Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

"EverQuest Next Killed The MMORPG"

135

Comments

  • ScottgunScottgun Member UncommonPosts: 528
    You didn't quote what was the most interesting for me:

    "I’ve talked about the problems facing MMOs before, but it’s probably worth repeating one of the biggest – the magic factor. By that, I mean that when the genre first hit, its fundamental sell felt magical – that we could enter amazing worlds with millions of other people, and every moment of doing so felt special. Now, not only is it no big deal, but we’ve come to realise that much like the real world, what matters isn’t how many people you’re surrounded by, but how many people you’re actually with."

    If you click on the link, you get an explanation of the decline of magic:

    "But the trouble with magic is that the same trick rarely works more than once. As much as games that followed might have introduced people to other worlds, culturally, the genie was out of the bottle. Suddenly, worlds full of people became just a thing that computers can do, no more inherently exciting or surprising than a lens flare effect or the ability to create real-world locations."

    In other words, there is only so many ways you can pull a rabbit out of a hat before the audience is bored with it.

    Then he alludes to the sub vs. F2P issue:

    "The subscription fees that seemed so important in the late 90s, because obviously all those servers cost money, started to feel distinctly quaint in a world where every tech company was throwing servers and bandwidth around like they and it were free."

    If you know me, I am decidedly in the Free-to-Play-Sucks camp, but I have to admit that arguing against it is like arguing against a tsunami. But that brings me to the last sentence of the quote, "what matters isn’t how many people you’re surrounded by, but how many people you’re actually with."  Long ago I had a job in retail and I made the comment that this would be a great job if it wasn't for all those darn customers. Likewise, in your typical F2P the attitude is that this would be a great mmorpg if wasn't for those mm's. We want lots of people around, but we don't actually want to have to deal with them. PvP? Not unless it is consensual and you have submitted a PvP request in triplicate two weeks in advance and an independent third-party has confirmed you aren't using an exploitative meta. 
  • heerobyaheerobya Member UncommonPosts: 465
    I think it will take some time but another western AAA MMORPG will surely be made. Just takes time. We're in a slump, so what?
    Really not so sure this is true anymore.

    I've been around this genre for a long time. Since 1999 and my first steps into Ultima Online.

    In all of that time, this is the first time I can't recall a single new AAA Western MMORPG in development.

    We have ESO which is successful, and is always working on more content, a WoW expansion, I'm sure TOR is working on new content, and then GW2 is I'm sure working on new stuff... beyond that, everything is coming from the East or is a smaller indie/kickstarter game.

    So I ask myself, what motivation does a AAA developer & publisher have to make a true MMORPG? We've had 10+ years of everything that isn't WoW "failing" in one sense or another.

    Sure, there were unrealistic expectations. The "WoW killer" was never going to happen, and investors and publishers who expected those kind of numbers were delusional, but again in all of the games released post-WoW, from Western devs, really only ESO and TOR and GW2 have been generally successful, and TOR and ESO both took a business model change to find their footing.

    Companies like Mythic and Funcom and SOE don't or barely exist anymore.

    No I think the only type of games AAA is going to create and support are the MMO-light games like Destiny and Division, and other MOBA types where (as the OP said) you have much smaller buy-in and a perpetual content/combat model.

    The East is weird, their most popular MMO is still Lineage after all these years, which is crazy. It's just a totally different market/playerbase.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,774
    This is only the case if you focus on the failed projects. Even then the developers have learned from failed projects and now can use that info going forward. We also need to look at how MMOs have grown and changed since 1999. Go play project 1999 or whatever its called and then look at what we have now. From Megaserver to Battleground that can hold 500 vs 500 without a hickup. We have come a long way and things keep moving forward. 



  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 990
    reeereee said:

    So I totally disagree with the entire article parading a personal opinion as what everyone else must be thinking. 

    And one things holds true. Trends fade. 


    Yes, trends fade. The trend of mmorpg is fading.

    Sure, no one says you have to go with the trend of liking other types of games, but isn't this paragraph:

    "All the major players now have tried and failed and moved on. CCP could have merged the trust it places in players in Eve Online with a more personable setting with World of Darkness. Nope, gone. Blizzard’s Project Titan? Gone, with some pieces going to Overwatch, and Hearthstone probably more profitable than it would ever have been. Funcom? Hahaha, no. NCSoft perhaps could, but past attempts like Tabula Rasa and more recently Wildstar have left it licking burned fingers."

    facts?

    Didn't CCP cancel World of Darkness?
    Didn't Blizz cancel Titan?
    Didn't DBG cancel EQN?
    Are TR and Wildstar failures?

    One is a fluke. Two is a pattern. Three is a trend. You get the idea. 
    To be more exact: the trend of big budget Western MMORPGs is fading.  For those of us who enjoy Asian MMORPGs times have never been better.
    Asian MMORPGs are all grind fest and/or money grabs (well beyond what a subscription would require).

    I've played them.  I will not play them again.

    Have fun if that's what you like, though.
  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 990
    Scottgun said:
    You didn't quote what was the most interesting for me:

    "I’ve talked about the problems facing MMOs before, but it’s probably worth repeating one of the biggest – the magic factor. By that, I mean that when the genre first hit, its fundamental sell felt magical – that we could enter amazing worlds with millions of other people, and every moment of doing so felt special. Now, not only is it no big deal, but we’ve come to realise that much like the real world, what matters isn’t how many people you’re surrounded by, but how many people you’re actually with."

    If you click on the link, you get an explanation of the decline of magic:

    "But the trouble with magic is that the same trick rarely works more than once. As much as games that followed might have introduced people to other worlds, culturally, the genie was out of the bottle. Suddenly, worlds full of people became just a thing that computers can do, no more inherently exciting or surprising than a lens flare effect or the ability to create real-world locations."

    In other words, there is only so many ways you can pull a rabbit out of a hat before the audience is bored with it.

    Then he alludes to the sub vs. F2P issue:

    "The subscription fees that seemed so important in the late 90s, because obviously all those servers cost money, started to feel distinctly quaint in a world where every tech company was throwing servers and bandwidth around like they and it were free."

    If you know me, I am decidedly in the Free-to-Play-Sucks camp, but I have to admit that arguing against it is like arguing against a tsunami. But that brings me to the last sentence of the quote, "what matters isn’t how many people you’re surrounded by, but how many people you’re actually with."  Long ago I had a job in retail and I made the comment that this would be a great job if it wasn't for all those darn customers. Likewise, in your typical F2P the attitude is that this would be a great mmorpg if wasn't for those mm's. We want lots of people around, but we don't actually want to have to deal with them. PvP? Not unless it is consensual and you have submitted a PvP request in triplicate two weeks in advance and an independent third-party has confirmed you aren't using an exploitative meta. 
    The problem with PvP is that it is rarely balanced well and there are often way too many patches, nerf, fixes, changes, etc. that can completely break the experience you leveled the character for.

    This may not be a huge issue in a fast leveling western game, but in an Asian grinder like Lineage II, for example, it can equate to years of time investment being basically railroaded by the development team.

    And when you factor in the constant balance problems inherent in PvP aspects of MMORPGs, it's completely understandable why people tend to dislike it.  Additionally, Open PvP is also used as an excuse for griefing...  Corpse and Zone/Portal Camping, Training MOBs onto players, Foul/Adult Language and gestures, etc.

    F2P sucks because it brings in a lot of players who don't invest in the game, and therefore don't feel a need to contribute to the community or the game in a meaningful way.  They can do all the bad, and never feel like they will pay for it.  Even if they get banned, they just create another free account and do more of it.

    In addition to that, developers of F2P games (Asian games, most notably) tend to put a lot of P2Win items that are traceable in their stores, and since the games often are grindy, it basically encourages an RMT market which creates all sorts of other issues which disrupt normal gameplay (botting for gold farming and crowding out real players for leveling/farming spots, for example).
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Darksworm said:


    F2P sucks because it brings in a lot of players who don't invest in the game, and therefore don't feel a need to contribute to the community or the game in a meaningful way.  They can do all the bad, and never feel like they will pay for it.  Even if they get banned, they just create another free account and do more of it.


    B2P games like The Division which costs $60 a pop will not have that problem. Plus, i doubt most players play games for the community anymore. 
  • pierthpierth Member UncommonPosts: 1,494
    Classic MMOs have seen their time. That's not to say that there won't be more flops, or that aspects of MMORPGs won't last, but they will be parted out to other genres. Games like Destiny and Diablo 3 give the co-op and gearing up experience. Mobas have taken over the PvP scene because the balance is better and itemization isn't the problem like it is in MMOs (really, how well have PVP-based MMOs fared since there were only about 4 MMOs even on the western market?)

    All that really leaves are the world simulators, or sandboxes and even the niche sandbox gamers can't find common ground in a single game.
  • MukeMuke Member RarePosts: 2,614
    Bruhza said:
    That post is a good example of why people shouldn't get excited for "the next best thing" and instead find it in the list of hundreds of MMO's that we already have.

    This hype train crap needs to stop.
    There are enough warnings there.

    1- do not buy into hype trains.
    2- Biggest warning: SOE and John Smedley were involved, the latter claiming it was going to be the best thing ever.

    Point 2 should give enough reason to shove this game aside and wait till the first reviews after Launch would be in.

    Which will now never happen ofc.

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,416
    Scottgun said:


    If you know me, I am decidedly in the Free-to-Play-Sucks camp, but I have to admit that arguing against it is like arguing against a tsunami. But that brings me to the last sentence of the quote, "what matters isn’t how many people you’re surrounded by, but how many people you’re actually with."  Long ago I had a job in retail and I made the comment that this would be a great job if it wasn't for all those darn customers. Likewise, in your typical F2P the attitude is that this would be a great mmorpg if wasn't for those mm's. We want lots of people around, but we don't actually want to have to deal with them. PvP? Not unless it is consensual and you have submitted a PvP request in triplicate two weeks in advance and an independent third-party has confirmed you aren't using an exploitative meta. 
    You didn't finish the paragraph:

    Likewise, in your typical sub game the attitude is that this would be a great mmorpg if wasn't for those mm's. We want lots of people around, but we don't actually want to have to deal with them. PvP? Not unless it is consensual and you have submitted a PvP request in triplicate two weeks in advance and an independent third-party has confirmed you aren't using an exploitative meta. 
  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit Member RarePosts: 1,220
    Well they say they scrapped EQN because it wasn't fun and are now going to release LM which is EQN without any of the fun stuff.....how f'ed is that!

  • MikehaMikeha Member EpicPosts: 8,953
    edited March 2016
    Everquest Next was the only hope. 



    Now its all about Black Desert baby!  =)
  • umcorianumcorian Member UncommonPosts: 519
    Sensationalist nonsense.

    MMOs have been around since the 70s. They originally had no graphics. Then they did. They originally were 2D. Then they weren't. They originally were hardcore. Then they weren't. 

    We're just waiting for the next thing that they'll be.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,384
    umcorian said:
    Sensationalist nonsense.

    MMOs have been around since the 70s. They originally had no graphics. Then they did. They originally were 2D. Then they weren't. They originally were hardcore. Then they weren't. 

    We're just waiting for the next thing that they'll be.
    I think we already know, minimally multiplayer lobby shooters is the "next" thing....or rather the present thing.

    YAWN.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • Azaron_NightbladeAzaron_Nightblade Member EpicPosts: 4,728
    edited March 2016
    Currently Black Desert is doing pretty damn well. The devs recently mentioned how pleasantly surprised they were by how far the sales have exceeded their expectations.

    WoD's cancellation and Titan's also aren't exactly on the same page... WoD was completely mismanaged by CCP, until it died. Titan was Blizzard not wanting another MMO to compete with themselves. (In an over-saturated market xD)

    EQN... well... it's SOE. (Or rather was up until recently :p)
    Those people haven't managed to put out anything for years now.

    My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)

    https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/

  • sweetdreamssweetdreams Member UncommonPosts: 155
    Yeah right. EQNext was just some souped-up mix of FreeRealms and Minecraft. Who wants that? Not me, that's for sure. Puke.jpg :p
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,112
    edited March 2016
    If the article had a point that I can agree with it's simply this: there is more money to be made making other types of games.

    Why? Because MMORPGs were grown to be moneymaking machines that appeal to the general game playing public.... a group that can be sold on playing just about anything. So why make MMORPGs when more easily digested MOGs can be sold for bigger profit?

    Does that spell the death of MMORPGs or does it simply bring them back down to their original reality of bring the type of game that appeals to a smallish part of the general game playing public?

    All it really means is that the large corporate behemoths that became thus though MMORPG roots have moved on to other money making schemes now that they are nothing more than corporate bitches focused on nothing but profit.

    All that's doing, as we on this site already know very well, is opening the door for those who are still interested in making MMORPGs in a more modest scale where they belong. 

    Destinity, The Division and GTA 24 can get the accolades and rake in the big bucks. If the fact that games other than the type you enjoy best is attracting the masses and the big bucks bothers you, well maybe that's a sign that you're playing games more to be part of the in-crowd than because you actually love MMORPGs. I hope you enjoyed your short visit in the MMORPG genre. Now you can carry on and go back to your regularly scheduled entertainment product.

    As to the rest of us who have loved this type of game over all other types for 20 years or more, they'll keep getting made for us. Maybe we should learn from the mistakes of the past and just keep them our secret this time around :)
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,944
    edited March 2016
    Kyleran said:
    umcorian said:
    Sensationalist nonsense.

    MMOs have been around since the 70s. They originally had no graphics. Then they did. They originally were 2D. Then they weren't. They originally were hardcore. Then they weren't. 

    We're just waiting for the next thing that they'll be.
    I think we already know, minimally multiplayer lobby shooters is the "next" thing....or rather the present thing.

    YAWN.
    It makes sense considering most MMORPG recently don't really need to be MMORPG. Why waste resources and market to a small market.  It's profitable because we used to spend on going but the desired gameplay this market want are not MMO required.  

    At the end of the day it's still a relatively small small market of fickle gamers.  Use AAA on AAA market size and stop dreaming of WoW.

    I personally like the Division better than themeparks.  It hits the spot of how shallow vertical progression gameplay should be without the lumbering framework MMOs have.  It's actually casual but hardcore.  It's fun in action and not just rewarding me for completing boring mechanics.
  • ArakaziArakazi Member UncommonPosts: 911
    The problem is that nobody seems to know how to bring the MMO forward. Everyone including many of us who play the game are stuck in the mindset that MMOs are games that look and feel like either WoW or Eve Online and every MMO that has come out since the year 2000 has either been sandbox or themepark.

    Thats not to say there hasn't been any inovation. Graphics and sound have been upgraded. Dynamic events have been added to spice up the questing and combat has been diversified. To be honest I'm not sure if the problem actually is the lack of innovation as many people claim because every aspect of MMOs has been refined and improved on. Most recent innovations to the genre have come from the far east while developers in the west are scratching their heads and wondering "what the hell has gone wrong here".

    The problem isn't that the general gameplay but rather the premise of what an MMO actually is and what it should be. That is to say that an MMO can be either it is a gameworld or virtual world. I've come to the conclusion that the next big MMO will not be a video game but a social platform from which various types of activity can be done from social media, watching a concert in VR or raiding with a guild.
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    EQN in no way killed the MMORPG, it was just the most recently casualty of SOE/DBG.
    For the genre itself, its as healthy as ever, and me, i am absolutely having the time of my life playing them. :)
  • ArakaziArakazi Member UncommonPosts: 911
    Phry said:
    EQN in no way killed the MMORPG, it was just the most recently casualty of SOE/DBG.
    For the genre itself, its as healthy as ever, and me, i am absolutely having the time of my life playing them. :)
    But would you say that the genre is as healthy as it could be?
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,112
    Arakazi said:
    Phry said:
    EQN in no way killed the MMORPG, it was just the most recently casualty of SOE/DBG.
    For the genre itself, its as healthy as ever, and me, i am absolutely having the time of my life playing them. :)
    But would you say that the genre is as healthy as it could be?
    Are you talking about imaginary health or realistic health?

    There is a group of people who want to play MMORPGs that is limited. Maximum realistic health means catering to that smallish group.

    Imaginary maximum health would involve selling the whole world on the idea that playing MMORPGs is what they should be doing... this one is never going to happen no matter how much some studios salivated at this possibility back when WOW got adopted by the more mainstream general public.

    So yeah, realistically, it's as healthy as it can be.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,418
    You know when you look too hard everything looks pockmarked.

    People these days are looking for the new mechanic, the advancement of MMORPGs ,the new way to play the genre ,a new skill system,a new way to level ..... on and on. When a new game comes out it is heavily criticised and panned as being same old ,same old even if it might have one new system it simply is not enough. The genre has to move forward not backward or else the game is simply no good.

    Well things were simpler back when Everquest came out. Our genuine excitement over the game cannot ever be repeated I guess. I know in spite of playing so many games after  Everquest, no game comes close to holding a candle to it even when there have been so many really good games but I recognize this as being my own fault for expecting a game to surpass my very first foray into the genre.

    Some have become too quick to criticize and too slow to praise and very sadly some have become so jaded nothing satisfies them any more. Not content with simply being unhappy quietly on their own, what is worse they wish to spread their discontent and misery by popping up like a bad penny in every new game thread to pepper them with their stupid one liners or sarcasm and glee at making the fans of the game react. A lot of them even admit to doing it and all this without ever playing the damn game. Who needs to play the game just read about it and that is enough for me to become an expert and then I can post  ad nauseam about how bad and how soon it is going to fail. Plus I get the bonus of watching the people who are actually playing the game get angry and upset. Forum wars is so much more fun than playing.

    This does not translate into the actual state of the genre nor does it indicate the health of the genre it simply shows us the age of the genre and as things age it undergoes many ups and downs. There are many ,many good games out there and I enjoy playing them although action games have been a bit off putting but still it is what it is.

    I doubt very much this genre is on its last legs although some here try very hard to paint the doom of the same. It will merely evolve. We may be past the time of heavy budget but you know what playing Pillars of Eternity I have realised you do not need a huge budget to create a good game .
    image
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,384
    cheyane said:
    You know when you look too hard everything looks pockmarked.

    People these days are looking for the new mechanic, the advancement of MMORPGs ,the new way to play the genre ,a new skill system,a new way to level ..... on and on. When a new game comes out it is heavily criticised and panned as being same old ,same old even if it might have one new system it simply is not enough. The genre has to move forward not backward or else the game is simply no good.

    Well things were simpler back when Everquest came out. Our genuine excitement over the game cannot ever be repeated I guess. I know in spite of playing so many games after  Everquest, no game comes close to holding a candle to it even when there have been so many really good games but I recognize this as being my own fault for expecting a game to surpass my very first foray into the genre.

    Some have become too quick to criticize and too slow to praise and very sadly some have become so jaded nothing satisfies them any more. Not content with simply being unhappy quietly on their own, what is worse they wish to spread their discontent and misery by popping up like a bad penny in every new game thread to pepper them with their stupid one liners or sarcasm and glee at making the fans of the game react. A lot of them even admit to doing it and all this without ever playing the damn game. Who needs to play the game just read about it and that is enough for me to become an expert and then I can post  ad nauseam about how bad and how soon it is going to fail. Plus I get the bonus of watching the people who are actually playing the game get angry and upset. Forum wars is so much more fun than playing.

    This does not translate into the actual state of the genre nor does it indicate the health of the genre it simply shows us the age of the genre and as things age it undergoes many ups and downs. There are many ,many good games out there and I enjoy playing them although action games have been a bit off putting but still it is what it is.

    I doubt very much this genre is on its last legs although some here try very hard to paint the doom of the same. It will merely evolve. We may be past the time of heavy budget but you know what playing Pillars of Eternity I have realised you do not need a huge budget to create a good game .
    Realize for some of us, our first MMO was not our best experience, mine actually came after 5 years and 5 or 6 different titles so the "first love" theory falls a bit flat with us.

    What is true is all MMORPGS that I have played for a length of time (6 months or more) were the earlier ones including L1/L2, DAOC, WOW vanilla, and EVE. 

    Since the era of the mass market, modern theme park began (around 2006) I've tried many new games, they just don't stand up well to their predecessors, at least for me anyways.

    The good news is a few years back I realized the best MMORPG for me was already out there, and I've been playing it enthusiastically ever since.

    Sure I'd like to one day find a new title to explore and enjoy, but if it never happens no worries, I'm good here.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • IwayloIwaylo Member UncommonPosts: 174
    EQN has nothing to do with mmos being trash these days. It's just that everyone is trying to suck out money from the customers that they are making shit games and expansions. That's why no good mmorpg is coming out and all the existing ones suck hard altho they used to be gold. $_$
  • heerobyaheerobya Member UncommonPosts: 465
    I realized a long time ago that the real secret sauce of what makes an MMO work or not work for the player is whether or not your friends play it too.

    It's literally the most important thing.

    If it's a good/decent game, with some pre-launch hype, and your friends pick it up and play it, you'll likely keep playing it and enjoy it too.

    If the game is not so great, and your friends stop playing it, you'll move on too.

    What made the old games great was not that they were grindy and everything took forever to do, it's that you did those mindless, repetitive tasks with your friends! 

    I mean, I know for a fact if a huge group of my friends started playing WoW again for Legion, I'd join them. I literally bought the Division just because everyone on my friend's list was playing it, and despite the game's flaws and my initial hesitations, I'm really enjoying playing it - but 100x more when I play with them vs. playing solo or having to PUG to do the daily missions.

    I would have probably not even gotten to level 30 if I was playing the game entirely solo. 

    Destiny was always the same way, and will be too. Most of my friends moved on after clearing King's Fall hard mode a bunch of times, then one of my other buddies got the game and I came back to help him level and gear up and such, ending up playing with him and an entirely new group of people for a few months and it was great!

    Tired of MMOs? Think they all suck? Burned out?

    Are you in a guild? Are you playing with a group of people? 

    Hyped about an upcoming or current game? Find people to play with! 

    That's the secret sauce. It really is.

    MMO devs have forgotten that too. Too much solo, too hard to group up, too many barriers to playing with your friends like "oh you're not high enough/too high of level" or "your gear isn't good enough" or "we already have a tank" etc. all of those limitations keep people apart, and force you to PUG or play solo.

    It's completely the opposite of how MMOs should be designed.

    Even games like GW2 that put in all kinds of scaling and don't have a big gear progression and don't have dedicated group roles etc. really dropped the ball big time by not offering enough engaging group content!

    It became "everyone playing solo... but together" which just doesn't work.

    Anything and everything that prevents people from playing together should be looked at and a solution found to allow them to play together.

    Level/power difference? Scaling/mentoring. Group dynamics? Flexible group size & structure requirements. Don't forget/skimp and offer LOTS of group-centric content.

    Solo play is an introduction. Something to do while waiting for your friends to get online. Matchmaking is a tool to find 1-2 more to fill out your group, not a replacement for socialization and playing with your friends.

    These simple concepts were lost in a mad dash to maximize profits and make up for dramatically increased production costs and timelines.

    Lower the barriers to entry. That's the one thing F2P did right. Make it easy to convince people to come play your game. 

    Anyway... that's enough ranting for one post ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.