Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Column] General: The Problem No One’s Talking About

13567

Comments

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Btw, plenty of people have been talking about this issue for years. Moderators make it seem like nobody is though >_>

    Good point.  Threads about sandboxes, more varied gameplay, less linearity, etc are endless and reappear all the time for looooong years already.

  • CalerxesCalerxes LondonPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon

    Being newish to the joys off MMO's I've had to learn the history of the genre and what it stands for in essense and something that has driven home the fact that modern MMO's are pale copies of their predecessors was going back to Vanguard after playing many many modern MMO's inbetween the last time I played. The feel of Vanguard is so different from modern MMO's that only one other MMO has given me that feeling and thats another old skool MMO, Lineage 2 and that feeling is a vast open world to play in that always offers new and different experiences whatever path you decide to take, with deep mechanics and lore that help you immerse yourself in a fantasy world, sadly Lineage 2 is shell of its former glory.

     

    Now after reading these boards for a few years I've slowly come to understand that essense (all bitter vets stand and take a bow image) and what is missing from modern MMO's to sustain and build a community and Bill hits the nail on the head with, systems, systems to encourage interdepency, systems to engage the players be they deep comabt mechanics, deep crafting systems or as in Vanguard a great Diplomacy system, systems to help the players form socities be they good, bad or indifferent, systems to deepen the immersion and connection to the world you are playing in, systems to help you understand your chosen role in that world, systems that encourage you to be better at whatever you choose to be. Overall to help make the game a deeper more slow burning experience rather than a rush in and rush out  as if on a conveyor belt, I'm done mentatlity that modern MMO's seem to encourage more than anything. 

    This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up™ the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.

  • gravesworngravesworn charleston, WVPosts: 324Member
    Very nice post, the problem with personal story and achievement for me is that it hasnt felt very personal or achieving in a very long time. I mean Skyrim felt more personal to me than any mmo and it is a single player experience.
  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,209Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aelious

    I agree on both point completely.  Yep, EQN is coming image

    Look to EQ2 for addresses to both issues and it's "testbed" role for EQN.  The pricing model is already there, will be better still in the future when cosmetics are craftable, and it has more features than you can shake a stick at.  Granted, the dungeon maker feature is not as involved as NW looks to be and the dungeon finder is a bit buggy with 29 different classes but you have all these features in one game.  Level scaling, housing, good crafting, deep character advancement, various quest types, SoEMote and even 3DTV.  What's my point?

    EQ2 itself ends with raid progression but if you look at the tools it has built over the years the good ones have been built into EQN from the start.  Apply that to the Forgelight engine and a tout of "biggest sandbox style MMO ever created" and we may very well see a resurgence of long term player retention among new MMOs based on your two great points.

    EQ2 is not going to address either issue.

    First, it's pricing model is horrible.  When, at the end of the day, you still have to subscribe to unlock the full game, it is still locked into that same restrictive mindset.  The pricing models we should be looking at are the sort employed by GW2, Aion, or STO.  The weakest part of the latter models are those key-locked consumable containers.

    Secondly, already EQ2 had some great systems in place with regards to housing, and to an extent crafting and how those were integrated into adventuring and the broker.  However, the new stuff they've added lately with their dungeon designer, face recognition, and the like aren't well integrated into the game at all.  We don't need bolt on systems.  We need well integrated systems that work together to provide a deeper gaming experience.

    EQN might deliver on that, but the danger I see here is we don't know if developers have had a paradigm shift yet.  All we know is that marketing has realized the value of the next wave of hype buzzwords like "sandbox" and are using those to maximum benefit now.  The fact that Smed used the phrase "sandbox style" should send up huge marketing / buzzword alarms.  I think a hybrid design approach will be great, but I think it's wise to take a wait and watch approach rather than jumping in the shark infested pool with a big smile.

  • achesomaachesoma Portland, ORPosts: 1,000Member Uncommon

    I have to disagree about WoW being a fluke.  It was the first of its kind to be friendly to new MMOers.  It had a very low learning curve and most of its content was easily accessible.  I remember when I first started SWG in 2003 and it took me a good 2 months to learn the ins and outs of that game.  Now I can jump into any current MMO and learn all I need to know in less than a hour. 

    WoW did to MMOs what Starbucks did to coffee.  Starbucks got the masses to drink coffee that normally didn't like coffee.  And it's not really the coffee most people like about Starbucks, it's all the sweet, flavored crap they pour into it.  WoW did the same to MMOs.  It's not the MMO part of WoW people like, it's the Skinner box method of getting players hooked on their epic shineys and they can't let go.  Most don't give a flip about any true social aspects of MMOs.  People that truly enjoy the MMORPG aspect are unfortunately in the minority.  A fluke?  I think not.  It was a brilliant business strategy. 

    image

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by TorvaldrDoes Gdemami really not get why MMO require some form of retention? 

    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...

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,209Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fenistil

    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.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,209Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Torvaldr

     

    Does Gdemami really not get why MMO require some form of retention? 


     

    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...

    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.

  • CyclopsSlayerCyclopsSlayer Minneapolis, MNPosts: 532Member

    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.

  • itgrowlsitgrowls newport news, VAPosts: 2,951Member

    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.

  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon

    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.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    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...


    But hey...you're Mr. Obvious, right?

  • bunnyhopperbunnyhopper LondonPosts: 2,751Member

    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."

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by fenistil

    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.

  • KhalathwyrKhalathwyr Denton, TXPosts: 3,138Member
    Originally posted by bunnyhopper

    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..."

    Kickstarter 2 / Naysayers 0

  • qombiqombi Unknown, LAPosts: 1,180Member
    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.

  • elockeelocke Manassas, VAPosts: 4,205Member Uncommon

    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. 

    image
  • qombiqombi Unknown, LAPosts: 1,180Member
    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.
  • dotdotdashdotdotdash Llandrindod WellsPosts: 364Member

    Silly title. I can only assume it was intentional.

    I don't agree, however. It's a naive point to make.

  • TamanousTamanous Edmonton, ABPosts: 2,125Member Uncommon
    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.

    You stay sassy!

  • elockeelocke Manassas, VAPosts: 4,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    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.

    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. 

    image
  • TamanousTamanous Edmonton, ABPosts: 2,125Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by elocke
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    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.

    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!

  • rounnerrounner CanberraPosts: 603Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    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...


    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.

  • Whiskey_SamWhiskey_Sam Lynchburg, VAPosts: 294Member Uncommon
    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.

  • dotdotdashdotdotdash Llandrindod WellsPosts: 364Member

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.