Personal Stories just make me cry... *I* save the world, *I* rescue the Princess, *I* defeat the great evil... all to earn a special title the story tells me is all MINE. Then of course I see 200 other players standing around with the same title... LOL
But yeah, I agree with Mr Murphy, this had been bandied about for years, it is nice to finally see the public voices recognizing and talking about this.
All these recycled products with some small single gimmick that the Devs play up as revolutionary. "Oh look, NO levels, we have FizzBins instead...", or "WE have <dramatic pause and effect voice> ACTION combat!!! Everything else is the same..."
Give players a reason to come back, make them hungry to see the content, make the Lore less insipid and more involving, provide a World the players can make their own and not just another Devs private park the players merely visit. These will help bring a world to life and keep players around.
Then and only then think about the gimmicks, as the adjuncts not as the stars of the release.
If they treat the foundry in Neverwinter like they've treated it in STO then that will ultimately be the ONLY content after launch that anyone will ever see, EVER. seriously that's why i left STO because all we would see that was new was the occasional pvp map and the stations, boxes were their main focus (for their store key gambling) and nothing else in the PVE side was put in accept the occasional revamp of an old quest to gain dilithium (the currency for everything end game).
I do hope they take it in a new direction but from what STO has done, Neverwinter is arguably not a good example of how a hybrid system should work.
and btw B2P the initial cost of the game being the only cost a player ACTUALLY really needs to pay to play, is the best model out there. It's revenue, it gives them the drive to make better content newer faster content, and it drives their sales when players are happy via word of mouth.
with B2P like GW2 there is no content restriction, only 2 restrictions when it comes to UI (5 slots for characters is pleanty for me) and the shared bank space. Really, there isn't anything wrong with their business model at Anet.
Forum members get their sandbox threads locked because "we already have a sandbox discussion thread". Then the Managing Editor writes a column about the same things that mods normally shut down and titles it, "The problem no one is talking about". Well Bill, we would talk about it if your moderating staff would let us. And no, necroing some all encompassing thread wont cut it. Especially when countless combat or quest system threads gets put on a pedestal.
Originally posted by Torvaldr It's not that no one is able to answer the question, but at this level, most of us should already be familiar with why that is and don't want to waste our time with a history lesson. Ask a more pointed question if you have one.
Ah, Mr. Obvious argument...
Well, you might give some thought why are asian games being recycled and released on western markets or why is CCP, WargamingNet or Trion releasing more products instead of focusing on what they have released already...
Yeah overall article is right and even business model wise is also right. There is no chance that in example 30 subsciption only mmorpg's (not countining very small indie ones) would thrive.
Still does not change fact that I will never again personally play freemium, f2p or similar model.
It might work for industry generally speaking but It does not really work for me. Microtransactions suck enjoyment out of me due to my specific reasons why I play mmorpg's in first place.
The P2P games all have micro-transactions now as well in some form or another. That part isn't going away. It's just going to be thrown on top of the P2P model.
It's not whether "it" might work, or not, for the industry generally speaking. It is that the P2P barrier of entry, or return, is going to be far too limiting. Let's use RIFT as an example since it's releasing a new xpac soon. In order to play the xpac I need to spend $40 (as a current subscriber) to play that content in addition to my subscription fees. Once I stop paying the subscription my $40 investment is basically gone until I pony up more cash. I'm now evaluating whether or not it's worth the cost because being able to enjoy that purchase is tied to additional endless fees.
Now if RIFT sold Storm Legion under B2P I could enjoy that without having to consider any additional costs I might need to pay out. The barrier has just been lowered dramatically.
Not all p2p games do have microtransactions. Most do have but there is still 3-4 (depends how strict you're with it) that don't have them. + few very small indie ones but I don't count them to above number.
Anyway.
Besides I perfectly know what are pros and cons of various business models.
*I was not starting a discussion - just stating an opinion. *
My stance is already made, is very simple and stated in my previous post. I will not play mmorpg's with f2p, freemium or similar models also won't p2p with currency selling or cash shop. Yes I won't play mmorpg's at all if I won't find any fitting me both gameplay and business model wise. Like now.
The problem quite a few of us have been talking about, whilst getting lambasted as "bitter vets".
That's what I have been sitting here thinking. All the various posts that we'd get in trouble for "necroing" that we could bring back showing the discussions on this topic that took place even before Bill signed onto this site.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Originally posted by Ozivois They need to slow down level progression - that will add more time to subs. Lower experience gain to a minimum so that players have to spend inordinate amounts of time in every area of the world. Offer raids for every ten levels. Limit daily experience gain. Make it so that rare level 20 armor is worth looking for because you will be able to use it for another month as you work your way to level 30...
This is the formula that made Everquest so popular. Now days, the games are too fast. The player gets the carrot too fast and then is bored.
Ah, but here's the real question. Many of the currently popular MMOs have put systems in, but most of them only do it in expansions. Which by the time they come out, could be too late for many players have moved on. I think they should be part of some if not all regular content patches as well as expansions. I know Trion is breaking this mold and putting out systems via content patches, and it's helped keep their game alive and thriving and will probably be part and parcel of it growing it's playerbase come the expansion this month. Yay, Trion. But we still have tons of other developers who don't do this or they do it on a very limited basis. I think that needs to change as well.
Also, about content and systems, the more I think about it the more I realize that when I'm looking at news of a new game on the horizon or news blips about said games from various sources like gaming conventions or press releases, the first things to pop out and are SELLING points are: The Systems the game is touting. Look at ArcheAge and Age of Wushu for example. From this side of launch what excites me about those games are the numerous amount of things to do and systems within the game worlds.
An example of the opposite of that is when a game touts ONE system and leaves everyone wondering what else there is to the game. Like Tera. Everyone was going nuts about the combat system. But...that's all it really is and is the MAIN reason, at least for me, for why I left the game after 2 weeks. Many recent games seem to do this. With WAR it was RVR. With STO it was the space combat. With SWTOR it was the personal story. And so on.
Free 2 play with cash shops isn't great for players at all. It is promoted as such because in the long run people have to pay more than the 15/month that they use to pay to get the same amount of game.
Originally posted by qombi Free 2 play with cash shops isn't great for players at all. It is promoted as such because in the long run people have to pay more than the 15/month that they use to pay to get the same amount of game.
That is why I posted elsewhere that I would love to see pay as you go options. The devs have a ton of metrics to figure out the average amount of time their average playerbase plays and base a very reasonable cost per minute model. This allows casual gameplay less than the sub and full access trial options at a very low cost. Of course they would have to decide on whether or not their client is free as that would impact the cost. Typically though mature games with expansions can simply offer their client free up until the last expansion or two. Of course you could simply decided to pay the full sub at any time for unlimited gameplay.
F2P isn't required. There are far too many moochers and you only get tiered game play access which ruins community. You could play 3 mmos causally for the price of a normal sub and not feel bound to any one game and pick it up again without gated restrictions or no access at all to a gold account character because you don't sub. F2P needs to die when it comes to community based mmos. It will be the death of strong community mmorpgs.
Forum members get their sandbox threads locked because "we already have a sandbox discussion thread". Then the Managing Editor writes a column about the same things that mods normally shut down and titles it, "The problem no one is talking about". Well Bill, we would talk about it if your moderating staff would let us. And no, necroing some all encompassing thread wont cut it. Especially when countless combat or quest system threads gets put on a pedestal.
This isn't about sandboxes though. This is about systems and pricing models. Something which affects ALL MMORPG types not just sandbox. I wish you people who gripe about sandboxes this, sandboxes that would get it through your heads that Themeparks can be just as fun if developed right and SYSTEMS added to make them so.
Forum members get their sandbox threads locked because "we already have a sandbox discussion thread". Then the Managing Editor writes a column about the same things that mods normally shut down and titles it, "The problem no one is talking about". Well Bill, we would talk about it if your moderating staff would let us. And no, necroing some all encompassing thread wont cut it. Especially when countless combat or quest system threads gets put on a pedestal.
This isn't about sandboxes though. This is about systems and pricing models. Something which affects ALL MMORPG types not just sandbox. I wish you people who gripe about sandboxes this, sandboxes that would get it through your heads that Themeparks can be just as fun if developed right and SYSTEMS added to make them so.
Yes it is a more specific issue being addressed across all genres but I also haven't seen any other "system" offered different than slapping in sandbox style systems into themeparks to sustain them. It then swings back to the whole sandbox/themepark debate. Price models is another extremely important issue though across all games as my post above mentioned.
Then you have the combined affects of both issues. Imagine Wow being f2p on their old ultra-hard raid model. You would have 1% of players paying most of the money to access top tier raiding that only 1% of the playerbase ever reaches. The amount the game would be altered to cater to those elite style players would be mind blowing. If raiding is already gated by difficulty and game time invested imagine the tempation for F2P price modeling on top of that. This would affect ranked pvp e-sport too if not more. The Wow community would be ripped apart.
It's not that no one is able to answer the question, but at this level, most of us should already be familiar with why that is and don't want to waste our time with a history lesson. Ask a more pointed question if you have one.
Ah, Mr. Obvious argument...
Well, you might give some thought why are asian games being recycled and released on western markets or why is CCP, WargamingNet or Trion releasing more products instead of focusing on what they have released already...
But hey...you're Mr. Obvious, right?
Its a more valid point than most of the diatribe here. Posters that have been around for a long time are like radio shock jocks; they think if only the world was more like them there'd be world peace. To answer your question plainly I assume players posting here want to find a game they can play for years on end and cant get their head around the short shelf life of modern games. Coming up with theoretical solutions like more systems... wtf is a system, Ive been trolling here for years and never even seen the term used in this context before.
Agree with much of the article, but the sub fee is a false choice. All we see are free or $15 sub fees. Where are the examples of ranges of sub fees across titles? In this regard, MMOs are still a very immature market, and until you see price competition between titles, it's hard to claim the sub model is dead. People are unwilling to pay $15 a month for glorified single-payer console games. That does not mean they are unwilling to pay $15 for a quality MMO. It also does not mean they are unwilling to pay less ($10, $5?) for a monthly sub fee.
___________________________ Have flask; will travel.
Surely this is something that MMORPG developers have been pursuing for the last decade? There are countless "new" systems in place that didn't exist in MMORPGs "back in the day". WoW, for example, enjoys many, many, many more systems than it did in 2004. And much, much more content. Certainly old systems have stuck around - raiding, for example - but new systems are frequently being implemented to keep gamers playing (and paying).
And do people actually think Freemium/F2P is the "model of the future"? Really?! A market segment largely perceived as cheap and exploitative? Really?! As a short- to mid-term concern I am quite ready to agree that F2P and Freemium gaming will rise significantly, but I don't think it's going to become the rule in the long term...
A far more obvious realisation is due in the coming year or so: games have a short shelf-life, generally as a rule. MMOs are no different.
This topic has been discussed extensively before. Think a mod should lock the discussion and ban Bill Murphy tbh.
Originally posted by Whiskey_Sam Agree with much of the article, but the sub fee is a false choice. All we see are free or $15 sub fees. Where are the examples of ranges of sub fees across titles? In this regard, MMOs are still a very immature market, and until you see price competition between titles, it's hard to claim the sub model is dead. People are unwilling to pay $15 a month for glorified single-payer console games. That does not mean they are unwilling to pay $15 for a quality MMO. It also does not mean they are unwilling to pay less ($10, $5?) for a monthly sub fee.
Hell there are many players willing to pay $25 or more a month for an ultra-premium access game with no alternate access model or cash shop. They want an ultra-mature, super strong community based entirely around players actually wanting to be there. We have yet to see this either or even sub-server sets for it ... yet F2P models continue to be severely segmented and gated allowing <5% of the population to pay most of the money.
We haven't even seen alternative and competing price models. Just a sub cost kept low for 14+ years, slapping on cash shops to make up the difference or flat out F2P models which are entirely exploitive. There absolutely must be alternatives that actually are designed to nurture the community that supports the game instead of gouging them, gating them or making them into sub standard participants.
I agree! Systems over content for longevity. Systems is what holds my interest. Content is alright, usually lacking for me. I love to read....books. Game story is weak by comparison and of course there are exceptions but in general, quests don't keep me coming back for more, systems do.
Once I'm done with an mmo, that's usually it. It's hard going back and I usually think to myself there was a reason why I left in first place that probably hasn't changed. Expansions can get me back though, especially if they add things that I want.
That's the problem I've seen. Many MMO's these days are afraid to jump into uncharted waters (pun, intended). They haven't tried to push theirselves because they belive an MMO requires an extensive sum of money to develop; they are falling into AAA category that doesn't need to be brought.
But the thing is, those waters have already been charted and sailed successfully. There's plenty of gaming systems out there ready to be reborn and improved upon.
UO, SWG, EQ, DAoC, etc. etc. There are wonderful systems in those titles alone that could easily be improved upon.
It's up to us, the gamers, as to where the future of MMO development takes us. Do we continue paying for subpar games designed around box sales or do we say enough is enough and DEMAND developers to take notice?
I agree with you! I'd love nothing more than to see all those game-styles back in action, even if they aren't sequel's--but successors. The real question is can we convince gamers. I'm sure there's already a huge follower-base for our thought process.
Do we talk gamers into believing like us, or do we place our faith in independant developers to deliever these experiences. We can talk all day to gamers and companies--but if enough of us rally behind indie's they'll see what companies and bandwagon sheep know best; numbers.
Originally posted by Ozivois They need to slow down level progression - that will add more time to subs. Lower experience gain to a minimum so that players have to spend inordinate amounts of time in every area of the world. Offer raids for every ten levels. Limit daily experience gain. Make it so that rare level 20 armor is worth looking for because you will be able to use it for another month as you work your way to level 30...
Why do they need to slow down level progression? So they can bilk you out of even more money? So the game can just become tedious? No thanks.
I got an idea when it comes to longevity of a game. Stop playing games like they're a second job. Does anyone hear realize how ridiculous it is to spend 5-6 hours per day playing a computer game? Maybe slow down the amount of time you play and you won't finish a game in 2 months.
To Bill's article, I think you need both. You need both the content to keep people happy and the systems. Just one of those won't be enough to keep people coming. Especially those who have apparently massive amounts of time every week to waste.
When you say job are you implying people hate what they are doing? What if they find their job immense fun? Is it wrong to have immense fun for 5-6 hours a day?
No, it's wrong to spend that much time playing one game and then complaining there's not enough to do in the game.
The job reference was more about the amount of time spent, not whether or not someone likes what they're doing.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
There is another point that should be considered in mmorpgs alongside the need for systems to keep players engaged, that the players can see opportunities, scope for expansion.
No game will ever be able to launch with enough systems that work correctly right off the bat to keep lots of players involved, a lot of the systems will have to develop over time as minor tweaks can have large unintended consequences either immediately or sometimes months down the road. If you are handing over tools to the players, the players will use those tools in ways the developers did not and often cannot forsee, the developers need to have properly thought out metrics and sampling tools to be able to spot what's actually happening.
The developers idea for the future of the game isnt necessarily where the players want it to go, and the devs will have to be able to change their vision for that of their players, or they wont have as many players as they could have had.
The above reasons are why the players have to be able to see that there is potential in a game, not just from rumours of "whats down the road" but also from the engagedness of the devs, if they're actually in the games asking questions and talking to players on forums, generally are they listening to the people who are playing their game. If the development team gets cut to the bone immediately after launch players know that more systems/content will be delayed and that reduces the potential of the game. If management comes out and states everything is fine and dandy when there are obvious problems, that reduces the potential of the game in the players eyes, which will lead to players looking for something with more potential in their eyes, or abandoning the genre altogether.
A second point I would make is that "one size does not fit all" which will be incredibly unpopular with VC's, but it is a truth. MMORPG's make their large profits from having lots of players play for a long time no matter what monetisation method is used. If you try to appeal to everybody you will end up appealing to very few over time.
Originally posted by Ozivois They need to slow down level progression - that will add more time to subs. Lower experience gain to a minimum so that players have to spend inordinate amounts of time in every area of the world. Offer raids for every ten levels. Limit daily experience gain. Make it so that rare level 20 armor is worth looking for because you will be able to use it for another month as you work your way to level 30...
didn't they speed it up to avoid being called 'a korean ginder'?
Comments
And yet, no one was able to provide an answer to my question... Funny isn't it?
The point is very simple tho.
Does post-release development make more or same money than releasing new game?
You say the former is the only way for MMOs and I am very curious about reasoning backing such claim up...
Personal Stories just make me cry... *I* save the world, *I* rescue the Princess, *I* defeat the great evil... all to earn a special title the story tells me is all MINE. Then of course I see 200 other players standing around with the same title...
LOL
But yeah, I agree with Mr Murphy, this had been bandied about for years, it is nice to finally see the public voices recognizing and talking about this.
All these recycled products with some small single gimmick that the Devs play up as revolutionary. "Oh look, NO levels, we have FizzBins instead...", or "WE have <dramatic pause and effect voice> ACTION combat!!! Everything else is the same..."
Give players a reason to come back, make them hungry to see the content, make the Lore less insipid and more involving, provide a World the players can make their own and not just another Devs private park the players merely visit. These will help bring a world to life and keep players around.
Then and only then think about the gimmicks, as the adjuncts not as the stars of the release.
If they treat the foundry in Neverwinter like they've treated it in STO then that will ultimately be the ONLY content after launch that anyone will ever see, EVER. seriously that's why i left STO because all we would see that was new was the occasional pvp map and the stations, boxes were their main focus (for their store key gambling) and nothing else in the PVE side was put in accept the occasional revamp of an old quest to gain dilithium (the currency for everything end game).
I do hope they take it in a new direction but from what STO has done, Neverwinter is arguably not a good example of how a hybrid system should work.
and btw B2P the initial cost of the game being the only cost a player ACTUALLY really needs to pay to play, is the best model out there. It's revenue, it gives them the drive to make better content newer faster content, and it drives their sales when players are happy via word of mouth.
with B2P like GW2 there is no content restriction, only 2 restrictions when it comes to UI (5 slots for characters is pleanty for me) and the shared bank space. Really, there isn't anything wrong with their business model at Anet.
Irony:
Forum members get their sandbox threads locked because "we already have a sandbox discussion thread". Then the Managing Editor writes a column about the same things that mods normally shut down and titles it, "The problem no one is talking about". Well Bill, we would talk about it if your moderating staff would let us. And no, necroing some all encompassing thread wont cut it. Especially when countless combat or quest system threads gets put on a pedestal.
Ah, Mr. Obvious argument...
Well, you might give some thought why are asian games being recycled and released on western markets or why is CCP, WargamingNet or Trion releasing more products instead of focusing on what they have released already...
But hey...you're Mr. Obvious, right?
The problem quite a few of us have been talking about, whilst getting lambasted as "bitter vets".
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Not all p2p games do have microtransactions. Most do have but there is still 3-4 (depends how strict you're with it) that don't have them. + few very small indie ones but I don't count them to above number.
Anyway.
Besides I perfectly know what are pros and cons of various business models.
*I was not starting a discussion - just stating an opinion. *
My stance is already made, is very simple and stated in my previous post. I will not play mmorpg's with f2p, freemium or similar models also won't p2p with currency selling or cash shop. Yes I won't play mmorpg's at all if I won't find any fitting me both gameplay and business model wise. Like now.
That's what I have been sitting here thinking. All the various posts that we'd get in trouble for "necroing" that we could bring back showing the discussions on this topic that took place even before Bill signed onto this site.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
This is the formula that made Everquest so popular. Now days, the games are too fast. The player gets the carrot too fast and then is bored.
Ah, but here's the real question. Many of the currently popular MMOs have put systems in, but most of them only do it in expansions. Which by the time they come out, could be too late for many players have moved on. I think they should be part of some if not all regular content patches as well as expansions. I know Trion is breaking this mold and putting out systems via content patches, and it's helped keep their game alive and thriving and will probably be part and parcel of it growing it's playerbase come the expansion this month. Yay, Trion. But we still have tons of other developers who don't do this or they do it on a very limited basis. I think that needs to change as well.
Also, about content and systems, the more I think about it the more I realize that when I'm looking at news of a new game on the horizon or news blips about said games from various sources like gaming conventions or press releases, the first things to pop out and are SELLING points are: The Systems the game is touting. Look at ArcheAge and Age of Wushu for example. From this side of launch what excites me about those games are the numerous amount of things to do and systems within the game worlds.
An example of the opposite of that is when a game touts ONE system and leaves everyone wondering what else there is to the game. Like Tera. Everyone was going nuts about the combat system. But...that's all it really is and is the MAIN reason, at least for me, for why I left the game after 2 weeks. Many recent games seem to do this. With WAR it was RVR. With STO it was the space combat. With SWTOR it was the personal story. And so on.
Silly title. I can only assume it was intentional.
I don't agree, however. It's a naive point to make.
That is why I posted elsewhere that I would love to see pay as you go options. The devs have a ton of metrics to figure out the average amount of time their average playerbase plays and base a very reasonable cost per minute model. This allows casual gameplay less than the sub and full access trial options at a very low cost. Of course they would have to decide on whether or not their client is free as that would impact the cost. Typically though mature games with expansions can simply offer their client free up until the last expansion or two. Of course you could simply decided to pay the full sub at any time for unlimited gameplay.
F2P isn't required. There are far too many moochers and you only get tiered game play access which ruins community. You could play 3 mmos causally for the price of a normal sub and not feel bound to any one game and pick it up again without gated restrictions or no access at all to a gold account character because you don't sub. F2P needs to die when it comes to community based mmos. It will be the death of strong community mmorpgs.
You stay sassy!
This isn't about sandboxes though. This is about systems and pricing models. Something which affects ALL MMORPG types not just sandbox. I wish you people who gripe about sandboxes this, sandboxes that would get it through your heads that Themeparks can be just as fun if developed right and SYSTEMS added to make them so.
Yes it is a more specific issue being addressed across all genres but I also haven't seen any other "system" offered different than slapping in sandbox style systems into themeparks to sustain them. It then swings back to the whole sandbox/themepark debate. Price models is another extremely important issue though across all games as my post above mentioned.
Then you have the combined affects of both issues. Imagine Wow being f2p on their old ultra-hard raid model. You would have 1% of players paying most of the money to access top tier raiding that only 1% of the playerbase ever reaches. The amount the game would be altered to cater to those elite style players would be mind blowing. If raiding is already gated by difficulty and game time invested imagine the tempation for F2P price modeling on top of that. This would affect ranked pvp e-sport too if not more. The Wow community would be ripped apart.
You stay sassy!
Its a more valid point than most of the diatribe here. Posters that have been around for a long time are like radio shock jocks; they think if only the world was more like them there'd be world peace. To answer your question plainly I assume players posting here want to find a game they can play for years on end and cant get their head around the short shelf life of modern games. Coming up with theoretical solutions like more systems... wtf is a system, Ive been trolling here for years and never even seen the term used in this context before.
___________________________
Have flask; will travel.
MORE SYSTEMS!
Surely this is something that MMORPG developers have been pursuing for the last decade? There are countless "new" systems in place that didn't exist in MMORPGs "back in the day". WoW, for example, enjoys many, many, many more systems than it did in 2004. And much, much more content. Certainly old systems have stuck around - raiding, for example - but new systems are frequently being implemented to keep gamers playing (and paying).
And do people actually think Freemium/F2P is the "model of the future"? Really?! A market segment largely perceived as cheap and exploitative? Really?! As a short- to mid-term concern I am quite ready to agree that F2P and Freemium gaming will rise significantly, but I don't think it's going to become the rule in the long term...
A far more obvious realisation is due in the coming year or so: games have a short shelf-life, generally as a rule. MMOs are no different.
This topic has been discussed extensively before. Think a mod should lock the discussion and ban Bill Murphy tbh.
ROFL my thoughts exactly
Hell there are many players willing to pay $25 or more a month for an ultra-premium access game with no alternate access model or cash shop. They want an ultra-mature, super strong community based entirely around players actually wanting to be there. We have yet to see this either or even sub-server sets for it ... yet F2P models continue to be severely segmented and gated allowing <5% of the population to pay most of the money.
We haven't even seen alternative and competing price models. Just a sub cost kept low for 14+ years, slapping on cash shops to make up the difference or flat out F2P models which are entirely exploitive. There absolutely must be alternatives that actually are designed to nurture the community that supports the game instead of gouging them, gating them or making them into sub standard participants.
You stay sassy!
I agree! Systems over content for longevity. Systems is what holds my interest. Content is alright, usually lacking for me. I love to read....books. Game story is weak by comparison and of course there are exceptions but in general, quests don't keep me coming back for more, systems do.
Once I'm done with an mmo, that's usually it. It's hard going back and I usually think to myself there was a reason why I left in first place that probably hasn't changed. Expansions can get me back though, especially if they add things that I want.
I agree with you! I'd love nothing more than to see all those game-styles back in action, even if they aren't sequel's--but successors. The real question is can we convince gamers. I'm sure there's already a huge follower-base for our thought process.
Do we talk gamers into believing like us, or do we place our faith in independant developers to deliever these experiences. We can talk all day to gamers and companies--but if enough of us rally behind indie's they'll see what companies and bandwagon sheep know best; numbers.
Played - M59, EQOA, EQ, EQ2, PS, SWG[Favorite], DAoC, UO, RS, MXO, CoH/CoV, TR, FFXI, FoM, WoW, Eve, Rift, SWTOR, TSW.
Playing - PS2, AoW, GW2
No, it's wrong to spend that much time playing one game and then complaining there's not enough to do in the game.
The job reference was more about the amount of time spent, not whether or not someone likes what they're doing.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
There is another point that should be considered in mmorpgs alongside the need for systems to keep players engaged, that the players can see opportunities, scope for expansion.
No game will ever be able to launch with enough systems that work correctly right off the bat to keep lots of players involved, a lot of the systems will have to develop over time as minor tweaks can have large unintended consequences either immediately or sometimes months down the road. If you are handing over tools to the players, the players will use those tools in ways the developers did not and often cannot forsee, the developers need to have properly thought out metrics and sampling tools to be able to spot what's actually happening.
The developers idea for the future of the game isnt necessarily where the players want it to go, and the devs will have to be able to change their vision for that of their players, or they wont have as many players as they could have had.
The above reasons are why the players have to be able to see that there is potential in a game, not just from rumours of "whats down the road" but also from the engagedness of the devs, if they're actually in the games asking questions and talking to players on forums, generally are they listening to the people who are playing their game. If the development team gets cut to the bone immediately after launch players know that more systems/content will be delayed and that reduces the potential of the game. If management comes out and states everything is fine and dandy when there are obvious problems, that reduces the potential of the game in the players eyes, which will lead to players looking for something with more potential in their eyes, or abandoning the genre altogether.
A second point I would make is that "one size does not fit all" which will be incredibly unpopular with VC's, but it is a truth. MMORPG's make their large profits from having lots of players play for a long time no matter what monetisation method is used. If you try to appeal to everybody you will end up appealing to very few over time.
Wall of text, no tl:dr.
Player of Eve Online for 6+ years.
F2P/P2P excellent thread.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/282517/F2P-An-Engineers-perspective.html
didn't they speed it up to avoid being called 'a korean ginder'?