I disagree with the F2P part, every game I've played with no subs was full of a$$holes. No sub means nothing to lose by acting the fool. A sub not only helps keep the games cover costs but also seems to bring out more serious players. Sure you will always have jerks, but having a monthly fee cuts out alot of em. Of course Eve would be my foil, I've never encountered the caliber of scum that inhabit most of the top pvp corps in that game.
One thing I will companies would stop doing is making MMOs that says/infers that you are THE hero. Not a hero but THE hero. MMOs should be able groups, guilds, raids, warparties, factions, etc... If you looking to be THE hero you should be playing snigle player games.
Don't really care about the other stuff you said... just this. I've always found it odd how some MMOs can get away with telling players that the are "the chosen one". Well what about those 4,000 other chosen ones running around this world, killing all the wildlife. It's funny when you think about it but also worrying that MMO developers are still adding to the problem. I think Rift is guilty of this.
You are justifying a sub-fee only for a game that actually sucks. Additional content is given in expansion packs arent they? Dont they cost money as well? In-game account support are you serious? Why would anyone need it if the game isnt broken? I'm sorry but GW is still alive and has gotten its money from Stand-alone campaigns. Every major city in GW has a sizable population still. Back then there used to be things called manuals that had troubleshooting tips. If your computer cant run it, upgrade!
The GW2 business model will survive because of the item mall and additional content that will be sold for a price. GW1 has excellent customer support, you usually get a response within 24 hours. Seriously , if you cant wait a day or two for an answer or solution then you have no patience.
I wasn't "justifying" anything with regard to Champions, I don't play it, it was an example of not getting support when there's no sub fee paid, and I doubt it's the only one.
In-game support is a standard of MMO CS - if you feel otherwise, then fine. But GMs are the backbone of support for most player issues. First you tell me you don't need in-game support unless the game is broken, then you go on to cite 24 hour response windows from GW support - so if you've needed to use their support was the game "broken"?!
Hyperbole and deliberate misreadings don't make your argument any stronger. I was not dissing ANet in any way, I simply expressed curiousity about how they will make CS work well for GW2 with the level of expectations (all round) the game has reached.
I disagree with the F2P part, every game I've played with no subs was full of a$$holes. No sub means nothing to lose by acting the fool. A sub not only helps keep the games cover costs but also seems to bring out more serious players. Sure you will always have jerks, but having a monthly fee cuts out alot of em. Of course Eve would be my foil, I've never encountered the caliber of scum that inhabit most of the top pvp corps in that game.
Why is it that when people think "no monthly subs" they immediately think Free to Play. Do know there's an option other then P2P or F2P and the columnist gave example of such.
Also I've been playing highyly successful F2P game LOTRO and I don't really come across thiss a-holes you speak. So just because you have a bad experience with a F2P game doesn't mean everyone else would.
I agree, the standard $15 rate can definitely be improved. Everything can be improved, it depends at the speed in which developers are willing to innovate. Now that the MMORPG market is a huge industry, it will likely be slower per release, however there are a lot more companies releasing now.
I apply this standard of thinking anywhere I go, even work. It upsets me to see how unwilling so many employees are to try anything new just because of their fear of failure. That's no way to advance. In fact, it makes me wonder how businesses advance at all if they constantly stick to a tried and true philosophy.
5. I can agree with in part. I think more realism towards gear, crafting and gathering is greatly needed.
4. I think there needs to be more variety in game play options. How many paths did UO have to it's "end game" compared to the linear funnels design we have now.
3. I don't really see this as a huge issue. I'd toss in an alternative to the overly used holy trinity.
2. I don't see grind as a huge issue. It wouldn't be such an issue if there were more mini mile stones instead of 1 single character level.
1. $15 Monthly fee isn't really bad considering what you can actually do with $15 now adays. But I am a huge fan of the Guildwars and my lifetime LOTRO model.
I agree, subscription models need to change particularly in post launch as titles lose subscribers following the massive influx at launch.
I think even a simpleton can see that Titles such as Age Of Conan and Warhammer Online should by now (mainly due to dwindling populations) have a F2P option and perhaps 2 subscription models, say a cheaper $5-$10 option and a premium $10-$15 a month option. The paid for subs wouldnt be pay to win but they should allow faster XP/Faction point gain, more cash & XP from quests, better prices at vendors, less A/H seller fees and things like that. A free to play option on these 2 games would see them in far better shape than they are now particularly the PvP centric Warhammer Online. Maybe they should look at how Crime Craft has set up their current F2P Vs multiple subscription packages for inspiration.
The MMO I would really love to see now is actually a mix of third person RPG and RTS. I am thinking Mount & Blade Warband as an MMORPG. Anyone who has played the game will know you level up your characters in a classless RPG system and specialise in certain skills and combat types (combat skill can also be gained slowly through use like in the UO days so successfully using a crossbow continually (even if you suck with it) will earn you 1 crossbow point every now and then.
The game also relies on some TPS/FPS skill during the combat portions and has excellent mounted combat with large scale battles which is also where the RTS portion shines, since the game allows you to recruit soldiers into your band and as they gain combat experience you can upgrade them to different troop types through the various upgrade tree paths starting with villagers then basic soldiers then usually specilisign into either melee or ranged and then later specialising further into improved footsoldiers or cavalry/mounted archers depending on the race you choose the paths will be different.
This concept with some obvious refinement would make an amazing MMORPG experience, you can buy land in cities and build breweries/bakeries etc and then in your travels supply them with raw materials cheaper than is locally available. You can build your warband and run amok attacking villages, caravans, towns, cities & castles. You can raid Encampments (this would be where you can also do dungeon instances etc since these are smaller and only allow you to take a few soldiers with you), attack raiders and brigands etc all accross the map. make allies with one or more factions, capture and hold cities/castles then stock them with your own troops. And of course there is plenty of quests and the ability to join your warband to another persons and create a mighty army.
As I say for an MMO it needs refinement but a lot of what the raw games offer now is very innovative and fresh and since they are well fleshed out already after 2 games (a third is about to be released) porting the concepts to an MMO would be very easy and I think could prove extremely sucessfull and popular for sandbox type MMO players.
1) Make a game with end-game content for the casual and hardcore gamers. WoW did this with WotLK, however, the gear was way too easy to obtain which turned off some hardcore gamers. Now end-game is back to the hardcore WoW gamer. There should be a middle to this somehow some way.
2) Make the characters fully customizable, but the skills and talents more simplistic. Rift made the talent options endless, but the more you spread out the talent points the more irrelevant some skills become.
3) If you must have multiple servers, merge smaller servers with other small servers. So many servers "die" because of the population. In FFXI, I was in a heavily populated English speaking server, over the course of 2 months, Lots of squiggly lines (JP) players basically over ran it. And the server became a ghost town as did most of the linkshells.
4) If you have to have a pay to play subscription to a game, PLEASE do not make people have to pay something else to have something that noone else can have. It drives me crazy that we all must pay $15/mo to play a game then player X can go to the website and buy super Ninja Turtle mount that adds 500% speed bc he paid $70 for it. That should only happen in games like Fiesta.
5) The thing I would love to see more of is customizable housing. This is for guilds and guildless players. This could be a huge in-game currency dump. But Guild Wars, you choose your Guild Hall, but after that all you recruit are people for it... Not really that customizable. FFXI had the Mog House. It's cool how you could add tons of items to it for a "bonus" but everyone lived in the same type of house and noone could see it.
These are just a few things I would love to see change. Again, just MHO.
I have to agree with everything you posted. I want alot of those things however I don't know about the subscription thing. I do want less of it but at the same time enjoy the quality of game that we "supposidly" pay for every month. I currently don't like the F2P method but I may just be an older gamer in that regard.
As to pricing models, I would like to see more mixed model games. $15/month for heavy usage players, combined with cheaper, limited usage plans that automatically upgrade to $15 for any month you go over the allotment, would be great, IMO. There are a few games I might want to play casual, but I just can't justify $15/month.
I would like the GW2 model, combined with frequent, affordable content packs. Apparently, MMO developers need more incentive to maintain high levels of post launch content creation output. I'd be happy with a game that had a one time Buy to Play charge, then funded continuing development with monthly, purchasable content packs. If frequent zone additions were among the content packs, full expansions could be done away with.
As for realism I have to disagree with you Bill.I get enough Politics in real life and dont need a player run goverment,I dont want other players having that much control over my gameplay.I think SWG with guild cities is a great idea that hasnt been used more.I dont like free to play at all it is a scam and a hussle because all of them will end up with item malls in them and to me that is worse than any gold buyer ever was atleast the gold goes back into the game economy.15 dollars a month is fine for a good mmo witch are few and far between in todays ohhh everyones making a MMO so lets dress this piece of crap up in a nice game trailer and push it on the masses(yes this includes your Korean free to play games).
As for realism I have to disagree with you Bill.I get enough Politics in real life and dont need a player run goverment,I dont want other players having that much control over my gameplay.I think SWG with guild cities is a great idea that hasnt been used more.I dont like free to play at all it is a scam and a hussle because all of them will end up with item malls in them and to me that is worse than any gold buyer ever was atleast the gold goes back into the game economy.15 dollars a month is fine for a good mmo witch are few and far between in todays ohhh everyones making a MMO so lets dress this piece of crap up in a nice game trailer and push it on the masses(yes this includes your Korean free to play games).
Eve online.. no politics in that game is there.. no wait.. there is.. lots of it.. .. politics fits right into games without realism after all.. i mean.. who ever believes a word that politicians say.. and their always being accused of being out of touch with reality... thats because Politics is a fantasy MMO which unfortunately we're all unwilling participants in.. as for the PVP.......
I disagree with making it free to play. Don't you people know servers and employees need to be paid and that those so called free to play games are more expensive. I rather pay 15 dollar per month and get the full experience and support then having to pay some stupid potion for 3 dollar each just to be able to kill the bosses in a dungeon (allods for example does that). And most Free to play games have a terrible support, no GM's, hackers more active then in pay to play games...and not only account hackers but also people who hack the game for stuff.
Also for those 15 euro's you get frequet updates and free new content in the games. You really think a MMO dev just puts the money into their vacation plans? No they don't. And you can say Lord of the rings and Dungeons and dragons whent free to play and it works....true, also those 2 games where dying and this was the last resort to save them. And in LotrO if you want to play the game as its meant you still end up with the 15 dollar/euro fee as VIP member. And how many MMO's do you want to play at the same time? I play one or two at the most, i can't progress in a normal rate in MMORPG if i play more beside it. And a movie ticket costs about the same price and thats only a 2 hour entertainment...for the 15 dollar/euros i get a full month 24/7 entertainment.
Its so easy to shout a game should be free to play, but its not better it makes it worse. And build it up from ground up with free to play in mind and make it AAA isn't gonna work. The developers have to many costs, a MMORPG is the most expensive kind of game to make and you keep having costs after releasing so its either a steady monthly fee or a overpriced cash shop. Cause profit has to be made aswell, and thats a fact.
1. grab the general ideas of EvE Online (player-politics, player-economy, corp/alliance-warfare, one server, no instances) and apply a cyberpunk-theme, where you're running around with actual characters shooting guns, swinging swords etc... (look up Shadowrun for reference. the pen&paper RPG!)
2. apply an action-combat-system like found in TERA instead of having TAB 1, 2, 3...
3. add some fluff like bars and casinos for socializing, maybe even stuff like regular jobs your character does while you're offline
4. permadeath! (see Shadowrun RPG again for reference incl. DocWagon and karma), but money is tied to the account, so you don't loose everything upon death and can access money with your next character. Only one charatcer at a time per account!
5. no levels, no skill-grind... just create a character like in a pen&paper RPG and go enhance it with equipment, implants, etc...
That would be a possible way for example and everyone who has played pen&paper RPGs before is probably understanding very well where I'm coming from here.
The Secret World is somewhat going into that direction and World of Darkness is headed into that direction aswell. Let's hope they don't screw those titles up.
More variety is needed - that is for sure. Free realms are adding farming into their game. I dont understand why WOW hasn't done farmville for those ppl that are playing 12 hours per day anyway.
The problem for me is not the subscriptions per say. The problem is that the subscription based games are no longer providing the content that a subscription based game should be offering. Instead they are doing expansions - and releasing less and less content in between. Or just recycling old content like WOW is doing now. Thats not what I want to see my sub go into since I have already played that content. So I unsubscribed and dont intend to go back while this is the way BLizzard is handeling their buisness.
Mechanism for players to create develope their own cultures and deities/demigods allowing developers to inject these creations into storylines, dungeons and magic etc
I disagree with making it free to play. Don't you people know servers and employees need to be paid and that those so called free to play games are more expensive. I rather pay 15 dollar per month and get the full experience and support then having to pay some stupid potion for 3 dollar each just to be able to kill the bosses in a dungeon (allods for example does that). And most Free to play games have a terrible support, no GM's, hackers more active then in pay to play games...and not only account hackers but also people who hack the game for stuff.
Also for those 15 euro's you get frequet updates and free new content in the games. You really think a MMO dev just puts the money into their vacation plans? No they don't. And you can say Lord of the rings and Dungeons and dragons whent free to play and it works....true, also those 2 games where dying and this was the last resort to save them. And in LotrO if you want to play the game as its meant you still end up with the 15 dollar/euro fee as VIP member. And how many MMO's do you want to play at the same time? I play one or two at the most, i can't progress in a normal rate in MMORPG if i play more beside it. And a movie ticket costs about the same price and thats only a 2 hour entertainment...for the 15 dollar/euros i get a full month 24/7 entertainment.
Its so easy to shout a game should be free to play, but its not better it makes it worse. And build it up from ground up with free to play in mind and make it AAA isn't gonna work. The developers have to many costs, a MMORPG is the most expensive kind of game to make and you keep having costs after releasing so its either a steady monthly fee or a overpriced cash shop. Cause profit has to be made aswell, and thats a fact.
Cool story bro. But there's one major problem with your arguement. When talking about "Less subscription fees" the article wasn't talking about F2P games like LOTRO. It was specifically talking about Guild Wars 2 and the business model behind that; where you buy the game, buy the yearly expansions if you want and that's it. How is that different from the way subscription games do things, yet games like WoW (SW:TOR will do this) seem to have the gall to charge a sub-fee along with charging for expansions. Sure Guild Wars 2 will have an item store (like most sub games) but they will only charge for vanity items, utilities (extra char slots) and maybe mission/dungeon packs.
So yes, I believe more MMOs should follow this kind of business model, because there's nothing game breaking, or entirely limiting about it. Also why is it that people always compare a sub-fee to a movie ticket? Those are entirely different things that have nothing to with one another. By that same logic I could say that year's worth of sub-fees could take me to France & get me laid, which is a whole lot more fun than spending all those hours waiting for healers.
Really, what color is the sky in your world? Not really meaning to be snarky, but your whole article points out the big differences in what drives any players enjoyment of a game.
F2P is the punishment developers have inflicted on themselves for a lack of imagination and creativity. $15 a month is a great value for a good game; it's hours and hours of entertainment for the price of lunch. F2P is the kiss of death for me, and probably the biggest reason I'll not give Guildwars2 a chance.
What's on list that will make a game better? I wish MMO developers would make either a PvE game or a PvP games but not try to cater to both playstyles. There is too much compromise required to accomodate both and the end result is never satisfying to either camp. No one is ever really happy with the result. I'm a proponent of making a great PvE game or a great PvP game, not a half-assed version of both.
More realism in the MMO space has always meant more grind, less variety. Can't argue with history.
Number 5 should be "more fun" which in itself is tied to less grind, more variety, more single server games, and no more subscriptions.
"More fun" to me has always meant more engaging and more involved game play. Trying to add "realistic" elements such as longer travel times, harsh death penalties, etc. directly takes away from the level of engagement and involvement I and most others find in a game.
Having stuff take longer to do does not make it more fun. Making it more fun... makes it more fun.
A lot of that is technology. Eventually we will be playing MMOs with massive open worlds on single servers with Crysis 2 graphics and God of War / Mass Effect / HAWX action-oriented "fun" game play...
Comments
I disagree with the F2P part, every game I've played with no subs was full of a$$holes. No sub means nothing to lose by acting the fool. A sub not only helps keep the games cover costs but also seems to bring out more serious players. Sure you will always have jerks, but having a monthly fee cuts out alot of em. Of course Eve would be my foil, I've never encountered the caliber of scum that inhabit most of the top pvp corps in that game.
Don't really care about the other stuff you said... just this. I've always found it odd how some MMOs can get away with telling players that the are "the chosen one". Well what about those 4,000 other chosen ones running around this world, killing all the wildlife. It's funny when you think about it but also worrying that MMO developers are still adding to the problem. I think Rift is guilty of this.
I wasn't "justifying" anything with regard to Champions, I don't play it, it was an example of not getting support when there's no sub fee paid, and I doubt it's the only one.
In-game support is a standard of MMO CS - if you feel otherwise, then fine. But GMs are the backbone of support for most player issues. First you tell me you don't need in-game support unless the game is broken, then you go on to cite 24 hour response windows from GW support - so if you've needed to use their support was the game "broken"?!
Hyperbole and deliberate misreadings don't make your argument any stronger. I was not dissing ANet in any way, I simply expressed curiousity about how they will make CS work well for GW2 with the level of expectations (all round) the game has reached.
Touchy much?
Why is it that when people think "no monthly subs" they immediately think Free to Play. Do know there's an option other then P2P or F2P and the columnist gave example of such.
Also I've been playing highyly successful F2P game LOTRO and I don't really come across thiss a-holes you speak. So just because you have a bad experience with a F2P game doesn't mean everyone else would.
I agree, the standard $15 rate can definitely be improved. Everything can be improved, it depends at the speed in which developers are willing to innovate. Now that the MMORPG market is a huge industry, it will likely be slower per release, however there are a lot more companies releasing now.
I apply this standard of thinking anywhere I go, even work. It upsets me to see how unwilling so many employees are to try anything new just because of their fear of failure. That's no way to advance. In fact, it makes me wonder how businesses advance at all if they constantly stick to a tried and true philosophy.
Not a bad list.
5. I can agree with in part. I think more realism towards gear, crafting and gathering is greatly needed.
4. I think there needs to be more variety in game play options. How many paths did UO have to it's "end game" compared to the linear funnels design we have now.
3. I don't really see this as a huge issue. I'd toss in an alternative to the overly used holy trinity.
2. I don't see grind as a huge issue. It wouldn't be such an issue if there were more mini mile stones instead of 1 single character level.
1. $15 Monthly fee isn't really bad considering what you can actually do with $15 now adays. But I am a huge fan of the Guildwars and my lifetime LOTRO model.
I agree, subscription models need to change particularly in post launch as titles lose subscribers following the massive influx at launch.
I think even a simpleton can see that Titles such as Age Of Conan and Warhammer Online should by now (mainly due to dwindling populations) have a F2P option and perhaps 2 subscription models, say a cheaper $5-$10 option and a premium $10-$15 a month option. The paid for subs wouldnt be pay to win but they should allow faster XP/Faction point gain, more cash & XP from quests, better prices at vendors, less A/H seller fees and things like that. A free to play option on these 2 games would see them in far better shape than they are now particularly the PvP centric Warhammer Online. Maybe they should look at how Crime Craft has set up their current F2P Vs multiple subscription packages for inspiration.
The MMO I would really love to see now is actually a mix of third person RPG and RTS. I am thinking Mount & Blade Warband as an MMORPG. Anyone who has played the game will know you level up your characters in a classless RPG system and specialise in certain skills and combat types (combat skill can also be gained slowly through use like in the UO days so successfully using a crossbow continually (even if you suck with it) will earn you 1 crossbow point every now and then.
The game also relies on some TPS/FPS skill during the combat portions and has excellent mounted combat with large scale battles which is also where the RTS portion shines, since the game allows you to recruit soldiers into your band and as they gain combat experience you can upgrade them to different troop types through the various upgrade tree paths starting with villagers then basic soldiers then usually specilisign into either melee or ranged and then later specialising further into improved footsoldiers or cavalry/mounted archers depending on the race you choose the paths will be different.
This concept with some obvious refinement would make an amazing MMORPG experience, you can buy land in cities and build breweries/bakeries etc and then in your travels supply them with raw materials cheaper than is locally available. You can build your warband and run amok attacking villages, caravans, towns, cities & castles. You can raid Encampments (this would be where you can also do dungeon instances etc since these are smaller and only allow you to take a few soldiers with you), attack raiders and brigands etc all accross the map. make allies with one or more factions, capture and hold cities/castles then stock them with your own troops. And of course there is plenty of quests and the ability to join your warband to another persons and create a mighty army.
As I say for an MMO it needs refinement but a lot of what the raw games offer now is very innovative and fresh and since they are well fleshed out already after 2 games (a third is about to be released) porting the concepts to an MMO would be very easy and I think could prove extremely sucessfull and popular for sandbox type MMO players.
1) Make a game with end-game content for the casual and hardcore gamers. WoW did this with WotLK, however, the gear was way too easy to obtain which turned off some hardcore gamers. Now end-game is back to the hardcore WoW gamer. There should be a middle to this somehow some way.
2) Make the characters fully customizable, but the skills and talents more simplistic. Rift made the talent options endless, but the more you spread out the talent points the more irrelevant some skills become.
3) If you must have multiple servers, merge smaller servers with other small servers. So many servers "die" because of the population. In FFXI, I was in a heavily populated English speaking server, over the course of 2 months, Lots of squiggly lines (JP) players basically over ran it. And the server became a ghost town as did most of the linkshells.
4) If you have to have a pay to play subscription to a game, PLEASE do not make people have to pay something else to have something that noone else can have. It drives me crazy that we all must pay $15/mo to play a game then player X can go to the website and buy super Ninja Turtle mount that adds 500% speed bc he paid $70 for it. That should only happen in games like Fiesta.
5) The thing I would love to see more of is customizable housing. This is for guilds and guildless players. This could be a huge in-game currency dump. But Guild Wars, you choose your Guild Hall, but after that all you recruit are people for it... Not really that customizable. FFXI had the Mog House. It's cool how you could add tons of items to it for a "bonus" but everyone lived in the same type of house and noone could see it.
These are just a few things I would love to see change. Again, just MHO.
I have to agree with everything you posted. I want alot of those things however I don't know about the subscription thing. I do want less of it but at the same time enjoy the quality of game that we "supposidly" pay for every month. I currently don't like the F2P method but I may just be an older gamer in that regard.
What gave u this impression?
Its called Fable make it an mmorpg, The End.
dude... mabinogi has all that and more! but the graphics do suck!
you know that I know that you know that i know that you know that i know....
Seems like i m thinking the same.
As for realism I have to disagree with you Bill.I get enough Politics in real life and dont need a player run goverment,I dont want other players having that much control over my gameplay.I think SWG with guild cities is a great idea that hasnt been used more.I dont like free to play at all it is a scam and a hussle because all of them will end up with item malls in them and to me that is worse than any gold buyer ever was atleast the gold goes back into the game economy.15 dollars a month is fine for a good mmo witch are few and far between in todays ohhh everyones making a MMO so lets dress this piece of crap up in a nice game trailer and push it on the masses(yes this includes your Korean free to play games).
Eve online.. no politics in that game is there.. no wait.. there is.. lots of it.. .. politics fits right into games without realism after all.. i mean.. who ever believes a word that politicians say.. and their always being accused of being out of touch with reality... thats because Politics is a fantasy MMO which unfortunately we're all unwilling participants in.. as for the PVP.......
I disagree with making it free to play. Don't you people know servers and employees need to be paid and that those so called free to play games are more expensive. I rather pay 15 dollar per month and get the full experience and support then having to pay some stupid potion for 3 dollar each just to be able to kill the bosses in a dungeon (allods for example does that). And most Free to play games have a terrible support, no GM's, hackers more active then in pay to play games...and not only account hackers but also people who hack the game for stuff.
Also for those 15 euro's you get frequet updates and free new content in the games. You really think a MMO dev just puts the money into their vacation plans? No they don't. And you can say Lord of the rings and Dungeons and dragons whent free to play and it works....true, also those 2 games where dying and this was the last resort to save them. And in LotrO if you want to play the game as its meant you still end up with the 15 dollar/euro fee as VIP member. And how many MMO's do you want to play at the same time? I play one or two at the most, i can't progress in a normal rate in MMORPG if i play more beside it. And a movie ticket costs about the same price and thats only a 2 hour entertainment...for the 15 dollar/euros i get a full month 24/7 entertainment.
Its so easy to shout a game should be free to play, but its not better it makes it worse. And build it up from ground up with free to play in mind and make it AAA isn't gonna work. The developers have to many costs, a MMORPG is the most expensive kind of game to make and you keep having costs after releasing so its either a steady monthly fee or a overpriced cash shop. Cause profit has to be made aswell, and thats a fact.
How to make MMOs better? In 5 steps?
1. grab the general ideas of EvE Online (player-politics, player-economy, corp/alliance-warfare, one server, no instances) and apply a cyberpunk-theme, where you're running around with actual characters shooting guns, swinging swords etc... (look up Shadowrun for reference. the pen&paper RPG!)
2. apply an action-combat-system like found in TERA instead of having TAB 1, 2, 3...
3. add some fluff like bars and casinos for socializing, maybe even stuff like regular jobs your character does while you're offline
4. permadeath! (see Shadowrun RPG again for reference incl. DocWagon and karma), but money is tied to the account, so you don't loose everything upon death and can access money with your next character. Only one charatcer at a time per account!
5. no levels, no skill-grind... just create a character like in a pen&paper RPG and go enhance it with equipment, implants, etc...
That would be a possible way for example and everyone who has played pen&paper RPGs before is probably understanding very well where I'm coming from here.
The Secret World is somewhat going into that direction and World of Darkness is headed into that direction aswell. Let's hope they don't screw those titles up.
Got to love the pics thou^^
scribble scribble scribble
More variety is needed - that is for sure. Free realms are adding farming into their game. I dont understand why WOW hasn't done farmville for those ppl that are playing 12 hours per day anyway.
The problem for me is not the subscriptions per say. The problem is that the subscription based games are no longer providing the content that a subscription based game should be offering. Instead they are doing expansions - and releasing less and less content in between. Or just recycling old content like WOW is doing now. Thats not what I want to see my sub go into since I have already played that content. So I unsubscribed and dont intend to go back while this is the way BLizzard is handeling their buisness.
Play driven lore
Mechanism for players to create develope their own cultures and deities/demigods allowing developers to inject these creations into storylines, dungeons and magic etc
Cool story bro. But there's one major problem with your arguement. When talking about "Less subscription fees" the article wasn't talking about F2P games like LOTRO. It was specifically talking about Guild Wars 2 and the business model behind that; where you buy the game, buy the yearly expansions if you want and that's it. How is that different from the way subscription games do things, yet games like WoW (SW:TOR will do this) seem to have the gall to charge a sub-fee along with charging for expansions. Sure Guild Wars 2 will have an item store (like most sub games) but they will only charge for vanity items, utilities (extra char slots) and maybe mission/dungeon packs.
So yes, I believe more MMOs should follow this kind of business model, because there's nothing game breaking, or entirely limiting about it. Also why is it that people always compare a sub-fee to a movie ticket? Those are entirely different things that have nothing to with one another. By that same logic I could say that year's worth of sub-fees could take me to France & get me laid, which is a whole lot more fun than spending all those hours waiting for healers.
Really, what color is the sky in your world? Not really meaning to be snarky, but your whole article points out the big differences in what drives any players enjoyment of a game.
F2P is the punishment developers have inflicted on themselves for a lack of imagination and creativity. $15 a month is a great value for a good game; it's hours and hours of entertainment for the price of lunch. F2P is the kiss of death for me, and probably the biggest reason I'll not give Guildwars2 a chance.
What's on list that will make a game better? I wish MMO developers would make either a PvE game or a PvP games but not try to cater to both playstyles. There is too much compromise required to accomodate both and the end result is never satisfying to either camp. No one is ever really happy with the result. I'm a proponent of making a great PvE game or a great PvP game, not a half-assed version of both.
Guild Wars 2 is not a F2P "freemium". It's B2P. Definitely not B2W.
5. No
4-1. Yes
More realism in the MMO space has always meant more grind, less variety. Can't argue with history.
Number 5 should be "more fun" which in itself is tied to less grind, more variety, more single server games, and no more subscriptions.
"More fun" to me has always meant more engaging and more involved game play. Trying to add "realistic" elements such as longer travel times, harsh death penalties, etc. directly takes away from the level of engagement and involvement I and most others find in a game.
Having stuff take longer to do does not make it more fun. Making it more fun... makes it more fun.
A lot of that is technology. Eventually we will be playing MMOs with massive open worlds on single servers with Crysis 2 graphics and God of War / Mass Effect / HAWX action-oriented "fun" game play...
Eventually...
size does matter only the small think otherwise.