Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why did mmorpgs fail as a genre?

135678

Comments

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    I will take the other side of the road on this one and say that I feel the future of the genre is not in the hands of the Indies but of the AAA studios.
    Amazon's new MMO will be special and there are two other studios working on games not yet announced. The genre is not dead nor has it failed. It is just kicking into gear. =O
    That is a possibility, and in either cases will things move back to AAA eventually. If it is a AAA or indie game that renews the genre enough doesn't really matter, once interest is rising for the genre again the AAA games will come.

    @DMKano also have a point about over saturation though, I think more then a few of the smaller games will die before that is happening and sadly, they probably have to. There are a large bunch of games with 50-100K players and I doubt they can survive in the long run. Too many small MMOs means that it is even harder to make a larger one.
  • jusomdudejusomdude Member RarePosts: 2,706
    Aelious said:
    bcbully said:
    jusomdude said:
    If I could pick one genre to be exclusively be developed it would be MMO, but the masses have spoken and they prefer other genres no matter how shallow they are... ahem(moba, fps). I guess people with more free time prefer MMO while others prefer little shit drop in and out multiplayer... If only there could be a union between the two. I think they should increase drop rates or something the longer you're logged out so the people with little time to play feel like they are being rewarded when they do play. Maybe that's not an ideal solution since they're being rewarded for NOT playing but I guess the rest of us should probably get a life or something, and we'll be rewarded the same.
    The masses want awesome PvP.
    The masses of PvP players want awesome PvP.
    The masses are fine with PvP when there's nothing at stake and the game is fairly balanced. But when you can lose something of value then it becomes a problem. That's why indie FFA PvP or what have you MMOs will always fail. The only one that has done half decent is EvE.
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    jusomdude said:
    Aelious said:
    bcbully said:
    jusomdude said:
    If I could pick one genre to be exclusively be developed it would be MMO, but the masses have spoken and they prefer other genres no matter how shallow they are... ahem(moba, fps). I guess people with more free time prefer MMO while others prefer little shit drop in and out multiplayer... If only there could be a union between the two. I think they should increase drop rates or something the longer you're logged out so the people with little time to play feel like they are being rewarded when they do play. Maybe that's not an ideal solution since they're being rewarded for NOT playing but I guess the rest of us should probably get a life or something, and we'll be rewarded the same.
    The masses want awesome PvP.
    The masses of PvP players want awesome PvP.
    The masses are fine with PvP when there's nothing at stake and the game is fairly balanced. But when you can lose something of value then it becomes a problem. That's why indie FFA PvP or what have you MMOs will always fail. The only one that has done half decent is EvE.
    I would say the masses are fine with PvP in games like MOBAs, shooters, etc. but when it comes to MMORPGs the preference is Pve. That said, anyone that likes PvP wants quality and balanced PvP, no argument there.
  • BurntCabbageBurntCabbage Member UncommonPosts: 482
    because theres too many easily swayed companys and devs that see money signs when theres a "hit" ..so they start rolling out mmorgps that have combat and more elements like mobas and action combat with street fighter type combos..and it seems the trend now is alpha alpha alpha beta betas where they want you to donate 75-500-1000$ for 5-7years until or if even it releases...THEY tell YOU what YOU want to play and the sheep follow their way to the cliff and fall off..
  • Andel_SkaarAndel_Skaar Member UncommonPosts: 401
    Heh ,this is easy.
    Pick one:

    1.Funding
    2.Game is too much of an investment for devs compared to other game types to support (Funding)
    3.Server Costs are often in desperation covered by p2w in the game (Funding)

    4. Funding?
  • therdretherdre Member UncommonPosts: 50
    Video games in general are going through a rough patch.  A lot of really great developers were bought out by large corporations and we are starting to see AAA games suffer for it.  Crowd funded games to this point (at least in mmos, there are a few exceptions in other game genres) seem to be somewhat of a failure.  The ones with really good ideas don't seem to have enough money to do what they want, while the ones with too much money now have millions of dollars with no accountability and are not handling it well.  I've been taking a break from MMOs as my main game and found quite a bit of enjoyment from playing mostly single player games recently (although that made me sad that EA destroyed Bioware after replaying ME1/DA:O), but I am hopeful that we will get at least 1 or 2 amazing games out of the 100s of indie games being developed.  
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    jusomdude said:
    Aelious said:
    bcbully said:
    jusomdude said:
    If I could pick one genre to be exclusively be developed it would be MMO, but the masses have spoken and they prefer other genres no matter how shallow they are... ahem(moba, fps). I guess people with more free time prefer MMO while others prefer little shit drop in and out multiplayer... If only there could be a union between the two. I think they should increase drop rates or something the longer you're logged out so the people with little time to play feel like they are being rewarded when they do play. Maybe that's not an ideal solution since they're being rewarded for NOT playing but I guess the rest of us should probably get a life or something, and we'll be rewarded the same.
    The masses want awesome PvP.
    The masses of PvP players want awesome PvP.
    The masses are fine with PvP when there's nothing at stake and the game is fairly balanced. But when you can lose something of value then it becomes a problem. That's why indie FFA PvP or what have you MMOs will always fail. The only one that has done half decent is EvE.
    This is really being too kind. No MMO based primarily on PvP has ever been popular in the west since UO and DAoC. Both were much less popular than their PvE counterparts. DAoC also offered a lot of PvE, even if it was pretty horrible.

    PvP MMOs are a small market within the greater MMO genre. At least in the West.


  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,476
    Easy answer, cash shops, wallet warriors, no monthly $15.00 fee.
    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Gdemami said:
    Kyleran said:
    In my opinion MMORPGs failed to become the more robust, social living worlds which I had expected them to evolve into.
    ...how do you fail at something you never intended to do?
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    edited January 2017
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Gdemami said:
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
    That's a complete fallacy. A person can quite easily view the genre as failed if it didn't live up to their wants and desires. Any decision in direction fails someone's expectations.

    That's a perfectly valid use of the word fail, as it falls under the premise of neglecting to do something another expected. 


    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • Kunai_VaxKunai_Vax Member RarePosts: 527
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
    That's a complete fallacy. A person can quite easily view the genre as failed if it didn't live up to their wants and desires. Any decision in direction fails someone's expectations.

    That's a perfectly valid use of the word fail, as it falls under the premise of neglecting to do something another expected. 


    Who argues over this moronic minutia? I swear this site is run and frequented by idiots, and you are proving it. 

    Look at the guys who run the site, they support the twelve people who actually bother to read their pointless articles, and treat everyone else with disdain. If it were a village pub, that would be fine, but is is supposed to be a website discussing RPG's appealing to a global market. 

    Bunch of morons. 


    So brave to make an account and post this.
    Wonder who you usually post as.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Kunai_Vax said:
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
    That's a complete fallacy. A person can quite easily view the genre as failed if it didn't live up to their wants and desires. Any decision in direction fails someone's expectations.

    That's a perfectly valid use of the word fail, as it falls under the premise of neglecting to do something another expected. 


    Who argues over this moronic minutia? I swear this site is run and frequented by idiots, and you are proving it. 

    Look at the guys who run the site, they support the twelve people who actually bother to read their pointless articles, and treat everyone else with disdain. If it were a village pub, that would be fine, but is is supposed to be a website discussing RPG's appealing to a global market. 

    Bunch of morons. 


    So brave to make an account and post this.
    Wonder who you usually post as.
    My guess? Koop. He has been making new accounts here on a regular basis since he got banned. His schtick is bash the site, bash the mods and bash the purple posters.
    "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

  • Kunai_VaxKunai_Vax Member RarePosts: 527
    Iselin said:
    Kunai_Vax said:
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
    That's a complete fallacy. A person can quite easily view the genre as failed if it didn't live up to their wants and desires. Any decision in direction fails someone's expectations.

    That's a perfectly valid use of the word fail, as it falls under the premise of neglecting to do something another expected. 


    Who argues over this moronic minutia? I swear this site is run and frequented by idiots, and you are proving it. 

    Look at the guys who run the site, they support the twelve people who actually bother to read their pointless articles, and treat everyone else with disdain. If it were a village pub, that would be fine, but is is supposed to be a website discussing RPG's appealing to a global market. 

    Bunch of morons. 


    So brave to make an account and post this.
    Wonder who you usually post as.
    My guess? Koop. He has been making new accounts here on a regular basis since he got banned. His schtick is bash the site, bash the mods and bash the purple posters.
    Ah, purple envy. I feel his pain  ;)

  • CrusadecrusherCrusadecrusher Member UncommonPosts: 283
    Iselin said:
    Kunai_Vax said:
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
    That's a complete fallacy. A person can quite easily view the genre as failed if it didn't live up to their wants and desires. Any decision in direction fails someone's expectations.

    That's a perfectly valid use of the word fail, as it falls under the premise of neglecting to do something another expected. 


    Who argues over this moronic minutia? I swear this site is run and frequented by idiots, and you are proving it. 

    Look at the guys who run the site, they support the twelve people who actually bother to read their pointless articles, and treat everyone else with disdain. If it were a village pub, that would be fine, but is is supposed to be a website discussing RPG's appealing to a global market. 

    Bunch of morons. 


    So brave to make an account and post this.
    Wonder who you usually post as.
    My guess? Koop. He has been making new accounts here on a regular basis since he got banned. His schtick is bash the site, bash the mods and bash the purple posters.
    I would agree this site does cater to a certain crowd...I'm not bashing the purple/orange users but a few of them do get away with a lot more then what a normal user would...
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Aori said:
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
    That's a complete fallacy. A person can quite easily view the genre as failed if it didn't live up to their wants and desires. Any decision in direction fails someone's expectations.

    That's a perfectly valid use of the word fail, as it falls under the premise of neglecting to do something another expected. 


    Hard to call something a failure when it is still economically successful..
    What I said really has little to do with economic success, it's a subjective opinion, it's really not being objective at all. Which is unneeded in such a personal opinion. 

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Iselin said:
    Kunai_Vax said:
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
    That's a complete fallacy. A person can quite easily view the genre as failed if it didn't live up to their wants and desires. Any decision in direction fails someone's expectations.

    That's a perfectly valid use of the word fail, as it falls under the premise of neglecting to do something another expected. 


    Who argues over this moronic minutia? I swear this site is run and frequented by idiots, and you are proving it. 

    Look at the guys who run the site, they support the twelve people who actually bother to read their pointless articles, and treat everyone else with disdain. If it were a village pub, that would be fine, but is is supposed to be a website discussing RPG's appealing to a global market. 

    Bunch of morons. 


    So brave to make an account and post this.
    Wonder who you usually post as.
    My guess? Koop. He has been making new accounts here on a regular basis since he got banned. His schtick is bash the site, bash the mods and bash the purple posters.
    I would agree this site does cater to a certain crowd...I'm not bashing the purple/orange users but a few of them do get away with a lot more then what a normal user would...
    No it's that most of us blues, purples and oranges, have been here for ages and know our limits, so we stay within them...

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • MoiraeMoirae Member RarePosts: 3,318
    I was considering a poll but that would be silly.

    We obviously have seen successes in the likes of WOW, SWTOR and ESO (probably the biggest 3), but we have seen no development of triple A mmos in recent years.

    Rather we have seen a trickle of funds to indie or crowd-sourced projects, which have no accountability or oversight so are more likely to fail.

    We have seen a rise of MOBAs and limited multiplayer RPGs.

    Is it just that the sun has set on MMORPGs?  Is the genre over? 
    Not in the least. You haven't been paying attention. People have said repeatedly what the problems are here, and crowdfunding is NOT the main problem. You should read more of the threads here. 
  • Kunai_VaxKunai_Vax Member RarePosts: 527
    Iselin said:
    Kunai_Vax said:
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    Distopia said:
    There are two types of failing, failing yourself, then there's failing another persons expectations of you... Most who feel it failed would fall into the latter.
    No, that s still the former - there are no two types of failing.
    That's a complete fallacy. A person can quite easily view the genre as failed if it didn't live up to their wants and desires. Any decision in direction fails someone's expectations.

    That's a perfectly valid use of the word fail, as it falls under the premise of neglecting to do something another expected. 


    Who argues over this moronic minutia? I swear this site is run and frequented by idiots, and you are proving it. 

    Look at the guys who run the site, they support the twelve people who actually bother to read their pointless articles, and treat everyone else with disdain. If it were a village pub, that would be fine, but is is supposed to be a website discussing RPG's appealing to a global market. 

    Bunch of morons. 


    So brave to make an account and post this.
    Wonder who you usually post as.
    My guess? Koop. He has been making new accounts here on a regular basis since he got banned. His schtick is bash the site, bash the mods and bash the purple posters.
    I would agree this site does cater to a certain crowd...I'm not bashing the purple/orange users but a few of them do get away with a lot more then what a normal user would...

    First they came for the Orange's, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not orange.

    Then they came for the Purples, and I did not speak out— 
    Because I was not purple.

    Then they came for the blues, and I did not speak out— 
    Because I was not blue.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak up for me.

    Why have we now started attacking people simply because of the colour of their name?
    What the hell are you talking about? Please explain to me how this site caters to purple/orange users. 
    Also explain to me how they get away with more than a normal user. What does that even mean?  O.o


  • Gamer54321Gamer54321 Member UncommonPosts: 452
    Devs became greedy, lazy, and stupid! (in that order)
  • LoudWisperLoudWisper Member UncommonPosts: 76
    i do not believe they did.


  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Heh ,this is easy.
    Pick one:

    1.Funding
    2.Game is too much of an investment for devs compared to other game types to support (Funding)
    3.Server Costs are often in desperation covered by p2w in the game (Funding)

    4. Funding?
    It is surely harder to get investment for a more expensive game type but I don't think that is the whole problem. For each dollar put into a game like EQ, Lineage, Wow or GW you eventually got more then for almost all other games.

    And not all MMOs have been that expensive, Guildwars were rather cheap to make to mention one game that got many times it's investment back. 

    As for server cost that part is hardly something you can skip for any multiplayer game today.

    I think the economical problem more have to do with the fact that MMOs today are made for short-term play instead of long-term and that the F2P model isn't working as good as people seems to think.

    Even Wow was made for long term play originally, the older MMOs got more fun the longer you played them, today they instead throw everything good at you the first few weeks in an attempt to hook you but there is not so much keeping you playing after that. And that is a really bad idea for a game that expensive to make, MMOs need players to stay for months (if not years), not weeks.

    And that is where the pay2win comes in, since you wont play long term the devs want you to pay as much as fast as possible but there are just so many whales out there, the average player does not pay much and then tires of the game.

    MMOs either needs to become far less expensive to make or keep players way longer no matter what payment model they use.

    It is often rather easy to see why a MMO failed to earn the sums it needed to get, although there is a hindsight factor to that.

    In any ways, it is not the cost in itself that is the problem but the cost to earnings ratio, when a cheap cardgame like Heartstone earns more then an expensive MMO like ESO it is not that strange that most publishers rather makes games like Hearthstone.

    I don't think most devs have thought enough how to actually keep their players long term, while you can make MMOs that basically is fast cash grabs those games needs to be rather cheap to be successful. If you instead have years to earn money from the same player you will earn far more even if the process is slower. 
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member EpicPosts: 4,205
    MMORPGs didn't fail as a genre. They have simply returned to being more niche, with a couple notable exceptions.

    The flurry of WoW clones is partly to blame, as was the attempt to cash in on a level of success that was far more the exception than the rule.

    The introduction of f2p hasn't done the MMORPG genre any favours either. Sure, it virtually eliminates the risk of trying out new games. But, it also eliminates the need for players to invest in a game, so that it may grow on them over time, and so that they feel a commitment to it.

    Easy in also means easy out. It is hard to develop a new MMORPG when the market model of it encourages that kind of philosophy in players.

    This is particularly bad for MMORPGs that have any kind of depth to them, as it may take time to develop a sense of rewarding play in such titles, time that many may choose not to invest when they have no sense of commitment to the game.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    Distopia said:
    What I said really has little to do with economic success, it's a subjective opinion, it's really not being objective at all. Which is unneeded in such a personal opinion. 
    See, you answered yourself why you are wrong.

    Just because "it is your subjectie opinion" does not make it so.


  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Devs became greedy, lazy, and stupid! (in that order)
    That is simplifying things. Generally is it the publishers that is greedy and not the devs.

    Trying to quickly cash in is not the smartest in a genre that used to survive on long term commitment.

    I do think that the devs have made some rather bad mistakes though, the whole idea that you throw 90% of the games content on the players the first few weeks is a disaster for a genre that lives on long term commitment, once you played 3 weeks there is not much to do besides repeating a few dungeons and raids. Well, there is also PvP but MMO PvP usually is something they put very little work in and tend to be pretty bad.

    Those things do have a connection, someone decided that it is better to have 3 million players the first month then 500K loyal players that stays for years. I think the publishers started to treat MMOs as regular games without adopting the development cost and payment model of those regular games.

    Making a $50M+ F2P or P2P MMO the same way as a $15M B2P single player game is clearly not working. Or to be exact, it works in China and South Korea but not in the west.
Sign In or Register to comment.