I must disagree with the OP's overall premise here, and say that MMO's should move even further toward solo gaming. Now, I'm sure that to the classical MMO purist, this might be the last thing you'd want, but unfortunately, the clasical MMO purists are now a fairly small cross-section of the total population of gamers. In order to attract the most potential customers in the relatively competitive MMO market, a game must accommodate the widest selection of players, hence why new MMO's are attempting to cater to not only the veteran, group-oriented MMO player, but also to potential new players to the genre that grew up playing primarily solo console games.
The trouble is, companies have yet to strike the right balance of pleasing solo players, while still offering group play. This is mainly because they're still trying to incentivize group play to please old-school MMO gamers, tying endgame content almost exclusively to group-oriented content. Once you've completely leveled up in most MMO's, you're forced into grouping for instances/raids to continue progressing.
This is where new MMO's fail. The second that grouping is required to continue progressing, you've obviously lost the solo gamer. Solo gamers don't have the time, or don't wish to take the time, to assemble a group of strangers every time they wish to progress. This is much less of an issue with instanced PvP, so long as there are no population, balance, or gameplay issues that dissuade players from participating, and this is where the bulk of group oriented content should be focused.
In terms of PvE, however, having content that scales to the size of the group, or allowing players to have NPC's/pets/companion characters to aid them in endgame raids/instances, while still having the option of running them the traditional way, would allow MMO's to retain more solo-minded players, while still giving group oriented players the option of playing the way they like.
There are a lot of other things that must go into a formula for retaining both solo and group oriented players, but in the context of this thread, giving the maximum amount of options for players to enjoy the game will always be a far better strategy than forcing players into one style of play.
I must disagree with the OP's overall premise here, and say that MMO's should move even further toward solo gaming. Now, I'm sure that to the classical MMO purist, this might be the last thing you'd want, but unfortunately, the clasical MMO purists are now a fairly small cross-section of the total population of gamers. In order to attract the most potential customers in the relatively competitive MMO market, a game must accommodate the widest selection of players, hence why new MMO's are attempting to cater to not only the veteran, group-oriented MMO player, but also to potential new players to the genre that grew up playing primarily solo console games.
The trouble is, companies have yet to strike the right balance of pleasing solo players, while still offering group play. This is mainly because they're still trying to incentivize group play to please old-school MMO gamers, tying endgame content almost exclusively to group-oriented content. Once you've completely leveled up in most MMO's, you're forced into grouping for instances/raids to continue progressing.
This is where new MMO's fail. The second that grouping is required to continue progressing, you've obviously lost the solo gamer. Solo gamers don't have the time, or don't wish to take the time, to assemble a group of strangers every time they wish to progress. This is much less of an issue with instanced PvP, so long as there are no population, balance, or gameplay issues that dissuade players from participating, and this is where the bulk of group oriented content should be focused.
In terms of PvE, however, having content that scales to the size of the group, or allowing players to have NPC's/pets/companion characters to aid them in endgame raids/instances, while still having the option of running them the traditional way, would allow MMO's to retain more solo-minded players, while still giving group oriented players the option of playing the way they like.
There are a lot of other things that must go into a formula for retaining both solo and group oriented players, but in the context of this thread, giving the maximum amount of options for players to enjoy the game will always be a far better strategy than forcing players into one style of play.
Addressing the portion I highlighted, there will never be enough content for solo players to solo through. This is why the most appropriate genre for them is single player games. They get the full game to solo to their hearts' content and then at the end they leave for the next title. It's the same behavior we see with solo players in MMOs, and won't be remedied in MMOs with extra solo content unless it's made to be the grindiest content possible (bringing even more complaints).
In addition, when you make all or the majority of content scale to solo players all you do is make it beneath a group-centered player's time. Solo-centric MMO players are the very lowest common denominator of MMOs- MMOs will never match the single player quality and experience of single player games and those that still continue to play MMOs when they know full well that these games are social in nature are only setting themselves up for a bland experience that could be better fulfilled in other genres.
The problem I'm seeing all through this thread is that people are using solo-style games as their only frame of reference for their opinions on grouping. I see quite a few posts where they say that the times they've grouped 'for instances or battlegrounds'... stop there! Instances and battlegrounds are the worst kind of group content and, generally, if those are in the game you're playing then grouping is nothing but an afterthought.
If all you have for reference is grouping in a solo-based game then your opinion doesn't really matter that much, as the game itself is flawed when it comes to community and grouping. Try a game where soloing is hard and grouping makes life easier, where people depend on each other, where you are remembered for your actions, where danger is around every corner and where classes are more than just the amount of dps they can provide. Then come back and make a comment.
I'm sorry I think your entire premise is skewed and therefore every argument you base on it will end up being teared apart. Instances and battlegrounds are not the worst type of group content and by no means are they an afterthought. I'm wondering what makes you think that. Neither are the games that have them "solo-based" - like there is such a division as "solo-based" and "multiplayer-based".
I get the feeling that the games you refer to as being "solo-based" are actually more like "solo friendly". Obviously these games have been specifically designed for multiplayer. Don't be a drama queen and claim otherwise.
Grouping makes life easier in nearly every game out there. Oftentimes grouping just is not very convenient which makes players think of soloing as a good alternative. If a game has strictly group roles and characters rely heavily on each other, you just make the game much more inconvenient. Nobody wants to wait for hours for someone to fill in a critical party role. No one cares to fill just one role throughout the whole game. Players do not accept this anymore.
That is why we see the shift towards flexible party roles, flexible classes and ways to make grouping much more accessible and effortless. Ways how GW2 promotes spontaneous grouping is what I'd like to see. That you're actually happy to see other people where you are, and you can join and leave as you will without any hassle. It is convenient - unlike forced grouping which is extremely inconvenient.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Addressing the portion I highlighted, there will never be enough content for solo players to solo through. This is why the most appropriate genre for them is single player games. They get the full game to solo to their hearts' content and then at the end they leave for the next title. It's the same behavior we see with solo players in MMOs, and won't be remedied in MMOs with extra solo content unless it's made to be the grindiest content possible (bringing even more complaints).
In addition, when you make all or the majority of content scale to solo players all you do is make it beneath a group-centered player's time. Solo-centric MMO players are the very lowest common denominator of MMOs- MMOs will never match the single player quality and experience of single player games and those that still continue to play MMOs when they know full well that these games are social in nature are only setting themselves up for a bland experience that could be better fulfilled in other genres.
And this, ladies and gentlemen is why we cannot have nice new games, because there is a significant portion of players very vocal with their opinions with, figuratively speaking, their heads up their hindquarters.
Just to illustrate:
"grouping" does not in itself mean "social", see "raid finder"
"enough solo content" does not mean "complete the game"
"long solo content" does not mean "grindfest"
"scaling to soloers" does not mean "without advantage and challenge when grouping"
"players will leave when the soloing is over" is in no way more significant than "players will leave when the grouping content is over (and is the only thing in the game that lasts longer than 2 weeks)", which is actually happening right now
And ironically i dont even disagree with the point that "soloing raids" or any other content via some tools, chopping off the social aspect can be tricky, but this is not the fault of soloing and soloers, but lazy people or action gamers which got lost in this genre.
I like group play, but I do not want an MMORPG that blatantly forces it. There are some times I want to strike it out solo, and there are alot more times I want to adventure with other players, even PUGs.
For me, the best is an MMORPG that allows some soloing but encourages group play. It is also tied to a decent community.
The best experience for me was with SWG until the NGE changes of late 2005. I liked to solo at times, but I frequently grouped up with others. It just felt more natural to play with others, not to mention the game and community on the servers were more social. It was the last game I played where even random PUGs was a fun experience which, if you wanted to, ran for hours and hours together. It was also the last MMORPG I played where veteran players readily took newbies under the wing to show them the ropes and generate excitement from the newbie.
So I'm somewhere in the middle, but group play needs to be encouraged (again, not forced). And make MMORPGs "Massive Multiplayer Online" again.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
The problem I'm seeing all through this thread is that people are using solo-style games as their only frame of reference for their opinions on grouping.
On the other hand, we've got some people who remember "forced grouping" being the single constant biggest complaint about EQ, and the results to the game's subs...and setting the stage for the rise of solo gaming as a developer goal to encourage in most of the games developed in the early 00's.
So...who's right?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
The problem I'm seeing all through this thread is that people are using solo-style games as their only frame of reference for their opinions on grouping.
On the other hand, we've got some people who remember "forced grouping" being the single constant biggest complaint about EQ, and the results to the game's subs...and setting the stage for the rise of solo gaming as a developer goal to encourage in most of the games developed in the early 00's.
So...who's right?
Forced grouping didnt even put a dent in EQ Subscribers. EQ rose consistently with only one small dip near the top to 550,000 Subs and stayed there until WoW came out. WoW was the sole deterring factor of EQ Subs.
What is you point? As is said, there is no "typical" mmo that would fit your reasoning, apart from specs, there is not really much more to explain regarding combat to a typical player than you would need to explain travel, "teleport stone" and "portal", due to streamlinings and stuff in other areas, if you dont believe me, join a pug.
There is no inherent depth in one or the other, if the game does not support AND require it.
Most people understand that traveling somewhere in a typical MMORPG (not counting fast travel) is extremely shallow whereas dungeons require considerably more mastery to perform (due to many more game mechanics being involved.) Run a dungeon the second time and you almost certainly have learning left to do. Travel a second time and there's really nothing left to learn.
If you want to pretend that's not the case, you're free to do so, but you're just plugging your ears.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Forced grouping didnt even put a dent in EQ Subscribers. EQ rose consistently with only one small dip near the top to 550,000 Subs and stayed there until WoW came out. WoW was the sole deterring factor of EQ Subs.
And WOW got rid of force grouping, and everyone jumped ship.
What is you point? As is said, there is no "typical" mmo that would fit your reasoning, apart from specs, there is not really much more to explain regarding combat to a typical player than you would need to explain travel, "teleport stone" and "portal", due to streamlinings and stuff in other areas, if you dont believe me, join a pug.
There is no inherent depth in one or the other, if the game does not support AND require it.
Most people understand that traveling somewhere in a typical MMORPG (not counting fast travel) is extremely shallow whereas dungeons require considerably more mastery to perform (due to many more game mechanics being involved.) Run a dungeon the second time and you almost certainly have learning left to do. Travel a second time and there's really nothing left to learn.
If you want to pretend that's not the case, you're free to do so, but you're just plugging your ears.
Travelling in many an mmo is indeed pretty shallow, but then so are the dungeons. Perhaps trying to make more dynamic, player driven worlds, where travelling can be interesting, instead of trying to cut the world out altogether would be an idea.
Nah forget it, let's just shovel in more piss poor dungeons and add an extra 1,000,000 hit points to the next boss and throw in some phat lootz. That's interesting, honest.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Forced grouping didnt even put a dent in EQ Subscribers. EQ rose consistently with only one small dip near the top to 550,000 Subs and stayed there until WoW came out. WoW was the sole deterring factor of EQ Subs.
Um, your graph shows EQ choosing Path A which results in x Subscribers.
It doesn't show "the dent" because the dent isn't what happened. There was an alternate Path B which resulted in a greater number of z Subscribers, and the difference between the two potential subscriber counts is the dent.
But while we can't really predict alternate futures well, we can observe a ton of data pointing to the relevance of Self-determination theory in regards to game design. Most importantly: the inclusion of more autonomy, in the form of MMORPG soloability. The biggest example being WOW.
So it's easy to state with confidence that a lack of soloability hurt early MMORPGs. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and maybe we can't blame those designers for making mistakes with limited information at the time. But there's a clear trend of the most successful games in the industry adhering to the above theory, while others struggle.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Forced grouping didnt even put a dent in EQ Subscribers. EQ rose consistently with only one small dip near the top to 550,000 Subs and stayed there until WoW came out. WoW was the sole deterring factor of EQ Subs.
And WOW got rid of force grouping, and everyone jumped ship.
WoW was just easier, it upgraded alot of systems came out with some others that helped players along like a quest log. It was the natural evolution of adding innovations to the game. it wasnt forced grouping.WoW was not Solo Oriented at first, it struck a balance. Mostly still in favor of Grouping with dungeons and Elites. Quests were bountiful that took more than one or 2 players. It has long since changed with the advent of Wrath of the Lich King removing most all heroic mobs and making dungeons facerolly. And again look at every MMO since then all Solo oriented. all failures. Solo = Failed MMO. Get your facts straight.
Forced grouping didnt even put a dent in EQ Subscribers. EQ rose consistently with only one small dip near the top to 550,000 Subs and stayed there until WoW came out. WoW was the sole deterring factor of EQ Subs.
Um, your graph shows EQ choosing Path A which results in x Subscribers.
It doesn't show "the dent" because the dent isn't what happened. There was an alternate Path B which resulted in a greater number of z Subscribers, and the difference between the two potential subscriber counts is the dent.
But while we can't really predict alternate futures well, we can observe a ton of data pointing to the relevance of Self-determination theory in regards to game design. Most importantly: the inclusion of more autonomy, in the form of MMORPG soloability. The biggest example being WOW.
So it's easy to state with confidence that a lack of soloability hurt early MMORPGs. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and maybe we can't blame those designers for making mistakes with limited information at the time. But there's a clear trend of the most successful games in the industry adhering to the above theory, while others struggle.
The most successful Games in the MMORPG Industry? WoW is the Only Successful game in the MMORPG industry right now, by industry standards since its incarnation. No game since has been successful by those same standards. Read these forums every day and you will hear people screaming this game is a failure, no this game, yea this game too. No game has been able to use Solo play to rise to the top. Not Even WoW. As my post above this states. Classic WoW was still more than 50% group oriented. They softened it up, but did not do away with needing groups til much later. MMO's are NOT SOLO games, that isnt what they are about. plain and simple.
The most successful Games in the MMORPG Industry? WoW is the Only Successful game in the MMORPG industry right now, by industry standards since its incarnation. No game since has been successful by those same standards. Read these forums every day and you will hear people screaming this game is a failure, no this game, yea this game too. No game has been able to use Solo play to rise to the top. Not Even WoW. As my post above this states. Classic WoW was still more than 50% group oriented. They softened it up, but did not do away with needing groups til much later. MMO's are NOT SOLO games, that isnt what they are about. plain and simple.
Well it's hard to have a discussion with someone who plugs their ears and goes "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when all the facts of reality are screaming at them.
Meanwhile obviously WOW wasn't 50% group-oriented at launch.
Obviously many MMORPGs apart from WOW have been successful. Even WAR made money.
Obviously this forum's opinion that ToR deserves 0 subscribers is complete nonsense and 1.3mm players actually play it.
Therefore obviously what you read in this forum isn't exactly reflective of the actual state of the industry (did you really think it was?)
Obviously the game is profitable, given that my early harsh numbers crunch (30% sub decline monthly) showed the game would be profitable after 4-5 months with 400-500k subs, and then EA recently came forward and said yes it would've been profitable at 500k -- and that they have 1.3mm instead.
It's up to you whether you chase after imaginary/fabricated opinions, or observable facts (reality.) I don't have a particularly high opinion of religion, personally.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The best most succesful MMO that forced grouping was FFXI, it was fun when you were in a group and taking on stuff, but when you were looking for a group for 2 hours it isnt. I started to feel like my progression in this game was subject to others, it didnt rely on me, and with no real viable options to solo, I quit after 2 months.
I dont touch anything now with forced grouping, but to each their own.
The most successful Games in the MMORPG Industry? WoW is the Only Successful game in the MMORPG industry right now, by industry standards since its incarnation. No game since has been successful by those same standards. Read these forums every day and you will hear people screaming this game is a failure, no this game, yea this game too. No game has been able to use Solo play to rise to the top. Not Even WoW. As my post above this states. Classic WoW was still more than 50% group oriented. They softened it up, but did not do away with needing groups til much later. MMO's are NOT SOLO games, that isnt what they are about. plain and simple.
Well it's hard to have a discussion with someone who plugs their ears and goes "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when all the facts of reality are screaming at them.
Meanwhile obviously WOW wasn't 50% group-oriented at launch.
I don't know about 50% but Vanilla WOW was centered around group content during and after the leveling curve.
Obviously many MMORPGs apart from WOW have been successful. Even WAR made money.
We don't know if WAR made money. I'd say the fact it was shut down was an indicator it wasn't making money or if it even broke even.
Obviously this forum's opinion that ToR deserves 0 subscribers is complete nonsense and 1.3mm players actually play it.
1.3mil players dont play SWTOR. It has 1.3mil subs with-in the "free" subscription period and a number of 6 month subscriptions still ongoing by people who no longer play.
Therefore obviously what you read in this forum isn't exactly reflective of the actual state of the industry (did you really think it was?)
Very true.
Obviously the game is profitable, given that my early harsh numbers crunch (30% sub decline monthly) showed the game would be profitable after 4-5 months with 400-500k subs, and then EA recently came forward and said yes it would've been profitable at 500k -- and that they have 1.3mm instead.
None of that is what was said by EA or BW. Your early harsh number crunhc is wrong. The 500k subs was said during development as an example of what would make them profitable though they never mentioned a time limit. 500k subs over 10 years would prob make them profitable. I doubt highly they imagined after 5 months having less than 50% player retention. From my harsh numbers crunch at 2mil subs it would take them 6 months to become profitable from just their dev costs and thats with 100% profit from box sales not to mention all the other crap you need to support the game which (out of my ass) is prob another 75- 100mil.
It's up to you whether you chase after imaginary/fabricated opinions, or observable facts (reality.) I don't have a particularly high opinion of religion, personally.
Or misquote and list made up facts from several different games. Bad "reality" is bad.
There already are MMOs that focus more on grouping... there called full-pvp full-loot sandboxes. You're never forced to group but survivability is greatly increased.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I get the feeling that the games you refer to as being "solo-based" are actually more like "solo friendly". Obviously these games have been specifically designed for multiplayer. Don't be a drama queen and claim otherwise.
SW:TOR is the perfect example of a solo-based game. You can go through the entire levelling experience never talking to another person, you have a companion to aid you through difficult fights, you heal in seconds when a fight is over, and so on.. The grouping in games like this do come as an afterthought, it's as if they designed a single player game then went, "Oh crap, we forgot the multiplayer!", and quickly throw together a few minor instanced dungeons, a once every 10 levels group quest, then a couple of end game raids and go, "Phew, that was a close one.". The vast majority of newly released MMO's follow this same pattern.
Grouping makes life easier in nearly every game out there. Oftentimes grouping just is not very convenient which makes players think of soloing as a good alternative. If a game has strictly group roles and characters rely heavily on each other, you just make the game much more inconvenient. Nobody wants to wait for hours for someone to fill in a critical party role. No one cares to fill just one role throughout the whole game. Players do not accept this anymore.
I'm happy to wait if it means the content is so much more fun and the player interaction is entertaining. Why am I willing to wait? Because MMO's are generally designed to last, you can play them for years, I played original EQ for 5 years before moving on and still go back to it on occasion. So what if I'm stuck waiting for an hour or two? I have tomorrow, the whole week, the whole month, hell the whole year to get things done, what's the problem?
This is the problem with modern MMO's and a lot of the modern MMO gamers, they want everything now, they want this, want that, want to be able to solo this, get that raid loot without raiding, level up every 10 minutes, get to max level quick quick quick. And the games are starting to support this playstyle, people got to max level in TOR within a week! The combat is all rush rush, button mashing, no time to stop. "No time for talking, let's get to the action!".
It's no wonder nobody wants to group when things fly at such a pace, it breaks the flow of the game, as you say people don't want to wait for hours because they could be bashing through a few hundred mobs alone in that time. It's a case that not only are new MMO's flawed, but the new batch of MMO's have caused an influx of players that would never play an MMO like EQ, so they expect every following MMO to cater to them. But they jump from game to game like locusts, consuming the content then moving on.
That is why we see the shift towards flexible party roles, flexible classes and ways to make grouping much more accessible and effortless. Ways how GW2 promotes spontaneous grouping is what I'd like to see. That you're actually happy to see other people where you are, and you can join and leave as you will without any hassle. It is convenient - unlike forced grouping which is extremely inconvenient.
The only people it's convenient for are those I mentioned above, the people who want to bash bash solo solo everything and good luck to anyone that gets in the way. GW2 just spots a bunch of people doing the same content and bunches them all together. What does that achieve? Nothing has changed, people are still doing their own thing. Grouping is supposed to be a gathering of people working together, hence the name, GW2's idea of grouping is akin to a riot. People are heading in the same direction but none of them care about the people next to them.
The most successful Games in the MMORPG Industry? WoW is the Only Successful game in the MMORPG industry right now, by industry standards since its incarnation. No game since has been successful by those same standards. Read these forums every day and you will hear people screaming this game is a failure, no this game, yea this game too. No game has been able to use Solo play to rise to the top. Not Even WoW. As my post above this states. Classic WoW was still more than 50% group oriented. They softened it up, but did not do away with needing groups til much later. MMO's are NOT SOLO games, that isnt what they are about. plain and simple.
Well it's hard to have a discussion with someone who plugs their ears and goes "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when all the facts of reality are screaming at them.
Meanwhile obviously WOW wasn't 50% group-oriented at launch.
I don't know about 50% but Vanilla WOW was centered around group content during and after the leveling curve.
Obviously many MMORPGs apart from WOW have been successful. Even WAR made money.
We don't know if WAR made money. I'd say the fact it was shut down was an indicator it wasn't making money or if it even broke even.
Obviously this forum's opinion that ToR deserves 0 subscribers is complete nonsense and 1.3mm players actually play it.
1.3mil players dont play SWTOR. It has 1.3mil subs with-in the "free" subscription period and a number of 6 month subscriptions still ongoing by people who no longer play.
Therefore obviously what you read in this forum isn't exactly reflective of the actual state of the industry (did you really think it was?)
Very true.
Obviously the game is profitable, given that my early harsh numbers crunch (30% sub decline monthly) showed the game would be profitable after 4-5 months with 400-500k subs, and then EA recently came forward and said yes it would've been profitable at 500k -- and that they have 1.3mm instead.
None of that is what was said by EA or BW. Your early harsh number crunhc is wrong. The 500k subs was said during development as an example of what would make them profitable though they never mentioned a time limit. 500k subs over 10 years would prob make them profitable. I doubt highly they imagined after 5 months having less than 50% player retention. From my harsh numbers crunch at 2mil subs it would take them 6 months to become profitable from just their dev costs and thats with 100% profit from box sales not to mention all the other crap you need to support the game which (out of my ass) is prob another 75- 100mil.
It's up to you whether you chase after imaginary/fabricated opinions, or observable facts (reality.) I don't have a particularly high opinion of religion, personally.
Or misquote and list made up facts from several different games. Bad "reality" is bad.
Were you trying to prove my point about people fabricating their own imagined reality?
You start off claiming WAR was "shut down", in spite of a March patch, and the game clearly still running (which it wouldn't be if maintaining it at whatever level of support it's being maintained at wasn't profitable.)
Then you bring up "6 month subscriptions of people who no longer play", as if that somehow matters to a company's bottom line profits -- and as if that's actually a substantial portion of their revenue (which seems very unlikely)
And then this link shows that yes, 1.3mm has been publicly reported by EA as the subscriber count.
My early numbers crunch was based on an assumption of only 1.3mm total box sales and 30% decline every month for 4-5 months, at which time $200mm revenue was made (give or take whatever the brick-and-mortar profit margin was, and the only source I had regarding that was someone claiming they were "razor thin" profit margins.) Apparently there have now been 2.3mm total box sales, which I believe would've surpassed $200mm revenue on box sales alone.
Some of us prefer facts over fabrications.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Which will breed individualism over altruism, which is basically what has been destroying western soceity since the middle ages.
I prefer western society TODAY 1000x over the middle ages. If what we have today is "being destroyed" .. please destroy the world some more.
And what is so great about altruism in a GAME? Those are ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS to have fun. We are not solving world hunger here.
Looking up the definition of altruism and just reading whats underneath the pictures on Wikipedia does not educate you on it's meaning.
Altruism is the opposite of egoism, I bet you know what that means. I'm not saying anywhere that the middle ages were better than current day soceity either. Not willing to start a social debate, simply because I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject nor will my grasp of the English language be sufficient.
The OP is asking the question why they won't force grouping, and in my opinion, we've been structured for the most part to think differently in current day soceity, you may disagree, but it's how I see things. MMO's have evolved from social cesspools to errand running, pissing contest games, much like their singleplayer variants.
I'm trying to say that simple psychology can be applied to MMO's to explain player trends. Self importance IS destroying our soceity, go read a book, one by Georg Simmel or some such written in the early 1900's still relevant today.
Lastly, I agree these products are to entertain, but denying there are social problems in a game or a lack of selflessness is silly if you ask me.
Which will breed individualism over altruism, which is basically what has been destroying western soceity since the middle ages.
I prefer western society TODAY 1000x over the middle ages. If what we have today is "being destroyed" .. please destroy the world some more.
And what is so great about altruism in a GAME? Those are ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS to have fun. We are not solving world hunger here.
Looking up the definition of altruism and just reading whats underneath the pictures on Wikipedia does not educate you on it's meaning.
Altruism is the opposite of egoism, I bet you know what that means. I'm not saying anywhere that the middle ages were better than current day soceity either. Not willing to start a social debate, simply because I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject nor will my grasp of the English language be sufficient.
The OP is asking the question why they won't force grouping, and in my opinion, we've been structured for the most part to think differently in current day soceity, you may disagree, but it's how I see things. MMO's have evolved from social cesspools to errand running, pissing contest games, much like their singleplayer variants.
I'm trying to say that simple psychology can be applied to MMO's to explain player trends. Self importance IS destroying our soceity, go read a book, one by Georg Simmel or some such written in the early 1900's still relevant today.
Lastly, I agree these products are to entertain, but denying there are social problems in a game or a lack of selflessness is silly if you ask me.
I am not denying there is a lack of selflessness in games. I am merely saying why it matters. So people are selfish in games. So what?
I don't play games to be a model citizen. I do that for fun. So once again, why is that a problem? So we have a lot of selfish people in games ... if i am having fun, do i really care?
There is not a singel game out ther now that does not try to force you to group sooner or later,and that is why people leav the games after the free month.
^This.
You have to realize a big % of players while enjoying online gaming, cannt or dont want to team up while playing for several reasons.
Any game where people are forced to team up its a fail on the long run. That is why so many people leave online games after the first month, after reachign the max they can while single playing.
What? Where are the stats on this? World of Warcraft still has 10 million people playing after 7 years, and it's the perfect example of a game that "forces you to team up". Once players hit the endgame it gets dang close to the definition of forced group play, at least if players want to stay relevant.
Explain to me how dungeons and raids don't invlove any group play, and how this isn't one of the main attractions for WoW.
World of warcrft never had 10 mill paying customers and never will.they might have 10 mill active accounts including asia where you dont pay monthly fee.
Comments
I must disagree with the OP's overall premise here, and say that MMO's should move even further toward solo gaming. Now, I'm sure that to the classical MMO purist, this might be the last thing you'd want, but unfortunately, the clasical MMO purists are now a fairly small cross-section of the total population of gamers. In order to attract the most potential customers in the relatively competitive MMO market, a game must accommodate the widest selection of players, hence why new MMO's are attempting to cater to not only the veteran, group-oriented MMO player, but also to potential new players to the genre that grew up playing primarily solo console games.
The trouble is, companies have yet to strike the right balance of pleasing solo players, while still offering group play. This is mainly because they're still trying to incentivize group play to please old-school MMO gamers, tying endgame content almost exclusively to group-oriented content. Once you've completely leveled up in most MMO's, you're forced into grouping for instances/raids to continue progressing.
This is where new MMO's fail. The second that grouping is required to continue progressing, you've obviously lost the solo gamer. Solo gamers don't have the time, or don't wish to take the time, to assemble a group of strangers every time they wish to progress. This is much less of an issue with instanced PvP, so long as there are no population, balance, or gameplay issues that dissuade players from participating, and this is where the bulk of group oriented content should be focused.
In terms of PvE, however, having content that scales to the size of the group, or allowing players to have NPC's/pets/companion characters to aid them in endgame raids/instances, while still having the option of running them the traditional way, would allow MMO's to retain more solo-minded players, while still giving group oriented players the option of playing the way they like.
There are a lot of other things that must go into a formula for retaining both solo and group oriented players, but in the context of this thread, giving the maximum amount of options for players to enjoy the game will always be a far better strategy than forcing players into one style of play.
Addressing the portion I highlighted, there will never be enough content for solo players to solo through. This is why the most appropriate genre for them is single player games. They get the full game to solo to their hearts' content and then at the end they leave for the next title. It's the same behavior we see with solo players in MMOs, and won't be remedied in MMOs with extra solo content unless it's made to be the grindiest content possible (bringing even more complaints).
In addition, when you make all or the majority of content scale to solo players all you do is make it beneath a group-centered player's time. Solo-centric MMO players are the very lowest common denominator of MMOs- MMOs will never match the single player quality and experience of single player games and those that still continue to play MMOs when they know full well that these games are social in nature are only setting themselves up for a bland experience that could be better fulfilled in other genres.
I'm sorry I think your entire premise is skewed and therefore every argument you base on it will end up being teared apart. Instances and battlegrounds are not the worst type of group content and by no means are they an afterthought. I'm wondering what makes you think that. Neither are the games that have them "solo-based" - like there is such a division as "solo-based" and "multiplayer-based".
I get the feeling that the games you refer to as being "solo-based" are actually more like "solo friendly". Obviously these games have been specifically designed for multiplayer. Don't be a drama queen and claim otherwise.
Grouping makes life easier in nearly every game out there. Oftentimes grouping just is not very convenient which makes players think of soloing as a good alternative. If a game has strictly group roles and characters rely heavily on each other, you just make the game much more inconvenient. Nobody wants to wait for hours for someone to fill in a critical party role. No one cares to fill just one role throughout the whole game. Players do not accept this anymore.
That is why we see the shift towards flexible party roles, flexible classes and ways to make grouping much more accessible and effortless. Ways how GW2 promotes spontaneous grouping is what I'd like to see. That you're actually happy to see other people where you are, and you can join and leave as you will without any hassle. It is convenient - unlike forced grouping which is extremely inconvenient.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And this, ladies and gentlemen is why we cannot have nice new games, because there is a significant portion of players very vocal with their opinions with, figuratively speaking, their heads up their hindquarters.
Just to illustrate:
"grouping" does not in itself mean "social", see "raid finder"
"enough solo content" does not mean "complete the game"
"long solo content" does not mean "grindfest"
"scaling to soloers" does not mean "without advantage and challenge when grouping"
"players will leave when the soloing is over" is in no way more significant than "players will leave when the grouping content is over (and is the only thing in the game that lasts longer than 2 weeks)", which is actually happening right now
And ironically i dont even disagree with the point that "soloing raids" or any other content via some tools, chopping off the social aspect can be tricky, but this is not the fault of soloing and soloers, but lazy people or action gamers which got lost in this genre.
Flame on!
I like group play, but I do not want an MMORPG that blatantly forces it. There are some times I want to strike it out solo, and there are alot more times I want to adventure with other players, even PUGs.
For me, the best is an MMORPG that allows some soloing but encourages group play. It is also tied to a decent community.
The best experience for me was with SWG until the NGE changes of late 2005. I liked to solo at times, but I frequently grouped up with others. It just felt more natural to play with others, not to mention the game and community on the servers were more social. It was the last game I played where even random PUGs was a fun experience which, if you wanted to, ran for hours and hours together. It was also the last MMORPG I played where veteran players readily took newbies under the wing to show them the ropes and generate excitement from the newbie.
So I'm somewhere in the middle, but group play needs to be encouraged (again, not forced). And make MMORPGs "Massive Multiplayer Online" again.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
On the other hand, we've got some people who remember "forced grouping" being the single constant biggest complaint about EQ, and the results to the game's subs...and setting the stage for the rise of solo gaming as a developer goal to encourage in most of the games developed in the early 00's.
So...who's right?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Forced grouping didnt even put a dent in EQ Subscribers. EQ rose consistently with only one small dip near the top to 550,000 Subs and stayed there until WoW came out. WoW was the sole deterring factor of EQ Subs.
Most people understand that traveling somewhere in a typical MMORPG (not counting fast travel) is extremely shallow whereas dungeons require considerably more mastery to perform (due to many more game mechanics being involved.) Run a dungeon the second time and you almost certainly have learning left to do. Travel a second time and there's really nothing left to learn.
If you want to pretend that's not the case, you're free to do so, but you're just plugging your ears.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Travelling in many an mmo is indeed pretty shallow, but then so are the dungeons. Perhaps trying to make more dynamic, player driven worlds, where travelling can be interesting, instead of trying to cut the world out altogether would be an idea.
Nah forget it, let's just shovel in more piss poor dungeons and add an extra 1,000,000 hit points to the next boss and throw in some phat lootz. That's interesting, honest.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Um, your graph shows EQ choosing Path A which results in x Subscribers.
It doesn't show "the dent" because the dent isn't what happened. There was an alternate Path B which resulted in a greater number of z Subscribers, and the difference between the two potential subscriber counts is the dent.
But while we can't really predict alternate futures well, we can observe a ton of data pointing to the relevance of Self-determination theory in regards to game design. Most importantly: the inclusion of more autonomy, in the form of MMORPG soloability. The biggest example being WOW.
So it's easy to state with confidence that a lack of soloability hurt early MMORPGs. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and maybe we can't blame those designers for making mistakes with limited information at the time. But there's a clear trend of the most successful games in the industry adhering to the above theory, while others struggle.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
WoW was just easier, it upgraded alot of systems came out with some others that helped players along like a quest log. It was the natural evolution of adding innovations to the game. it wasnt forced grouping.WoW was not Solo Oriented at first, it struck a balance. Mostly still in favor of Grouping with dungeons and Elites. Quests were bountiful that took more than one or 2 players. It has long since changed with the advent of Wrath of the Lich King removing most all heroic mobs and making dungeons facerolly. And again look at every MMO since then all Solo oriented. all failures. Solo = Failed MMO. Get your facts straight.
The most successful Games in the MMORPG Industry? WoW is the Only Successful game in the MMORPG industry right now, by industry standards since its incarnation. No game since has been successful by those same standards. Read these forums every day and you will hear people screaming this game is a failure, no this game, yea this game too. No game has been able to use Solo play to rise to the top. Not Even WoW. As my post above this states. Classic WoW was still more than 50% group oriented. They softened it up, but did not do away with needing groups til much later. MMO's are NOT SOLO games, that isnt what they are about. plain and simple.
Because MMO's are like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_box
Which will breed individualism over altruism, which is basically what has been destroying western soceity since the middle ages.
Well it's hard to have a discussion with someone who plugs their ears and goes "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" when all the facts of reality are screaming at them.
Meanwhile obviously WOW wasn't 50% group-oriented at launch.
Obviously many MMORPGs apart from WOW have been successful. Even WAR made money.
Obviously this forum's opinion that ToR deserves 0 subscribers is complete nonsense and 1.3mm players actually play it.
Therefore obviously what you read in this forum isn't exactly reflective of the actual state of the industry (did you really think it was?)
Obviously the game is profitable, given that my early harsh numbers crunch (30% sub decline monthly) showed the game would be profitable after 4-5 months with 400-500k subs, and then EA recently came forward and said yes it would've been profitable at 500k -- and that they have 1.3mm instead.
It's up to you whether you chase after imaginary/fabricated opinions, or observable facts (reality.) I don't have a particularly high opinion of religion, personally.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I prefer western society TODAY 1000x over the middle ages. If what we have today is "being destroyed" .. please destroy the world some more.
And what is so great about altruism in a GAME? Those are ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS to have fun. We are not solving world hunger here.
The best most succesful MMO that forced grouping was FFXI, it was fun when you were in a group and taking on stuff, but when you were looking for a group for 2 hours it isnt. I started to feel like my progression in this game was subject to others, it didnt rely on me, and with no real viable options to solo, I quit after 2 months.
I dont touch anything now with forced grouping, but to each their own.
Or misquote and list made up facts from several different games. Bad "reality" is bad.
There already are MMOs that focus more on grouping... there called full-pvp full-loot sandboxes. You're never forced to group but survivability is greatly increased.
But whatever.
Interesting conjunction there.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Were you trying to prove my point about people fabricating their own imagined reality?
You start off claiming WAR was "shut down", in spite of a March patch, and the game clearly still running (which it wouldn't be if maintaining it at whatever level of support it's being maintained at wasn't profitable.)
Then you bring up "6 month subscriptions of people who no longer play", as if that somehow matters to a company's bottom line profits -- and as if that's actually a substantial portion of their revenue (which seems very unlikely)
And then this link shows that yes, 1.3mm has been publicly reported by EA as the subscriber count.
My early numbers crunch was based on an assumption of only 1.3mm total box sales and 30% decline every month for 4-5 months, at which time $200mm revenue was made (give or take whatever the brick-and-mortar profit margin was, and the only source I had regarding that was someone claiming they were "razor thin" profit margins.) Apparently there have now been 2.3mm total box sales, which I believe would've surpassed $200mm revenue on box sales alone.
Some of us prefer facts over fabrications.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Looking up the definition of altruism and just reading whats underneath the pictures on Wikipedia does not educate you on it's meaning.
Altruism is the opposite of egoism, I bet you know what that means. I'm not saying anywhere that the middle ages were better than current day soceity either. Not willing to start a social debate, simply because I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject nor will my grasp of the English language be sufficient.
The OP is asking the question why they won't force grouping, and in my opinion, we've been structured for the most part to think differently in current day soceity, you may disagree, but it's how I see things. MMO's have evolved from social cesspools to errand running, pissing contest games, much like their singleplayer variants.
I'm trying to say that simple psychology can be applied to MMO's to explain player trends. Self importance IS destroying our soceity, go read a book, one by Georg Simmel or some such written in the early 1900's still relevant today.
Lastly, I agree these products are to entertain, but denying there are social problems in a game or a lack of selflessness is silly if you ask me.
I am not denying there is a lack of selflessness in games. I am merely saying why it matters. So people are selfish in games. So what?
I don't play games to be a model citizen. I do that for fun. So once again, why is that a problem? So we have a lot of selfish people in games ... if i am having fun, do i really care?
World of warcrft never had 10 mill paying customers and never will.they might have 10 mill active accounts including asia where you dont pay monthly fee.