Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
On the subject of how much time people have to play
Neanderthal
Member RarePosts: 1,861
I've heard this idea that people these days don't have as much time to play as they had in the early days of MMOs. I've also heard the counter argument that people, on average, actually do have just as much time to play. This is all revolving around the question of whether or not the modern MMO player would play a game that requires longer sessions and/or has slower progression.
Ok, here is what I think: People, on average, DO, have just as much time to play as they ever did. However, they are no longer willing to spend their time doing things they don't enjoy and most especially they won't spend their gaming time doing something they actively dislike.
In the early days of MMOs a large percentage of people were willing to do things they didn't like for two reasons. The first reason was simply because it was all new to us. We were going through all of this for the first time so when we ran into a part of the game we didn't care for we were much more likely to stick with it anyway just to see how things played out. The second reason people used to be much more likely to put up with the "crap" parts of games was purely the lust for shiny pixels, or more accurately for character progression.
So here is the problem for anyone who wants to go back to those early game designs; neither of those two things will hold people anymore.
1. We are not new to the genre anymore. Even young people who are new to MMOs are more informed about it all than those of us who were the noobs of all noobs back in the early days. We've all "been there, done that" and when it becomes apparent that a game has some crap we don't like we are not very likely to put up with it just to see where it all leads to.
2. The lust for pixels no longer has the power over most players that it had in the early days. Again we've "been there, done that". We've all scratched and clawed to get that shiny bit of phat lewt which is great for a short time until it becomes obsolete or we quit the game. The knowledge that it is all just temporary is much more present in our minds than it was way back when and so the lust for loot has lost much of it's hold over us. This being the case the vast majority of people are simply not going to endure a lot of miserable crap that is not fun at all just for the sake of getting some upgrade which they know is only of fleeting value.
So, I agree with the people who say that players (on average) have just as much time as they ever did. But I don't agree with people who say that this means all of the "old school" game design can work again. Some of it could be brought back and probably work out but the most miserable, un-fun parts of it will never work again well enough to hold a player base large enough to keep a game going for a respectable amount of time.
To sum up: it's not a question of how much time people have to play it's the fact that people are less willing to tolerate unenjoyable game play today. The average player today, when confronted with a choice of enduring game play he/she does not enjoy or quitting the game, is much more likely to say "screw this" and quit.
Ok, here is what I think: People, on average, DO, have just as much time to play as they ever did. However, they are no longer willing to spend their time doing things they don't enjoy and most especially they won't spend their gaming time doing something they actively dislike.
In the early days of MMOs a large percentage of people were willing to do things they didn't like for two reasons. The first reason was simply because it was all new to us. We were going through all of this for the first time so when we ran into a part of the game we didn't care for we were much more likely to stick with it anyway just to see how things played out. The second reason people used to be much more likely to put up with the "crap" parts of games was purely the lust for shiny pixels, or more accurately for character progression.
So here is the problem for anyone who wants to go back to those early game designs; neither of those two things will hold people anymore.
1. We are not new to the genre anymore. Even young people who are new to MMOs are more informed about it all than those of us who were the noobs of all noobs back in the early days. We've all "been there, done that" and when it becomes apparent that a game has some crap we don't like we are not very likely to put up with it just to see where it all leads to.
2. The lust for pixels no longer has the power over most players that it had in the early days. Again we've "been there, done that". We've all scratched and clawed to get that shiny bit of phat lewt which is great for a short time until it becomes obsolete or we quit the game. The knowledge that it is all just temporary is much more present in our minds than it was way back when and so the lust for loot has lost much of it's hold over us. This being the case the vast majority of people are simply not going to endure a lot of miserable crap that is not fun at all just for the sake of getting some upgrade which they know is only of fleeting value.
So, I agree with the people who say that players (on average) have just as much time as they ever did. But I don't agree with people who say that this means all of the "old school" game design can work again. Some of it could be brought back and probably work out but the most miserable, un-fun parts of it will never work again well enough to hold a player base large enough to keep a game going for a respectable amount of time.
To sum up: it's not a question of how much time people have to play it's the fact that people are less willing to tolerate unenjoyable game play today. The average player today, when confronted with a choice of enduring game play he/she does not enjoy or quitting the game, is much more likely to say "screw this" and quit.
Comments
So far as people not being willing to "spend their gaming time doing something they actively dislike," that really depends on the intensity of that dislike and whether they sufficiently desire the reward.
For example, there was a lot of down time back in early Everquest but I didn't mind it all that much. I was more than willing to put up with down time if it meant access to the game's rewards and experiences.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I will not engage in content I do not enjoy for a chance at progress toward my goal.
I.e., I'm not gonna run the same dungeons over and over for a chance at a gear upgrade. I will run, say, WQs over and over to get war resources or rep that is guaranteed if I meet the win conditions.
RNG is a poor incentive these days. Always was, really, but after this long one would expect to move beyond the same progression tactics that were used at the dawn of the genre.
It will always play a role in RPGs, but playing such a huge role in the player's ability to achieve their goal like it does with drops is outdated and boorish.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
There's just so much entertainment out there that's easily available and often FREE that I can't justify dealing with artificial time sinks in games that exist just to pad out content. Time spent waiting an hour looking for a group or grinding the same mob for the thousandth time for exp or rare drop is time I could have spent in hundreds of other things having new entertainment experiences I never had before.
When people wonder if a "old school" type of game could work in the modern era they usually pose the question of whether or not players today have the free time for that style of game.
I'm suggesting that they are asking the wrong question. Free time is not the major factor which will determine the success of such a game. What the devs of such a game need to be asking themselves is how many people actually enjoy the type of game play they are designing.
Because, as I was saying before, back in the early days a lot of people put up with a lot of game play they didn't actually enjoy doing. They did it for the reasons I mentioned earlier and also because they had fewer games to choose from.
But...most people won't do that anymore. That's just reality. Any developer today who thinks he can design obnoxiously unpleasant game play and people will just stick with the game and slog through it anyway, that developer is an idiot.
Now of course "fun" and "enjoyable" are subjective. But any dev making an "old school" style game would be wise to be brutally honest with himself about how many people actually enjoy {this} or find {that} fun.
If you want large, long-term goals like the first generation of MMORPGs had, you need to take it easy on the RNG. Not a lot of folks are going to stick around when you ask them to spend 3 nights working on a dungeon only to get no useful items dropped.
There may be a large difference in motivation, though, if the work in that dungeon yielded consistent progress towards an end goal of specific pieces of gear. Say, progression through the dungeon gave you components that enabled you to easily craft/redeem for some nice gear. Instead of random drops, those components came as a sort of check mark progression system, where your progression through the dungeon's wings guaranteed you the components associated with that wing.
RNG + long slogs are a double whammy for your players.
So basically:
Growing up, school and lots of time for gaming.
Adult, job, family management, some time for gaming.
Retirement, lots of time for gaming.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
That's a valid point. It's one thing that can make players ask themselves "why am I bothering with this crap".
This is a little off my main topic but I would add to it that giving one player the power to decide if other players get a reward or not is just going to frustrate and alienate a lot of people. As it was in EQ the guild leader/raid leader often decided who got what or who was allowed to roll on what. So if you were one of the grunts who put in your time the possibility of getting something for it was entirely in the hands of another player. Even if the guild leader tried to be as fair as possible about it, it would inevitably lead to the perception of unfairness at times. One persons rewards should not be dependent on another players decision.
That's just a poor way to design a game and it can only serve to frustrate and anger people. Even if a guild uses some policy intended to be as fair as possible it's just lazy design for the devs not to automate it in some way so that every one knows there can't be any funny business.
My declaration for all new games. Built-in tools for guild management in every new game! We've already tried it the hard way.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It has been my experience that DPS is the only metric used, which screws healers each and every time. In most MMOs, healers get the shaft. They don't get rewarded with loot for keeping teammates alive with a well-timed heal, unless the leader is a strange, oddball that looks at the whole raid and not some 3rd party DPS tracker.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Forget DPS. At least with healing there is an amount of HPs healed, much like damage is amount of HPs done to the enemy. So, there is at least some basis for evaluating how much a particular character helped during a raid. With binary effects (buffs, debuffs, mez, snare, root, etc), those are the ones really left out to dry.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I haven't been raiding in years (2014 or 15 possibly). I'm not a fan of raiding as that aspect is much too chaotic for my tastes. When the Guild I was in in WoW raided, there were loot mechanics in place that made "fair distribution" almost impossible. Has this changed much?
I do agree that the buffer/debuff players get screwed even worse than healers. That's not easily trackable. I also agree that the whole time/RNG/leader aspect of loot makes time vs reward much less desirable for most players. I'm just curious if raiding has improved much in the past 10 years
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
People just go through different phases of life. Collectively as a whole high school and college kids now probably have the same amount of free time to play games as I did at their age, 10 yrs ago. And I have the same amount now as new other dads had back then.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
On the contrary, I don't hate old school I actually yearn for a game similar in many ways to EQ. I do, however, hate certain aspects of...well I'll just say the old EQ design because that's the "old school" game I'm most familiar with.
I mostly loved EQ up to about level 40 or so with the exception of a few details like the inability of melee classes to get a bind if no other players were around and/or willing to do it. On the other hand I absolutely despised the raiding endgame in EQ.
If someone were to make a game nearly identical to EQ but without the raiding---just keep the focus on 6 persons groups forever---I would be delighted. I would "put up with" quite a few things I didn't like to play that game. But how many other people would? I'm just one person. Are there enough people to make that game viable?
Add in the design decision to shift the focus away from small groups and onto big raids in the late game and I'm not going to touch the game with a ten foot pole. But I'm just one person. Are there enough other people to make that game viable?
I'm fine with "forced grouping". I'm fine with a fair amount of downtime. I'm fine with a relatively harsh death penalty. I'm fine with limiting fast travel. I'm fine with slow leveling. I don't like but could live with an inability to "bind" or reset my respawn point. But each one of those types of things that devs add to a game is going to push more people away. So the question is: How far can they go with that stuff and still have enough people left to make the game viable?
I'm fine with most of that but for me when they add in the shift in focus from small groups to big raids....they lose me. Ok, so they lost me, big deal. But they were losing other people all along the way with each of those "old school" elements they added. If they keep narrowing down their niche audience further and further and further....are there really going to be enough people left to make it work?
But there is always the same flaw in this type of analysis.
The "I" becomes "we", which then becomes "Everyone".
This I have an issue with.
I agree that most of the people who played EQ in his golden days were in a way "forced" to play the bits they didn't like to get to the bits they liked.
These people never meant to like EQ, they were simply waiting for something better to be available (WoW?).
I get it, I never was in any doubt.
But while I get this point, many people, particularly in this forum, have a problem to understand that, some people actually liked that type of mechanics, and still do.
I played 2 years Vanilla WoW on private servers and never got bored.
I quit when Blizzard announced the Classic servers, I just didn't want to get burned out by the time they launched the Official Servers.
Do you consider this Nostalgia?
While playing, I can assure you I met lots of people who never played Vanilla WoW and were loving the Old School concept.
Is this Nostalgia too?
We all agree that this Old School games are a niche, so we are not arguing on that.
But why you (people) feel the need to tell me, I should not wish they make WoW classic Servers or a remake of EQ, with the 'objective fact' that "it's not what I really want"?
Trying to convince me that I should not like what I like, or that what I like is not what I really want, it seems to be 'slightly' patronizing to me.
Don't you think?
Not at all because I wasn't telling you or anyone else what to like. I wasn't saying you, TEKK3N, are wrong for liking whatever it is you like. I was questioning if there are enough people who like "old school" gaming to make it viable.
I was pondering how many old school elements you can incorporate into a game, losing player base with each one you add, and still be left with enough interested people to provide a sustainable player base.
Originally I was pointing out that the primary question people have been asking regarding old school games in the modern era is whether or not people have enough time for that type of game nowadays and I was pointing out that this is the wrong question to be asking. On average I'm certain that people today have just as much free time as people did in 1999. It will vary for individuals, of course, but on average I'm sure it's about the same.
No, the question is how many people will want that type of game. And with each "old school" element you add that pool of potential players gets smaller and smaller.
You want to go full bore old school with slow leveling, harsh death penalties, no fast travel, forced grouping, no self bind for many classes, no maps, no guidance from quests, no arrows pointing the way, long downtimes, slow mana and health regen, and top it all off with a hardcore raid grind at the end. Ok, fine. But try to be realistic about how many people that will appeal to.
I won't pull some imaginary number out of my ass but my crystal ball tells me it's going to be a pretty small number.