I don't mind subscriptions, I just would like to be subscribed to something new, preferably something new that didn't revolve around an exploitable market society.
All the P2P games available right now are hyper-casual and extremely safe and boring in terms of game design.
Honestly with each day that passes I lean more and more towards free to play mmos because I can actually find new games, games with developers that are willing to try new things.
The problem being that these multitudes of people don't actually want to play an MMO, they want a single player game with a large amount of content. It's actually been stated on the solo vs group play thread multiple times from multiple people; most soloers are playing these games due to the large content and regular updates, not for the multiplayer aspects. The perfect example from this thread is quoted by narrius': "I don't really care what devs want me to do. If they don't want me to solo through content and leave, don't make it possible. If they make it possible, i will take advantage of it.".
So the developers who have started catering to these multitudes of people have actually dumbed down and altered the genre to the point where it now, does indeed, resemble a single player game. Combat is easy to where you can solo multiple mobs at a time, quests are meant to be done solo, and dungeons are such a rarity that they're seen perhaps once every 10 or so levels. Raids exist but they're at the end of the game, where the solo players can then leave and let the MMO players get on with it.
And yet these people want more; they want the same loot as people who run dungeons and raids, they want to be able to solo the boss of a raid, they basically want a massive single player game. These aren't people who want an MMORPG, they're people looking for a single player game, and in the process that 'niche group' of people who actually DO want an MMORPG are being pushed further and further aside until the genre we came into looks completely different to the one we're in now.
Why is this a problem? It is a free market. Shouldn't devs be free to pursue whatever audience they want?
Secondly, making MMOs into SP games is not dumbing down. Many SP games have deeper mechanics than MMOs.
Lastly, as i said before, i am not here to change MMOs ... it is the opposite. I am here BECAUSE MMOs are changing to more of my liking.
I absolutely don't agree. The player marketplace is not the same today as it was back then. People need to stop pretending that it is. As soon as MMOs went mainstream, the old-school players were completely dwarfed by the incoming mainstream playerbase. There just aren't enough old-school players to make that kind of game financially viable anymore.
The genie is out of the bottle, it's never going to go back in, no matter how many people wish it would happen.
Agreed. Though I would argue that if any new MMO that wishes any degree of success (and they all do, realistically speaking), then the future is to cater to more niche markets and make the game P2P. The poster child for this type of success is still EVE, imo. Yes, they have mainstreamed to some degree, but at it's foundation it's still catering to a hardcore niche market. Marc Jacobs seems to be going this route, which looks like so far will be the correct decision. ESO, on the other hand and even though being P2P, is trying to be all things to all people (the proverbial WoW mentality) and will unltimately fail, again imo, but all signs are pointing to true SWTOR failure - big budget, disregard to what made the IP popular in the first place, WoW inspired, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Why? There aren't enough people in most niche markets to make much money. If 1% of the overall market is more than 100% of the niche market, what would be their impetus to go for the niche? If they want to go PvP, why not just go FPS, which is a much more successful genre?
Why? There aren't enough people in most niche markets to make much money. If 1% of the overall market is more than 100% of the niche market, what would be their impetus to go for the niche? If they want to go PvP, why not just go FPS, which is a much more successful genre?
Most companies look at ROI, instead of absolute revenue/profit when they make investment decisions.
So niche is certainly reasonable for many genre of games because the required investment is low. You can make a puzzle game on a 2-man team. That is why the indie gaming scene flourishes after the barrier to sell (i.e. retail channel) is destroyed by online distribution.
MMO, however, has a minimum level of investment. You need to create enough content, and maintain servers. That cannot be done cheaply, and hence the minimum required size of an audience is much larger than other genre of games.
I would not expect to see lots of indie MMOs. May be Chris Robert can do it, because he can raise $20M. But how many indie guys can do that?
The problem being that these multitudes of people don't actually want to play an MMO, they want a single player game with a large amount of content. It's actually been stated on the solo vs group play thread multiple times from multiple people; most soloers are playing these games due to the large content and regular updates, not for the multiplayer aspects. The perfect example from this thread is quoted by narrius': "I don't really care what devs want me to do. If they don't want me to solo through content and leave, don't make it possible. If they make it possible, i will take advantage of it.".
So the developers who have started catering to these multitudes of people have actually dumbed down and altered the genre to the point where it now, does indeed, resemble a single player game. Combat is easy to where you can solo multiple mobs at a time, quests are meant to be done solo, and dungeons are such a rarity that they're seen perhaps once every 10 or so levels. Raids exist but they're at the end of the game, where the solo players can then leave and let the MMO players get on with it.
And yet these people want more; they want the same loot as people who run dungeons and raids, they want to be able to solo the boss of a raid, they basically want a massive single player game. These aren't people who want an MMORPG, they're people looking for a single player game, and in the process that 'niche group' of people who actually DO want an MMORPG are being pushed further and further aside until the genre we came into looks completely different to the one we're in now.
Why is this a problem? It is a free market. Shouldn't devs be free to pursue whatever audience they want?
Secondly, making MMOs into SP games is not dumbing down. Many SP games have deeper mechanics than MMOs.
Lastly, as i said before, i am not here to change MMOs ... it is the opposite. I am here BECAUSE MMOs are changing to more of my liking.
Nari.. the problem is from where I sit, is that the genre is saturated with games.. There are not enough customers to go around, and why we see more and more F2P games with limited content.. It's the only way to be profitable.. We all know you are like a locus of F2P games and consume all you want.. However, have you ever thought of, or considered what your fellow games might enjoy? Are you the type of person that constantly yells for more hamburger cafes in your neighborhood, even tho you are already saturated with them, while people that prefer seafood and chicken go hungry? Isn't that rather selfish?
I'm wondering.. are you capable of championing another cause that isn't your private agenda.. or is everyone out for themselves.. And if that is the case why do you often get defensive when others voice their preference? Just curious.. Example is that I'm not a PvP fan, but I will always ask for and back up those that do for THEIR benefit as well.. Variety is a good thing
Nari.. the problem is from where I sit, is that the genre is saturated with games.. There are not enough customers to go around, and why we see more and more F2P games with limited content.. It's the only way to be profitable.. We all know you are like a locus of F2P games and consume all you want.. However, have you ever thought of, or considered what your fellow games might enjoy? Are you the type of person that constantly yells for more hamburger cafes in your neighborhood, even tho you are already saturated with them, while people that prefer seafood and chicken go hungry? Isn't that rather selfish?
I'm wondering.. are you capable of championing another cause that isn't your private agenda.. or is everyone out for themselves.. And if that is the case why do you often get defensive when others voice their preference? Just curious.. Example is that I'm not a PvP fan, but I will always ask for and back up those that do for THEIR benefit as well.. Variety is a good thing
"consider what your fellow gamers might enjoy" ... sure. How can i not be considering that when many different preferences are being championed here daily?
"are you capable of championing another cause that isn't your private agenda"? Of course not. I can't champion anyone's else cause with conviction. I am not playing games for other people's fun. i am only doing it for mine. In fact, "champion" is not the right word. I don't champion anything. i have enough games to play. If MMOs are not trying to cater to me, i won't even be here. I don't need them to change. It seems that they are trying very hard to get me to become a customer. It is more like having some fun expressing myself here, and comment on the state of the market.
"why do you often get defensive when others voice their preference?" I don't think so. I fully acknowledge other preferences, and state mine as such, not the "truth" of gaming, unlike some others. Having said that, people are waving their preferences here all day (perma-death, pvp, ....), i don't see why i should not do the same. I have as much right to express my preference, as others.
Yes, variety is a good thing. In fact, the genre is saturated with games ... shows variety .. and hence a good thing.
Originally posted by Jairoe03 Originally posted by DrCokePepsi As for this, I could reply with my last answer, I myself am not the grand bookkeeper of game genre parameters, and could simply reword my last response to try and reflect my views, but I myself understand that the MMORPG genre is being wrecked because It's category/genre defining standpoints have been blurred beyond recognition. I'll recite how the genre should be about exploring a living world and creating another version of yourself in a game to experience the community and explore the world with that community is the general definition of the genre, give or take minor/ medium quantities of change and revolution(all this i mentioned in my original post), but what it has become now is just a poor example of greed in society by the developers and the unfortunate collapse of the genre due to the casual player base claiming their territory in our land. // And as for this, Categories my friend. Categories, sub-categories, things have to be classified as something, calling football NOT a genre and then saying it's just governed by sports is incorrect, as football itself is a category (genre) of sports. This is what has happened to gaming, instead of having different sports, the MMORPG's individual category under 'sports' has been blurred to the point where it has just become a generalization of all sports rather than it's own. and of course i called an MMORPG a sport as an example it is clearly not a sport, this goes to whatever wise-ass who would have pointed this out
So in regards to your first post, you answer the question of what made you the authority actually what defines MMO should be by not actually answering the question. No where in your posts states why your opinion is so highly placed above others (with no real justification), its just your opinion stated over and over again without any supporting argument. It's kind of the meat of debates is the argument (which you have) and the support (which you don't have). There's no basis listed to why MMO's should be the way you stated aside from the fact that you said so. I'll take your lack of answering my question not once but twice as concession to the fact that all of this is purely opinion and what you state isn't fact despite you trying to present it as "fact".
The misperception of greed btw is also derived out of lack of understanding of basic economics, which I'll forgive you for but shouldn't be grounds on your own perceived "destruction of a genre" which is actually flourishing and expanding ever further.
In your regards to your second argument in how genre is actually defined within the video game realm just presents ignorance. Like a politician, your arguing in pure semantics when I merely pointed out an obvious flaw in the poster's argument. The analogy wasn't applied correctly because it wasn't exemplifying a whole genre being redefined. Answer me one question, what genre does NFL Blitz or NBA Jam fall under? It changes rules and doesn't follow the same premise as actual football or basketball but yet its still covered under the same category and genre...sports.
There isn't a football management genre or football genre, otherwise it'll be a genre categorizing literally 3-5 games. I want to think genre is a bit more encompassing than that. Even the sports genre within video games doesn't cover that many games compared to RPG, Action or FPS. So again, the application of that poster's analogy was just wrong and doesn't properly support the argument. Just pointing out a fallacy within the actual logic itself. And quite obviously you have no idea or at least didn't maintain perspective on what I was posting so why respond (to that post) anyway when you totally took it outside of its perspective.
So you just don't understand or see my point and keep reasking the same question though I give you an answer every time? I have plenty of explanation and reasoning to back it up, you simply have to read and try to understand what I'm saying. I'm not going to repeat myself to have you ask again.
And quite simply actually 'NFL' blitz would be designated under football videogame... NBA under basketball? People who like a specific sport wont just walk into Gamestop and ask for a sports videogame. They would want a football or basketball game. MMORPG players don't just want a videogame, they're looking for a specific experience WHICH INCLUDES (here i will repeat myself for the umpteenth time) massive world to explore, skills or attributes to increase to develop your character however you would like, community interactions needed to prevent the game from being played just solely, and the freedom to do what you want. The ability to live out an adventure.
Not some single-player game with other people in your world.
MMORPG's used to be a thing now the word has to be strictly defined or people don't know what they should be.
And I'm not overlooking your posts at all, I actually answer it point by point, it seems to me that you've just thumbed through my posts quickly only to repeat yourself.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here.... just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio. Thank you for your patience.
Originally posted by DrCokePepsi So you just don't understand or see my point and keep reasking the same question though I give you an answer every time? I have plenty of explanation and reasoning to back it up, you simply have to read and try to understand what I'm saying. I'm not going to repeat myself to have you ask again.And quite simply actually 'NFL' blitz would be designated under football videogame... NBA under basketball? People who like a specific sport wont just walk into Gamestop and ask for a sports videogame. They would want a football or basketball game. MMORPG players don't just want a videogame, they're looking for a specific experience WHICH INCLUDES (here i will repeat myself for the umpteenth time) massive world to explore, skills or attributes to increase to develop your character however you would like, community interactions needed to prevent the game from being played just solely, and the freedom to do what you want. The ability to live out an adventure. Not some single-player game with other people in your world.MMORPG's used to be a thing now the word has to be strictly defined or people don't know what they should be.And I'm not overlooking your posts at all, I actually answer it point by point, it seems to me that you've just thumbed through my posts quickly only to repeat yourself.
Well I don't see any support to your argument and I wouldn't be able to post such lengthy responses if I wasn't reading your posts. Simply stating well "this is what MMO players want" is not a support to an argument, that is your own opinion of what YOU think MMO players and the MMO industry should have. There are zero grounds in support to why does an MMO HAVE to be this way or why can't it work the other way? Where is the support for the actual MMO genre being "destroyed" or "declined"? Who's considered an MMO player and who isn't (since you are so adamant at making that distinction that these "non-MMO players" are destroying what you think is YOUR genre when it fact is more like their genre at this point. Again, all you have provided is opinion with little justification to back it up besides "because you said so" justifications
In regards to you not differentiating between a genre of video games and games that fit under a genre I feel like is a lost cause for me to further try and explain to you. If you don't even understand what a genre is within the video game industry then you will never grasp the logic I was trying to explain in my previous post (when I felt a poster's logic was wrong).
If you think football or basketball is an actual genre of video games so be it. I could care less at this point, just help me find the football genre section in my steam please because I been looking for a good football video game. Maybe it's listed under sports....
Peeked into this thread to see how it was going and read one post. I shant read any further because I don't think it can get any better than this.
"The MMORPG genre is changing due to the larger population, not into a unique genre unlike any other, but it's molding into other genres simply because nobody enjoys specifically MMOs anymore." - DrCokePepsi
"The majority of MMO players now adays are people who don't understand what the genre was meant to be and who cry out on forums like these that these MMOs should be more like their games, completely diminishing the experience that MMO players used to enjoy." - DrCokePepsi
"...instead of catering to that niche group the developers just cater to the entire gaming genre completely removing what defines MMOs." - DrCokePepsi
Instead of not playing MMOs, people nowadays feel like they have the right to just clusterf**k into our genre with a mob of people into entirely different genres and have these games revolve around them." - DrCokePepsi
"Not every gamer HAS to enjoy MMORPG's if you dont like them, dont play them." - DrCokePepsi
"No where in your posts states why your opinion is so highly placed above others (with no real justification), its just your opinion stated over and over again without any supporting argument. " - Jairoe3
"It's not an opinion." - DrCokePepsi
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
"Not every gamer HAS to enjoy MMORPG's if you dont like them, dont play them." - DrCokePepsi
That actually is good advice.
So people who don't like non-massive, solo-able gameply don't have to play modern MMOs. As far as i am concern, i like to solo through story content like that in Marvel Heroes, and i will play it because i like it and can have fun.
I tried those games early on and the graphics were so bad that i preferred to stick to fps games instead.I don't care what anyone tries to tell me about gameplay>graphics,i am playing video games ,the word VIDEO does not mean gameplay,it means VISUALS.
So since the rpg genres back then offered average game play and poor graphics,i decided the much better game play was in fps and or single players games.
The first time i really got interested in a MMORPG was when FFXI came out,before that i was playing tons of single player,Unreal,UT99,Quake ,Doom ect ect.
SWG was simply horrid looking,it gave the term pixel a bad name,it as so bad i logged out the first day and vowed to never go back.IMO you cannot have fun if everything in a video presentation is poor to the eye.It is the equivalent of going to watch a really great movie then it turns out to be Black n White.You still have that great acting great movie design but yes those visuals do matter and a lot.
After my initial seize on FFXI,EQ2 really set the industry forward,by far the best graphics and lighting of any MMORPG,i enjoyed it a lot and played for about 2 years straight.Since then i have seen glimpses of good game design but not much game breaking,Vanguard,AOC and now FFXIV with yet even better graphics.
Honestly people that say game play matters are lying because a very high majority are all playing every single game the Exact same way,trying to speed level to end game.So if game play is so great why the rush?You don't go to your favorite ride at a carnival and ask if they can speed up the ride so it is over in 30 seconds.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I absolutely don't agree. The player marketplace is not the same today as it was back then. People need to stop pretending that it is. As soon as MMOs went mainstream, the old-school players were completely dwarfed by the incoming mainstream playerbase. There just aren't enough old-school players to make that kind of game financially viable anymore.
The genie is out of the bottle, it's never going to go back in, no matter how many people wish it would happen.
The proof is in the last few years of MMOs, look at the failure
You are wrong, the marketplace hasn't changed that much, its the devs that tried to be too greedy
The old school players are the only ones that can keep the genre going
Yes let's look at the last few years till now. WOW is still the mmo king with record revenue. Fun fact: their revenue went up while their subs went down to 'only' 7.4 million.
GW2 still making millions.
Lotro ddo all ticking along. RIFT going f2p and vastly increasing their profits.
I don't think you are remembering the last few years properly.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Characters build on offensive/defensive/spellcasting skill levels with abilities based on how high each one was. This left you with 10+ different builds on each class, before runes. Runes spawned off of rare spawn mobs, some gave you new abilities (basically subclasses, you could have up to 3) and some gave you higher stat caps( between +5 to +40). The combinations were endless and all of them unique.
They have real stealth which only the scout class could reveal, thieves could steal from your inventory.
You built your own cities literally plan by plan, including merchants(which is where crafting was done, you had to level them and give them resources too), banks, walls, GUARDS (all different types and could set their aggression and pathing).
All in open world PVP. The resources to make the best items were all contested nodes that only one guild could control at a time.
They built a world , put tons of valuables spread throughout it, then made us all fight over it. Even location on the map was important. I remember trying to siege cities build on islands.
It's literally everything people QQ about never having in a game anymore. Went F2P in like 2006 and was overrun by chinese. You would show up to a siege with 50 people but they would have 300.
I wasn't going to even post, but I loved Shadowbane. I thought Rune hunting was a great amount of fun, it was an adventure in itself.
I also liked crafting and running my own store in game. It was a blast.
As to the post, I think many of the things older games did well, could still be replicated in new games.
-Everything doesn't have to be brand new and unheard of.
-WoW stole everyones ideas and implemented them....and did very well because of it.
I find it funny that people really get on some of the old tymers for not accepting change when the genre itself is one of little change and uniformity. Most MMORPG's are still styled after a game that's 8 years old. I feel like I'm the one pushing for change thats ignored by industry that push out formulated MMORPG.
The ability to give away games means that we don't really have the natural failure rate we had in the past because the cash shop is more important that game play these days to profitablity of the genre. I would still put my money on a game with older principled MMORPG's that's updated with modern polish over any single player game style MMORPG/WoW Clone/Quest Hub grinder if success and failure relied on all subscribers paying their share of the pay.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal I find it funny that people really get on some of the old tymers for not accepting change when the genre itself is one of little change and uniformity. Most MMORPG's are still styled after a game that's 8 years old. I feel like I'm the one pushing for change thats ignored by industry that push out formulated MMORPG.
The ability to give away games means that we don't really have the natural failure rate we had in the past because the cash shop is more important that game play these days to profitablity of the genre. I would still put my money on a game with older principled MMORPG's that's updated with modern polish over any single player game style MMORPG/WoW Clone/Quest Hub grinder if success and failure relied on all subscribers paying their share of the pay.
The failure of being able to distinguish older games from the newer ones does not mean there hasn't been change. It's just people's own ignorance and lack of willingness to accept that change has existed. Tell me how much "changed" has occurred in FPS, RPG's or any other genre and I can generalize the same as the next person that thinks the genre is on a downward spiral.
And what are you talking about being able to give away games and not having a natural failure rate? There have been many MMO's that had to shut down and its by no means low budget to develop or maintain. The probability of failure is arguably much higher in MMO's than any other genre which solely have to base their success/failure on retail sales. MMO's have much more to lose because of the constant overhead that they are paying to even provide the service. Online services in most other genre pale in comparison to what MMO's have to bring because the crux of the genre revolves around online whereas its not nearly as important in others.
It just shows, people with negative outlooks will maintain negative outlooks despite what "reality" actually presents or other details and points brought up. My bets are that about 75% of the people that have a pessimistic outlook will ignore all the points brought up in this post. It's okay though because having a better outlook on the genre means I just enjoy it that much more than the pessimists that most likely aren't even currently playing an MMO. Keep hiding behind the whole "non MMO players" are bringing it down b.s.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal I find it funny that people really get on some of the old tymers for not accepting change when the genre itself is one of little change and uniformity. Most MMORPG's are still styled after a game that's 8 years old. I feel like I'm the one pushing for change thats ignored by industry that push out formulated MMORPG. The ability to give away games means that we don't really have the natural failure rate we had in the past because the cash shop is more important that game play these days to profitablity of the genre. I would still put my money on a game with older principled MMORPG's that's updated with modern polish over any single player game style MMORPG/WoW Clone/Quest Hub grinder if success and failure relied on all subscribers paying their share of the pay.
The failure of being able to distinguish older games from the newer ones does not mean there hasn't been change. It's just people's own ignorance and lack of willingness to accept that change has existed. Tell me how much "changed" has occurred in FPS, RPG's or any other genre and I can generalize the same as the next person that thinks the genre is on a downward spiral.
And what are you talking about being able to give away games and not having a natural failure rate? There have been many MMO's that had to shut down and its by no means low budget to develop or maintain. The probability of failure is arguably much higher in MMO's than any other genre which solely have to base their success/failure on retail sales. MMO's have much more to lose because of the constant overhead that they are paying to even provide the service. Online services in most other genre pale in comparison to what MMO's have to bring because the crux of the genre revolves around online whereas its not nearly as important in others.
It just shows, people with negative outlooks will maintain negative outlooks despite what "reality" actually presents or other details and points brought up. My bets are that about 75% of the people that have a pessimistic outlook will ignore all the points brought up in this post. It's okay though because having a better outlook on the genre means I just enjoy it that much more than the pessimists that most likely aren't even currently playing an MMO. Keep hiding behind the whole "non MMO players" are bringing it down b.s.
There has been has been very little change in the genre in the AAA mainstream besides making games less challenging and more single player like. I can see the differences in the game lore and maybe a few wrinkles but the core game is the same. The difference between FPS and MMORPGs is that there is a narrower definition of what a FPS is vs. the vast range of an RPG presentation. Even within that range I would say FPS are more diverse despite COD flood.
I don't blame players for what has happened. I don't blame WoW for doing what they do. I think you miss the point of my post. Its I am tired of people telling those who want progress from a branch of MMORPGs outside of WoW styled or quest hub exclusive games that bring back some aspects lost we're out of touch with the current market.
The current market trends is not based on success or hard evidence of what players want. The market trend is based on emulation of success of another game with very little options of diverse quality choices. Even then just about every game that emulated failed until they were forced to gave it away while many older games ran strong. How do these people know what MMORPG gamers will accept or want when a majority if not all AAA games are some sort of emulation of a single branch of MMORPG?
There has been has been very little change in the genre in the AAA mainstream besides making games less challenging and more single player like. I can see the differences in the game lore and maybe a few wrinkles but the core game is the same. The difference between FPS and MMORPGs is that there is a narrower definition of what a FPS is vs. the vast range of an RPG presentation. Even within that range I would say FPS are more diverse despite COD flood. I don't blame players for what has happened. I don't blame WoW for doing what they do. I think you miss the point of my post. Its I am tired of people telling those who want progress from a branch of MMORPGs outside of WoW styled or quest hub exclusive games that bring back some aspects lost we're out of touch with the current market. The current market trends is not based on success or hard evidence of what players want. The market trend is based on emulation of success of another game with very little options of diverse quality choices. Even then just about every game that emulated failed until they were forced to gave it away while many older games ran strong. How do these people know what MMORPG gamers will accept or want when a majority if not all AAA games are some sort of emulation of a single branch of MMORPG?
What you call 'progress' is not what I would classify as 'progress'.
I don't recall the pre-WoW age as something even close to 'progress'.
Me shunning MMORPG players cause they were considered 'not normal' by the general society is not 'progress'.
Giving me a character with no story to follow isn't what I would say is progress (you might view this differently).
If you want to go back to the 'blank paper with pencil' age, you go ahead.
Just don't be surprised if the vast majority of people would rather read a story than write one.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal There has been has been very little change in the genre in the AAA mainstream besides making games less challenging and more single player like. I can see the differences in the game lore and maybe a few wrinkles but the core game is the same. The difference between FPS and MMORPGs is that there is a narrower definition of what a FPS is vs. the vast range of an RPG presentation. Even within that range I would say FPS are more diverse despite COD flood. I don't blame players for what has happened. I don't blame WoW for doing what they do. I think you miss the point of my post. Its I am tired of people telling those who want progress from a branch of MMORPGs outside of WoW styled or quest hub exclusive games that bring back some aspects lost we're out of touch with the current market. The current market trends is not based on success or hard evidence of what players want. The market trend is based on emulation of success of another game with very little options of diverse quality choices. Even then just about every game that emulated failed until they were forced to gave it away while many older games ran strong. How do these people know what MMORPG gamers will accept or want when a majority if not all AAA games are some sort of emulation of a single branch of MMORPG?
Well the I see an issue with the first part of an argument where you compared the narrow scope of what defines an FPS and compared to the scope of RPG presentation, two entirely different things. The gameplay among RPG's is more or less the same very much like FPS. You can simply break down an MMO into individual pieces and every MMO has it in some shape or form: Combat, Economy, Social. Every MMO has a class or job you fill, some more rigid others more loose but the idea is still there, you fight, craft, explore your way to the top. Economy loosely ties people together through their resources and social organization generally done through various chat channels and guild systems.
There's really not much more to an MMO besides that. An FPS can be broken down into basic parts too and I don't truly see FPS as more narrow as any other genre including MMO's. If MMO's was as encompassing as you say, there wouldn't be a way to categorize these games under MMO's. The purpose of categorizing would lose a bit of meaning if MMO's were meant to be drastically different from each other. It would be hard to communicate the concepts and thoughts of MMO and make sure everyone is on the same page.
In regards to genre being the same I also disagree because playing Guild Wars 2 feels and plays different from WoW and different from FFXIV and different from Darkfall etc. etc. The subtleties are in class organization, combat systems, economy/crafting, group dynamics/activities etc. I guess the inclusion of Events that requires a loose coordination of random players working together wasn't innovation or the different ways some games chose to approach crafting wasn't progress. How about the way EVE Online flipped the Auction House idea on its head by creating local markets and buy/sell orders (which Guild Wars 2 ripped). These are few of the changes that occurred through out the years so I completely disagree with MMO's "not changing" or a "lack of progress".
I just think some MMO players or maybe I should say MMO dreamers (because I doubt half the pessimists even play MMO's in the first place) are just expecting their "dream MMO" to be created by the developers without lifting a finger themselves aside from the constant complaints about the genre in forums like these. Unfortunately that will never happen for most because everyone's ideal MMO differs drastically from each other. Just watch Sword Art Online and keep dreaming/waiting.
Originally posted by jpnz Yes let's look at the last few years till now. WOW is still the mmo king with record revenue. Fun fact: their revenue went up while their subs went down to 'only' 7.4 million.
GW2 still making millions.
Lotro ddo all ticking along. RIFT going f2p and vastly increasing their profits.
I don't think you are remembering the last few years properly.
Those games are old, not from the last few years....lol... except rift, which also bombed
How about SWTOR, TERA, TSW and Rift, they all bombed hard. Im sure there are a few more, but the point is clear
All those games were basically made for cash shop trade, basically we were paying for only part of a game. If you wanted more you had to pay a little at a time. That's the greed, and it killed the genre
Profits compared to what? Selling hot dogs on the street?
hello? logic? anyone there?
Keep on dodging all the questions there.
Really showing everyone that you know what's what.
I can't believe that someone actually think non-wow-clones make more money than wow-clones.
I mean... really? really?
What are you rambling about? What questions?
Anyway, heres a tidbit on the "profits" of GW2
"North America's share fell from 25 per cent to 13 per cent, while Europe fell from 18 per cent to 8 per cent. The company's biggest seller for Q1 2013 was Lineage 1, but Guild Wars 2 still maintained a 21 per cent share."
I don't dislike GW2, but it was never set up to be an MMO like the old days, just another gimmick to make as much money as they can with the cash shop
Comments
EDIT: I was actually trying to attach to this to the post above, sorry for two posts. Let's try to keep this thread cleaner.
I don't mind subscriptions, I just would like to be subscribed to something new, preferably something new that didn't revolve around an exploitable market society.
All the P2P games available right now are hyper-casual and extremely safe and boring in terms of game design.
Honestly with each day that passes I lean more and more towards free to play mmos because I can actually find new games, games with developers that are willing to try new things.
Why is this a problem? It is a free market. Shouldn't devs be free to pursue whatever audience they want?
Secondly, making MMOs into SP games is not dumbing down. Many SP games have deeper mechanics than MMOs.
Lastly, as i said before, i am not here to change MMOs ... it is the opposite. I am here BECAUSE MMOs are changing to more of my liking.
Why? There aren't enough people in most niche markets to make much money. If 1% of the overall market is more than 100% of the niche market, what would be their impetus to go for the niche? If they want to go PvP, why not just go FPS, which is a much more successful genre?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Most companies look at ROI, instead of absolute revenue/profit when they make investment decisions.
So niche is certainly reasonable for many genre of games because the required investment is low. You can make a puzzle game on a 2-man team. That is why the indie gaming scene flourishes after the barrier to sell (i.e. retail channel) is destroyed by online distribution.
MMO, however, has a minimum level of investment. You need to create enough content, and maintain servers. That cannot be done cheaply, and hence the minimum required size of an audience is much larger than other genre of games.
I would not expect to see lots of indie MMOs. May be Chris Robert can do it, because he can raise $20M. But how many indie guys can do that?
Nari.. the problem is from where I sit, is that the genre is saturated with games.. There are not enough customers to go around, and why we see more and more F2P games with limited content.. It's the only way to be profitable.. We all know you are like a locus of F2P games and consume all you want.. However, have you ever thought of, or considered what your fellow games might enjoy? Are you the type of person that constantly yells for more hamburger cafes in your neighborhood, even tho you are already saturated with them, while people that prefer seafood and chicken go hungry? Isn't that rather selfish?
I'm wondering.. are you capable of championing another cause that isn't your private agenda.. or is everyone out for themselves.. And if that is the case why do you often get defensive when others voice their preference? Just curious.. Example is that I'm not a PvP fan, but I will always ask for and back up those that do for THEIR benefit as well.. Variety is a good thing
"consider what your fellow gamers might enjoy" ... sure. How can i not be considering that when many different preferences are being championed here daily?
"are you capable of championing another cause that isn't your private agenda"? Of course not. I can't champion anyone's else cause with conviction. I am not playing games for other people's fun. i am only doing it for mine. In fact, "champion" is not the right word. I don't champion anything. i have enough games to play. If MMOs are not trying to cater to me, i won't even be here. I don't need them to change. It seems that they are trying very hard to get me to become a customer. It is more like having some fun expressing myself here, and comment on the state of the market.
"why do you often get defensive when others voice their preference?" I don't think so. I fully acknowledge other preferences, and state mine as such, not the "truth" of gaming, unlike some others. Having said that, people are waving their preferences here all day (perma-death, pvp, ....), i don't see why i should not do the same. I have as much right to express my preference, as others.
Yes, variety is a good thing. In fact, the genre is saturated with games ... shows variety .. and hence a good thing.
So in regards to your first post, you answer the question of what made you the authority actually what defines MMO should be by not actually answering the question. No where in your posts states why your opinion is so highly placed above others (with no real justification), its just your opinion stated over and over again without any supporting argument. It's kind of the meat of debates is the argument (which you have) and the support (which you don't have). There's no basis listed to why MMO's should be the way you stated aside from the fact that you said so. I'll take your lack of answering my question not once but twice as concession to the fact that all of this is purely opinion and what you state isn't fact despite you trying to present it as "fact".
The misperception of greed btw is also derived out of lack of understanding of basic economics, which I'll forgive you for but shouldn't be grounds on your own perceived "destruction of a genre" which is actually flourishing and expanding ever further.
In your regards to your second argument in how genre is actually defined within the video game realm just presents ignorance. Like a politician, your arguing in pure semantics when I merely pointed out an obvious flaw in the poster's argument. The analogy wasn't applied correctly because it wasn't exemplifying a whole genre being redefined. Answer me one question, what genre does NFL Blitz or NBA Jam fall under? It changes rules and doesn't follow the same premise as actual football or basketball but yet its still covered under the same category and genre...sports.
There isn't a football management genre or football genre, otherwise it'll be a genre categorizing literally 3-5 games. I want to think genre is a bit more encompassing than that. Even the sports genre within video games doesn't cover that many games compared to RPG, Action or FPS. So again, the application of that poster's analogy was just wrong and doesn't properly support the argument. Just pointing out a fallacy within the actual logic itself. And quite obviously you have no idea or at least didn't maintain perspective on what I was posting so why respond (to that post) anyway when you totally took it outside of its perspective.
So you just don't understand or see my point and keep reasking the same question though I give you an answer every time? I have plenty of explanation and reasoning to back it up, you simply have to read and try to understand what I'm saying. I'm not going to repeat myself to have you ask again.
And quite simply actually 'NFL' blitz would be designated under football videogame... NBA under basketball? People who like a specific sport wont just walk into Gamestop and ask for a sports videogame. They would want a football or basketball game. MMORPG players don't just want a videogame, they're looking for a specific experience WHICH INCLUDES (here i will repeat myself for the umpteenth time) massive world to explore, skills or attributes to increase to develop your character however you would like, community interactions needed to prevent the game from being played just solely, and the freedom to do what you want. The ability to live out an adventure.
Not some single-player game with other people in your world.
MMORPG's used to be a thing now the word has to be strictly defined or people don't know what they should be.
And I'm not overlooking your posts at all, I actually answer it point by point, it seems to me that you've just thumbed through my posts quickly only to repeat yourself.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here....
just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development
and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio.
Thank you for your patience.
Well I don't see any support to your argument and I wouldn't be able to post such lengthy responses if I wasn't reading your posts. Simply stating well "this is what MMO players want" is not a support to an argument, that is your own opinion of what YOU think MMO players and the MMO industry should have. There are zero grounds in support to why does an MMO HAVE to be this way or why can't it work the other way? Where is the support for the actual MMO genre being "destroyed" or "declined"? Who's considered an MMO player and who isn't (since you are so adamant at making that distinction that these "non-MMO players" are destroying what you think is YOUR genre when it fact is more like their genre at this point. Again, all you have provided is opinion with little justification to back it up besides "because you said so" justifications
In regards to you not differentiating between a genre of video games and games that fit under a genre I feel like is a lost cause for me to further try and explain to you. If you don't even understand what a genre is within the video game industry then you will never grasp the logic I was trying to explain in my previous post (when I felt a poster's logic was wrong).
If you think football or basketball is an actual genre of video games so be it. I could care less at this point, just help me find the football genre section in my steam please because I been looking for a good football video game. Maybe it's listed under sports....
Peeked into this thread to see how it was going and read one post. I shant read any further because I don't think it can get any better than this.
"The MMORPG genre is changing due to the larger population, not into a unique genre unlike any other, but it's molding into other genres simply because nobody enjoys specifically MMOs anymore." - DrCokePepsi
"The majority of MMO players now adays are people who don't understand what the genre was meant to be and who cry out on forums like these that these MMOs should be more like their games, completely diminishing the experience that MMO players used to enjoy." - DrCokePepsi
"...instead of catering to that niche group the developers just cater to the entire gaming genre completely removing what defines MMOs." - DrCokePepsi
Instead of not playing MMOs, people nowadays feel like they have the right to just clusterf**k into our genre with a mob of people into entirely different genres and have these games revolve around them." - DrCokePepsi
"Not every gamer HAS to enjoy MMORPG's if you dont like them, dont play them." - DrCokePepsi
"No where in your posts states why your opinion is so highly placed above others (with no real justification), its just your opinion stated over and over again without any supporting argument. " - Jairoe3
"It's not an opinion." - DrCokePepsi
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
That actually is good advice.
So people who don't like non-massive, solo-able gameply don't have to play modern MMOs. As far as i am concern, i like to solo through story content like that in Marvel Heroes, and i will play it because i like it and can have fun.
I tried those games early on and the graphics were so bad that i preferred to stick to fps games instead.I don't care what anyone tries to tell me about gameplay>graphics,i am playing video games ,the word VIDEO does not mean gameplay,it means VISUALS.
So since the rpg genres back then offered average game play and poor graphics,i decided the much better game play was in fps and or single players games.
The first time i really got interested in a MMORPG was when FFXI came out,before that i was playing tons of single player,Unreal,UT99,Quake ,Doom ect ect.
SWG was simply horrid looking,it gave the term pixel a bad name,it as so bad i logged out the first day and vowed to never go back.IMO you cannot have fun if everything in a video presentation is poor to the eye.It is the equivalent of going to watch a really great movie then it turns out to be Black n White.You still have that great acting great movie design but yes those visuals do matter and a lot.
After my initial seize on FFXI,EQ2 really set the industry forward,by far the best graphics and lighting of any MMORPG,i enjoyed it a lot and played for about 2 years straight.Since then i have seen glimpses of good game design but not much game breaking,Vanguard,AOC and now FFXIV with yet even better graphics.
Honestly people that say game play matters are lying because a very high majority are all playing every single game the Exact same way,trying to speed level to end game.So if game play is so great why the rush?You don't go to your favorite ride at a carnival and ask if they can speed up the ride so it is over in 30 seconds.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The proof is in the last few years of MMOs, look at the failure
You are wrong, the marketplace hasn't changed that much, its the devs that tried to be too greedy
The old school players are the only ones that can keep the genre going
WOW is still the mmo king with record revenue. Fun fact: their revenue went up while their subs went down to 'only' 7.4 million.
GW2 still making millions.
Lotro ddo all ticking along.
RIFT going f2p and vastly increasing their profits.
I don't think you are remembering the last few years properly.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I wasn't going to even post, but I loved Shadowbane. I thought Rune hunting was a great amount of fun, it was an adventure in itself.
I also liked crafting and running my own store in game. It was a blast.
As to the post, I think many of the things older games did well, could still be replicated in new games.
-Everything doesn't have to be brand new and unheard of.
-WoW stole everyones ideas and implemented them....and did very well because of it.
I find it funny that people really get on some of the old tymers for not accepting change when the genre itself is one of little change and uniformity. Most MMORPG's are still styled after a game that's 8 years old. I feel like I'm the one pushing for change thats ignored by industry that push out formulated MMORPG.
The ability to give away games means that we don't really have the natural failure rate we had in the past because the cash shop is more important that game play these days to profitablity of the genre. I would still put my money on a game with older principled MMORPG's that's updated with modern polish over any single player game style MMORPG/WoW Clone/Quest Hub grinder if success and failure relied on all subscribers paying their share of the pay.
The failure of being able to distinguish older games from the newer ones does not mean there hasn't been change. It's just people's own ignorance and lack of willingness to accept that change has existed. Tell me how much "changed" has occurred in FPS, RPG's or any other genre and I can generalize the same as the next person that thinks the genre is on a downward spiral.
And what are you talking about being able to give away games and not having a natural failure rate? There have been many MMO's that had to shut down and its by no means low budget to develop or maintain. The probability of failure is arguably much higher in MMO's than any other genre which solely have to base their success/failure on retail sales. MMO's have much more to lose because of the constant overhead that they are paying to even provide the service. Online services in most other genre pale in comparison to what MMO's have to bring because the crux of the genre revolves around online whereas its not nearly as important in others.
It just shows, people with negative outlooks will maintain negative outlooks despite what "reality" actually presents or other details and points brought up. My bets are that about 75% of the people that have a pessimistic outlook will ignore all the points brought up in this post. It's okay though because having a better outlook on the genre means I just enjoy it that much more than the pessimists that most likely aren't even currently playing an MMO. Keep hiding behind the whole "non MMO players" are bringing it down b.s.
The failure of being able to distinguish older games from the newer ones does not mean there hasn't been change. It's just people's own ignorance and lack of willingness to accept that change has existed. Tell me how much "changed" has occurred in FPS, RPG's or any other genre and I can generalize the same as the next person that thinks the genre is on a downward spiral.
And what are you talking about being able to give away games and not having a natural failure rate? There have been many MMO's that had to shut down and its by no means low budget to develop or maintain. The probability of failure is arguably much higher in MMO's than any other genre which solely have to base their success/failure on retail sales. MMO's have much more to lose because of the constant overhead that they are paying to even provide the service. Online services in most other genre pale in comparison to what MMO's have to bring because the crux of the genre revolves around online whereas its not nearly as important in others.
It just shows, people with negative outlooks will maintain negative outlooks despite what "reality" actually presents or other details and points brought up. My bets are that about 75% of the people that have a pessimistic outlook will ignore all the points brought up in this post. It's okay though because having a better outlook on the genre means I just enjoy it that much more than the pessimists that most likely aren't even currently playing an MMO. Keep hiding behind the whole "non MMO players" are bringing it down b.s.
There has been has been very little change in the genre in the AAA mainstream besides making games less challenging and more single player like. I can see the differences in the game lore and maybe a few wrinkles but the core game is the same. The difference between FPS and MMORPGs is that there is a narrower definition of what a FPS is vs. the vast range of an RPG presentation. Even within that range I would say FPS are more diverse despite COD flood.
I don't blame players for what has happened. I don't blame WoW for doing what they do. I think you miss the point of my post. Its I am tired of people telling those who want progress from a branch of MMORPGs outside of WoW styled or quest hub exclusive games that bring back some aspects lost we're out of touch with the current market.
The current market trends is not based on success or hard evidence of what players want. The market trend is based on emulation of success of another game with very little options of diverse quality choices. Even then just about every game that emulated failed until they were forced to gave it away while many older games ran strong. How do these people know what MMORPG gamers will accept or want when a majority if not all AAA games are some sort of emulation of a single branch of MMORPG?
What you call 'progress' is not what I would classify as 'progress'.
I don't recall the pre-WoW age as something even close to 'progress'.
Me shunning MMORPG players cause they were considered 'not normal' by the general society is not 'progress'.
Giving me a character with no story to follow isn't what I would say is progress (you might view this differently).
If you want to go back to the 'blank paper with pencil' age, you go ahead.
Just don't be surprised if the vast majority of people would rather read a story than write one.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Well the I see an issue with the first part of an argument where you compared the narrow scope of what defines an FPS and compared to the scope of RPG presentation, two entirely different things. The gameplay among RPG's is more or less the same very much like FPS. You can simply break down an MMO into individual pieces and every MMO has it in some shape or form: Combat, Economy, Social. Every MMO has a class or job you fill, some more rigid others more loose but the idea is still there, you fight, craft, explore your way to the top. Economy loosely ties people together through their resources and social organization generally done through various chat channels and guild systems.
There's really not much more to an MMO besides that. An FPS can be broken down into basic parts too and I don't truly see FPS as more narrow as any other genre including MMO's. If MMO's was as encompassing as you say, there wouldn't be a way to categorize these games under MMO's. The purpose of categorizing would lose a bit of meaning if MMO's were meant to be drastically different from each other. It would be hard to communicate the concepts and thoughts of MMO and make sure everyone is on the same page.
In regards to genre being the same I also disagree because playing Guild Wars 2 feels and plays different from WoW and different from FFXIV and different from Darkfall etc. etc. The subtleties are in class organization, combat systems, economy/crafting, group dynamics/activities etc. I guess the inclusion of Events that requires a loose coordination of random players working together wasn't innovation or the different ways some games chose to approach crafting wasn't progress. How about the way EVE Online flipped the Auction House idea on its head by creating local markets and buy/sell orders (which Guild Wars 2 ripped). These are few of the changes that occurred through out the years so I completely disagree with MMO's "not changing" or a "lack of progress".
I just think some MMO players or maybe I should say MMO dreamers (because I doubt half the pessimists even play MMO's in the first place) are just expecting their "dream MMO" to be created by the developers without lifting a finger themselves aside from the constant complaints about the genre in forums like these. Unfortunately that will never happen for most because everyone's ideal MMO differs drastically from each other. Just watch Sword Art Online and keep dreaming/waiting.
Those games are old, not from the last few years....lol... except rift, which also bombed
How about SWTOR, TERA, TSW and Rift, they all bombed hard. Im sure there are a few more, but the point is clear
All those games were basically made for cash shop trade, basically we were paying for only part of a game. If you wanted more you had to pay a little at a time. That's the greed, and it killed the genre
Remember this, NOTHING in life is free
Clear that wow-clones make more money than non-wow-clones?
Yeah, RIFT bombed so hard after going F2P by vastly increasing their profits.... wait a min... LOLWUT?!
Umm... GW2?
hello? Logic? hello??!
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Profits compared to what? Selling hot dogs on the street?
hello? logic? anyone there?
Keep on dodging all the questions there.
Really showing everyone that you know what's what.
I can't believe that someone actually think non-wow-clones make more money than wow-clones.
I mean... really? really?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
What are you rambling about? What questions?
Anyway, heres a tidbit on the "profits" of GW2
"North America's share fell from 25 per cent to 13 per cent, while Europe fell from 18 per cent to 8 per cent. The company's biggest seller for Q1 2013 was Lineage 1, but Guild Wars 2 still maintained a 21 per cent share."
I don't dislike GW2, but it was never set up to be an MMO like the old days, just another gimmick to make as much money as they can with the cash shop