I doubt that's the case, it's bringing in some money to Funcom and most likely turning a profit. If it was a finanical failure, they would've closed it down.
It probably isn't profitable enough. I do remember reading some earlier financial reports stating that the game was underperforming in all their categories; initial sales, subscription retention, and cash shop.
For the sake of discussion, I'd like to offer some retort to your post. Let me preface this by saying, I agree with your points but I think they are some nuances that are noteworthy.
Of course developers are the owners and bear the responsibility for the direction of their project. Players don't have direct input into the creative direction of a game, and can either support it or not. Should they choose to support it, it means they are in agreement with the direction of the game. An exception to this is when players become disgruntled but have nothing else to entertain them, thereby remaining a customer. A good example of this is a burned out WoW player who sees nothing else worth playing.
However, developers are making a service. They have customers because some part of their product is attractive. It would make sense to maximize this satisfication and return the features that are mostly well received. Where developers have a responsibility to listen:
1. Game changing updates: Anything that impacts a player's investment or existing achievements. For instance, NGE in Star Wars Galaxies. More recently, consider the Ascended Items update in Guild Wars 2.
2. Design philosophy: When a developer is explicit about their design philosophy, they owe it to themselves to be true this. This is a selling point and if it is violated, many players will be stop playing.
3. Payment models: If a game is transitioning models, be sure you aren't limiting content players already paid for or require players to pay for basic functionality such as travel, skill bars, or levels.
Players make up the culture of the game. When players are being funneled into content instead of other content (GW2 - fractals over open world), they are the problem. True, they are going with what's rational. The game presents rewards and a means to get there, it makes sense to follow this trek. However, cultural rifts happen in games. If a part of the population is against a feature, they are fighting against the culture of the game that is for such features. This is most evident when changes impact casual players at the expense of hardcore players, or vice versa.
Story is important. It's what compels people to spend hundreds of hours and dollars on a game, along with gameplay. The examples you mentioned fell short for gameplay reasons. Story content were the redeeming qualities. I agree, not everyone is the chosen one. I would content that RP servers contribute to the story and the lore of the game. However, the game must have sufficient lore and story for a culture to thrive in.
Endgame is important. Character advancement is important. Unfortunately, this often translates to raids and gear progression, rather than something meaningful like reputation or morality advancement (like Fable, but better). Sandboxes offer a lot in this sense. You can reach max level and still have features to level up. But what do you do once those are leveled? I think that's a question a lot of games have a hard time answering.
Let's talk about the assumptions we all make about MMOs that are suffocating the genre. I love MMOs -- I've been playing these games for a long, long time. But it's suffering from a serious case of stagnation. If things don't change, I see MMOs going the way of the Adventure Game.
As players, our own expectations are to blame. There are so many things we simply take for granted -- no one even thinks to question them. Developers, for their part, have gotten lazy. Very few can even articulate what's wrong; they just know that they're bored. Bored players don't rant on forums -- they cancel their accounts. Developers, for their part, respond by doubling down on past mistakes. The list is strictly my own opinion; feel free to disagree or add your own.
Assumption #1 Developers should listen to the players: Henry Ford once said "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Developers who design based on player feedback get a lot of praise. They really shouldn't. What do players ask for? More of the same: more raids, more gear, more levels, more buffs, more nerfs, more convenience.
The truth is that the players don't know what they want, because they've never seen it before. Verant (now SOE) took a lot of crap back in the day for talking about their "Vision." Sure, they sounded like jerks, but they also built a landmark game in Everquest. Back in 2004, no one was demanding more quests. Blizzard did it anyway, and you got the runaway success of WoW. When was the last time a game feature came out of left field like that? The reason why there's never been a WoW-killer is that the AAA developers can't move past the WoW-clone. Players aren't game designers -- they're going to ask for a slightly different version of what they know. Innovation comes when a developer takes risks.
I'm not saying there should be no communication between the people who make games and the people who play them. But the industry has gotten into the habit of trying to please everyone, and the players have gotten into the habit of expecting it.
Assumption #2 Players are the problem: I cut my teeth on Ultima Online, a game where players brazenly tormented one another and exploited even the smallest bug. It was one of the best gaming experiences of my life. You never knew what was going to happen when you logged on, because human beings are unpredictable. Note, I wasn't a PvPer in those days -- in fact, I spent a lot of time complaining about player killers. But I loved the spontaneity -- the sense of player agency. There were a thousand ways to play that game, and someone was always coming up with a new way to turn things to their advantage. It was far from perfect, but like many other gamers, I was hooked.
Fast forward to 2013, and all you have are walls to prevent players from bothering one other, and from playing the game in unexpected ways. MMOs used to be one the most social and creative of genres; today, players are isolated from one another. Group finders match us up with random strangers, so we can grind away at scripted content in instances that ensure that we never run into anything, or anyone, unexpected. Groups are fixed in size and composition, and deviating from developer-planned strategies will result in a wipe at best, bans at worst. When soloing, you follow breadcrumb trails of phased quests that enclose you in a cozy little bubble of isolation where no one can get in the way of your progress. Trade is anonymously conducted over auction house. PvP is more like football than warfare – except you can’t trash talk the enemy because we don’t want anyone to get their feelings hurt. Nothing you do really affects anyone else, and nothing is unanticipated.
Other players could make life hell back in the old days, but in our quest for convenience, we've tossed the baby out with the bathwater. We play alongside one another, not with one another. There has to be a happy medium between Lord of the Flies and It's A Small World. This brings me to...
Assumption #3 Sandboxes are sandboxes, theme parks are theme parks: To read these forums, you'd think that we're discussing two entirely different genres. It doesn't have to be this way. In spite of what I've written above, I'm not a die-hard sandbox guy. The game I played longest, besides UO, was WoW. As players, we need to move beyond seeing sandboxes and theme parks as irreconcilable opposites. They should be looked at as points along a spectrum.
Sandboxes avoid a lot of the problems in #2. But they trade those problems for a new set of issues that have doomed them to a niche audience. Where theme parks suffer from over-scripting, sandboxes leave new players adrift. EvE, for example, almost dares a new player to enjoy it. Why can't we have a game that starts off simple and gradually expands your options as you progress? Why do we have to choose between free-for-all PvP and instanced battlegrounds? Why does persistance have to mean dog-eat-dog?
In the real world, both totalitarianism and anarchy are seen as bad ways to run a society. Most places opt for something between the two extremes. Why do we, as gamers, fail to see that there's a third option? I'm no game designer -- I'm not sure what it would look like in practice. But I know that the game that combines the accessibility of WoW and the persistence of EvE has the potential to be the next ginormous hit.
The lack of publisher support for this concept is a little baffling to me. One of the biggest headaches in running a modern MMO is keeping up with player demand for new content. Allowing the players to have meaningful interaction is an inexhaustible -- and free -- solution to that problem.
Assumption #4 Story is important: After the failure of Star Wars: the Old Republic and The Secret World, I'm amazed that the takeaway seems to be that the subscription model is the problem. Subscriptions are fine -- players will pony up for a game if they think it's worth the money. The problem with both games is the notion that voice-acted cut scenes are the magic bullet for a smash hit MMO. If we, as gamers, want this sort of thing we'll play single-player games. They still make those.
Being the Chosen One in an MMO is just dumb, because there are 500 other Chosen Ones pouring out of the same instance right behind you. Context, not story, is what we need. Make the world and its back-story live, and give the players the tools and freedom to create their own story.
Assumption #5 The Endgame is all that matters: So many gamers -- and games -- have this idea that the process of developing your character is somehow a precursor to the "real" game. If a single-player game shipped with a 40-hour tutorial and 3 hours of actual gameplay, how do you think that would go over? WoW is one of the worst offenders, which is stunning to me. Most of their initial success came from the fact that Blizzard was the first developer to put actual content into their low level game. But these days, people level as fast as they can just to get to the raids and battlegrounds.
If players are rushing through solo content just to get to group content, the solution should be obvious. Instead of shortening leveling curves and then adding loot grinds to slow down the rate of content churn, why not just put the good stuff up front?
Just spitballing here, but imagine a game without a level cap. As you progress, the cost to level up increases and the benefits shrink. Eventually, players would hit a de facto cap, but it would take a long time, even for the worst content locusts. How would players respond to that? In practice, there wouldn't be much difference from the current status quo: slow advancement coming in tiny steps. But it breaks from the idea of loot as "endgame" progress. Players would be free to seek out the content and activities that they enjoy, rather than just charging into whatever instance gives the next set of gear.
Anyway, that's my list. If you read the whole thing, I'm grateful and a little amazed. Of course, your mileage may vary -- this post isn't intended to be a universal proclamation of the way forward. Looking forward to hearing the responses (if any).
This is one of the best posts i've seen on this forum in a long while and encompasses how i feel almost to a T.
In particular i want to comment on Point 5, because thats the path that EverQuest 1 took, and it worked exceptionally well. Yes, there were some aspects of EQ1 that needed changing, things like losing levels from deaths was dumb. The ability to lose all your gear because you couldnt get back to your corpse in time, was dumb. There are definitely innovations along the way that benefitted the genre. But, the biggest problem in my opinion has been the over casualization.
People demanding "ports" every 100 meters in the game, because god forbid they spend 3 minutes running to a dungeon entrance or to a particular place in the map.
Whining about "forced grouping". This is probably my biggest point that makes me angry. People look at it in the lense of "if grouping allows me to get better gear, even if its only 5% better, or lets someone level even as little as 1% faster than i can as a soloer, then i am being "FORCED" to group". Its ludicrous. In EQ1 you could solo to level cap, would it take a crapton longer and not have as good rewards as far as gear? Absolutely. But thats the way it should be. Its a frigging MMORPG. And no, Multiplayer does not mean just "being around other players". Multiplayer means PLAYING with other players. If 2 kids are in a big playground, and one is on the monkey bars in one corner, and the other kid is in the other corner making sand castles. NOT ONE person would look at that situation and say those children are playing together.
Everything is a "grind" now. I literally had a guy in Rift complaining that it taking 50 hours to level from 51 to 60 was a totally unacceptable asian style grind. He literally was talking about it in the same level of exasperation as if you had asked him to shoot his girlfriend in the face with a crossbow. It was *that* ludicrous of an idea to him.
The OP brought up such a great point when he was talking about "The Vision". We all used to bitch about it, and to be truthful, yes there were instances where the developers was just flat wrong. But the majority of the time the vision was a good thing. I always use the example of players thinking they know what they want with the example of a guy who says he wants to have 3 wives, how awesome it would be right? Until he actually has 3 wives and realizes its the exact opposite of what he wants. Now, does that mean the playerbase is always wrong? NO, an example: In original EQ, paladins and shadowknights literally took 40% more actual raw XP to level than other classes because they were hybrids. This stemmed from the fact that back in the early beta days, They were a crapton more powerful than their hybrid base classes. They had all the tanking and DPS ability of a warrior, and all the heals and buffs of a cleric (in the case of a paladin) but there was no real downside. Even later in the game they changed it so that paladins got nerfed versions of the cleric spells, and warriors had better mitigation, way more DPS etc. This all worked out fine, except they never removed this XP reduction. What was worse is that if you joined a group, it spread that 40% out amongst the group, so nobody wanted to play with a paladin or SK in the group because it meant they were gonna take 8% less xp or something like that
Anyways, all water under the bridge at this point. I am keeping an eye out on EQ Next though, hoping it will be good.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Yes as you say life is harder more tragic and less rewarding so keep them out of my game. Im not saying I want easy mode either but sometime I do because I have a job, family, and obligations. Story in games are key to me as well I don't see any problem with personal story in an mmo as long as its good. I am so tired of people on this site dictating what an MMO is "supposed" to be. You like sandbox games great im not gonna tell you your wrong for it but dont tell me that personal story doesnt belong in mmo's or any story at all for that matter becuase that is your opinion.
I don't think the OP wants all games to be made the way he prefers. He just wants at least some games to be made that way. Right now, developers only seem to be making MMOs one way - the way that caters to the largest segment of MMO players. While you and many others may prefer that way (low effort, high reward being one aspect of that type of game) there's a segment of the MMO community that longs for something different and is not being served.
There's no reason we shouldn't be able to have more than one flavor of MMO.
We have more than one flavor of MMO. STO plays totally differently than WOW. DDO has a totally different dungeon feel (more dungeon, less open world, more events & puzzles in dungeons) than WOW.
PS2 has massive combat. WOT has tank based instanced combat. And then we have super hero MMOs like DCUO.
There are plenty of variety. It may be valid to complain that the OP does not have games he like .. but it is just plain wrong to say there is only one flavor of MMO. In fact, precisely because of the variety, I am in favor of MMO hoping and don't even have enough time to experience them all.
I don't think the OP wants all games to be made the way he prefers. He just wants at least some games to be made that way. Right now, developers only seem to be making MMOs one way - the way that caters to the largest segment of MMO players. While you and many others may prefer that way (low effort, high reward being one aspect of that type of game) there's a segment of the MMO community that longs for something different and is not being served.
There's no reason we shouldn't be able to have more than one flavor of MMO.
That segment that isn't being 'served' (according to you) is a segment that isn't that big.
Supply / Demand, that's how the market works. So if you want a style of game, support something that is similar / has those features.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Good read, and actually found myself nodding my head in agreement though out most of it
Not sure i'm on the same page with you on #5, but i definately agree that something needs to be done. Personally i'd rather have the journey between level 1- x longer and more rewarding rather than grinding out dailies for months after reaching max level.
A good read, im not gonna take anything away from yours. However you gotta admit that those assumptions are gonna be different for everyone. There is no real cut and dry method to these things. Some people like some of the things your listed, So as i said everyones is gonna be different.
Because i can. I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out. Logic every gamers worst enemy.
That segment that isn't being 'served' (according to you) is a segment that isn't that big.
Supply / Demand, that's how the market works. So if you want a style of game, support something that is similar / has those features.
I'd be willing to bet that segment is larger than you think, judging by how many topics like this there are on this site and by the problems MMOs are facing today with longevity, declining subscription numbers, etc. All of those players who are discontent would probably be willing to try something new. Many others are still playing their old favorite MMOs because nothing new has released that they enjoy. You have a point though, it is smaller and most developers would rather play it safe and go for a piece of the larger pie. That's why we have so many games that follow WoW's design philosophy.
Since no game has been developed so far with the features the OP brought up, there's really nothing to support... but you're right, and I would support it if the game turned out to be fun and of decent quality.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by Phrame
Originally posted by drivendawn
Originally posted by Greyface
We have more than one flavor of MMO. STO plays totally differently than WOW. DDO has a totally different dungeon feel (more dungeon, less open world, more events & puzzles in dungeons) than WOW.
PS2 has massive combat. WOT has tank based instanced combat. And then we have super hero MMOs like DCUO.
There are plenty of variety. It may be valid to complain that the OP does not have games he like .. but it is just plain wrong to say there is only one flavor of MMO. In fact, precisely because of the variety, I am in favor of MMO hoping and don't even have enough time to experience them all.
This is true, there are tons of MMOs after all so it's wrong to say there's only one flavor. I guess my point was there's no reason we can't have both what the OP wants and what the guy I responded to wants within the same genre. There's definitely more than one right way to make an MMO.
Let me add another assumption, that is killing MMOs, in my oppinion:
"MMOS have to be fun"
Bluntly said, MMOs don't have to be fun, they have to be epic, you have to suffer (but not frustrating, hopefully). At the end you have the feeling of having done something amazing, which doesn't equal to fun exactly.
I'd be willing to bet that segment is larger than you think, judging by how many topics like this there are on this site and by the problems MMOs are facing today with longevity, declining subscription numbers, etc. All of those players who are discontent would probably be willing to try something new. Many others are still playing their old favorite MMOs because nothing new has released that they enjoy. You have a point though, it is smaller and most developers would rather play it safe and go for a piece of the larger pie. That's why we have so many games that follow WoW's design philosophy.
If there is a 'segment' there needs to be proof that it exists before most companies invests millions of $$$ to create it.
The only proof that we have is EVE with its 450k sub number.
That's nice and respectable but that's the only non-themepark MMO that is above 100k.
What about longevity? Video games are a disposable entertainment products for me so one game (MMO or non-MMO) rarely lasts more than 4 months.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Let me add another assumption, that is killing MMOs, in my oppinion:
"MMOS have to be fun"
Bluntly said, MMOs don't have to be fun, they have to be epic, you have to suffer (but not frustrating, hopefully). At the end you have the feeling of having done something amazing, which doesn't equal to fun exactly.
We are talking about VIDEO GAMES right?
I view video games as a disposable entertainment product and I'm pretty sure that's what most people expect.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
MMOs have become disposable because of the sheer number of titles out there. People play them like temp games and no longer expect to play them long term and developers are also catering to this à la carte behaviour. Games used to be very long term like when I played Everquest but even I look at MMORPGs as a temporary game for me to get to the end and enjoy the journey there. I no longer look to it like my unhealthy obsession was with Everquest and I am glad I can luv em and leave em now.
I do enjoy groups but I disagree that other players should be allowed to shiiit all over my game when I am playing so the open PvP or any time other players come to camp and destroy my gameplay will have me leaving the game very fast so for me other players can be a problem. I do not think I am the minority in this attitude.
I personally love the story in SWTOR I just wish they paid the same attention to other parts of the game like alternate paths of levelling that is not the same planet sequence but at least 5 other ways to level like WoW offered that is my main issue with SWTOR. Definitely loved the voice acting and storyline in fact that was done very well. I also think from the chat you read while at fleet or on a planet others love the story too because they discuss it and say how much they are enjoying it.
Although I enjoy reading and debating with the ideas here in my head when I do not write down what I think the people on this site are a minority as far as what the general gaming public who just buy and play MMORPGs like because in spite of how the game is looking like in reviews they inevitably sell a lot of copies and then people leave like always after sampling the menu. This is where the à la carte part come in. Players no longer stay like we did in Everquest they move on to the next shiny thing like crows with baubles and I think I might be a crow too unfortunately.
Let me add another assumption, that is killing MMOs, in my oppinion:
"MMOS have to be fun"
Bluntly said, MMOs don't have to be fun, they have to be epic, you have to suffer (but not frustrating, hopefully). At the end you have the feeling of having done something amazing, which doesn't equal to fun exactly.
Yes the need to be fun, but they don't need to be totally trivial and effortless. I think that was what you were after. Even difficult games can be FUN. Even long tasks can be FUN.
Unfortunately, us "real gamers" are not the core audience anymore. The people playing Farmville and other such non-games are.
Let me add another assumption, that is killing MMOs, in my oppinion:
"MMOS have to be fun"
Bluntly said, MMOs don't have to be fun, they have to be epic, you have to suffer (but not frustrating, hopefully). At the end you have the feeling of having done something amazing, which doesn't equal to fun exactly.
Yes the need to be fun, but they don't need to be totally trivial and effortless. I think that was what you were after. Even difficult games can be FUN. Even long tasks can be FUN.
Unfortunately, us "real gamers" are not the core audience anymore. The people playing Farmville and other such non-games are.
I doubt any actual gamers will pass up games like 'To the Moon', Journey, Flower, The Walking Dead just because it is 'easy' or 'effortless'.
More games are coming out so there is a larger spread in difficulty.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
first of all mmo are not and will never die ,we as a individual alwais try to look from stull other game have and alwais keelp looking into a circle of neverending stupify and not value the game itself as it is ,gw2 for me is perfect its run out of content but still is perfect ,now im playing sandbox game like ahe of wushun (2 diferent type of game )and i enjoy AOW alot and have stull to do not like gw2 wish run out of content and need to wait for patch .mi point is the iknow the diference and i play both games icant say come on add this on guildwars cause hey everyone have theyr own idea and like some style and we are never gonna be confortable whit any game ever otehr than acept it how it is simple as that.
no game are and will be perfect really we alwais trying to put stuff were dont belong just acept thing how they are and if is not for you play other game that have the fiture you want .
I disagree with #1, as SOE/LA did not listen to the players, and they delivered the CU and the NGE as a result.
Following the NGE, SOE actually listened to the players, and fixed the game up pretty well with what they had. Going back to pre-CU or the NGE was not viable, and the code was a mess, but despite that they did wonders to the game. Near the end when they had the free 45 days, the population s quadrupled, which that had not happened on previous free months, and the reason for that is because SOE made something of the NGE by 2011, by actually listening to the players. Following the NGE, nothing SOE did caused as much uproar as the CU or the NGE, and what they did do overall was accepted by the majority of existing players.
Most developers do not listen to the players, as are too confidenet that WOW like games are the answer, except Smedley recently, so we shall see what EQ next does.
Also there is listening and there is listening. Developers should listen to what players want and developers should then give what players need (not give what players want)
With #5 I tend to agree that the end game matters so people want to keep playing, but should not be all that matters, but in a MMO end game should be more important otherwise you may as well have a single player game - people play the content that is there and then quit. In COH and STO the levels did not matter so much as most of the content (except main stortlines) scaled to your own level. Pre-CU did not matter much either, as you had no levels, and the 32 professions, provided plenty of content in itself. SWG had plenty of features even after NGE, to keep you occupied. There was not a massive need to be max level, although it opened more of the game up, in the end low levels could participate in the invasions, theme parks, mission terminals, space etc.
If there is a 'segment' there needs to be proof that it exists before most companies invests millions of $$$ to create it.
Where was the proof in 2003 that WoW would rake in as many subscribers as it did? Developing any MMO is a risk. The only sure thing these days is the lack of enthusiasm for the most recent generation of games. You seem to think that the path to profit is to avoid risk at all cost. The fact is that all successful businesses became such because they took a risk and it paid off.
The only proof that we have is EVE with its 450k sub number.
You see that as proof that I'm wrong. I see it as proof that I'm right.
Fact: EVE is hardly recognizable as a game. It's complex and unforgiving. As an experience, it's more like watching your disk drive defrag than WoW. It drives away more players than it retains.
And yet, 450k subscribers. More than Rift, LOTRO, TSW, or SWTOR. Why is that? There's something there that keeps people coming back.
If there was a game that took that something, and put it into a package that wasn't quite as complex or unforgiving -- a game that felt like a game and not a spreadsheet program -- people would play it. You can't tell me it's impossible because no one has ever tried it.
That's nice and respectable but that's the only non-themepark MMO that is above 100k.
Most "non-themepark" MMOs are either 10 years-old or shovelware. EVE is the only Sandbox with any production value, as far as I know.
What about longevity? Video games are a disposable entertainment products for me so one game (MMO or non-MMO) rarely lasts more than 4 months.
Angry Birds and Farmville are disposable entertainment. MMOs are meant to last. At their best, they're hobbies in and of themselves.
I spent 5 years each in three different games -- and I don't think I'm the exception here. Furthermore, all of those games are still up and running in some form. That's not disposable to me. Maybe the reason your games don't last you more than 4 months is that you're playing the wrong kind of games.
As a corrolary to #1, the biggest myth in MMORPGs is "company xxx never listens to its players".
All companys listen to their players. Yes, some companys ignore major concerns due to a variety of different resaons (some legitimate some not), but they all make chnages based on their customers.
But with 99.99% of things the 'community' wants, there is a part of the community that does not want it. So a company is always simultaneously listening AND not listening to what the community wants.
And there is no bigger example of this than Plane of Knowledge from EQ1. A very major issue with a lot of people was the fact that it was very difficult to play with your friends, especially at low levels. Your friend wanted to make a Halfling while you wanted to play an Elf? Good luck playing together. So the PoK port stones were introduced. This reduced a lot of travel times in EQ, but far from removed it. Half of the community loved being able to play with their friends as well as not spend 45 minutes to travel to an exp spot (now that was reduced to say 15 minutes, very rarely 0). EQ grew in popularity after this change, peaking in popularity several years later. But there is a very vocal group that will talk about how SoE ruined EQ and that they should listen to their customers. But listenening to their cstomers is 100% how this change came about.
That's nice and respectable but that's the only non-themepark MMO that is above 100k.
Most "non-themepark" MMOs are either 10 years-old or shovelware. EVE is the only Sandbox with any production value, as far as I know.
EQ may still be over 100k even with its age. Its probably more like 50k, but it was a huge non themepark success. FFXI is another one. The first themeparks didnt come until EQ2 and WoW in 2004. Plentys of games sustained 100k+ for many, many years. In fact, the only themepark games to susutain more than 250k after a year in NA/EU market are WoW, LOTRO, and it looks like SWTOR. Compare that with EQ, FFXI, DAoC, UO, SWG and EvE that all managed to do this as well
Apologies for the confusion: I really wasn't referring to EQ or FFXI. I've always thought of those games as Themeparks, though I admit that I've never played either.
Originally posted by Greyface Apologies for the confusion: I really wasn't referring to EQ or FFXI. I've always thought of those games as Themeparks, though I admit that I've never played either.
Of course some people will say that since they arent sandboxes they therefore are theme parks, but the reality is that neither game is remotely a themepark, at least in their primes.
We have more than one flavor of MMO. STO plays totally differently than WOW. DDO has a totally different dungeon feel (more dungeon, less open world, more events & puzzles in dungeons) than WOW.
PS2 has massive combat. WOT has tank based instanced combat. And then we have super hero MMOs like DCUO.
There are plenty of variety. It may be valid to complain that the OP does not have games he like .. but it is just plain wrong to say there is only one flavor of MMO. In fact, precisely because of the variety, I am in favor of MMO hoping and don't even have enough time to experience them all.
This is true, there are tons of MMOs after all so it's wrong to say there's only one flavor. I guess my point was there's no reason we can't have both what the OP wants and what the guy I responded to wants within the same genre. There's definitely more than one right way to make an MMO.
The reason is always supply and demand. There is a demand for a Star Trek game, that is why STO is made, and continue to add content. I am not sure whether there is enough demand for what OP wants, but that determines if it got made.
Originally posted by Greyface Apologies for the confusion: I really wasn't referring to EQ or FFXI. I've always thought of those games as Themeparks, though I admit that I've never played either.
Of course some people will say that since they arent sandboxes they therefore are theme parks, but the reality is that neither game is remotely a themepark, at least in their primes.
Amazing... the first themepark ever, the anti-UO....not a themepark. Gotta love revisionist historical posts.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
It probably isn't profitable enough. I do remember reading some earlier financial reports stating that the game was underperforming in all their categories; initial sales, subscription retention, and cash shop.
For the sake of discussion, I'd like to offer some retort to your post. Let me preface this by saying, I agree with your points but I think they are some nuances that are noteworthy.
Assumption #1
Of course developers are the owners and bear the responsibility for the direction of their project. Players don't have direct input into the creative direction of a game, and can either support it or not. Should they choose to support it, it means they are in agreement with the direction of the game. An exception to this is when players become disgruntled but have nothing else to entertain them, thereby remaining a customer. A good example of this is a burned out WoW player who sees nothing else worth playing.
However, developers are making a service. They have customers because some part of their product is attractive. It would make sense to maximize this satisfication and return the features that are mostly well received. Where developers have a responsibility to listen:
1. Game changing updates: Anything that impacts a player's investment or existing achievements. For instance, NGE in Star Wars Galaxies. More recently, consider the Ascended Items update in Guild Wars 2.
2. Design philosophy: When a developer is explicit about their design philosophy, they owe it to themselves to be true this. This is a selling point and if it is violated, many players will be stop playing.
3. Payment models: If a game is transitioning models, be sure you aren't limiting content players already paid for or require players to pay for basic functionality such as travel, skill bars, or levels.
Assumption #2
Players make up the culture of the game. When players are being funneled into content instead of other content (GW2 - fractals over open world), they are the problem. True, they are going with what's rational. The game presents rewards and a means to get there, it makes sense to follow this trek. However, cultural rifts happen in games. If a part of the population is against a feature, they are fighting against the culture of the game that is for such features. This is most evident when changes impact casual players at the expense of hardcore players, or vice versa.
Assumption #3
I find no disagreement here.
Assumption #4
Story is important. It's what compels people to spend hundreds of hours and dollars on a game, along with gameplay. The examples you mentioned fell short for gameplay reasons. Story content were the redeeming qualities. I agree, not everyone is the chosen one. I would content that RP servers contribute to the story and the lore of the game. However, the game must have sufficient lore and story for a culture to thrive in.
Assumption #5
Endgame is important. Character advancement is important. Unfortunately, this often translates to raids and gear progression, rather than something meaningful like reputation or morality advancement (like Fable, but better). Sandboxes offer a lot in this sense. You can reach max level and still have features to level up. But what do you do once those are leveled? I think that's a question a lot of games have a hard time answering.
This is one of the best posts i've seen on this forum in a long while and encompasses how i feel almost to a T.
In particular i want to comment on Point 5, because thats the path that EverQuest 1 took, and it worked exceptionally well. Yes, there were some aspects of EQ1 that needed changing, things like losing levels from deaths was dumb. The ability to lose all your gear because you couldnt get back to your corpse in time, was dumb. There are definitely innovations along the way that benefitted the genre. But, the biggest problem in my opinion has been the over casualization.
People demanding "ports" every 100 meters in the game, because god forbid they spend 3 minutes running to a dungeon entrance or to a particular place in the map.
Whining about "forced grouping". This is probably my biggest point that makes me angry. People look at it in the lense of "if grouping allows me to get better gear, even if its only 5% better, or lets someone level even as little as 1% faster than i can as a soloer, then i am being "FORCED" to group". Its ludicrous. In EQ1 you could solo to level cap, would it take a crapton longer and not have as good rewards as far as gear? Absolutely. But thats the way it should be. Its a frigging MMORPG. And no, Multiplayer does not mean just "being around other players". Multiplayer means PLAYING with other players. If 2 kids are in a big playground, and one is on the monkey bars in one corner, and the other kid is in the other corner making sand castles. NOT ONE person would look at that situation and say those children are playing together.
Everything is a "grind" now. I literally had a guy in Rift complaining that it taking 50 hours to level from 51 to 60 was a totally unacceptable asian style grind. He literally was talking about it in the same level of exasperation as if you had asked him to shoot his girlfriend in the face with a crossbow. It was *that* ludicrous of an idea to him.
The OP brought up such a great point when he was talking about "The Vision". We all used to bitch about it, and to be truthful, yes there were instances where the developers was just flat wrong. But the majority of the time the vision was a good thing. I always use the example of players thinking they know what they want with the example of a guy who says he wants to have 3 wives, how awesome it would be right? Until he actually has 3 wives and realizes its the exact opposite of what he wants. Now, does that mean the playerbase is always wrong? NO, an example: In original EQ, paladins and shadowknights literally took 40% more actual raw XP to level than other classes because they were hybrids. This stemmed from the fact that back in the early beta days, They were a crapton more powerful than their hybrid base classes. They had all the tanking and DPS ability of a warrior, and all the heals and buffs of a cleric (in the case of a paladin) but there was no real downside. Even later in the game they changed it so that paladins got nerfed versions of the cleric spells, and warriors had better mitigation, way more DPS etc. This all worked out fine, except they never removed this XP reduction. What was worse is that if you joined a group, it spread that 40% out amongst the group, so nobody wanted to play with a paladin or SK in the group because it meant they were gonna take 8% less xp or something like that
Anyways, all water under the bridge at this point. I am keeping an eye out on EQ Next though, hoping it will be good.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
We have more than one flavor of MMO. STO plays totally differently than WOW. DDO has a totally different dungeon feel (more dungeon, less open world, more events & puzzles in dungeons) than WOW.
PS2 has massive combat. WOT has tank based instanced combat. And then we have super hero MMOs like DCUO.
There are plenty of variety. It may be valid to complain that the OP does not have games he like .. but it is just plain wrong to say there is only one flavor of MMO. In fact, precisely because of the variety, I am in favor of MMO hoping and don't even have enough time to experience them all.
That segment that isn't being 'served' (according to you) is a segment that isn't that big.
Supply / Demand, that's how the market works. So if you want a style of game, support something that is similar / has those features.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Good read, and actually found myself nodding my head in agreement though out most of it
Not sure i'm on the same page with you on #5, but i definately agree that something needs to be done. Personally i'd rather have the journey between level 1- x longer and more rewarding rather than grinding out dailies for months after reaching max level.
Looking for a family that you can game with for life? Check out Grievance at https://www.grievancegaming.org !
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
I'd be willing to bet that segment is larger than you think, judging by how many topics like this there are on this site and by the problems MMOs are facing today with longevity, declining subscription numbers, etc. All of those players who are discontent would probably be willing to try something new. Many others are still playing their old favorite MMOs because nothing new has released that they enjoy. You have a point though, it is smaller and most developers would rather play it safe and go for a piece of the larger pie. That's why we have so many games that follow WoW's design philosophy.
Since no game has been developed so far with the features the OP brought up, there's really nothing to support... but you're right, and I would support it if the game turned out to be fun and of decent quality.
This is true, there are tons of MMOs after all so it's wrong to say there's only one flavor. I guess my point was there's no reason we can't have both what the OP wants and what the guy I responded to wants within the same genre. There's definitely more than one right way to make an MMO.
Let me add another assumption, that is killing MMOs, in my oppinion:
"MMOS have to be fun"
Bluntly said, MMOs don't have to be fun, they have to be epic, you have to suffer (but not frustrating, hopefully). At the end you have the feeling of having done something amazing, which doesn't equal to fun exactly.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
If there is a 'segment' there needs to be proof that it exists before most companies invests millions of $$$ to create it.
The only proof that we have is EVE with its 450k sub number.
That's nice and respectable but that's the only non-themepark MMO that is above 100k.
What about longevity? Video games are a disposable entertainment products for me so one game (MMO or non-MMO) rarely lasts more than 4 months.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
We are talking about VIDEO GAMES right?
I view video games as a disposable entertainment product and I'm pretty sure that's what most people expect.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Superb post.
I like the part where you say that developers should combine the accessibility of WoW with the persistence (and depth) of EVE will be the next hit.
I agree completely. I hope John Smedley and whoever is leading the production of Titan are listening.
MMOs have become disposable because of the sheer number of titles out there. People play them like temp games and no longer expect to play them long term and developers are also catering to this à la carte behaviour. Games used to be very long term like when I played Everquest but even I look at MMORPGs as a temporary game for me to get to the end and enjoy the journey there. I no longer look to it like my unhealthy obsession was with Everquest and I am glad I can luv em and leave em now.
I do enjoy groups but I disagree that other players should be allowed to shiiit all over my game when I am playing so the open PvP or any time other players come to camp and destroy my gameplay will have me leaving the game very fast so for me other players can be a problem. I do not think I am the minority in this attitude.
I personally love the story in SWTOR I just wish they paid the same attention to other parts of the game like alternate paths of levelling that is not the same planet sequence but at least 5 other ways to level like WoW offered that is my main issue with SWTOR. Definitely loved the voice acting and storyline in fact that was done very well. I also think from the chat you read while at fleet or on a planet others love the story too because they discuss it and say how much they are enjoying it.
Although I enjoy reading and debating with the ideas here in my head when I do not write down what I think the people on this site are a minority as far as what the general gaming public who just buy and play MMORPGs like because in spite of how the game is looking like in reviews they inevitably sell a lot of copies and then people leave like always after sampling the menu. This is where the à la carte part come in. Players no longer stay like we did in Everquest they move on to the next shiny thing like crows with baubles and I think I might be a crow too unfortunately.
Yes the need to be fun, but they don't need to be totally trivial and effortless. I think that was what you were after. Even difficult games can be FUN. Even long tasks can be FUN.
Unfortunately, us "real gamers" are not the core audience anymore. The people playing Farmville and other such non-games are.
I doubt any actual gamers will pass up games like 'To the Moon', Journey, Flower, The Walking Dead just because it is 'easy' or 'effortless'.
More games are coming out so there is a larger spread in difficulty.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
first of all mmo are not and will never die ,we as a individual alwais try to look from stull other game have and alwais keelp looking into a circle of neverending stupify and not value the game itself as it is ,gw2 for me is perfect its run out of content but still is perfect ,now im playing sandbox game like ahe of wushun (2 diferent type of game )and i enjoy AOW alot and have stull to do not like gw2 wish run out of content and need to wait for patch .mi point is the iknow the diference and i play both games icant say come on add this on guildwars cause hey everyone have theyr own idea and like some style and we are never gonna be confortable whit any game ever otehr than acept it how it is simple as that.
no game are and will be perfect really we alwais trying to put stuff were dont belong just acept thing how they are and if is not for you play other game that have the fiture you want .
I disagree with #1, as SOE/LA did not listen to the players, and they delivered the CU and the NGE as a result.
Following the NGE, SOE actually listened to the players, and fixed the game up pretty well with what they had. Going back to pre-CU or the NGE was not viable, and the code was a mess, but despite that they did wonders to the game. Near the end when they had the free 45 days, the population s quadrupled, which that had not happened on previous free months, and the reason for that is because SOE made something of the NGE by 2011, by actually listening to the players. Following the NGE, nothing SOE did caused as much uproar as the CU or the NGE, and what they did do overall was accepted by the majority of existing players.
Most developers do not listen to the players, as are too confidenet that WOW like games are the answer, except Smedley recently, so we shall see what EQ next does.
Also there is listening and there is listening. Developers should listen to what players want and developers should then give what players need (not give what players want)
With #5 I tend to agree that the end game matters so people want to keep playing, but should not be all that matters, but in a MMO end game should be more important otherwise you may as well have a single player game - people play the content that is there and then quit. In COH and STO the levels did not matter so much as most of the content (except main stortlines) scaled to your own level. Pre-CU did not matter much either, as you had no levels, and the 32 professions, provided plenty of content in itself. SWG had plenty of features even after NGE, to keep you occupied. There was not a massive need to be max level, although it opened more of the game up, in the end low levels could participate in the invasions, theme parks, mission terminals, space etc.
Star Trek Online - Best Free MMORPG of 2012
"we can get 10 million subs like wow"
Where was the proof in 2003 that WoW would rake in as many subscribers as it did? Developing any MMO is a risk. The only sure thing these days is the lack of enthusiasm for the most recent generation of games. You seem to think that the path to profit is to avoid risk at all cost. The fact is that all successful businesses became such because they took a risk and it paid off.
You see that as proof that I'm wrong. I see it as proof that I'm right.
Fact: EVE is hardly recognizable as a game. It's complex and unforgiving. As an experience, it's more like watching your disk drive defrag than WoW. It drives away more players than it retains.
And yet, 450k subscribers. More than Rift, LOTRO, TSW, or SWTOR. Why is that? There's something there that keeps people coming back.
If there was a game that took that something, and put it into a package that wasn't quite as complex or unforgiving -- a game that felt like a game and not a spreadsheet program -- people would play it. You can't tell me it's impossible because no one has ever tried it.
Most "non-themepark" MMOs are either 10 years-old or shovelware. EVE is the only Sandbox with any production value, as far as I know.
Angry Birds and Farmville are disposable entertainment. MMOs are meant to last. At their best, they're hobbies in and of themselves.
I spent 5 years each in three different games -- and I don't think I'm the exception here. Furthermore, all of those games are still up and running in some form. That's not disposable to me. Maybe the reason your games don't last you more than 4 months is that you're playing the wrong kind of games.
As a corrolary to #1, the biggest myth in MMORPGs is "company xxx never listens to its players".
All companys listen to their players. Yes, some companys ignore major concerns due to a variety of different resaons (some legitimate some not), but they all make chnages based on their customers.
But with 99.99% of things the 'community' wants, there is a part of the community that does not want it. So a company is always simultaneously listening AND not listening to what the community wants.
And there is no bigger example of this than Plane of Knowledge from EQ1. A very major issue with a lot of people was the fact that it was very difficult to play with your friends, especially at low levels. Your friend wanted to make a Halfling while you wanted to play an Elf? Good luck playing together. So the PoK port stones were introduced. This reduced a lot of travel times in EQ, but far from removed it. Half of the community loved being able to play with their friends as well as not spend 45 minutes to travel to an exp spot (now that was reduced to say 15 minutes, very rarely 0). EQ grew in popularity after this change, peaking in popularity several years later. But there is a very vocal group that will talk about how SoE ruined EQ and that they should listen to their customers. But listenening to their cstomers is 100% how this change came about.
EQ may still be over 100k even with its age. Its probably more like 50k, but it was a huge non themepark success. FFXI is another one. The first themeparks didnt come until EQ2 and WoW in 2004. Plentys of games sustained 100k+ for many, many years. In fact, the only themepark games to susutain more than 250k after a year in NA/EU market are WoW, LOTRO, and it looks like SWTOR. Compare that with EQ, FFXI, DAoC, UO, SWG and EvE that all managed to do this as well
Of course some people will say that since they arent sandboxes they therefore are theme parks, but the reality is that neither game is remotely a themepark, at least in their primes.
The reason is always supply and demand. There is a demand for a Star Trek game, that is why STO is made, and continue to add content. I am not sure whether there is enough demand for what OP wants, but that determines if it got made.
Amazing... the first themepark ever, the anti-UO....not a themepark. Gotta love revisionist historical posts.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED