feel of adventuring in open vistas. The feel and lore is good as is the little stories that get told by NPC's involving you in quests, I am a big fan of quest text and even I thought that was great. Mostly though you get a "quest" which tells you nothing, you have to go to quest NPCs to find out what is going on, which was a bit lame. The combat is a bit poor, if you are going to cut down on the buttons and go a bit arcade, then do it like Tera. GW2 is dreadfully easymode, that's its one big flaw, and the combat is an easymode version of what could be done.
Yes, i did ... and Kyleran beat you to it in expressing shock.
Hahahah .. i have the exact opposite of GW2. I think the combat is pretty good, very actiony, and it is not easy mode if you intentionally go up agains 2-3 enemies (more efficient leveling if you can hack it) or if you fight 3-4 levels above you, instead of just 1-2.
In fact, there is no easymode in MMOs because choosing enemies is like choosing a difficulty level in D3.
Don't tell me you can beat 2-3 plus 4 levels enemies easy in GW2 .. if so .. i would love to see that. And the good news is that you can use the openness as a way to choose you difficulty level. You can always find events that are challenging.
Originally posted by Dren_Utogi wird how all of this talk is going on and yet Vanguard remains untried by so many.... Loktofiet's Thumb Up Smiley
This is something that really puzzles me. There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. I see people post how it missed its window of opportunity (I see that phrase used a lot around here and I find it irritating). The game is right there to play right now.
I don't see a downward spiral at all. I think the OP is manipulating factoids and bits to support an agenda of invented crises. Revenue charts show that video gaming is increasing in revenue annually.
No one plays a game forever. Games see a surge, decline as people move on, and then a plateau of core players. The message of "downward trend" in the OP isn't the same. There is no downward trend. Games aren't failures because they plateau. They're healthy when the revenue generation is self-supporting and profitable. There are a few that don't fare well and shutter, but those seem to be the exception and not the rule.
There is this odd perception that we need to see an industry shaker annually. People wonder why there is a perception of downward spiral yet they look to jump on a new game every winter season.
Why does it boggle you? Vanguard may have 1-5 features players may be looking for, but is pretty narrow minded to think that it implements these features in a way these players may actually enjoy.
If a player seeks Full Loot Open World PvP, is ANY/EVERY game with this feature what they want?
I like deep crafting. ArcheAge and Darfall have this in place. Does that mean you think these 2 games meet my desires? Remember now, I dislike forced PvP with a passion.
CalmOceans made a great post in another thread:
Originally posted by CalmOceans Most of the self-published games don't lack the ideas, they come short on the technical side.
Vanguard had no shortage of ideas and good gameplay, they didn't have the engineers / programmers / animators....people who are technically skilled....people who know stuff....people who could turn all those ideas into a working game.
Vanguard failed, not because it was a bad game, it was an amazing game, it failed because you crashed 5 minutes into the game, it was an open world that lagged, the animations were bad, there were server issues, etc
Does this help explain it a little bit?
As far as the "downward Spiral" point, I don't see this at all. Business-wise, not in the least bit true. More players, more games, more money flowing into Publishers coffers are all on the rise. Gameplay-wise, it is true for me, the opposite for others.
That does not indicate a "Downward Spiral" in my eyes
All either post really says is you want a very specific experience, one that is vastly open, has all the features you want and doesn't have any issues, even at launch <-(at least if you're including CalmOceans post among your own thoughts)
This type of specific design is going to be hard to find, especially if you expect high production values along with it. As well as a smooth launch, with all of this stuff attached.
CalmOceans might have had a point, but what they failed to mention is that VG is still an option, and it doesn't have the types of problems they eluded to any longer.
On the main point here...The problem in looking for such a specific thing in this genre, is that even the indies are going to be seeking other types of players than yourself. Even the niche products account for more than one preference.
I get that some games just aren't for some people. However when you find yourself with such little options, it's time to ask yourself if what you want is going to happen in the way you want.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I just had some solo fun in GW2 ... in fact, you can do an event without even talking to anyone. May be it would be a good 1 to 2 month game. At $30, it is a steal.
You paid for a MMO! Are you sure Santa did not give it to you for Xmas? Good to see you back, your old cronies were missing you when I was taking them to task about casino gambling with lockboxes.
I like the open spaces in GW2, so many MMOs are just like rat runs now. In that game you have a feel of adventuring in open vistas. The feel and lore is good as is the little stories that get told by NPC's involving you in quests, I am a big fan of quest text and even I thought that was great. Mostly though you get a "quest" which tells you nothing, you have to go to quest NPCs to find out what is going on, which was a bit lame. The combat is a bit poor, if you are going to cut down on the buttons and go a bit arcade, then do it like Tera. GW2 is dreadfully easymode, that's its one big flaw, and the combat is an easymode version of what could be done.
Yes, i did ... and Kyleran beat you to it in expressing shock.
Hahahah .. i have the exact opposite of GW2. I think the combat is pretty good, very actiony, and it is not easy mode if you intentionally go up agains 2-3 enemies (more efficient leveling if you can hack it) or if you fight 3-4 levels above you, instead of just 1-2.
In fact, there is no easymode in MMOs because choosing enemies is like choosing a difficulty level in D3.
Don't tell me you can beat 2-3 plus 4 levels enemies easy in GW2 .. if so .. i would love to see that. And the good news is that you can use the openness as a way to choose you difficulty level. You can always find events that are challenging.
This. Haters just make up stuff about games they don't like. Guess what GW2 is a game that's good for people who never played MMOs and its not a WoW clone. Its actually quite difficult if you want it to be. Not only is it tough for most gamers to solo champions on Orr - but sPvP is not easy - picking a build isn't easy - high level fractals are not easy. The difficulty is there - but the gear chase isn't really.
This is what GW2 promised and its what they delievered. If I want to pick on Arenanet - its not that they didn't make a top quality MMO. It's that they believed the BS that fanboys everwhere were spotting..
BS #1. "I don't want a Holy Trinity - I like to DPS - every likes DPS."
Reality: THey want to be the DPSer in a Holy Trinity and want to blame the tank and healer when they screw up.
BS #2. I don't want a gear progression. I want PvP that's fair and balanced, and I don't want to have to grind for PvE to do well in that.
Reality: They want a gear progression they just want to be the ones with good gear..instead of everyone else so they can faceroll PvE content and call everyone else bad and/or destroy people in PvP and claim to be skilled.
Originally posted by Distopia I get that some games just aren't for some people. However when you find yourself with such little options, it's time to ask yourself if what you want is going to happen in the way you want.
I understand this and actually do not expect MMORPGs to ever be made again for my type of player. The money just is not there like it is for the newer games.
It is frustrating, though, that at one time, MMORPGs were made for my type of player.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I just had some solo fun in GW2 ... in fact, you can do an event without even talking to anyone. May be it would be a good 1 to 2 month game. At $30, it is a steal.
You paid for a MMO! Are you sure Santa did not give it to you for Xmas? Good to see you back, your old cronies were missing you when I was taking them to task about casino gambling with lockboxes.
I like the open spaces in GW2, so many MMOs are just like rat runs now. In that game you have a feel of adventuring in open vistas. The feel and lore is good as is the little stories that get told by NPC's involving you in quests, I am a big fan of quest text and even I thought that was great. Mostly though you get a "quest" which tells you nothing, you have to go to quest NPCs to find out what is going on, which was a bit lame. The combat is a bit poor, if you are going to cut down on the buttons and go a bit arcade, then do it like Tera. GW2 is dreadfully easymode, that's its one big flaw, and the combat is an easymode version of what could be done.
Yes, i did ... and Kyleran beat you to it in expressing shock.
Hahahah .. i have the exact opposite of GW2. I think the combat is pretty good, very actiony, and it is not easy mode if you intentionally go up agains 2-3 enemies (more efficient leveling if you can hack it) or if you fight 3-4 levels above you, instead of just 1-2.
In fact, there is no easymode in MMOs because choosing enemies is like choosing a difficulty level in D3.
Don't tell me you can beat 2-3 plus 4 levels enemies easy in GW2 .. if so .. i would love to see that. And the good news is that you can use the openness as a way to choose you difficulty level. You can always find events that are challenging.
This. Haters just make up stuff about games they don't like. Guess what GW2 is a game that's good for people who never played MMOs and its not a WoW clone. Its actually quite difficult if you want it to be. Not only is it tough for most gamers to solo champions on Orr - but sPvP is not easy - picking a build isn't easy - high level fractals are not easy. The difficulty is there - but the gear chase isn't really.
This is what GW2 promised and its what they delievered. If I want to pick on Arenanet - its not that they didn't make a top quality MMO. It's that they believed the BS that fanboys everwhere were spotting..
BS #1. "I don't want a Holy Trinity - I like to DPS - every likes DPS."
Reality: THey want to be the DPSer in a Holy Trinity and want to blame the tank and healer when they screw up.
BS #2. I don't want a gear progression. I want PvP that's fair and balanced, and I don't want to have to grind for PvE to do well in that.
Reality: They want a gear progression they just want to be the ones with good gear..instead of everyone else so they can faceroll PvE content and call everyone else bad and/or destroy people in PvP and claim to be skilled.
Your usage of the word "hater" used to surprise me, but now it just makes me wonder what happened to the English language. To you a "hater" is a person who says one thing against something you like, in this case GW2. Totally unwarranted, but not to worry, so many on here do the same.
So what did I say to get the label "hater"? I questioned the assumption you did not need to read quest text and said GW2 is easymode, that's all. I praised a number of things about it, from the open spaces, to the mini stories the NPC's act out. But say something against what you like and clearly I must be a hater of GW2. Try to look outside yourself, try to think as other people may think, which is not, amazingly, always going to be how you think.
This may seem strange to you, but for all my "hating" I think GW2 is a good game, but flawed by being easymode. I think an awful lot of games are flawed by being easymode, in case you think this is some sort of "hating" I reserve for GW2.
On to what Nari said. By his definition there is no such thing as an easymode MMO, because in any game you can pick how many mobs you attack. You are in a sense selecting a difficulty for yourself. But at best this argument can only cover one aspect of easymode, 'it is impossible to die'. I don't accept it anyway, players who use more mobs are experimenting with levelling efficiency strategies, not setting their own difficulty, in fact he virtually admitted that.
Guyclinch mentioned GW2 PvP, now if you want a challenge in GW2 that's where you will find it. The sad fact for me is that is the only place you will find it.
Originally posted by SoMuchMass Recently all MMOs we have seen has started big and dropped big time a couple of months. Here are some examples including SWTOR and GW2. I will use Google but there are plenty of other sources:
So can we actually see an MMO that launches and grows? Or is that era over, in this over saturated market?
I find it highly doubtful. The games released these days make millions, if not hundreds of million dollars. There is absolutely no incentive for publishers/developers to "rock the boat." The formula has been found.
I disagree. I'm sure they bring in millions of revenues, but it doesn't cover the cost. Otherwise BioWare would be hard at work instead of facing layoffs and possible closure. Funcom would be making more MMOs, but clearly they lack the resources after a few flops. Look at Mythic. Warhammer destroyed them. These guys are not making millions. They are losing millions. Otherwise, we'd see a lot more development. Proof is in the pudding, sir.
Originally posted by Dren_Utogi wird how all of this talk is going on and yet Vanguard remains untried by so many.... Loktofiet's Thumb Up Smiley
This is something that really puzzles me. There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. I see people post how it missed its window of opportunity (I see that phrase used a lot around here and I find it irritating). The game is right there to play right now.
I don't see a downward spiral at all. I think the OP is manipulating factoids and bits to support an agenda of invented crises. Revenue charts show that video gaming is increasing in revenue annually.
No one plays a game forever. Games see a surge, decline as people move on, and then a plateau of core players. The message of "downward trend" in the OP isn't the same. There is no downward trend. Games aren't failures because they plateau. They're healthy when the revenue generation is self-supporting and profitable. There are a few that don't fare well and shutter, but those seem to be the exception and not the rule.
There is this odd perception that we need to see an industry shaker annually. People wonder why there is a perception of downward spiral yet they look to jump on a new game every winter season.
Why does it boggle you? Vanguard may have 1-5 features players may be looking for, but is pretty narrow minded to think that it implements these features in a way these players may actually enjoy.
If a player seeks Full Loot Open World PvP, is ANY/EVERY game with this feature what they want?
I like deep crafting. ArcheAge and Darfall have this in place. Does that mean you think these 2 games meet my desires? Remember now, I dislike forced PvP with a passion.
I honestly don't remember writing that. Anyway, there are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. If a person feels they have no options in a genre with several hundred active titles, then maybe that person is either looking in the wrong genre for what they want or being unrealistic in their demands.
Your response is a perfect example. When presented with "There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference" your response is that I'm narrow-minded for feeling you should like Vanguard. Where did that come from? It doesn't seem you're even trying to help yourself at this point.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
Critical to whom? Seems to be something of a key question that never really gets asked.
It doesn't appear to be critical to the game producers, or to their profitability.
critical to the MMOs. The context should've revealed this.
can you name an MMO that's older than 5 years with healthy population but without a community?
But it isn't critical to MMOs (in the simplest sense: massive online games). The industry is growing, despite the constant cries of doom. The products are changing, the profit models are shifting, and the approach appears to be aimed at a totally different target than the games of last century.
The products the "cater to the solo player" are not only successful, but they are hugely so.
The most profitable new products simply aren't mmorpg's. But if the companies can make even more cash--hell yes, mmorpg's are going to be left for dead (in favor of more flexible and profitable income models) by the side of the road.
Just like board games. There will be a few made, every year, for the customers who favor "ye olden dayze style" games. Grandma still pulls out the Scrabble board with the girls once a month. My buds from college will keep pulling out the dice bags, once in a while.
But there will never again be another Monopoly-level 'hit' in the board game market; technology has passed them by, consumers (largely) are also passing them by.
I think he said "the mmos" because he was talking about their individual success.So let's deal with them one title at a time. :shrug: The acronyms are more for arguing about than useful anyway.
For any new title that comes down the pike, the reactions we see on this site:
60% of gamers will reject at the mention of the title. (If it's not EQ6 or AC11 or SWG9 or something old, familiar, and comfortable).
30% will reject it because it's Not X (themepark, sandbox, FFAFULLOOTLOLZ, whatever).
9% will reject it for a single feature that it either has or does not have. Key does not fit the lock.
0.9% will reject it after trying it in alpha or beta, and deciding it's not enough like Old Reliable.
That just leaves a few, a precious few, individuals who can evaluate a title announced without the prejudicial expectation of failure.
So let's deal with them one title at a time. :shrug: The acronyms are more for arguing about than useful anyway.
For any new title that comes down the pike, the reactions we see on this site:
60% of gamers will reject at the mention of the title. (If it's not EQ6 or AC11 or SWG9 or something old, familiar, and comfortable).
30% will reject it because it's Not X (themepark, sandbox, FFAFULLOOTLOLZ, whatever).
9% will reject it for a single feature that it either has or does not have. Key does not fit the lock.
0.9% will reject it after trying it in alpha or beta, and deciding it's not enough like Old Reliable.
That just leaves a few, a precious few, individuals who can evaluate a title announced without the prejudicial expectation of failure.
Tbh I don't really see your point. I think his point was that community helps a game's chances at being successful, particularly in helping its longevity.Argument aside, your analogy is poorly set up. This is a golden age for new board games, and they are selling very very well. Claiming Monopoly as a standard is pretty much the same as wondering why every computer game isn't as big as WoW. Anomolous events are not the baseline.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
The rallying cry of "came in second", right?
Incidentally, Monopoly is currently behind Scrabble. And backgammon, and checkers, and chess.
And WoW isn't all that anomalous, against some of the larger (and more prolific) series titles on consoles... But there's another blurry line we need acronyms for.
The world is made up of blurry lines....
Scrabble, backgammon, checkers, chess, etc, are much more abstracted than Monopoly, Risk, Settlers of Cataan, and so on. Being 70 years old helps your sales numbers some as well. In 70 more years we'll see what's lasted through the test of time.
As far as the OP's point, I am in the 'that's what games normally do' camp. They sell, they lose share, they plateau. Accurately predicting the user base vs the production expense leads to gold or doom.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
As long as gaming companies keep making games that are not challenging we will continue to see this trend in my opinion. Players need to be challenged, to struggling at goals, without that it is just a matter of time before they get bored and leave.
That is really why folks leave for the next game, the challenge of learning the new game. Keep providing a challenge, give us tough content that is just within reach if we work at it, find a way.
Not everyone will get to see that content, but the fact that it is there, that you can work towards it, that is what makes a game last.
I don't know about you ... every game, no matter how challenging, is getting boring sooner or later.
I don't need a game to last forever, i want it to be fun (for me) for whatever amount of time i am playing it, MMO or not. In fact, i much more prefer a very fun 1 week game, than a 2 years so-so one.
I read the title and thought you were going in a different direction.
I most certainly do not care if a game grows population wise,i want a game that grows both in effort and technical standards.
Really the first ten years from the DSL boom have been the honeymoon years,now i expect a much better advancement in the genre.
Every game has been created identical,player creation,vee line straight for a QUEST ,then bore yourself to death until the developer gives us more levels and more maps with VERY little to creativity or NEW unique ideas.
I believe 100% this trend will eventually change,it is just right now,NOBODY is pushing the envelope so everyone else is sort of just sailing on the same ship.I do not believe F2p is the answer to get players,you need some good ideas and keep the game size within your budget.
Developers have no excuse for the crap they have been feeding us,they could make a smallish game with tons of depth in it's systems and just add more maps after release when the money is coming in.Instead devs have been making large worlds with really cheap game play,that is NOT a formula for success.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Of course they do .. if they are making money.
^ This was along the line of my thoughts as well. Glad you brought it up.
If I were to see a MMO start today with 100K and gradually build up to 300K in the course of a short time. I would think to myself, "hmm, they must be doing something RIGHT", and probably give that one a hard looking into. Now take nearly every MMO that's been released in the past few years. The typical scenario is they start with 1M (possibly due to the IP and unrealistic hype) and within 2 months are down to 300K (or less). I always say to myself, "figures, another typical failure pattern. Another same old, same old MMO. No wonder they can't retain subscribers". Can anyone please tell me more than one recently released MMO that has actually grown in subscribers past the first 2 months?
Take EVE as an example of an "old time" MMO, and I don't even like EVE. However, I can still see they are doing something right. It's different, and you actually have to think in that game and rely on others, at least more so than in other MMOs of today (and I use that term loosely). If a new game would come out where they can put that same type of challenging game play in a traditional fantasy or sci-fi MMO, the genre actually may be refreshed. Instead, we get the McDonald's/Candyland games of today that all look the same as they try to nickel and dime you to death.
I think the problem comes with expecting, and funding, the idea that an MMO will be the next multimillion sub/sign up that is like WoW. It that happens then the crash will mean hits to production, lost jobs and a major black eye reputation wise. The "industry" as a whole is no fool, they are already adjusting which is why titles haven't been served like hotcakes anymore. I imagine most titles will take longer and try to get up front funding so they have a base before launch.
I think the innovation of toolsets will be how the genre thrives both financially and game replayablity. Program more automation into MMOs and create enough points of change that it seems random. There also needs to be more difficulty IMO. LoL is a great example of this concept. I don't think anyone would call it a "hardcore" game yet when you're first learning to play expect to die, a lot. When is the last time that happened in a "blockbuster" MMO?
To answer the IP more specifically I think EQN & Landmark will break the trend. It will be free, have a huge explorable world many levels deep, host 40 classes that swap around and have content that fed through events where people help the content along.
Of course, this is on paper except the Landmark building but it's a good start. Speaking of Landmark the "build your own piece of MMO" sounds pretty darn fantastic as well, maybe more so
You paid for a MMO! Are you sure Santa did not give it to you for Xmas? Good to see you back, your old cronies were missing you when I was taking them to task about casino gambling with lockboxes.
I like the open spaces in GW2, so many MMOs are just like rat runs now. In that game you have a feel of adventuring in open vistas. The feel and lore is good as is the little stories that get told by NPC's involving you in quests, I am a big fan of quest text and even I thought that was great. Mostly though you get a "quest" which tells you nothing, you have to go to quest NPCs to find out what is going on, which was a bit lame. The combat is a bit poor, if you are going to cut down on the buttons and go a bit arcade, then do it like Tera. GW2 is dreadfully easymode, that's its one big flaw, and the combat is an easymode version of what could be done.
Not only that but developers may get this crazy idea that if people play in a virtual space with other people... they may just enjoy it and make acquaintances with them. Now you've created a loyalty due to association. Community is a pretty big deal and it actually lessens the amount of people you need playing at one time. A game that encourages a strong community is a huge boon.
[quote]Originally posted by Torvaldr
Why does it boggle you? Vanguard may have 1-5 features players may be looking for, but is pretty narrow minded to think that it implements these features in a way these players may actually enjoy.If a player seeks Full Loot Open World PvP, is ANY/EVERY game with this feature what they want?
I like deep crafting. ArcheAge and Darfall have this in place. Does that mean you think these 2 games meet my desires? Remember now, I dislike forced PvP with a passion.
CalmOceans made a great post in another thread:
Does this help explain it a little bit?
As far as the "downward Spiral" point, I don't see this at all.
Business-wise, not in the least bit true. More players, more games, more money flowing into Publishers coffers are all on the rise.
Gameplay-wise, it is true for me, the opposite for others.
That does not indicate a "Downward Spiral" in my eyes
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Yes, i did ... and Kyleran beat you to it in expressing shock.
Hahahah .. i have the exact opposite of GW2. I think the combat is pretty good, very actiony, and it is not easy mode if you intentionally go up agains 2-3 enemies (more efficient leveling if you can hack it) or if you fight 3-4 levels above you, instead of just 1-2.
In fact, there is no easymode in MMOs because choosing enemies is like choosing a difficulty level in D3.
Don't tell me you can beat 2-3 plus 4 levels enemies easy in GW2 .. if so .. i would love to see that. And the good news is that you can use the openness as a way to choose you difficulty level. You can always find events that are challenging.
The two that I see on the radar that might meet your criteria are:
Star Citizen and Camelot Unchained. Both have promise to have a lengthy life.
Nanulak
All either post really says is you want a very specific experience, one that is vastly open, has all the features you want and doesn't have any issues, even at launch <-(at least if you're including CalmOceans post among your own thoughts)
This type of specific design is going to be hard to find, especially if you expect high production values along with it. As well as a smooth launch, with all of this stuff attached.
CalmOceans might have had a point, but what they failed to mention is that VG is still an option, and it doesn't have the types of problems they eluded to any longer.
On the main point here...The problem in looking for such a specific thing in this genre, is that even the indies are going to be seeking other types of players than yourself. Even the niche products account for more than one preference.
I get that some games just aren't for some people. However when you find yourself with such little options, it's time to ask yourself if what you want is going to happen in the way you want.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This. Haters just make up stuff about games they don't like. Guess what GW2 is a game that's good for people who never played MMOs and its not a WoW clone. Its actually quite difficult if you want it to be. Not only is it tough for most gamers to solo champions on Orr - but sPvP is not easy - picking a build isn't easy - high level fractals are not easy. The difficulty is there - but the gear chase isn't really.
This is what GW2 promised and its what they delievered. If I want to pick on Arenanet - its not that they didn't make a top quality MMO. It's that they believed the BS that fanboys everwhere were spotting..
BS #1. "I don't want a Holy Trinity - I like to DPS - every likes DPS."
Reality: THey want to be the DPSer in a Holy Trinity and want to blame the tank and healer when they screw up.
BS #2. I don't want a gear progression. I want PvP that's fair and balanced, and I don't want to have to grind for PvE to do well in that.
Reality: They want a gear progression they just want to be the ones with good gear..instead of everyone else so they can faceroll PvE content and call everyone else bad and/or destroy people in PvP and claim to be skilled.
It is frustrating, though, that at one time, MMORPGs were made for my type of player.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Your usage of the word "hater" used to surprise me, but now it just makes me wonder what happened to the English language. To you a "hater" is a person who says one thing against something you like, in this case GW2. Totally unwarranted, but not to worry, so many on here do the same.
So what did I say to get the label "hater"? I questioned the assumption you did not need to read quest text and said GW2 is easymode, that's all. I praised a number of things about it, from the open spaces, to the mini stories the NPC's act out. But say something against what you like and clearly I must be a hater of GW2. Try to look outside yourself, try to think as other people may think, which is not, amazingly, always going to be how you think.
This may seem strange to you, but for all my "hating" I think GW2 is a good game, but flawed by being easymode. I think an awful lot of games are flawed by being easymode, in case you think this is some sort of "hating" I reserve for GW2.
On to what Nari said. By his definition there is no such thing as an easymode MMO, because in any game you can pick how many mobs you attack. You are in a sense selecting a difficulty for yourself. But at best this argument can only cover one aspect of easymode, 'it is impossible to die'. I don't accept it anyway, players who use more mobs are experimenting with levelling efficiency strategies, not setting their own difficulty, in fact he virtually admitted that.
Guyclinch mentioned GW2 PvP, now if you want a challenge in GW2 that's where you will find it. The sad fact for me is that is the only place you will find it.
I disagree. I'm sure they bring in millions of revenues, but it doesn't cover the cost. Otherwise BioWare would be hard at work instead of facing layoffs and possible closure. Funcom would be making more MMOs, but clearly they lack the resources after a few flops. Look at Mythic. Warhammer destroyed them. These guys are not making millions. They are losing millions. Otherwise, we'd see a lot more development. Proof is in the pudding, sir.
I honestly don't remember writing that.
Anyway, there are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference, but people aren't playing them. If a person feels they have no options in a genre with several hundred active titles, then maybe that person is either looking in the wrong genre for what they want or being unrealistic in their demands.
Your response is a perfect example. When presented with "There are all sorts of games out there to fill most every style and preference" your response is that I'm narrow-minded for feeling you should like Vanguard. Where did that come from? It doesn't seem you're even trying to help yourself at this point.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre