Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What's wrong with players being content locust?
jpnz
Member Posts: 3,529
Over the past few months, the advice / things I've seen are that more businesses accept that most players will leave their MMO wihtin 6 months after launch.
Make the investment back on box sales and any subs after that is mostly profit. If the game has staying power, great! Expansion packs for more $$$.
People are treating MMOs like what they are, an entertainment product.
Players certainly do so why can't game makers?
My question is, why is this a 'bad' thing?
Game makers make more MMOs, more players play them and after awhile players / game makers move on to their next game.
I bought every Civilization / SimCity game that came out. I don't play the previous ones once I buy the current one though. Why can't MMOs be treated this way?
As long as the game makers make smart business decisions, I don't see a down side.
More MMOs for players to play and more game makers make money.
Someone may want an MMO that they'll play for years, but they are the minority.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Comments
Ha Ha @ content locust....
I love that.. First thing I've read in months that actually made me chuckle outloud.. Isn't that the truth tho.. So much of the genre is about devouring the content like it's Thanksgiving dinner.. How convient considering this time of year.. eh? Personaly I hold the devs to blame for this.. They designed lazy linear games that are basically a race to the finish line.. I personally would love to see a game designed more like a spider web.... Where is the finish line? THERE IS NONE.. The game would never end, you just keep adding more web with each patch and expansion..
Because MMOs haven't been created to be just like that?
The issue isn't that some "MMOs" create limited "content", it's because they try to sell and market it as in an environment where it used to be all about longevity.
It's like trying to sell Vans in a heavy duty truck store because they can transport stuff.
Of course it boils down to whenever one wants to define mmos, but the old mmos haven't been fast food.
We wouldn't have an issue if developers would clearly state it's fast food and not try to twist it into what it is not and what it does not deliver.
Uhm, who is going to bother making content if all the players leave after 6 months. You want to play F2P games like in China in 2D? They're in 2D because they have no time or money to make 3D games that last a couple of months.
Those games last 6 months, they're also F2P since no one is paying for a 6 month game experience, and the only goal is to spend money in the cash shop, be number 1 for status (very important in China) and quit the game.
That's the model you want?
You can see if the amount of games increases the quality goes down right, a game that they spend 1 year on is not going to look like a game they spend 4 years on, go look at cellphone games or Chinese MMO.
If that's what you like then ok, but you wrote your post like there are no downside to releasing a new game every 6 months, obviously the quality is going to suffer, they only have so many developers.
them games won't be MMORPGs anymore. there are many multiplayer online games now that are not MMORPGS and the trend is increasing. but they are all marketed under the MMORPG acronym.
basicaly we are getting single player games with cooperative options (groups). notice how many new games do not contain any or very limited long term investment options (rich guild mechanics ? housing ? territoty control that matters ?).
mmorpgs were about a world where you play a role you want/like. now you are given a few options that the developers created for you with not or little options to influence the final outcome (SWTOR anyone ?). there's nothing for the player to create. everything was already created and set into stone by the devs. this is what single player games are for.
We may be in the minority, but our numbers aren't nearly as small as you seem to believe. Besides, if we all thought like you, there'd be no reason for a top end in anything, all restuarants would be cheap fast food, all cars small economy models, and all games on consoles instead of PC's because that is what was most popular and desired by the masses.
But it's true, if you treat MMORPG's as simple games (which most Dev's seem to do now days), your supposition of play and toss away makes sense.
However, if you are trying to create a virtual world for players to inhabit, then the design choices are quite different and longevity becomes one of the chief considerations when deciding how to build your MMORPG.
We have enough toss away games, time is right for a few good new worlds to inhabit and explore.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yes, please. More new games more frequently. Let the old ones die - move on. Lets speed up the cycle.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
This.
Is it really that you would rather have it this way, or that the games are just bad enough to that this is the consequence.
a mmo that they will play for years is a game that's fun to said person for years, how can someone not want something that they will enjoy for a long time
Same reason people treat marriage as afleeting encounter. Its just the generation.
What's wrong is easy to see. Accepting a 6-months lifespan and building games around that number would just mean a ton of shallow games, with no depth, customisation, lore etc. Less and less "good communities", in fact way less communities overall, just solo "leave me alone while i race to the finish" angry people. Less effort put in polishing stuff. Less effort in implementing good systems for crafting, alternate advancement etc., lots of fluff to make things "look good". SWTOR is the perfect example here, they could've done so so much more if the money invested in those darn annoying cinematics would actually have been put into the game itself.
It took me 18 months to hit the level cap in my first MMO, and it was a great experience. Now, if people cannot do it in 1 week, they will label the game as being tedious. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of the players just want fast games to last them 1 month, and the devs cannot afford to "lose" the money those players bring.
I think you will find that most MMO players want a long term home in a game. The fact that content can be cleared so quickly and there is no incentive to stick around is a problem with the game, not the players.
Lots of older games had content that was fun, that we didnt mind repeating even without a gear treadmill. The missing factor that MMO releases of late are missing is fun. GW2 has it in sPvP, but the other two parts are pretty lacking. I havent really encountered a PvE MMO that I would consider 'fun' since EQ2, and although that is still around, it is a shadow of its former self.
Nothing at all, as long as their wallet supports it.
You sure will run across a scruttload of people that blame you for their problems hanging around this site, on the other hand.
The secret to building enfuring content lies in time-to-cap. You can build a game where a decade of grind is the only way to cap out, and some people will (without a doubt) play it.
And you can build the opposite. People will play that one, too.
The only relevant question, as far as the market is concerned, is how many people.
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.
We haven't seen an online RPG framework on a commercial scale. That could very well be one of the solutions to quickly consumed content. A few indie projects that I brought up in your other thread are OpenRPG, Roll20 or D20Pro. Had TSR only offered one set of campaigns from 1-12, they would have disappeared in a year. A professional studio taking up a project like this could throw open the doors to more accessbile content on a more dynamic and engaging scale.
Another thing we haven't seen, UO:X being the closest to come to it, is dynamic content tailored to your party and player interests. More than likely it would not be a persistent story-driven world, but it would definitely hold players' interest longer as the content would be consistently customized to what they want. Adventure on demand would take MMOs leaps forward.
In either of the above two options, the offering could be anything from static modules to user-generated content to an option interface where you check off exactly what you want. Let's see... I want medium difficulty, tundra setting, four player, melee oriented, swarm rooms, hard boss.
*click* *click**click* *click* *click* *click*
Generating world environment...
Creating scenario and script...
Your party is entering the campaign.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
We have these sorts of MMOs already, they are called MOBAs and appeal to a large population players. (not that I understand the appeal)"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
They are now. And how are they selling for longevity? I haven't seen a MMO ad that says "you can play for years". It is usualy about how exciting the combat is, or how many featuers it has.
"Old" MMOs are gone .... all genre changes. MMOs are no exception. I think all MMO devs pretty much accept and plan for high churn.
And action RPGs. I agree. Empty world is a waste of resources to create. Just focus on creating parts players have fun & use the most .. like dungeons (with scripting), MOBA maps and stuff like that. You just need a functional lobby to tie everything together.
A world is not very fun if all you get from it .. is some scenary, and other people kill-stealing from you. All the other social stuff (like meeting people, forming groups, chatting ...) does not need a world.
What does kill-stealing have to do with world design? There's a difference in world design and game mechanics.
Sounds like you have issues with past experiences.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Wow...still around and King of the Hill....also sub-based.
EQ just went F2p after like how many years?
Content locusts are the same unhappy group of FOTM types who travel from game to game. Transient gamers, tourists...call them what you will.
Devs need to learn to not make MMORPGs where you are max level in a week and done everything in a month. You would think they would have learned by now.
Unhappy? What is so unhappy about "finishing up" a game, and seek a difference experience?
I think Devs are learning that they don't have to have players play for years to make money. If people want to play and move on, why not accomodate them?
Devs are learning that these 'FOTM' players also pay their subs / box price just like everyone else.
So why not make a game targetting them?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
I think I found the part that shows where the conflict arises between locusts and settlers.
http://thewordiz.wordpress.com/