Let me rephrase then: what do you think you're proving or providing evidence for when you say that the mmo market is increasing?
I think "the market of games that have some features commonalities, and that share a large common audience which include traditional MMOs, MOBAs, and some other online games" is growing.
And btw, many industry market research firm call this market "the MMO market".
This is such a dishonest way of arguing and you have to know what you're doing here. The many arguments that go on around these forums are in regard to MMORPGs. Using numbers that include HUGE influences from games from a different genre is completely pointless. The games that you and the rest of the themepark crowd are defending are not... I repeat NOT LoL or any other MOBA.
How is it dishonest when i am clearing stating what the group includes?
BTW, i am not in the themepark crowd. I don't raid (not anymore).
I am in the solo-MMORPG camp .. and there is no crowd there.
And even this site lists MOBAs and D3 under "MMORPG Gamelist". So i am just using their definitions.
They just dont want to think "What if this casual model is the problem?
Problem of what?
I certainly don't have a problem finding games i like to play. This group of games certainly seem to be able to generate enough money for a lot of devs.
Sure, some people don't get their preferences, but no market serves every preferences.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
wait .. when did i disagree that "themepark games don't have longevity"? In fact, i stated many times that i play MMOs for short term and move on.
Translated in english, you certainly dont have a problem finding games you like to quit.
Like you just had xxx for five seconds and you moved on.
You found new hobby, it lasted 5 minutes and you moved on.
you found a new friend,it lasted 2 minutes and you moved on.
etc .
That doesnt really sound like fun.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Let me rephrase then: what do you think you're proving or providing evidence for when you say that the mmo market is increasing?
I think "the market of games that have some features commonalities, and that share a large common audience which include traditional MMOs, MOBAs, and some other online games" is growing.
And btw, many industry market research firm call this market "the MMO market".
This is such a dishonest way of arguing and you have to know what you're doing here. The many arguments that go on around these forums are in regard to MMORPGs. Using numbers that include HUGE influences from games from a different genre is completely pointless. The games that you and the rest of the themepark crowd are defending are not... I repeat NOT LoL or any other MOBA.
How is it dishonest when i am clearing stating what the group includes?
BTW, i am not in the themepark crowd. I don't raid (not anymore).
I am in the solo-MMORPG camp .. and there is no crowd there.
And even this site lists MOBAs and D3 under "MMORPG Gamelist". So i am just using their definitions.
Because you're clearly stating it now. When you guys throw these "facts" around, you do so in discussions that have NOTHING to do with MOBAs.
Originally posted by Holophonist So are any of the people who claim that MMOs have been increasing their playerbase as of lately going to speak to the possibility that those numbers may include MOBAs? I pointed that out a couple pages ago and it seems like everybody who was claiming that just kind of... stopped talking about it. If the MMO genre is increasing its playerbase largely thanks to MOBAs.... that doesn't really seem to help the argument that people want these modern easy, shallow themeparks.
I think the conclusion is that players don't want MMOs at all. MOBAs, instanced pvp games, even ARPGs all have bigger successes than MMOs recently.
I am going to disagree. I don't think the success or failure of recent MMORPG titles has to do with what players want. Rift, SWTOR, GW2, And now FF14 launched with massive numbers of players wanting a good MMO. The success or failure of all the recent MMO titles is because none have been properly designed and/or developed. (Jury is still out on ff14 being so new)
In other words, players want a good MMO, developers cant seem to deliver one.
Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Cephus404Originally posted by HolophonistDo you think developers should always give players exactly what they ask for? Or do you think some decisions are best left out of the hands of players?
Since the players pay the developer's salary and put food on their table, the customer is always right, even when they are wrong. I think the more accurate response would be that developers should give the players what they want, what they will buy, whether or not it's what they've asked for or what they are complaining about. The trick is creating what players want, whether they've asked for it or not. The trick is making a game that will make the maximum amount of money for the developer and garner the greatest amount of sales and enjoyment for as many customers as possible. It is catering to the largest playerbase available. It is not catering to the niche audiences who really don't make a bit of difference.
Well, this really depends on the developer and the company. For a small but successful developer, targeting that small audience might make sense, if they can scale down the development costs to the point that they can make money. The larger the developer is or the more expensive the development costs are for a particular project, the less likely it is they are going to go after those niche audiences.
I think it's the cost of development that's driving developers towards that broad appeal. It's just so expensive that targeting a niche audience won't make enough money to break even, much less profit. Unless a developer is really set on a particular style of game or game mechanics, they will adjust their game to appeal to more people so the game can thrive rather than just barely survive.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by HolophonistDo you think developers should always give players exactly what they ask for? Or do you think some decisions are best left out of the hands of players?
Since the players pay the developer's salary and put food on their table, the customer is always right, even when they are wrong.
I think the more accurate response would be that developers should give the players what they want, what they will buy, whether or not it's what they've asked for or what they are complaining about. The trick is creating what players want, whether they've asked for it or not.
The trick is making a game that will make the maximum amount of money for the developer and garner the greatest amount of sales and enjoyment for as many customers as possible. It is catering to the largest playerbase available. It is not catering to the niche audiences who really don't make a bit of difference.
Well, this really depends on the developer and the company. For a small but successful developer, targeting that small audience might make sense, if they can scale down the development costs to the point that they can make money. The larger the developer is or the more expensive the development costs are for a particular project, the less likely it is they are going to go after those niche audiences.
I think it's the cost of development that's driving developers towards that broad appeal. It's just so expensive that targeting a niche audience won't make enough money to break even, much less profit. Unless a developer is really set on a particular style of game or game mechanics, they will adjust their game to appeal to more people so the game can thrive rather than just barely survive.
And the point many of us are trying to make is that production costs have gotten so high because of the shift towards AAA themeparks with a strong emphasis on "content" instead of interesting persistent systems. Developers appealing to more and more players wasn't some necessity due to the increased cost of creating a game.
In other words, players want a good MMO, developers cant seem to deliver one.
You don't know if that is the case, or that players just want to sample some MMOs and go back to other genres afterwards. Or even just playing a little bit of MMO mixed with other types of games.
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
You never provided me with links earlier. You referenced narius's post and said something about a global collection report or something? Narius' link I THINK includes MOBAs, and that would make it entirely useless to the discussion.
You never provided me with links earlier. You referenced narius's post and said something about a global collection report or something? Narius' link I THINK includes MOBAs, and that would make it entirely useless to the discussion.
But you are talking about Lokto's link here... what's your point?
You never provided me with links earlier. You referenced narius's post and said something about a global collection report or something? Narius' link I THINK includes MOBAs, and that would make it entirely useless to the discussion.
But you are talking about Lokto's link here... what's your point?
I'm talking about exactly what I'm talking about.....? Are you his keeper?
You never provided me with links earlier. You referenced narius's post and said something about a global collection report or something? Narius' link I THINK includes MOBAs, and that would make it entirely useless to the discussion.
But you are talking about Lokto's link here... what's your point?
I'm talking about exactly what I'm talking about.....? Are you his keeper?
If you look at my post history, you will see that I'm definitely not. That doesn't stop me from being a mature adult able to admit when one of my former "opponents" (so to say) is right. I don't like the F2P model, but it's definitely making money. How and to whose expense is another story, of course.
You never provided me with links earlier. You referenced narius's post and said something about a global collection report or something? Narius' link I THINK includes MOBAs, and that would make it entirely useless to the discussion.
But you are talking about Lokto's link here... what's your point?
I'm talking about exactly what I'm talking about.....? Are you his keeper?
If you look at my post history, you will see that I'm definitely not. That doesn't stop me from being a mature adult able to admit when one of my former "opponents" (so to say) is right. I don't like the F2P model, but it's definitely making money. How and to whose expense is another story, of course.
Well in this particular case you're just misinformed. I'm referencing a conversation I had with him earlier in the thread.... that's why I said "earlier." So I'm not sure what you're saying he's "right" about, but it seems pretty irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
And the point many of us are trying to make is that production costs have gotten so high because of the shift towards AAA themeparks with a strong emphasis on "content" instead of interesting persistent systems. Developers appealing to more and more players wasn't some necessity due to the increased cost of creating a game.
But I think that's backwards. It's not that developers are spending so much money on their games that it requires a massive audience to pay for it all, developers want the maximum number of people to play, therefore they are spending a lot of money in development costs to make it as appealing to the largest group of people possible. It costs more to make games that are that inclusive because the developers have to do what their investors tell them to: make games that make the biggest possible return on investment.
In other words, players want a good MMO, developers cant seem to deliver one.
That's wrong, there are more people playing MMOs today than at any other time in the history of the genre. Developers are doing just fine. The problem is that *YOU* want a game that is niche and developers don't pay attention to the kind of game you want because it doesn't make them nearly enough money.
The problem isn't the developers. The problem is your tastes.
And the point many of us are trying to make is that production costs have gotten so high because of the shift towards AAA themeparks with a strong emphasis on "content" instead of interesting persistent systems. Developers appealing to more and more players wasn't some necessity due to the increased cost of creating a game.
But I think that's backwards. It's not that developers are spending so much money on their games that it requires a massive audience to pay for it all, developers want the maximum number of people to play, therefore they are spending a lot of money in development costs to make it as appealing to the largest group of people possible. It costs more to make games that are that inclusive because the developers have to do what their investors tell them to: make games that make the biggest possible return on investment.
You're looking at it backwards.
Mmmm I think you're confused. That's exactly what I'm saying. They're specifically trying to appeal to more people. The point others have tried to make is that production costs got so high that they simply had to appeal to more people, thus you have the watered down gameplay of themeparks. I'm saying they wanted to appeal to more people (thanks WoW) and then came the increase in aesthetics and streamlining etc.
In other words, players want a good MMO, developers cant seem to deliver one.
That's wrong, there are more people playing MMOs today than at any other time in the history of the genre. Developers are doing just fine. The problem is that *YOU* want a game that is niche and developers don't pay attention to the kind of game you want because it doesn't make them nearly enough money.
The problem isn't the developers. The problem is your tastes.
More people playing doesn't mean better games. In fact holding most things constant I would say it usually means a worse game. Worse as in less targeted, more mainstream, etc. Just like with music, tv, movies, etc, you can either appeal to a specific group of people on a deep level, or appeal to the masses on a more shallow level.
Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by HolophonistAnd the point many of us are trying to make is that production costs have gotten so high because of the shift towards AAA themeparks with a strong emphasis on "content" instead of interesting persistent systems. Developers appealing to more and more players wasn't some necessity due to the increased cost of creating a game.
But I think that's backwards. It's not that developers are spending so much money on their games that it requires a massive audience to pay for it all, developers want the maximum number of people to play, therefore they are spending a lot of money in development costs to make it as appealing to the largest group of people possible. It costs more to make games that are that inclusive because the developers have to do what their investors tell them to: make games that make the biggest possible return on investment.
You're looking at it backwards.
There is more than one factor contributing to video games in general getting more expensive to develop. To write a game now, comparable to a game that was written six years ago, keeping pace with technology and graphics takes longer. The art assets alone can take anywhere from four to six times longer depending on how experienced the artists and designers are. Developers either have to cut back on content, higher more people or extend development times. Cutting back on content, regardless of whether that content is simply more "stuff" in the world or interesting game systems is going to make a game less appealing.
It's also true that developers want the audience for their games to be as large as possible. Not just because they spend so much on developing games, but because they want their games to be popular and well received. This is going to contribute to making the game with higher end graphics and more of a marketing budget, increasing the cost of the game.
I think the least likely source of increased cost is the theme park or sandbox game systems. Several very small theme parks have been built, successfully, with very small budgets. Gods and Heroes was a fairly well done theme park MMORPG with some unique features and it was squarely in the theme park venue, but also on a small budget. It was too little, too late so it never really took off, but the game was indeed developed at least as well as Mortal Online or Xyson, both of which are squarely in the sandbox side of the spectrum between theme park and sandbox. There are probably half a dozen other little theme ark games that were developed just fine on the minimum MMORPG budget. In addition to this, all video games have gotten more expensive, not just MMORPGs. It doesn't seem likely that the games being either a theme park or sandbox is the major, contributing factor.
There are probably other things relevant to costs of development, but they'd probably fall under poor decision making on the part of the development company, rather than things directly involved in the development itself.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The assumption here I am seeing is that developers make games easy to draw a large audience. Obviously it is important to make a game accessible, but I don't think that has to follow easy/simple.
I think that is the mistake being made. A good game can have depth, still be accessible and have a challenging environment. Its all about presentation and increasing difficulty on a curve. The curve is gone it feels like. NWN, GW2 and FF14 all felt as easy at level 40+ as at 20.
I'd further assert that there is a large enough gamer pool with sufficient experience and intelligence to enjoy a challenging game if it offers appealing mechanics, good animations and other traits that larger groups of people enjoy.
I've seen a discussion on player input a lot here too and I agree with those that want developers to accept some input/feedback, but maintain the vision they have. I think developers are trying to appeal to everyone for everything, and as a result its too much to grab for on release; and many features are half-assed and the games generally appeal to little to too few.
Can anyone point to a specific game that upon release was classified/reviewed in general as too complex, too deep and too challenging but was otherwise considered great?
In other words, players want a good MMO, developers cant seem to deliver one.
That's wrong, there are more people playing MMOs today than at any other time in the history of the genre. Developers are doing just fine. The problem is that *YOU* want a game that is niche and developers don't pay attention to the kind of game you want because it doesn't make them nearly enough money.
The problem isn't the developers. The problem is your tastes.
More people playing doesn't mean better games. In fact holding most things constant I would say it usually means a worse game. Worse as in less targeted, more mainstream, etc. Just like with music, tv, movies, etc, you can either appeal to a specific group of people on a deep level, or appeal to the masses on a more shallow level.
He's not even responding to my post within the context of my previous posts. But whatever.
But I think that's backwards. It's not that developers are spending so much money on their games that it requires a massive audience to pay for it all, developers want the maximum number of people to play, therefore they are spending a lot of money in development costs to make it as appealing to the largest group of people possible. It costs more to make games that are that inclusive because the developers have to do what their investors tell them to: make games that make the biggest possible return on investment.
You're looking at it backwards.
Mmmm I think you're confused. That's exactly what I'm saying. They're specifically trying to appeal to more people. The point others have tried to make is that production costs got so high that they simply had to appeal to more people, thus you have the watered down gameplay of themeparks. I'm saying they wanted to appeal to more people (thanks WoW) and then came the increase in aesthetics and streamlining etc.
Enough with platitudes. What does "watered down" gameplay mean exactly? To what are you comparing them?
Originally posted by Holophonist
Originally posted by Cephus404
Originally posted by GeezerGamer
That's wrong, there are more people playing MMOs today than at any other time in the history of the genre. Developers are doing just fine. The problem is that *YOU* want a game that is niche and developers don't pay attention to the kind of game you want because it doesn't make them nearly enough money.
The problem isn't the developers. The problem is your tastes.
More people playing doesn't mean better games. In fact holding most things constant I would say it usually means a worse game. Worse as in less targeted, more mainstream, etc. Just like with music, tv, movies, etc, you can either appeal to a specific group of people on a deep level, or appeal to the masses on a more shallow level.
Worse games... But you're not the judge of what is a good game or a bad game. And there is no rule that more people playing means worse games. How do you know they're not simply hitting a larger niche on "a deep level" and not several on a "more shallow level"?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You may have a point but your choice of games as examples of failure invalidate your whole post.
AoC or TsW has a good launch? No FC game has a good launch ever. Lotro was gone in 3 to 6 months?! Maybe so if you were born a year ago. I did not played many other games but I personally know ppl who still enjoy Aion or GW2 and they say those games are far from "having no staying power".
Please take some time and read about the games you are calling before some one start making jokes of you.
P.S. If it is just another attempt to say "Vanila WoW or bust" - thats a real fail.
How is that fail ? I bet the majority would agree it has been WoW or bust. Can the genre be great again ? Sure it can but not the path they have chosen.
Why? Because players like you don't like it? There are more people in the world than so-called 'hardcore' players, many more. This is the truth of it. A game will NEVER make money based on 'hardcore' players. You need to bring new players into the game and MMO's in general. If you don't do that - the industry will die.
I want to question some assumptions you seem to have made here and point out the conclusion you do not seem to have reached. You do not need to bring more players into gaming or MMO's, the player base does not need to expand. Gaming companies made money from UO and EQ back in the day, the size of the player base then was fine. The gaming industries search for an ever wider player base is about making more and more money not ensuring it does not die.
You mention hardcore players. There were more gamers in the world than the roleplayers and RPG fans who were the first to adopt MMO's. There are more gamers in the world than hardcore gaming fans. But what you don't seem to realise is that there are more people in the world than gamers. And this is the new 'player' base via social media that is being reached out to.
Each time the nature of the player base has changed its ethos has got more removed from core gaming values. Roleplaying has all but been dumped, RPG has been taken out of MMORPG. The EzMMO rules and easymode is king in solo games too. Once again we face a tipping point, this time the values of people on Facebook and Twitter will decide what the values of gamers are going to become.
People with a gaming background no greater than the likes of Farmville will decide the future of gaming as they will become the majority. The baulk of the player base we have with us today I would describe as gamers, no matter what type of gaming they favour. In ten years time I do not think that will be the case.
You may have a point but your choice of games as examples of failure invalidate your whole post.
AoC or TsW has a good launch? No FC game has a good launch ever. Lotro was gone in 3 to 6 months?! Maybe so if you were born a year ago. I did not played many other games but I personally know ppl who still enjoy Aion or GW2 and they say those games are far from "having no staying power".
Please take some time and read about the games you are calling before some one start making jokes of you.
P.S. If it is just another attempt to say "Vanila WoW or bust" - thats a real fail.
Agree fully with you (but also partially with OP), would just like to add that many of this games were "failures" in RELATION to wow only. If one expect to have at least 6 millions of subs, that is silly, will be always failure. We know will not gona happen. Aoc is stil around, War, Aion, Tsw, Swtor ... many of them for years, so they are NOT failures. They are not making big money like wow but nobody should expect this. But they earn enough to stay and give many many players a lot of fun.
Main problem nowadays are actually PEOPLE that expect from every new game to be "wow killer" instead having fun with game ITSELF without comparing.
Not even Blizzard I guess could repeat success with wow. Hoever, they are fast to adapt. After Cata changes was sure will never return to end game, now I'm playing a lot because of scenarios. Zero wait time for dps, fun enough, fast run, ... returned also to 5 man, while raids are too much time consuming for my time schedule. To me wow feels fresh like at start (actually started with BC, because at start cartoony graphics looked childish, before discovering, that wow is great because of other things while cartoony graphics are actually great, love them and hope they stay as they are maybe with only small retouches).
Comments
How is it dishonest when i am clearing stating what the group includes?
BTW, i am not in the themepark crowd. I don't raid (not anymore).
I am in the solo-MMORPG camp .. and there is no crowd there.
And even this site lists MOBAs and D3 under "MMORPG Gamelist". So i am just using their definitions.
Translated in english, you certainly dont have a problem finding games you like to quit.
Like you just had xxx for five seconds and you moved on.
You found new hobby, it lasted 5 minutes and you moved on.
you found a new friend,it lasted 2 minutes and you moved on.
etc .
That doesnt really sound like fun.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Because you're clearly stating it now. When you guys throw these "facts" around, you do so in discussions that have NOTHING to do with MOBAs.
I am going to disagree. I don't think the success or failure of recent MMORPG titles has to do with what players want. Rift, SWTOR, GW2, And now FF14 launched with massive numbers of players wanting a good MMO. The success or failure of all the recent MMO titles is because none have been properly designed and/or developed. (Jury is still out on ff14 being so new)
In other words, players want a good MMO, developers cant seem to deliver one.
I think the more accurate response would be that developers should give the players what they want, what they will buy, whether or not it's what they've asked for or what they are complaining about. The trick is creating what players want, whether they've asked for it or not.
The trick is making a game that will make the maximum amount of money for the developer and garner the greatest amount of sales and enjoyment for as many customers as possible. It is catering to the largest playerbase available. It is not catering to the niche audiences who really don't make a bit of difference.
Well, this really depends on the developer and the company. For a small but successful developer, targeting that small audience might make sense, if they can scale down the development costs to the point that they can make money. The larger the developer is or the more expensive the development costs are for a particular project, the less likely it is they are going to go after those niche audiences.
I think it's the cost of development that's driving developers towards that broad appeal. It's just so expensive that targeting a niche audience won't make enough money to break even, much less profit. Unless a developer is really set on a particular style of game or game mechanics, they will adjust their game to appeal to more people so the game can thrive rather than just barely survive.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And the point many of us are trying to make is that production costs have gotten so high because of the shift towards AAA themeparks with a strong emphasis on "content" instead of interesting persistent systems. Developers appealing to more and more players wasn't some necessity due to the increased cost of creating a game.
You don't know if that is the case, or that players just want to sample some MMOs and go back to other genres afterwards. Or even just playing a little bit of MMO mixed with other types of games.
But, but, but he attacked me when I was low life!
Yes, HE DID, why you cant do the same to him?
Uf that will take me a lot of time...
HERE IS YOUR QUEST!
orly?
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
You never provided me with links earlier. You referenced narius's post and said something about a global collection report or something? Narius' link I THINK includes MOBAs, and that would make it entirely useless to the discussion.
But you are talking about Lokto's link here... what's your point?
My computer is better than yours.
I'm talking about exactly what I'm talking about.....? Are you his keeper?
If you look at my post history, you will see that I'm definitely not. That doesn't stop me from being a mature adult able to admit when one of my former "opponents" (so to say) is right. I don't like the F2P model, but it's definitely making money. How and to whose expense is another story, of course.
My computer is better than yours.
Well in this particular case you're just misinformed. I'm referencing a conversation I had with him earlier in the thread.... that's why I said "earlier." So I'm not sure what you're saying he's "right" about, but it seems pretty irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
But I think that's backwards. It's not that developers are spending so much money on their games that it requires a massive audience to pay for it all, developers want the maximum number of people to play, therefore they are spending a lot of money in development costs to make it as appealing to the largest group of people possible. It costs more to make games that are that inclusive because the developers have to do what their investors tell them to: make games that make the biggest possible return on investment.
You're looking at it backwards.
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
That's wrong, there are more people playing MMOs today than at any other time in the history of the genre. Developers are doing just fine. The problem is that *YOU* want a game that is niche and developers don't pay attention to the kind of game you want because it doesn't make them nearly enough money.
The problem isn't the developers. The problem is your tastes.
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
Mmmm I think you're confused. That's exactly what I'm saying. They're specifically trying to appeal to more people. The point others have tried to make is that production costs got so high that they simply had to appeal to more people, thus you have the watered down gameplay of themeparks. I'm saying they wanted to appeal to more people (thanks WoW) and then came the increase in aesthetics and streamlining etc.
More people playing doesn't mean better games. In fact holding most things constant I would say it usually means a worse game. Worse as in less targeted, more mainstream, etc. Just like with music, tv, movies, etc, you can either appeal to a specific group of people on a deep level, or appeal to the masses on a more shallow level.
You're looking at it backwards.
There is more than one factor contributing to video games in general getting more expensive to develop. To write a game now, comparable to a game that was written six years ago, keeping pace with technology and graphics takes longer. The art assets alone can take anywhere from four to six times longer depending on how experienced the artists and designers are. Developers either have to cut back on content, higher more people or extend development times. Cutting back on content, regardless of whether that content is simply more "stuff" in the world or interesting game systems is going to make a game less appealing.
It's also true that developers want the audience for their games to be as large as possible. Not just because they spend so much on developing games, but because they want their games to be popular and well received. This is going to contribute to making the game with higher end graphics and more of a marketing budget, increasing the cost of the game.
I think the least likely source of increased cost is the theme park or sandbox game systems. Several very small theme parks have been built, successfully, with very small budgets. Gods and Heroes was a fairly well done theme park MMORPG with some unique features and it was squarely in the theme park venue, but also on a small budget. It was too little, too late so it never really took off, but the game was indeed developed at least as well as Mortal Online or Xyson, both of which are squarely in the sandbox side of the spectrum between theme park and sandbox. There are probably half a dozen other little theme ark games that were developed just fine on the minimum MMORPG budget. In addition to this, all video games have gotten more expensive, not just MMORPGs. It doesn't seem likely that the games being either a theme park or sandbox is the major, contributing factor.
There are probably other things relevant to costs of development, but they'd probably fall under poor decision making on the part of the development company, rather than things directly involved in the development itself.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The assumption here I am seeing is that developers make games easy to draw a large audience. Obviously it is important to make a game accessible, but I don't think that has to follow easy/simple.
I think that is the mistake being made. A good game can have depth, still be accessible and have a challenging environment. Its all about presentation and increasing difficulty on a curve. The curve is gone it feels like. NWN, GW2 and FF14 all felt as easy at level 40+ as at 20.
I'd further assert that there is a large enough gamer pool with sufficient experience and intelligence to enjoy a challenging game if it offers appealing mechanics, good animations and other traits that larger groups of people enjoy.
I've seen a discussion on player input a lot here too and I agree with those that want developers to accept some input/feedback, but maintain the vision they have. I think developers are trying to appeal to everyone for everything, and as a result its too much to grab for on release; and many features are half-assed and the games generally appeal to little to too few.
Can anyone point to a specific game that upon release was classified/reviewed in general as too complex, too deep and too challenging but was otherwise considered great?
He's not even responding to my post within the context of my previous posts. But whatever.
Bullshit. Swtor might have had 500k subs at launch and the f2p models combined. If anything a game going F2P signifies it has failed.
MurderHerd
Worse games... But you're not the judge of what is a good game or a bad game. And there is no rule that more people playing means worse games. How do you know they're not simply hitting a larger niche on "a deep level" and not several on a "more shallow level"?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I want to question some assumptions you seem to have made here and point out the conclusion you do not seem to have reached. You do not need to bring more players into gaming or MMO's, the player base does not need to expand. Gaming companies made money from UO and EQ back in the day, the size of the player base then was fine. The gaming industries search for an ever wider player base is about making more and more money not ensuring it does not die.
You mention hardcore players. There were more gamers in the world than the roleplayers and RPG fans who were the first to adopt MMO's. There are more gamers in the world than hardcore gaming fans. But what you don't seem to realise is that there are more people in the world than gamers. And this is the new 'player' base via social media that is being reached out to.
Each time the nature of the player base has changed its ethos has got more removed from core gaming values. Roleplaying has all but been dumped, RPG has been taken out of MMORPG. The EzMMO rules and easymode is king in solo games too. Once again we face a tipping point, this time the values of people on Facebook and Twitter will decide what the values of gamers are going to become.
People with a gaming background no greater than the likes of Farmville will decide the future of gaming as they will become the majority. The baulk of the player base we have with us today I would describe as gamers, no matter what type of gaming they favour. In ten years time I do not think that will be the case.
Agree fully with you (but also partially with OP), would just like to add that many of this games were "failures" in RELATION to wow only. If one expect to have at least 6 millions of subs, that is silly, will be always failure. We know will not gona happen. Aoc is stil around, War, Aion, Tsw, Swtor ... many of them for years, so they are NOT failures. They are not making big money like wow but nobody should expect this. But they earn enough to stay and give many many players a lot of fun.
Main problem nowadays are actually PEOPLE that expect from every new game to be "wow killer" instead having fun with game ITSELF without comparing.
Not even Blizzard I guess could repeat success with wow. Hoever, they are fast to adapt. After Cata changes was sure will never return to end game, now I'm playing a lot because of scenarios. Zero wait time for dps, fun enough, fast run, ... returned also to 5 man, while raids are too much time consuming for my time schedule. To me wow feels fresh like at start (actually started with BC, because at start cartoony graphics looked childish, before discovering, that wow is great because of other things while cartoony graphics are actually great, love them and hope they stay as they are maybe with only small retouches).