Interesting post. I got a few laughs out of it too. How would you classify F2P games then? Dinos or Mammals? What about browser based games?
Neither. F2P games are generally evolutionary dead ends because the goal of F2P games isn't to create a game so much as to create a money sink in your wallet and get you to part with obscene amounts of cash while convincing you that the game doesn't cost you a penny. Its the con, the shell game, the 3-card monte of gaming. Everyone wins, but the house is really the only winner. You're a mark, a shill, an easy target when you play. Like playing Tic-Tac-Toe, the only winning move is not to play.
I know it's off topic, but just had to quote this. Good to see there are other people out there that get it.
On topic though, great little overview article. I hope Justin will continue the 'series' and start to look at deeper aspects of this.
I just couldn't disagree with Justin more. I do believe that there are positive benefits of an online presence, but just like anything else it gets absued. I am very leary about what technology may be doing to us in a social aspect. All this non "face-to-face" commnicaiton such as Facebook, MySpace, and texting worries me. Why can't we call people and talk to them on the phone, or just have a "real" conversation with someone without using text shorthand? Sure, it's convenient, but when you have people sitting next to each other, but preferring to text than talk, we have a problem.
More on the point though, I believe that certain types of games warrent certain applications. Specifically it's damn hard to play a FPS on the iPhone and somewhat difficult with a console controller (especially the 360 controller). And the amount of information, windows, and control mechanisms don't allow for a MMO to work on a console controller, much less an iPhone.
Also though, there is no way to play a modern MMO on the iPhone or other smartphone, it just doesn't have the computing capability to run the kinds of graphics necessary. Could that happen in the future, sure. Personally, if the technology and controlability of consoles and smartphones can catch up the high-end requirements of a modern MMO, I'm game.
The point is that technology in small mobile devices needs to catch up to MMOs, not dumbing down MMOs so they can be played on small mobile devices so the "social" and "casual" audiences can play them. If that's the case, let's all just play Pac-Man because that's what it will get reduced to, at least in the current scenario.
However, I don't see this happening for many years. I'm still rather young, so perhaps when I'm my father's age we'll have this capability. But as technology progresses so too do the applications (including games) than run on them. So either, the scenario we have now will persist, with PCs getting the best options, or it's possible that one day we will have TV, Internet, Video, Communication, and Gaming amongst alot of other pontential things all built into one portable device. Although I would prefer it not implanted into my brain thanks.
The holographic screen that one poster mentioned could make this possible, but I would extend it to the control surfaces as well (holographic keyboard and mouse, or controller depending on the game or application), see HAI (Haptic Adaptive Interface) in Mass Effect 2 for an example.
For instance you place your "device" on a flat surfce (any surface), press a key, button or utter a speech command, and out pops a holographic control surface and screen. Repress the button, key, or utter another speech command and the holographic control sufrace dissapears and you pick your device and go about your day.
However, unless a miracle happens I think corporations would heavily stiffle this, being that want market dominance of "their" product (and to be the sole distributor of content for it [i.e., Apple]), and wouldn't go for an all in one device because they couldn't have control over it.
Some of you may be calling yourself dinosaurs, I guess yes, you are correct if you are "unwilling" to adapt. When I am driving, pretty much everyone around is using a cell phone. Walk through the supermarket these days? No, it's not a pickup joint for the middle aged like it used to be 10 years ago. Instead, almost everyone is on the cell phone all the way from the deli counter to checkout.
Yesterday, I was pulling off the interstate and I noticed a woman walking her daughter who couldn't be more than 4 or 5 years old. She was talking on her cell phone the entire time I was creeping past through traffic for a good 3 minutes.
Obviously with all new technologies, there are consequenes. Some good, some bad - and it really depends on how you percieve it because there really aren't too many moral compasses around technology yet except for those involving nudity or vulgar language.
For those who aren't willing to adapt, it's okay - there will be games developed for your age group for a long time to come. You will find them in the $40 dollar bin (which will be the new $10 bin) at the local Walmart. Unfortunetly, in 20 years or so - you won't be able to read the newspaper at a library. Newspapers will be nearly all electronic and libraries will probably contain a lot less books and a lot more computers.
Anyway, the internet has only been around for the majority of people (not including BBSes or university access) for the past 15 years. Look how much it has affected our lives directly and indirectly in an extremely short amount of time. Now, the internet is moving in it's next direction. Instead of information network - the general public is now using it as a social network. Whether you want it or not - the entire internet is beginning be change direction. Including any games and web sites that use it.
Interesting post. I got a few laughs out of it too. How would you classify F2P games then? Dinos or Mammals? What about browser based games?
Neither. F2P games are generally evolutionary dead ends because the goal of F2P games isn't to create a game so much as to create a money sink in your wallet and get you to part with obscene amounts of cash while convincing you that the game doesn't cost you a penny. Its the con, the shell game, the 3-card monte of gaming. Everyone wins, but the house is really the only winner. You're a mark, a shill, an easy target when you play. Like playing Tic-Tac-Toe, the only winning move is not to play.
I know it's off topic, but just had to quote this. Good to see there are other people out there that get it.
On topic though, great little overview article. I hope Justin will continue the 'series' and start to look at deeper aspects of this.
I have to disagree. Naturally those games are designed to make money while not reinventing the wheel, however it is easy simply not to spend money at all and get plenty of enjoyment out of them. For the end user, the goal is to enjoy the game. It isn't a con game at all, you know right up front that it is free until you choose to spend your money. There are games that make it decidedly difficult to advance without paying, but there are just as many that do not and in the end, it is your own ego that forces you to pay for items that serve only to enlarge your e-peen.
Sure there are different ways of watching movies, however there are some movies that their theater experiences cannot be replicated outside of the theater. If so theaters would be closing down and movies wouldn't be breaking weekend attendance records.
These user interface hardwares, that are being wrongly attributed to a Third Age, have been around since the very beginning of gaming and continue through their fads today. There have been racing wheels forever, fully featured flight sticks, and lets not forget that one Mech game that had a huge freaking console controller. Nintendo's powerglove, the light guns, etc etc etc. These "new" input devices have died off more times than any other fad in gaming so to proclaim them the "mammals" while traditional input methods are labeled "dinosaurs" is a whole lot of nothing and shows a distinct, imo, lack of knowledge of that which has gone on before.
As to the whole social networking nonsense, not everyone uses facebook. Not everyone is a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic asshat that actually believes that their own little narrow view of the world means jack squat. Sure these developers may try and rope you in with iphone apps, or ways of interacting with the game in some limited fashion from your watch (people do still wear those right?) but that will lead, quite simply, to more and more people running into problems with the real world. Things like work and family. If someone truly needs to keep track of the virtual toon that they rent from blizzard 24 hours a day 7 days a week they probably should pick up a less destructive habit like crack or heroin.
Quoted one more time, just for the heck of it .
Now, taking it a bit more seriously - If that was progress I'd be happy to proclaim myself outdated.
First of all. Trends do change but not every change is an improvement. As such calling an evolution something that haven't even seen life yet, and as such cannot be even subjectively compared, is as far-fetched as it gets.
If we take a look ah how video games were played way back when Sonic and Mario were new we can see games that didn't even use mouse, used around 10 buttons and were perfectly fitted for both Keyboard and dandy-like gamepad. The "middle age" (if we have to define periods in gaming by interface) brought something more complex to the table, and many do call Mario and Sonic dinosaurs of gaming (myself included) but that's simply due to them being "ancient" and huge. As we can see "platformers" are still here and aren't planning on going anywhere in future. That's basically because they give a different experience than games that require a keyboard +mouse combo or a lua-based interface modification or a gun or wheal or a guitar or whatever else... Not objectively better or worse, just different.
The invention of cars allowed racing competitions but we still have running competitions as well. Just because something has more functions it isn't going to dominate the world.
In fact many games are utilizing limitations of functionality as gameplay elements. Sure you can have computer calculate the shot for you in a game but we're still aiming ourselves for some reason.
Games are based on their rules. How restrictive or unrestrictive those rules are is what makes or brakes the game. There are games where the trick is to hit precisely and there are games where the trick is to make preparations that allow your toon to hit precisely. None of those two is an evolution of another they are just different types of games.
If there's ever an mmo where the fun is gained by controlling it with mobile or a touch-pen or some funky motion device it's just a new type of game, and THAT'S IT. If there's a game that requires a social site interaction it's again a new type of game, maybe not even a video game. Text-based persistent roleplaying anyone?
Merging them isn't a proverbial one-way-hop-to-the-better either. A lot of existing games have Actually driven away their fans by mixing the genres. "They put shooter in my RPG!" / "They put RPG in my shooter!" rings a bell to anyone? Can't say that they failed either, they have their audience.
Making different types of gameplay help to further one cause isn't an evolutionary step either. Anyone heard of savage? Having actual players as your units didn't cause an RTS revolution. Savage too has it's audience, but that's just another different kind of game.
I don't see a reason why would people sitting by a keyboard want to cooperate with people waving motion controller around or playing on PSP in one mmo so badly that it'd kill an existing genre.
To be honest even the current outcry of old-timers about dumbed-down "consolised" games exists solely because of the diverted attention. If our type of games wasn't harder to make than "the new breed" and by that less profitable (most profit comes from hype/advertisement, as such costly development is just an extra burden in the eyes of investor) most of us could peacefully coexist with next generation (aside from those willing to start a holly war just because there are different ways then theirs, but those people are never at peace).
Oh, and a bit off the topic, since the word passed by it, the assembly line is the 3rd worst invention that ever happened to mankind. Would have been second, but the would-be leader of that chain isn't being as harmful as it could due to international treaties.
A good book to read is the Halting State by Charles Stross - it describes a world where MMORPG are accessible from practically anywhere (mobile phones etc) and that MMORPG can be linked to another MMORPG.
When reading your piece I was reminded of this book and how it made me think on where the genre should be heading - better of for worse.
Wiki excerpt -
"Halting State is a novel by Charles Stross, published in the United States on October 2, 2007 and in the UK in January, 2008.[1] Stross has said that it is "a thriller set in the software houses that write multiplayer games".[2] The plot centres around a bank robbery in a virtual world.[3] It features speculative technologies, including Specs and virtual server networks over mobile phones. The book is on its second printing in the United States.[4]The novel was nominated for the both the Hugo and Locus Awards in 2008.[5]"
Very good read and surprisingly IT "correct" in where you would expect the medium to be heading .
"Obi-Wan Kenobi: We were decieved by a lie; we all were. It appears that SOE is behind everything, including the NGE! After the death of CU, the NGE became their new apprentice."
I just couldn't disagree with Justin more. I do believe that there are positive benefits of an online presence, but just like anything else it gets absued. I am very leary about what technology may be doing to us in a social aspect. All this non "face-to-face" commnicaiton such as Facebook, MySpace, and texting worries me. Why can't we call people and talk to them on the phone, or just have a "real" conversation with someone without using text shorthand? Sure, it's convenient, but when you have people sitting next to each other, but preferring to text than talk, we have a problem.
More on the point though, I believe that certain types of games warrent certain applications. Specifically it's damn hard to play a FPS on the iPhone and somewhat difficult with a console controller (especially the 360 controller). And the amount of information, windows, and control mechanisms don't allow for a MMO to work on a console controller, much less an iPhone.
Also though, there is no way to play a modern MMO on the iPhone or other smartphone, it just doesn't have the computing capability to run the kinds of graphics necessary. Could that happen in the future, sure. Personally, if the technology and controlability of consoles and smartphones can catch up the high-end requirements of a modern MMO, I'm game.
The point is that technology in small mobile devices needs to catch up to MMOs, not dumbing down MMOs so they can be played on small mobile devices so the "social" and "casual" audiences can play them. If that's the case, let's all just play Pac-Man because that's what it will get reduced to, at least in the current scenario.
However, I don't see this happening for many years. I'm still rather young, so perhaps when I'm my father's age we'll have this capability. But as technology progresses so too do the applications (including games) than run on them. So either, the scenario we have now will persist, with PCs getting the best options, or it's possible that one day we will have TV, Internet, Video, Communication, and Gaming amongst alot of other pontential things all built into one portable device. Although I would prefer it not implanted into my brain thanks.
The holographic screen that one poster mentioned could make this possible, but I would extend it to the control surfaces as well (holographic keyboard and mouse, or controller depending on the game or application), see HAI (Haptic Adaptive Interface) in Mass Effect 2 for an example.
For instance you place your "device" on a flat surfce (any surface), press a key, button or utter a speech command, and out pops a holographic control surface and screen. Repress the button, key, or utter another speech command and the holographic control sufrace dissapears and you pick your device and go about your day.
However, unless a miracle happens I think corporations would heavily stiffle this, being that want market dominance of "their" product (and to be the sole distributor of content for it [i.e., Apple]), and wouldn't go for an all in one device because they couldn't have control over it.
Some of you may be calling yourself dinosaurs, I guess yes, you are correct if you are "unwilling" to adapt. When I am driving, pretty much everyone around is using a cell phone. Walk through the supermarket these days? No, it's not a pickup joint for the middle aged like it used to be 10 years ago. Instead, almost everyone is on the cell phone all the way from the deli counter to checkout.
Yesterday, I was pulling off the interstate and I noticed a woman walking her daughter who couldn't be more than 4 or 5 years old. She was talking on her cell phone the entire time I was creeping past through traffic for a good 3 minutes.
Obviously with all new technologies, there are consequenes. Some good, some bad - and it really depends on how you percieve it because there really aren't too many moral compasses around technology yet except for those involving nudity or vulgar language.
For those who aren't willing to adapt, it's okay - there will be games developed for your age group for a long time to come. You will find them in the $40 dollar bin (which will be the new $10 bin) at the local Walmart. Unfortunetly, in 20 years or so - you won't be able to read the newspaper at a library. Newspapers will be nearly all electronic and libraries will probably contain a lot less books and a lot more computers.
Anyway, the internet has only been around for the majority of people (not including BBSes or university access) for the past 15 years. Look how much it has affected our lives directly and indirectly in an extremely short amount of time. Now, the internet is moving in it's next direction. Instead of information network - the general public is now using it as a social network. Whether you want it or not - the entire internet is beginning be change direction. Including any games and web sites that use it.
You didn't understand my post at all. Using technology is a very convenient method However when a person or group of people choose to use that method in leiu of "real" and face-to-face communication, it can lead to the breakdown of human social understanding and how we deal with each other. I would highly reccomend everyone read this article, http://socyberty.com/society/the-social-effects-of-technology/
It's not really a matter of adaptability, I use a blackberry everyday and I build computers so I am quite up to date with technology. I am very adaptable. But according to you and some other people, since I am "unwilling" to use social media (i.e., Facebook), somehow that makes me unwilling to adapt. I "can" use it just fine, but I prefer face-to-face communication rather talking to a screen (nor do I feel the necessity to tell the enitre world what I am doing every five seconds), it's more meaningful to me when I can see the reactions on other people's faces.
You didn't understand my post at all. Using technology is a very convenient method However when a person or group of people choose to use that method in leiu of "real" and face-to-face communication, it can lead to the breakdown of human social understanding and how we deal with each other. I would highly reccomend everyone read this article, http://socyberty.com/society/the-social-effects-of-technology/
It's not really a matter of adaptability, I use a blackberry everyday and I build computers so I am quite up to date with technology. I am very adaptable. But according to you and some other people, since I am "unwilling" to use social media (i.e., Facebook), somehow that makes me unwilling to adapt. I "can" use it just fine, but I prefer face-to-face communication rather talking to a screen (nor do I feel the necessity to tell the enitre world what I am doing every five seconds), it's more meaningful to me when I can see the reactions on other people's faces.
Maybe I worded it a little wrong. The reason why I made the reference to the mother walking her daughter while chatting away on the cell phone is because of just the opposite of what you prefer has already become the norm. Most people already use their cell phones as a means of escape from menial tasks - such as driving and shopping. I would assume this is more prominent in largely populated and thickly settled areas.
I'm a programmer and I have this very same argument all the time with one of my coworkers. He thinks that most forms of social networking are stupid. Simply because he would rather go out and see them. However, I am seeing more and more that people are using it as a means to socialize when they really shouldn't be (such as driving and work).
Like I was saying before there are good bits of technology and bad bits depending on how you look it. Just like you, I don't need to know everything that everyone does, but there are plenty of other features that are useful to me. For example, it would be nice to read ingame emails outside of the game or see a calandar of events for my guild/clan/corp updated in realtime over my phone. Wait .. I just got a tweet. My guild is wondering if I want to go storm castle AAaaaarggghhhh! tonight. Hrm, I got nothing planned - sure .. I'll jump in game. This to me is a useful form of social networking. Cross gaming is useful as well. Tired of a long night of eve and want to play Bad Company 2? Send a facebook message to your corp mates and see if anyone wants to squad up.
I'm sure you can think of useful examples as well. But, what may be useful to me may be useless to you and vice versa. That doesn't mean social networking should be discredited or avoided. The fact that it may be integrated with all future games and some of the existing games shouldn't be a deterant. However, it will change things. For example, how the dungeon finder changes people's mindsets in WoW.
Besides, since we are talking about games (MMOs mainly in particular) - I don't wan't to see people face to face.
Like I was saying before there are good bits of technology and bad bits depending on how you look it. Just like you, I don't need to know everything that everyone does, but there are plenty of other features that are useful to me. For example, it would be nice to read ingame emails outside of the game or see a calandar of events for my guild/clan/corp updated in realtime over my phone. Wait .. I just got a tweet. My guild is wondering if I want to go storm castle AAaaaarggghhhh! tonight. Hrm, I got nothing planned - sure .. I'll jump in game. This to me is a useful form of social networking. Cross gaming is useful as well. Tired of a long night of eve and want to play Bad Company 2? Send a facebook message to your corp mates and see if anyone wants to squad up.
I think we have similar opinions, just that they are worded in different ways. A miscommunication if you will.
As far as receiving in-game information outside of the game that doesn't bother me at all, and I agree with you that it is a "useful" form of social networking. Eve is actually attempting to do this with their EveGate project (although poorly I think). However, I do agree that more and more people are using social media, that was never in dispute. However, as I've said, I worry about what it will eventually do to us as a species and our "humanity". That's all.
I don't necessarily think that social networking is useless, rather it's a very useful tool for communicating "quick" messages between yourself and your guildmates as you put it. As a CEO in Eve it would help me quite a bit to get information out to my membership. So it is very useful.
I think I may have misintrepreted this entire article, and if so I apologize to the previous posters and to you Mr. Webb. I understood the article to mean that MMOs and other games would have to be dumbed down to the level of Farmville to be more accessible to those "casual" gamers using Facebook and other venues. Quite honestly, that concept makes me quite angry. I like my games complex and involving, it's escapism. I can't really escape in Farmville, although that is my opinion.
Rather though, if the article was referring to what Kaelaan21 was saying then I am fine with that. But I still protest though people who have entire conversation via twitter, facebook, or texting. Just call them, some people have very nice voices, listen to them.
Interesting article, whatever you define the next age of MMOs as I do not really care but you have your term so ets go for it.
I believe that MMOs as initially defined are dying and with the advent as described with respect to social media. This is the final nail in the cofin.
Let me explain, I am someone who if impressed in some way I am inclined to invest a lot of time in a project.... MMOs are one those areas if gameplay community and fun exist that catches my attention. Being of sound mind I also have a life outside of Gaming again a very busy one. The current MMOs baring the odd one are all but killing real community and fun, and for whatever reason (I guess small minded people who do not have real lives) have become win at all cost endgame Arena game specials which substitue real life acheivment which is sad..
Not in my opinion fun , too automated , too easy , no challenge. Lets call in the possy from Facebook/Twiter or whatever the flavor of the day is . I have lots of friends but they are not pixelated fabrications on social websites.
The Third age is dawning but I really hope someone would take a few steps backs and freeze out all the Whack a mole features that seem to be part of the Lazy approach to game design we see these days, and give us a real game to play that cannot be completed in Days but years.
I think i will load up Nethack , that will make me smile. Damn single player not here.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
1. Severius' comment was pretty much saying it all, the only thing I disagree with is the cinema part as the reason a lot of ppl still go there is also because they don't have the patience to wait until the movie becomes available for another medium.
2. To the guy promoting a revolution by PC/console playing together: it has been done before, FF XI had that years ago already.
Hi there. <-- That guy here.
I actually played FF XI when it first came out for the PC for the first few months. Didn't care for it much. When I found out that it hit console, I asked around and people told me that it was a seporate server. Never looked into that much because it hasn't been polished much. If that is the case then FF XIV is probably going to follow the same suit. If so, that's great.
I wish more MMOs would do this. I remember AoC claiming to have an Xbox 360 port in development, but it never happened (yet). All of the consoles have wireless keyboards now. The 360 even has a mini keyboard that can plug into your existing joystick for cheap. Not sure, but I bet the PS3 has something simular. I'm sure there are wireless mice out there too for the consoles, but I would prefer the joystick plus mini-keyboard myself.
It anoys me seeing that regular games that go cross platform don't allow their online services to be connected (i.e. Call of Duty).
Final Fantasy online had console and PC players playing together, as did Phantasy star online. Its doable, but you have to remove the "reflex" element from the game and make the interface a standard one with contextual menus.
Any balance issues around hardware would be for the end user to solve, you dont see MMO developers doing much more than giving graphics options to players with lower end machines.
Most MMO's have bad grpahics and shonky mechanics due to poor programming and yet PC's still have trouble running them most of the time.
The average wireless device compared to PC has about as much power and grunt as a windup doll does over a nuclear power plant. Consoles being about 3 times more power than a battery operated doll phone. If MMO market goes multiuplatform we will continue to see overly advertised water down easy MMO's that set the standards so low in terms of technical brilliance so that dev have to put absolutely no effort whatsoever into making a quality game. Cross platform = bad games. Look at World of Warcraft filled 90% with kids who accept that game as being good? Good and popular are two different terms.
Lets hope consumers wake up and smell the bacon. Here is my future snap.
PC players all over the world get sick on linear run down the tunnel collect or shoot 10 of these and say hey, give us the power back with classy LAN + DIRECT capable IP to IP games designed to run on the $3000 pc system we paid to see good graphics.
Nvidia and AMD must be getting quite concerned about the lack of class games being produced to really show off thier cards capabilities. So stop buying crap folks and buy games that are produced for PC utlising the power we paid for!
Most MMO's have bad grpahics and shonky mechanics due to poor programming and yet PC's still have trouble running them most of the time.
While I agree with you that there's room and need for improvement, I think you've underestimated the difficulty of:
1) Rendering a large open environment with potentially over a hundred player avatars onscreen at once... all with unique appearances.
2) Designing mechanics that function adequately when you're playing on a server that may be a continent away from your PC, and can handle the aforementioned hundred players all trying to do something different at the same time.
3) Crafting an experience that a player is inclined to pay a monthly subscription for, for years at a stretch.
I agree with this completely, bcause its not that easy, your point actually backs up the fact you really do need a PC for this very reason, else we get a watered down game that can run on anything.
The third age of mmos? More of the same. The lines between an engaging social based game and a boring grinder will become more and more of a wash. You will continue to play, even if you log out of one game, and fire up another. The status quot and investors will have more say regarding revenue subscription, and will grow in strength of last word, even though most have never touched the "W" key unless they are in word or excel.
Here is the problem facing the industry and players as a whole.
Van Gogh did not paint for financial gain.
Richard Garriot (though he is a twit now) did not start the ultima series which later became UO to gain enough revenue to fly into space, though that was the end result.
Mcquaid filled a void, is an extremely creative individual, but when EQ was being developed, it was for the love of MUDs, with a potential payoff to be able to sit on his ass and play videogames and not worry about money.
SWG's creation and development by its two heads had nothing to do with a revenue stream in their eyes.
Wow was initially concieved and developed for the same reasons EQ was. Its turned into its own monster, and completely killed the genre. It won't be dethroned by anything "better" and every development house knows it. They just want a small percentage of revenue that wow generates. Thats it.
Most readers here won't get it. Games now are created PURELY for revenue. It is the tit and the tat. Good graphics and creativity is ONLY present to generate more sales, not for the sake of artistic vision, gameplay or creativity.
I am glad some people are saying they don't buy into all this interactivity crap that the media are peddling. How much interactivity do we need? What the hell do you need Facebook involved in an MMO for? How does it add value to the game experience by being able to access the game from your iPhone? At best it is a less impressive experience than being at home at your pimped out desktop. Not saying it won't happen, because in certain circumstance it might come in handy, but really... this not revolutionizing anything. Get off the band-wagon!
Comments
I know it's off topic, but just had to quote this. Good to see there are other people out there that get it.
On topic though, great little overview article. I hope Justin will continue the 'series' and start to look at deeper aspects of this.
Some of you may be calling yourself dinosaurs, I guess yes, you are correct if you are "unwilling" to adapt. When I am driving, pretty much everyone around is using a cell phone. Walk through the supermarket these days? No, it's not a pickup joint for the middle aged like it used to be 10 years ago. Instead, almost everyone is on the cell phone all the way from the deli counter to checkout.
Yesterday, I was pulling off the interstate and I noticed a woman walking her daughter who couldn't be more than 4 or 5 years old. She was talking on her cell phone the entire time I was creeping past through traffic for a good 3 minutes.
Obviously with all new technologies, there are consequenes. Some good, some bad - and it really depends on how you percieve it because there really aren't too many moral compasses around technology yet except for those involving nudity or vulgar language.
For those who aren't willing to adapt, it's okay - there will be games developed for your age group for a long time to come. You will find them in the $40 dollar bin (which will be the new $10 bin) at the local Walmart. Unfortunetly, in 20 years or so - you won't be able to read the newspaper at a library. Newspapers will be nearly all electronic and libraries will probably contain a lot less books and a lot more computers.
Anyway, the internet has only been around for the majority of people (not including BBSes or university access) for the past 15 years. Look how much it has affected our lives directly and indirectly in an extremely short amount of time. Now, the internet is moving in it's next direction. Instead of information network - the general public is now using it as a social network. Whether you want it or not - the entire internet is beginning be change direction. Including any games and web sites that use it.
I have to disagree. Naturally those games are designed to make money while not reinventing the wheel, however it is easy simply not to spend money at all and get plenty of enjoyment out of them. For the end user, the goal is to enjoy the game. It isn't a con game at all, you know right up front that it is free until you choose to spend your money. There are games that make it decidedly difficult to advance without paying, but there are just as many that do not and in the end, it is your own ego that forces you to pay for items that serve only to enlarge your e-peen.
Quoted one more time, just for the heck of it
.
Now, taking it a bit more seriously - If that was progress I'd be happy to proclaim myself outdated.
First of all. Trends do change but not every change is an improvement. As such calling an evolution something that haven't even seen life yet, and as such cannot be even subjectively compared, is as far-fetched as it gets.
If we take a look ah how video games were played way back when Sonic and Mario were new we can see games that didn't even use mouse, used around 10 buttons and were perfectly fitted for both Keyboard and dandy-like gamepad. The "middle age" (if we have to define periods in gaming by interface) brought something more complex to the table, and many do call Mario and Sonic dinosaurs of gaming (myself included) but that's simply due to them being "ancient" and huge. As we can see "platformers" are still here and aren't planning on going anywhere in future. That's basically because they give a different experience than games that require a keyboard +mouse combo or a lua-based interface modification or a gun or wheal or a guitar or whatever else... Not objectively better or worse, just different.
The invention of cars allowed racing competitions but we still have running competitions as well. Just because something has more functions it isn't going to dominate the world.
In fact many games are utilizing limitations of functionality as gameplay elements. Sure you can have computer calculate the shot for you in a game but we're still aiming ourselves for some reason.
Games are based on their rules. How restrictive or unrestrictive those rules are is what makes or brakes the game. There are games where the trick is to hit precisely and there are games where the trick is to make preparations that allow your toon to hit precisely. None of those two is an evolution of another they are just different types of games.
If there's ever an mmo where the fun is gained by controlling it with mobile or a touch-pen or some funky motion device it's just a new type of game, and THAT'S IT. If there's a game that requires a social site interaction it's again a new type of game, maybe not even a video game. Text-based persistent roleplaying anyone?
Merging them isn't a proverbial one-way-hop-to-the-better either. A lot of existing games have Actually driven away their fans by mixing the genres. "They put shooter in my RPG!" / "They put RPG in my shooter!" rings a bell to anyone? Can't say that they failed either, they have their audience.
Making different types of gameplay help to further one cause isn't an evolutionary step either. Anyone heard of savage? Having actual players as your units didn't cause an RTS revolution. Savage too has it's audience, but that's just another different kind of game.
I don't see a reason why would people sitting by a keyboard want to cooperate with people waving motion controller around or playing on PSP in one mmo so badly that it'd kill an existing genre.
To be honest even the current outcry of old-timers about dumbed-down "consolised" games exists solely because of the diverted attention. If our type of games wasn't harder to make than "the new breed" and by that less profitable (most profit comes from hype/advertisement, as such costly development is just an extra burden in the eyes of investor) most of us could peacefully coexist with next generation (aside from those willing to start a holly war just because there are different ways then theirs, but those people are never at peace).
Oh, and a bit off the topic, since the word passed by it, the assembly line is the 3rd worst invention that ever happened to mankind. Would have been second, but the would-be leader of that chain isn't being as harmful as it could due to international treaties.
A good book to read is the Halting State by Charles Stross - it describes a world where MMORPG are accessible from practically anywhere (mobile phones etc) and that MMORPG can be linked to another MMORPG.
When reading your piece I was reminded of this book and how it made me think on where the genre should be heading - better of for worse.
Wiki excerpt -
"Halting State is a novel by Charles Stross, published in the United States on October 2, 2007 and in the UK in January, 2008.[1] Stross has said that it is "a thriller set in the software houses that write multiplayer games".[2] The plot centres around a bank robbery in a virtual world.[3] It features speculative technologies, including Specs and virtual server networks over mobile phones. The book is on its second printing in the United States.[4]The novel was nominated for the both the Hugo and Locus Awards in 2008.[5]"
Very good read and surprisingly IT "correct" in where you would expect the medium to be heading
.
"Obi-Wan Kenobi: We were decieved by a lie; we all were. It appears that SOE is behind everything, including the NGE! After the death of CU, the NGE became their new apprentice."
You didn't understand my post at all. Using technology is a very convenient method However when a person or group of people choose to use that method in leiu of "real" and face-to-face communication, it can lead to the breakdown of human social understanding and how we deal with each other. I would highly reccomend everyone read this article, http://socyberty.com/society/the-social-effects-of-technology/
It's not really a matter of adaptability, I use a blackberry everyday and I build computers so I am quite up to date with technology. I am very adaptable. But according to you and some other people, since I am "unwilling" to use social media (i.e., Facebook), somehow that makes me unwilling to adapt. I "can" use it just fine, but I prefer face-to-face communication rather talking to a screen (nor do I feel the necessity to tell the enitre world what I am doing every five seconds), it's more meaningful to me when I can see the reactions on other people's faces.
All I have to say is thank god thats theres actaully a inteligent and logicol gamer. Sorry for bad english.
Maybe I worded it a little wrong. The reason why I made the reference to the mother walking her daughter while chatting away on the cell phone is because of just the opposite of what you prefer has already become the norm. Most people already use their cell phones as a means of escape from menial tasks - such as driving and shopping. I would assume this is more prominent in largely populated and thickly settled areas.
I'm a programmer and I have this very same argument all the time with one of my coworkers. He thinks that most forms of social networking are stupid. Simply because he would rather go out and see them. However, I am seeing more and more that people are using it as a means to socialize when they really shouldn't be (such as driving and work).
Like I was saying before there are good bits of technology and bad bits depending on how you look it. Just like you, I don't need to know everything that everyone does, but there are plenty of other features that are useful to me. For example, it would be nice to read ingame emails outside of the game or see a calandar of events for my guild/clan/corp updated in realtime over my phone. Wait .. I just got a tweet. My guild is wondering if I want to go storm castle AAaaaarggghhhh! tonight. Hrm, I got nothing planned - sure .. I'll jump in game. This to me is a useful form of social networking. Cross gaming is useful as well. Tired of a long night of eve and want to play Bad Company 2? Send a facebook message to your corp mates and see if anyone wants to squad up.
I'm sure you can think of useful examples as well. But, what may be useful to me may be useless to you and vice versa. That doesn't mean social networking should be discredited or avoided. The fact that it may be integrated with all future games and some of the existing games shouldn't be a deterant. However, it will change things. For example, how the dungeon finder changes people's mindsets in WoW.
Besides, since we are talking about games (MMOs mainly in particular) - I don't wan't to see people face to face.
I think we have similar opinions, just that they are worded in different ways. A miscommunication if you will.
As far as receiving in-game information outside of the game that doesn't bother me at all, and I agree with you that it is a "useful" form of social networking. Eve is actually attempting to do this with their EveGate project (although poorly I think). However, I do agree that more and more people are using social media, that was never in dispute. However, as I've said, I worry about what it will eventually do to us as a species and our "humanity". That's all.
I don't necessarily think that social networking is useless, rather it's a very useful tool for communicating "quick" messages between yourself and your guildmates as you put it. As a CEO in Eve it would help me quite a bit to get information out to my membership. So it is very useful.
I think I may have misintrepreted this entire article, and if so I apologize to the previous posters and to you Mr. Webb. I understood the article to mean that MMOs and other games would have to be dumbed down to the level of Farmville to be more accessible to those "casual" gamers using Facebook and other venues. Quite honestly, that concept makes me quite angry. I like my games complex and involving, it's escapism. I can't really escape in Farmville, although that is my opinion.
Rather though, if the article was referring to what Kaelaan21 was saying then I am fine with that. But I still protest though people who have entire conversation via twitter, facebook, or texting. Just call them, some people have very nice voices, listen to them.
Interesting article, whatever you define the next age of MMOs as I do not really care but you have your term so ets go for it.
I believe that MMOs as initially defined are dying and with the advent as described with respect to social media. This is the final nail in the cofin.
Let me explain, I am someone who if impressed in some way I am inclined to invest a lot of time in a project.... MMOs are one those areas if gameplay community and fun exist that catches my attention. Being of sound mind I also have a life outside of Gaming again a very busy one. The current MMOs baring the odd one are all but killing real community and fun, and for whatever reason (I guess small minded people who do not have real lives) have become win at all cost endgame Arena game specials which substitue real life acheivment which is sad..
Not in my opinion fun , too automated , too easy , no challenge. Lets call in the possy from Facebook/Twiter or whatever the flavor of the day is . I have lots of friends but they are not pixelated fabrications on social websites.
The Third age is dawning but I really hope someone would take a few steps backs and freeze out all the Whack a mole features that seem to be part of the Lazy approach to game design we see these days, and give us a real game to play that cannot be completed in Days but years.
I think i will load up Nethack , that will make me smile. Damn single player not here.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Final Fantasy online had console and PC players playing together, as did Phantasy star online. Its doable, but you have to remove the "reflex" element from the game and make the interface a standard one with contextual menus.
Any balance issues around hardware would be for the end user to solve, you dont see MMO developers doing much more than giving graphics options to players with lower end machines.
Most MMO's have bad grpahics and shonky mechanics due to poor programming and yet PC's still have trouble running them most of the time.
The average wireless device compared to PC has about as much power and grunt as a windup doll does over a nuclear power plant. Consoles being about 3 times more power than a battery operated doll phone. If MMO market goes multiuplatform we will continue to see overly advertised water down easy MMO's that set the standards so low in terms of technical brilliance so that dev have to put absolutely no effort whatsoever into making a quality game. Cross platform = bad games. Look at World of Warcraft filled 90% with kids who accept that game as being good? Good and popular are two different terms.
Lets hope consumers wake up and smell the bacon. Here is my future snap.
PC players all over the world get sick on linear run down the tunnel collect or shoot 10 of these and say hey, give us the power back with classy LAN + DIRECT capable IP to IP games designed to run on the $3000 pc system we paid to see good graphics.
Nvidia and AMD must be getting quite concerned about the lack of class games being produced to really show off thier cards capabilities. So stop buying crap folks and buy games that are produced for PC utlising the power we paid for!
While I agree with you that there's room and need for improvement, I think you've underestimated the difficulty of:
1) Rendering a large open environment with potentially over a hundred player avatars onscreen at once... all with unique appearances.
2) Designing mechanics that function adequately when you're playing on a server that may be a continent away from your PC, and can handle the aforementioned hundred players all trying to do something different at the same time.
3) Crafting an experience that a player is inclined to pay a monthly subscription for, for years at a stretch.
I agree with this completely, bcause its not that easy, your point actually backs up the fact you really do need a PC for this very reason, else we get a watered down game that can run on anything.
Casio FX-52 Boxing MMO anyone? ;-)
The third age of mmos? More of the same. The lines between an engaging social based game and a boring grinder will become more and more of a wash. You will continue to play, even if you log out of one game, and fire up another. The status quot and investors will have more say regarding revenue subscription, and will grow in strength of last word, even though most have never touched the "W" key unless they are in word or excel.
Here is the problem facing the industry and players as a whole.
Van Gogh did not paint for financial gain.
Richard Garriot (though he is a twit now) did not start the ultima series which later became UO to gain enough revenue to fly into space, though that was the end result.
Mcquaid filled a void, is an extremely creative individual, but when EQ was being developed, it was for the love of MUDs, with a potential payoff to be able to sit on his ass and play videogames and not worry about money.
SWG's creation and development by its two heads had nothing to do with a revenue stream in their eyes.
Wow was initially concieved and developed for the same reasons EQ was. Its turned into its own monster, and completely killed the genre. It won't be dethroned by anything "better" and every development house knows it. They just want a small percentage of revenue that wow generates. Thats it.
Most readers here won't get it. Games now are created PURELY for revenue. It is the tit and the tat. Good graphics and creativity is ONLY present to generate more sales, not for the sake of artistic vision, gameplay or creativity.
[Mod Edit]
I am glad some people are saying they don't buy into all this interactivity crap that the media are peddling. How much interactivity do we need? What the hell do you need Facebook involved in an MMO for? How does it add value to the game experience by being able to access the game from your iPhone? At best it is a less impressive experience than being at home at your pimped out desktop. Not saying it won't happen, because in certain circumstance it might come in handy, but really... this not revolutionizing anything. Get off the band-wagon!