As a solo only player...MMOs should be a social only genre

124»

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,766
    I prefer a pleasant time over a quick time any time.
    Forgive me, but:





















    That's what she said.
    Iselincameltosis

    image
  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,670
    Syanis said:
    k61977 said:
    Couldn't disagree with you more.   There should be something for everyone.  I don't always want to have to group up to do even the simplest of task in a game.  Sometimes you want to be online with friends but not in a group with them.  Each can be off doing their own thing but if help is needed it is ready an willing to help.  I have played games many years ago that were focused mostly on group play, wasn't fun when you couldn't get in a group because your gear wasn't good enough ect.... Even the casual solo player has things to offer to the group players, some go out just the harvest good to sell on the AH, ect...   So I see your subjective opinion and think it is total horrible all around.

    You point out games coming out like Pantheon, but you do realize the game is being made for a niche crowd.  It will most likely have a medium devout following for a while.  Overall I don't think a majority of people want to be grouped to just go pick a flower.  Group play for dungeons or instances is the best way to handle MMO's.  You can even have group quest on the open worlds also, but it should by no means be the only way to play.  Overall this is my opinion.


    Nonsense. A game can't be great at everything and I'm sick of mediocre games that try and fit some of everything just to make trash. Just like like you can't be a master at everything so you aim for one or two things your really top notch at. MMO's are made for group play and large scale group play and that should be the #1-5 focus's. Solo play should be limited but doable but very unrewarding in comparison and it may not be the solo play you want but tough sh*t. If you want to solo play then play a single player game but these idiots feel the stupid need of trying to show off their solo play nonsense.

    Think how good a FPS would be if it also included a bit of everything else. It won't be very good.

    In the end its players like you who have destroyed MMO's and what they are made for. Bunch of soloist players who don't get along with others or care about others. Doubt you'd be very happy if the rest of us took your favorite game or genre and destroyed it by mixing it with other stuff it wasn't designed for that you dislike.
    Whilst a game can't be great at everything, and whilst I agree that MMOs should be more focused on group activities and, you know, being massively-multiplayer, I also feel there should be something for everyone. 

    The reason?

    Retention. 

    Players having changing needs over time. If you focus on a very narrow scope of features and make them very good, you immediately narrow your target market but you also end up creating a short lived game. Even if you absolutely love the features implemented, only being able to do those things becomes boring after a while. Even if you didn't get bored, player needs change over time. 

    One day, I might feel like raiding. The next, I might feel like doing some PvP. The next, I might fancy doing some solo stuff. 

    If an MMO has a wide variety of activities, then it can suit my changing moods and keep me in game for longer. By keeping me in game longer, not only does the company earn more money but I am more likely to form social connections. These social connections help build the community which in itself helps increase retention. The strongest communities are those with are diverse and inclusive. 


    Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs). 
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395

    Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs). 

    "Sadly" for whom? I am certainly not sad since I play some MMOs as single player games. And as you pointed out, not every dev wants a long lasting game.

    There is no problem with making lots of short games, as long as they make money, right?
  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,670

    Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs). 

    "Sadly" for whom? I am certainly not sad since I play some MMOs as single player games. And as you pointed out, not every dev wants a long lasting game.

    There is no problem with making lots of short games, as long as they make money, right?
    Indeed, no problem at all if they are short duration and making money if that is what the studio wants

    The problem is they aren't making enough money, and haven't been making enough money for a long time, so the studios aren't happy. This is why most studios have either resorted to unethical monetisation schemes or are leaving the genre for easier targets. 
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395

    The problem is they aren't making enough money, and haven't been making enough money for a long time, so the studios aren't happy. This is why most studios have either resorted to unethical monetisation schemes or are leaving the genre for easier targets. 
    Says who? Who are they? Do you have financials to show that "they" (whoever they are) are not making enough money?

    Clearly not every single game has the same financial success. So what games are you talking about?

    Given the many MMOs (choose your definition, but if you want, we can certainly discuss what belongs to the list) are still running, they are making enough, right? Isn't that the definition of "enough"?
  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW New York, NYMember UncommonPosts: 470
    I find almost all mmorpg group focused though.  Isn't raiding, pvp, dungeon all there is to do in most mmorpg?
  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,670

    The problem is they aren't making enough money, and haven't been making enough money for a long time, so the studios aren't happy. This is why most studios have either resorted to unethical monetisation schemes or are leaving the genre for easier targets. 
    Says who? Who are they? Do you have financials to show that "they" (whoever they are) are not making enough money?

    Clearly not every single game has the same financial success. So what games are you talking about?

    Given the many MMOs (choose your definition, but if you want, we can certainly discuss what belongs to the list) are still running, they are making enough, right? Isn't that the definition of "enough"?
    Turbine, Bioware and Zenimax all posted financials in the past showing their games weren't making enough money to keep them afloat. You can search out the statements if you can be bothered. It is why all three changed their monetisation strategy and is why both Turbine and Bioware reduced the amount of content they were producing. 


    I didn't follow any other games closely enough to bother with financial statements and the like, but looking at the pattern of F2P games and content releases, it is a fair guess that almost all MMOs suffer the same fate. 
    Mendel
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395

    The problem is they aren't making enough money, and haven't been making enough money for a long time, so the studios aren't happy. This is why most studios have either resorted to unethical monetisation schemes or are leaving the genre for easier targets. 
    Says who? Who are they? Do you have financials to show that "they" (whoever they are) are not making enough money?

    Clearly not every single game has the same financial success. So what games are you talking about?

    Given the many MMOs (choose your definition, but if you want, we can certainly discuss what belongs to the list) are still running, they are making enough, right? Isn't that the definition of "enough"?
    Turbine, Bioware and Zenimax all posted financials in the past showing their games weren't making enough money to keep them afloat. You can search out the statements if you can be bothered. It is why all three changed their monetisation strategy and is why both Turbine and Bioware reduced the amount of content they were producing. 


    I didn't follow any other games closely enough to bother with financial statements and the like, but looking at the pattern of F2P games and content releases, it is a fair guess that almost all MMOs suffer the same fate. 
    What are you talking about?

    So just take TOR as an example. It changes to f2p (clearly to make more money), and clearly it is afloat. It is not shut down, is it?

    In fact, EA even point it out as a revenue generator in 2016 10k filing. 

    http://ir.ea.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=712515-16-111&CIK=712515

    And i quote "For fiscal year 2016 , service and other revenue was $1,899 million , primarily driven by FIFA Ultimate Team and Star Wars: The Old Republic. Service and other revenue for fiscal year 2016 decreased $48 million , or 2 percent , as compared to fiscal year 2015 . This decrease was driven by a $421 million decrease primarily from Titanfall and Battlefield 4 Premium . This decrease was partially offset by a $373 million increase primarily from the Madden NFL franchise, Need for Speed 2015 and SimCity BuildIt ."

    Now TOR may not be the wow killer that Bioware has hoped, and it may even be a disappointment. But claiming that "it is not making enough money to keep them afloat" is idiotic. In fact, didn't TOR just release new content in 2017?

  • LerxstLerxst Phx, AZMember UncommonPosts: 634
    I'm 40 years old and have been MMO gaming since before that first "M" was in the phrase. You name your MMORPG and I've probably played it. I've enjoyed many of them as well.

    I couldn't disagree more about the solo experience though. 

    I play 90% of my games solo, nowadays, more like 100% of my games. I couldn't care less about grouping, joining a guild, participating in group chats, discord, etc. or any specific mechanics made just for group play. What I do care about is knowing that my "competition" in a game is controlled by a brain capable of thinking, planning, plotting, adjusting, adapting and screwing up. That's not something that happens with AI, you can only get that with a human in control.

    I want my crafter to be able to sell items they make, based on the in-game economy the other 5,000 players help create.

    I want to provide a service to a random passerby, for a price, and get a human reaction out of them.

    I want the enjoyment of watching an elite mob wipe out an entire party that thinks they can take it on.

    I want to play a game that exists in the world the other players live in.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,766

    Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs). 

    "Sadly" for whom? I am certainly not sad since I play some MMOs as single player games. And as you pointed out, not every dev wants a long lasting game.

    There is no problem with making lots of short games, as long as they make money, right?
    Oh boy, I wonder where this conversation is headed!

    image
  • VelifaxVelifax Ogden, UTMember UncommonPosts: 377
    Im fully with OP. It's like Solar Roads; to the extent that it succeeds as a solar panel, it fails as a road, and vice versa. Literally at odds with itself.

    As a primarily solo player myself, other players could be replaced with AI and id be totally fine.
  • SyanisSyanis Minneapolis, MNMember UncommonPosts: 124
    Syanis said:
    k61977 said:
    Couldn't disagree with you more.   There should be something for everyone.  I don't always want to have to group up to do even the simplest of task in a game.  Sometimes you want to be online with friends but not in a group with them.  Each can be off doing their own thing but if help is needed it is ready an willing to help.  I have played games many years ago that were focused mostly on group play, wasn't fun when you couldn't get in a group because your gear wasn't good enough ect.... Even the casual solo player has things to offer to the group players, some go out just the harvest good to sell on the AH, ect...   So I see your subjective opinion and think it is total horrible all around.

    You point out games coming out like Pantheon, but you do realize the game is being made for a niche crowd.  It will most likely have a medium devout following for a while.  Overall I don't think a majority of people want to be grouped to just go pick a flower.  Group play for dungeons or instances is the best way to handle MMO's.  You can even have group quest on the open worlds also, but it should by no means be the only way to play.  Overall this is my opinion.


    Nonsense. A game can't be great at everything and I'm sick of mediocre games that try and fit some of everything just to make trash. Just like like you can't be a master at everything so you aim for one or two things your really top notch at. MMO's are made for group play and large scale group play and that should be the #1-5 focus's. Solo play should be limited but doable but very unrewarding in comparison and it may not be the solo play you want but tough sh*t. If you want to solo play then play a single player game but these idiots feel the stupid need of trying to show off their solo play nonsense.

    Think how good a FPS would be if it also included a bit of everything else. It won't be very good.

    In the end its players like you who have destroyed MMO's and what they are made for. Bunch of soloist players who don't get along with others or care about others. Doubt you'd be very happy if the rest of us took your favorite game or genre and destroyed it by mixing it with other stuff it wasn't designed for that you dislike.
    Whilst a game can't be great at everything, and whilst I agree that MMOs should be more focused on group activities and, you know, being massively-multiplayer, I also feel there should be something for everyone. 

    The reason?

    Retention. 

    Players having changing needs over time. If you focus on a very narrow scope of features and make them very good, you immediately narrow your target market but you also end up creating a short lived game. Even if you absolutely love the features implemented, only being able to do those things becomes boring after a while. Even if you didn't get bored, player needs change over time. 

    One day, I might feel like raiding. The next, I might feel like doing some PvP. The next, I might fancy doing some solo stuff. 

    If an MMO has a wide variety of activities, then it can suit my changing moods and keep me in game for longer. By keeping me in game longer, not only does the company earn more money but I am more likely to form social connections. These social connections help build the community which in itself helps increase retention. The strongest communities are those with are diverse and inclusive. 


    Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs). 

    That solo play would be called *Crafting* to me. What solo play would you be expecting that wouldn't hurt group aspects besides slow grinding w/o reward? If you make solo play even close to as rewarding as group play you kill off group play and in most games now its just as rewarding and group play is virtually non existent until raiding which often has no community left because of the solo mentality in players now.

    So if you want to do some solo play that would be crafting/gathering or grinding weak piss poor rewarding mobs.

    If you want solo play why not have a 2nd game for those days where you play some single player game for your break. It helps break up the monotony and keeps you active longer.

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW New York, NYMember UncommonPosts: 470
    edited September 19
    Syanis said:
    Syanis said:
    k61977 said:
    Couldn't disagree with you more.   There should be something for everyone.  I don't always want to have to group up to do even the simplest of task in a game.  Sometimes you want to be online with friends but not in a group with them.  Each can be off doing their own thing but if help is needed it is ready an willing to help.  I have played games many years ago that were focused mostly on group play, wasn't fun when you couldn't get in a group because your gear wasn't good enough ect.... Even the casual solo player has things to offer to the group players, some go out just the harvest good to sell on the AH, ect...   So I see your subjective opinion and think it is total horrible all around.

    You point out games coming out like Pantheon, but you do realize the game is being made for a niche crowd.  It will most likely have a medium devout following for a while.  Overall I don't think a majority of people want to be grouped to just go pick a flower.  Group play for dungeons or instances is the best way to handle MMO's.  You can even have group quest on the open worlds also, but it should by no means be the only way to play.  Overall this is my opinion.


    Nonsense. A game can't be great at everything and I'm sick of mediocre games that try and fit some of everything just to make trash. Just like like you can't be a master at everything so you aim for one or two things your really top notch at. MMO's are made for group play and large scale group play and that should be the #1-5 focus's. Solo play should be limited but doable but very unrewarding in comparison and it may not be the solo play you want but tough sh*t. If you want to solo play then play a single player game but these idiots feel the stupid need of trying to show off their solo play nonsense.

    Think how good a FPS would be if it also included a bit of everything else. It won't be very good.

    In the end its players like you who have destroyed MMO's and what they are made for. Bunch of soloist players who don't get along with others or care about others. Doubt you'd be very happy if the rest of us took your favorite game or genre and destroyed it by mixing it with other stuff it wasn't designed for that you dislike.
    Whilst a game can't be great at everything, and whilst I agree that MMOs should be more focused on group activities and, you know, being massively-multiplayer, I also feel there should be something for everyone. 

    The reason?

    Retention. 

    Players having changing needs over time. If you focus on a very narrow scope of features and make them very good, you immediately narrow your target market but you also end up creating a short lived game. Even if you absolutely love the features implemented, only being able to do those things becomes boring after a while. Even if you didn't get bored, player needs change over time. 

    One day, I might feel like raiding. The next, I might feel like doing some PvP. The next, I might fancy doing some solo stuff. 

    If an MMO has a wide variety of activities, then it can suit my changing moods and keep me in game for longer. By keeping me in game longer, not only does the company earn more money but I am more likely to form social connections. These social connections help build the community which in itself helps increase retention. The strongest communities are those with are diverse and inclusive. 


    Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs). 

    That solo play would be called *Crafting* to me. What solo play would you be expecting that wouldn't hurt group aspects besides slow grinding w/o reward? If you make solo play even close to as rewarding as group play you kill off group play and in most games now its just as rewarding and group play is virtually non existent until raiding which often has no community left because of the solo mentality in players now.

    So if you want to do some solo play that would be crafting/gathering or grinding weak piss poor rewarding mobs.

    If you want solo play why not have a 2nd game for those days where you play some single player game for your break. It helps break up the monotony and keeps you active longer.

    I think the reality is many mmorpg players are just farmers.  Even though they solo, they find it a competition to out do other players.  And farming in mmorpg is much more fun than solo play games.  Because mmorpg are build to provide the competition for the players.  And mmorpg is designed as a game with no end.  So you can grind and farm forever.

    People argue you can do the same with moding in solo player game.  Actually that is not true.  The two experience is completely different.  MMORPG focus on instant gratification and progressing and getting better.  Which is very different compare to the mentality of moding.
    Post edited by AAAMEOW on
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395

    Sadly, the focus on almost exclusive solo content has eroded those social connections and weakened most MMO communities, so the balance does need to be changed, but we still need to keep a wide variety of activities if we want a long lasting game (caveat: devs don't have to create long lasting games. nothing wrong with creating an MMO with a short lifespan if it fits with the business needs). 

    "Sadly" for whom? I am certainly not sad since I play some MMOs as single player games. And as you pointed out, not every dev wants a long lasting game.

    There is no problem with making lots of short games, as long as they make money, right?
    Oh boy, I wonder where this conversation is headed!
    Fun land, of course. Why else would we be here?
Sign In or Register to comment.