No, they are giving us games that make them big money. If that means making a game, hyping it and pretty much letting it die in 6 months that is what you are going to get. It is exactly like all the reality show back in the mid 2000's.. All the networks started producing this crap and you had no choice to watch anything else. It is not that good shows couldn't get a good number of viewers its just that crap was cheaper and lower risk for a network. Hell, if you look at some of the canceled scifi shows their ratings were not even bad. But they were not good in compared to a crappy reality show which needs much less viewers to be considered a success.
Game devs even go to cons that have panels on how to make games that focus on making money. Even f that means making an awful game, just to market it and drop. Check this video out. It shows how the publishers and crap work..
For starters, if you wanna make threads from a perspective of you having insight as to how things 'really are' in the gaming industry, you might want to stop using the word 'dev (developer)' and the word 'publisher' interchangeably. They are two VERY different people, who do two VERY different things.
Developers: Are the artists, designers, and programmers responsible for making the actual product.
Publishers: Are incharge of making sure the game makes money. They sell the game.
Publishers and producers are often THE reason games get pushed out too early, or that bad features get implemented. They determine when to pull the trigger on a project, and what types of products they want to fund. MMOs are the most expensive games to create, and as a result they need the most funding.
*******
That said, welcome to how ALL markets work. The 'safer' a project is, the more likely it is to get funding. Furthermore, the safer projects mean they will be 'more popular' as they appeal to a wider audience. There is a formula for popularity, and this exists amongst all creative mediums. Not just games. There's been so much data collecting on human psychology and sociology that it is fairly easy to predict what will sell, and what will be much more of a risk.
You can kid yourself all you want, but games are a business now. They aren't some potential new market anymore. They are largely created to make money. As a result, studios will mostly make games they think people will BUY. Few studios make games for their creative merit anymore, because it doesn't pay the bills. And out of the few studios that still do, they have what's commonly called 'bread and butter' games, which are more formulaic, because people will buy them, and it drives funding for more interesting games. Nintendo in particular has been known for this.
If we (us gamers) didn't mostly want the same old crap, we wouldn't still be buying the same old crap. And yet, we always do. And it's not just in MMOs either. Series of games ALWAYS make more money than their more interesting counter parts. Why do you think we still have Call of Duties, Final Fantasies, Resident Evils, etc. etc. etc. It's because they make money.
MMO's were cutting edge ~20 years ago. Since then, they have been made by companies not interested in pushing the envelope, but in making money. You can only be first once, and after that, it is just more of the same.
There has been some innovation in gaming in the past 20 years, but most of this has to been to expand online games from the few hardcore players, to the masses. However, this has mostly been evolution, rather than revolution, which occured in the lat 90's.
We are now in a period of consolidation, and commodity. Larger media publishing companies (tv, print, etc) are taking over online gaming, as a form of entertainment. They are using what they know to shape the industry into a mass media business. This is stabilizing the industry, and bringing consistency, as they all move towards what is known to work, and abandon experimentation.
This has caused a rise of indy developers, most of which fail, but some of which are refreshing the market. However, the problems seems to be that the indies have not yet learned from past mistakes, and are repeating them. They mix the good with the bad, not because they are trying something new, but because they dont know any bettter.
It will take a few years, but we will eventually start to see indies making solid, high quality products, that will help to move the industry forward.
MMO's were cutting edge ~20 years ago. Since then, they have been made by companies not interested in pushing the envelope, but in making money. You can only be first once, and after that, it is just more of the same.
There has been some innovation in gaming in the past 20 years, but most of this has to been to expand online games from the few hardcore players, to the masses. However, this has mostly been evolution, rather than revolution, which occured in the lat 90's.
We are now in a period of consolidation, and commodity. Larger media publishing companies (tv, print, etc) are taking over online gaming, as a form of entertainment. They are using what they know to shape the industry into a mass media business. This is stabilizing the industry, and bringing consistency, as they all move towards what is known to work, and abandon experimentation.
This has caused a rise of indy developers, most of which fail, but some of which are refreshing the market. However, the problems seems to be that the indies have not yet learned from past mistakes, and are repeating them. They mix the good with the bad, not because they are trying something new, but because they dont know any bettter.
It will take a few years, but we will eventually start to see indies making solid, high quality products, that will help to move the industry forward.
Well said.
However, that's not exactly the whole picture when it comes to indie developers. Sales have shown that innovation, by and large, does not make money. And, for the most part, it never has. The few exceptions to this are when innovation came in the form of a brand new market. For example, look at MOBAs. The first one (DOTA) was very innovative. However it was League of Legends that made the genre a huge success (by turning it into its own market).
There are quite a few indies that are making some really good games. Many of which can be found on steam. The problem is that many of these games don't have much of a following. People just aren't playing them. Or if they are, it's a small amount compared to comparable games with an established IP.
It would be nice to see this trend going away, but it seems to be a part of human nature. You can see similar trends across all creative mediums, for as long as its been documented. From movies to tv, music to books, paintings, games, etc. Popularity has always been formulaic, because people are (for the most part) a lot more predictable than they'd like to believe. Many of these mediums have their own private jokes about how to manufacture success. Like by making things involving certain subject matters, things that cater to teenagers, things that have lots of bright / saturated colors, etc. etc. etc.
I don't think the stagnation in MMO's has anything to do with some kind of "conspiracy" to make crappy games. The comparison to reality TV isn't really a good one. Reality TV was appealing to networks because it is extremely cheap to produce. So even if "The Real World" doesn't have a big a following as "The Sopranos" it doesn't matter because it will likely still turn a profit because it is so cheap to make.
MMORPGs on the other hand are the exact opposite, they are probably the most expensive game genre to create a game in.
And I think if anything can be blamed for the stagnation it's that the complexity and cost of MMORPGs make publishers and developers very risk averse. I mean think about it, you have a project that...
1. Costs TONS of money.
and
2. Is incredibly complex, so there is a high risk that something goes wrong.
Now imagine you invested said "Tons of money" in this project. Would you rather the developer make a game using a formula that is pretty much proven to give you a positive return? Or would you rather they try something completely new and innovative, that might give you a return, but could just as easily completely fail? The choice is probably easy for most publishers.
The problem is that it seems like every publisher makes the safe choice, which actually makes the safe choice potentially worse because of over-saturation. There are so many games following the WoW model now that we, the consumers, have all grown sick of them. So the first choice in my scenario may not be as safe as it seems...
However, that's not exactly the whole picture when it comes to indie developers. Sales have shown that innovation, by and large, does not make money. And, for the most part, it never has. The few exceptions to this are when innovation came in the form of a brand new market. For example, look at MOBAs. The first one (DOTA) was very innovative. However it was League of Legends that made the genre a huge success (by turning it into its own market).
There are quite a few indies that are making some really good games. Many of which can be found on steam. The problem is that many of these games don't have much of a following. People just aren't playing them. Or if they are, it's a small amount compared to comparable games with an established IP.
It would be nice to see this trend going away, but it seems to be a part of human nature. You can see similar trends across all creative mediums, for as long as its been documented. From movies to tv, music to books, paintings, games, etc. Popularity has always been formulaic, because people are (for the most part) a lot more predictable than they'd like to believe. Many of these mediums have their own private jokes about how to manufacture success. Like by making things involving certain subject matters, things that cater to teenagers, things that have lots of bright / saturated colors, etc. etc. etc.
It's sad, but that's the world we live in.
I don't know if it's fair to say that innovation doesn't make money (on average). Your DOTA example doesn't really apply because DOTA wasn't even monetized...so I mean, of course it couldn't make money. In addition, DOTA2 makes plenty of money, and its lead developer is IceFrog who did a lot of development for DOTA...so really, DOTA did make a lot of money once it became DOTA2.
Also, Guinsoo, one of the devs of DOTA now works for Riot on LoL. So once again, I don't think it's fair to say that the innovation of DOTA didn't make money for the people who made it...eventually. You just can't really expect a non-monetized mod to make money.
The same can be said for Team Fortress...it made money once it became Team Fortress 2...and yes, the original dev of Team Fortress worked on Team Fortress 2.
Despite this, I do agree that innovation is risky and even if your innovation is brilliant...it can be very difficult to monetize. Innovation is basically a "high risk, high reward" scenario and people generally don't want to spend a huge amount of money on said scenario when there are much safer investments. Which is why I think we see a lot of our innovation coming from indies or modders.
There is an old saying: No risks no rewards. It's crystal clear that most companies that produced MMO's over the last 5 years are happy with nickles and dimes. Only way they will push for greater products is when those nickles and dimes stop flooding.
I would gladly settle today for a DECENT MMO, not great but there isn't a DECENT one as well (for me). But good things are coming in 2015 so there is hope.
It is funny that OP thinks that devs are NOT giving us the games players want.
If OPs theory was true - every game would be dead within months.
Is that the case? - Nope.
Another case of reality not even coming close to OP's theory.
"Want" is not the same as "can tolerate due to lack of alternatives".
The TV world is in a golden age currently due to making the shift the MMORPGs should do.
Why would anyone "tolerate" entertainment products? If MMO is a bit less fun, they can watch tv, go to movies, play SP games. I don't tolerate anything, and if an entertainment product is not fun for me, i am out of there.
Originally posted by Takoo No, they are giving us games that make them big money. If that means making a game, hyping it and pretty much letting it die in 6 months that is what you are going to get.
If it worked, it would be true, however it is not.
The development costs of an MMO are so high, it can only make money in the long run, and that is what MMOs do.
The "quick cash grab", you can often read in context of MMOs on these boards is just exemplary ignorace of local posters.
It's not about "making a cash grab game". But there is a very real problem developers face in "how do we monetize our game without ruining it?" It's all nice with roses and sunshine to think "just make it free, cash shop with strictly optional cosmetics". But when you're talking about the profitability of a company you can't just hope people have enough money to buy extra stuff they don't need in a completely free game.
These panels are all about how to entice the player to buy from the cash shop while as to not go too far and scare away the players with less depth to their pockets.
With more and more competition on the market daily, subscriptions and even box prices are becoming harder and harder to maintain. I can go download 20 MMORPGs, shooters, platformers, ARPGs etc all free to download and play right now. For the average casual gamer looking for some form of entertainment, asking them to plop $60 down and then $15 a month on top of that on something they might not even end up liking is really tough given the options.
We all paid a sub back in the day because we didn't have much of a choice.
Market is giving what's profitable for the dev companies. If people buy the stuff they're currently shelling out and they're making a profit out of it then it means that's what the demand on the market is. If you don't like what's on the market start voting with your wallet, if you think the majority doesn't like what's on the market - then the chances are that you're wrong or people don't vote with their wallets and until they do it'll stay that way.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
If that means making a game, hyping it and pretty much letting it die in 6 months that is what you are going to get.
This gets said a lot around here and it reminds me of the Schrodinger's cat scenario. People who quit mmos in the first few months and never look back just assume everyone else has too. As long as they never look, they never really know if it's alive or dead.
I tend to agree there are a lot of " reality TV" mmos around but like many of TV shows, dead is a matter of perspective it seems.
American marketing can shove anything they feel at the public, Video games, Popular music hits, this is also true with gas prices, they simply do not have to be is high as they are. Even cars could be made to get way better gas millage, and we could have electric cars that are efficient.
Marketing is the problem, in some cases companies that should be working agents each other for sales are talking to each other. Add copy rights and trademarks in the mix, and the population pays the price.
I believe the box and digital download sales are what video game companies are going for. Retention of players takes a back seat and is not important as you think.
We tried to boycott are companies cafeteria for bad food. Several people went around asking everyone to not buy anything on a Friday...everyone agreed, yet on Friday the cafeteria was packed with the same people anyway !
It's not about "making a cash grab game". But there is a very real problem developers face in "how do we monetize our game without ruining it?" It's all nice with roses and sunshine to think "just make it free, cash shop with strictly optional cosmetics". But when you're talking about the profitability of a company you can't just hope people have enough money to buy extra stuff they don't need in a completely free game.
These panels are all about how to entice the player to buy from the cash shop while as to not go too far and scare away the players with less depth to their pockets.
With more and more competition on the market daily, subscriptions and even box prices are becoming harder and harder to maintain. I can go download 20 MMORPGs, shooters, platformers, ARPGs etc all free to download and play right now. For the average casual gamer looking for some form of entertainment, asking them to plop $60 down and then $15 a month on top of that on something they might not even end up liking is really tough given the options.
We all paid a sub back in the day because we didn't have much of a choice.
Simple. You properly gauge your target audience's wants and you give them a high quality product. If you did your job, they will buy it and you will make money.
Their Focus is all F'ckd up right now, and we get games like ESO. A poorly designed and overly monetized "cash grab".
It is funny that OP thinks that devs are NOT giving us the games players want.
If OPs theory was true - every game would be dead within months.
Is that the case? - Nope.
Another case of reality not even coming close to OP's theory.
"Want" is not the same as "can tolerate due to lack of alternatives".
The TV world is in a golden age currently due to making the shift the MMORPGs should do.
I disagree.
In entertainment "want" means that it's enjoyable - not something you tolerate.
You tolerate things that you MUST do - like your job, or the fact that you have to pay taxes - things that are unavoidable.
If a movie or a game is not fun - people simply leave the theatre or stop playing.
"verb (used with object)
1.
to feel a need or a desire for; wish for:<div def-inline-example"="">"to want one's dinner; always wanting something new."
"
The situation is: "I am bored, I want to kill some time, what do I choose to do?" Some things are tolerable as a passing time, some things you right out crave and do with joy.
As an example of something I tolerated in old tv as passing time was "Married with Kids", something I outright wished for and felt a strong desire for in modern tv: "True Detective".
It is funny that OP thinks that devs are NOT giving us the games players want.
If OPs theory was true - every game would be dead within months.
Is that the case? - Nope.
Another case of reality not even coming close to OP's theory.
"Want" is not the same as "can tolerate due to lack of alternatives".
The TV world is in a golden age currently due to making the shift the MMORPGs should do.
Why would anyone "tolerate" entertainment products? If MMO is a bit less fun, they can watch tv, go to movies, play SP games. I don't tolerate anything, and if an entertainment product is not fun for me, i am out of there.
Because people in general want variation. The "massively multiplayer" has a still charm that is hard to get from other genres. But yeah I play very little MMOs nowadays; haven't played any in weeks. Last with a "MMO" feel was Path of Exile due to its heavy focus on economy I played a few weeks ago.
Maybe, just maybe Archage will rekindle my interest, but I'll wait until it actually does a formal release in the West.
Originally posted by TwoThreeFour"verb (used with object)1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for:<div def-inline-example"="">"to want one's dinner; always wanting something new." " The situation is: "I am bored, I want to kill some time, what do I choose to do?" Some things are tolerable as a passing time, some things you right out crave and do with joy. As an example of something I tolerated in old tv as passing time was "Married with Kids", something I outright wished for and felt a strong desire for in modern tv: "True Detective".
Does not refute the point that people WANT the games market is producing.
You just trying to argue that they WANT those games for other reason but enjoyment(a point no one else but you was making) - baseless, irrelevant and silly argument.
Reply to Gdemami: (The text editor seems broken currently)
That people purchase something, just means that they purchase something, nothing else. One is very much able to purchase without actually wanting it. Apathy, routine, group expectations and boredom can lead to several purchases.
Originally posted by TwoThreeFour Reply to Gdemami: (The text editor seems broken currently) That people purchase something, just means that they purchase something, nothing else. One is very much able to purchase without actually wanting it. Apathy, routine, group expectations and boredom can lead to several purchases.
I am not arguing why people want what they want but when they do have a choice, it is the expression of desire and will that makes them chose one product over another.
And apparently they do have the choice. They do not have to play MMOs, they do not have to play MMOS they are playing, yet they do therefore they want, prefer them over others.
The MMORPG population was not initially that large. Then came WoW and it brought in 10Mil players. But that's an anomaly, It's never been duplicated. I think the market has been trying to correct itself for several years now and settle back to it's original norm. But the developers and publishers have been trying like mad to keep the balloon artificially inflated. They have been altering the games for a wider appeal.As a result of what they are doing we now have games where players measure it in several months, not several years. Unless some developer is able to create some miracle game again, the market is ultimately going to win this battle, but what will it have done to the genre by then?
Originally posted by TwoThreeFour Reply to Gdemami: (The text editor seems broken currently)
That people purchase something, just means that they purchase something, nothing else. One is very much able to purchase without actually wanting it. Apathy, routine, group expectations and boredom can lead to several purchases.
I am not arguing why people want what they want but when they do have a choice, it is the expression of desire and will that makes them chose one product over another.
And apparently they do have the choice. They do not have to play MMOs, they do not have to play MMOS they are playing, yet they do therefore they want, prefer them over others.
There is a difference between wanting to fill a void and wanting a specific product. I can pay for a product for it to attempt to fill a void (like when I am bored) and that does not mean I want that specific product, it just happens to be the one I gave a chance. I won't find out if the product is a specific I want until after I've actually tested it properly.
You can very much want to play a MMO without wanting to play the specific MMO they chose to play. As I've pointed out before, there is a charm with the concept of "Massively Multiplayer".
I would expect to find many people who actually want the game they are playing among those who keep subscribing and playing the same MMO for over a year. Although a certain amount of them are expected to stay because of the company they keep and not the game itself.
Edit: Analogously, sometimes I've already watched all relevant episodes of the tv-series I follow, but I am too tired to play a game and may be too tired to watch a full movie, that's a point where I can actually give a new tv-series a chance despite not knowing whether or not I want to see that particular series.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer Unless some developer is able to create some miracle game again, the market is ultimately going to win this battle, but what will it have done to the genre by then?
Comments
For starters, if you wanna make threads from a perspective of you having insight as to how things 'really are' in the gaming industry, you might want to stop using the word 'dev (developer)' and the word 'publisher' interchangeably. They are two VERY different people, who do two VERY different things.
Developers: Are the artists, designers, and programmers responsible for making the actual product.
Publishers: Are incharge of making sure the game makes money. They sell the game.
Publishers and producers are often THE reason games get pushed out too early, or that bad features get implemented. They determine when to pull the trigger on a project, and what types of products they want to fund. MMOs are the most expensive games to create, and as a result they need the most funding.
*******
That said, welcome to how ALL markets work. The 'safer' a project is, the more likely it is to get funding. Furthermore, the safer projects mean they will be 'more popular' as they appeal to a wider audience. There is a formula for popularity, and this exists amongst all creative mediums. Not just games. There's been so much data collecting on human psychology and sociology that it is fairly easy to predict what will sell, and what will be much more of a risk.
You can kid yourself all you want, but games are a business now. They aren't some potential new market anymore. They are largely created to make money. As a result, studios will mostly make games they think people will BUY. Few studios make games for their creative merit anymore, because it doesn't pay the bills. And out of the few studios that still do, they have what's commonly called 'bread and butter' games, which are more formulaic, because people will buy them, and it drives funding for more interesting games. Nintendo in particular has been known for this.
If we (us gamers) didn't mostly want the same old crap, we wouldn't still be buying the same old crap. And yet, we always do. And it's not just in MMOs either. Series of games ALWAYS make more money than their more interesting counter parts. Why do you think we still have Call of Duties, Final Fantasies, Resident Evils, etc. etc. etc. It's because they make money.
MMO's were cutting edge ~20 years ago. Since then, they have been made by companies not interested in pushing the envelope, but in making money. You can only be first once, and after that, it is just more of the same.
There has been some innovation in gaming in the past 20 years, but most of this has to been to expand online games from the few hardcore players, to the masses. However, this has mostly been evolution, rather than revolution, which occured in the lat 90's.
We are now in a period of consolidation, and commodity. Larger media publishing companies (tv, print, etc) are taking over online gaming, as a form of entertainment. They are using what they know to shape the industry into a mass media business. This is stabilizing the industry, and bringing consistency, as they all move towards what is known to work, and abandon experimentation.
This has caused a rise of indy developers, most of which fail, but some of which are refreshing the market. However, the problems seems to be that the indies have not yet learned from past mistakes, and are repeating them. They mix the good with the bad, not because they are trying something new, but because they dont know any bettter.
It will take a few years, but we will eventually start to see indies making solid, high quality products, that will help to move the industry forward.
Well said.
However, that's not exactly the whole picture when it comes to indie developers. Sales have shown that innovation, by and large, does not make money. And, for the most part, it never has. The few exceptions to this are when innovation came in the form of a brand new market. For example, look at MOBAs. The first one (DOTA) was very innovative. However it was League of Legends that made the genre a huge success (by turning it into its own market).
There are quite a few indies that are making some really good games. Many of which can be found on steam. The problem is that many of these games don't have much of a following. People just aren't playing them. Or if they are, it's a small amount compared to comparable games with an established IP.
It would be nice to see this trend going away, but it seems to be a part of human nature. You can see similar trends across all creative mediums, for as long as its been documented. From movies to tv, music to books, paintings, games, etc. Popularity has always been formulaic, because people are (for the most part) a lot more predictable than they'd like to believe. Many of these mediums have their own private jokes about how to manufacture success. Like by making things involving certain subject matters, things that cater to teenagers, things that have lots of bright / saturated colors, etc. etc. etc.
It's sad, but that's the world we live in.
I don't think the stagnation in MMO's has anything to do with some kind of "conspiracy" to make crappy games. The comparison to reality TV isn't really a good one. Reality TV was appealing to networks because it is extremely cheap to produce. So even if "The Real World" doesn't have a big a following as "The Sopranos" it doesn't matter because it will likely still turn a profit because it is so cheap to make.
MMORPGs on the other hand are the exact opposite, they are probably the most expensive game genre to create a game in.
And I think if anything can be blamed for the stagnation it's that the complexity and cost of MMORPGs make publishers and developers very risk averse. I mean think about it, you have a project that...
1. Costs TONS of money.
and
2. Is incredibly complex, so there is a high risk that something goes wrong.
Now imagine you invested said "Tons of money" in this project. Would you rather the developer make a game using a formula that is pretty much proven to give you a positive return? Or would you rather they try something completely new and innovative, that might give you a return, but could just as easily completely fail? The choice is probably easy for most publishers.
The problem is that it seems like every publisher makes the safe choice, which actually makes the safe choice potentially worse because of over-saturation. There are so many games following the WoW model now that we, the consumers, have all grown sick of them. So the first choice in my scenario may not be as safe as it seems...
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I don't know if it's fair to say that innovation doesn't make money (on average). Your DOTA example doesn't really apply because DOTA wasn't even monetized...so I mean, of course it couldn't make money. In addition, DOTA2 makes plenty of money, and its lead developer is IceFrog who did a lot of development for DOTA...so really, DOTA did make a lot of money once it became DOTA2.
Also, Guinsoo, one of the devs of DOTA now works for Riot on LoL. So once again, I don't think it's fair to say that the innovation of DOTA didn't make money for the people who made it...eventually. You just can't really expect a non-monetized mod to make money.
The same can be said for Team Fortress...it made money once it became Team Fortress 2...and yes, the original dev of Team Fortress worked on Team Fortress 2.
Despite this, I do agree that innovation is risky and even if your innovation is brilliant...it can be very difficult to monetize. Innovation is basically a "high risk, high reward" scenario and people generally don't want to spend a huge amount of money on said scenario when there are much safer investments. Which is why I think we see a lot of our innovation coming from indies or modders.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
There is an old saying: No risks no rewards. It's crystal clear that most companies that produced MMO's over the last 5 years are happy with nickles and dimes. Only way they will push for greater products is when those nickles and dimes stop flooding.
I would gladly settle today for a DECENT MMO, not great but there isn't a DECENT one as well (for me). But good things are coming in 2015 so there is hope.
Why would anyone "tolerate" entertainment products? If MMO is a bit less fun, they can watch tv, go to movies, play SP games. I don't tolerate anything, and if an entertainment product is not fun for me, i am out of there.
If it worked, it would be true, however it is not.
The development costs of an MMO are so high, it can only make money in the long run, and that is what MMOs do.
The "quick cash grab", you can often read in context of MMOs on these boards is just exemplary ignorace of local posters.
It's not about "making a cash grab game". But there is a very real problem developers face in "how do we monetize our game without ruining it?" It's all nice with roses and sunshine to think "just make it free, cash shop with strictly optional cosmetics". But when you're talking about the profitability of a company you can't just hope people have enough money to buy extra stuff they don't need in a completely free game.
These panels are all about how to entice the player to buy from the cash shop while as to not go too far and scare away the players with less depth to their pockets.
With more and more competition on the market daily, subscriptions and even box prices are becoming harder and harder to maintain. I can go download 20 MMORPGs, shooters, platformers, ARPGs etc all free to download and play right now. For the average casual gamer looking for some form of entertainment, asking them to plop $60 down and then $15 a month on top of that on something they might not even end up liking is really tough given the options.
We all paid a sub back in the day because we didn't have much of a choice.
Yeah, because people willingly spending money on a game therefore truly ruining it, is indeed a real problem...
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
heh this thread is dead from its second post
The OP is 100% right.
American marketing can shove anything they feel at the public, Video games, Popular music hits, this is also true with gas prices, they simply do not have to be is high as they are. Even cars could be made to get way better gas millage, and we could have electric cars that are efficient.
Marketing is the problem, in some cases companies that should be working agents each other for sales are talking to each other. Add copy rights and trademarks in the mix, and the population pays the price.
I believe the box and digital download sales are what video game companies are going for. Retention of players takes a back seat and is not important as you think.
We tried to boycott are companies cafeteria for bad food. Several people went around asking everyone to not buy anything on a Friday...everyone agreed, yet on Friday the cafeteria was packed with the same people anyway !
People are sheep !
Simple. You properly gauge your target audience's wants and you give them a high quality product. If you did your job, they will buy it and you will make money.
Their Focus is all F'ckd up right now, and we get games like ESO. A poorly designed and overly monetized "cash grab".
"verb (used with object)
1.
"
The situation is: "I am bored, I want to kill some time, what do I choose to do?" Some things are tolerable as a passing time, some things you right out crave and do with joy.
As an example of something I tolerated in old tv as passing time was "Married with Kids", something I outright wished for and felt a strong desire for in modern tv: "True Detective".
Because people in general want variation. The "massively multiplayer" has a still charm that is hard to get from other genres. But yeah I play very little MMOs nowadays; haven't played any in weeks. Last with a "MMO" feel was Path of Exile due to its heavy focus on economy I played a few weeks ago.
Maybe, just maybe Archage will rekindle my interest, but I'll wait until it actually does a formal release in the West.
Does not refute the point that people WANT the games market is producing.
You just trying to argue that they WANT those games for other reason but enjoyment(a point no one else but you was making) - baseless, irrelevant and silly argument.
Reply to Gdemami: (The text editor seems broken currently)
That people purchase something, just means that they purchase something, nothing else. One is very much able to purchase without actually wanting it. Apathy, routine, group expectations and boredom can lead to several purchases.
Glad to have read some of the reply's cause this one saved me (and others :P) from a lenghty post I wanted to make.
People don't know what they want.
Do you want art or do you want entertainment? The majority want entertainment.
It's the same for the music and film industry. The real art is either underground or independent.
I am not arguing why people want what they want but when they do have a choice, it is the expression of desire and will that makes them chose one product over another.
And apparently they do have the choice. They do not have to play MMOs, they do not have to play MMOS they are playing, yet they do therefore they want, prefer them over others.
The MMORPG population was not initially that large. Then came WoW and it brought in 10Mil players. But that's an anomaly, It's never been duplicated. I think the market has been trying to correct itself for several years now and settle back to it's original norm. But the developers and publishers have been trying like mad to keep the balloon artificially inflated. They have been altering the games for a wider appeal.As a result of what they are doing we now have games where players measure it in several months, not several years. Unless some developer is able to create some miracle game again, the market is ultimately going to win this battle, but what will it have done to the genre by then?
There is a difference between wanting to fill a void and wanting a specific product. I can pay for a product for it to attempt to fill a void (like when I am bored) and that does not mean I want that specific product, it just happens to be the one I gave a chance. I won't find out if the product is a specific I want until after I've actually tested it properly.
You can very much want to play a MMO without wanting to play the specific MMO they chose to play. As I've pointed out before, there is a charm with the concept of "Massively Multiplayer".
I would expect to find many people who actually want the game they are playing among those who keep subscribing and playing the same MMO for over a year. Although a certain amount of them are expected to stay because of the company they keep and not the game itself.
Edit: Analogously, sometimes I've already watched all relevant episodes of the tv-series I follow, but I am too tired to play a game and may be too tired to watch a full movie, that's a point where I can actually give a new tv-series a chance despite not knowing whether or not I want to see that particular series.
Millions upon millios of happy customers....