Are all MMO games doomed to die or can the tide be changed

[Ansultares]

The reason modern MMO's are "doomed" is because of the players. Theyre expecting a fully polished completely bug free game on release.

I certainly am not. I put up with terrible performance in WAR for almost a year, and I only quit AoC after getting a bsod.

[Silversable]

IMHO, the main reason while MMOs tend to have a much shorter flourishing lifespan than earlier games is because of the player base preferences and the consequences it had on design choices.

 

In other words : more and more players seem to favor map-based entertainment over world exploration because it allows to gain rewards faster and more systematically. As a result, designers favor map-based game designs, as opposed to world building. Most of the "endgame" in current MMOs is a set of small-size maps on two variations :

- PvE labyrinth with scripted opponents

- PvP arena for team-vs-team combat

And the rest of the game world is merely built for

- appetizers (levelling) and

- refills (daily quests for tokens and coin).

 

Why would they design a world where events slowly unfold, where people act in a certain way that you have to learn in order to know your way around, large enough to include a myriad of small spots where anything can happen (including nothing at all) ? They are not conducive to efficient power acquisition, which is the main drive for players currently. Designers build games people want to play - if people favor hamster treadmills, designers build hamster treadmills.

 

The problem is, it takes much more time to design a fairly interesting treadmill than it takes to "beat it", especially since it was designed to be beatable in the first place, leading to both an actual dearth of content and the *perception* of a dearth of content which actually washes backwards towards those who have not yet experienced the whole content (in other words : if the rumormill says some venue is "useless", then, fairly quickly, it is abandoned by the immense majority of players and becomes both a dead end and a waste of design resources).

 

The solution ? Players have to learn to do without the treadmill. Learn to care about their game time enough not to worry about when (or whether) they will "get into the endgame". Learn to do without the latest heap of purple pixels. Learn to find opportunities in things that provide no material gain but do provide entertainment. I'm not talking of pure sandbox here, but about playing to have their character actually do something they want to do instead of playing "to beat the game".

 

Once "beating the game" becomes a little-pursued objective, designers will start building interesting worlds again. Worlds that will pass the test of time because they are not hollow shells and a handful of treadmills.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Silversable

[WarTornPanda]

They are doomed to either go F2P or be released with *ALL* the desirable functions and features of modern MMORPGs. Mediocrity is no longer accepted in the MMORPG genre.

[JustTed]

They are doomed to either go F2P...

 

Dude, you need to do some reading. F2P isn't "doom." Most companies make more money that way.

 

You have this misconception that F2P = has failed. This is false.

[Truga]

Theres an old saying "you can never go home again". My original MMO was Everquest I still remember the magic i felt when first exploring that World and my first raid in Kael Drakkel. I enjoyed WoW for a time but it always felt lacking to me and felt like it lacked the magic of EQ. For many WoW was their first MMO and now years later I think people were seeking to find that feeling again and finding like me that you cannot recapture it. That first love always feels the strongest and most special. I am enjoying SWTOR very much but it lacks that old time feeling and so has any mmo I have played since EQ, perhaps this is what people are finding that no matter what the mmo is it will never be the same. You realize the quests, story lines and animations may be different but it is all the same game you have already played for years.

 

The only MMO I have played that gave me the magic after my first (UO) was EVE. It was all there. In PVP skill and ship setup mattered more than time in game (level/expensive gear), there was some sort of player housing (you can build stations in space, outposts at moons), the economy was player based, rather than drop based (stupid bound items are stupid), holding space actually mattered, and people shot at other people to get access to resources (huge wars, sometimes resulted in lag though), and space was simply huge.

 

That said, in EVE, PVE is horrible. If you're considering trying it and don't like PVP, then don't.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Truga

[Lethality]

What does "good enough to warrant a subscription" have anything to do with it being F2P instead, and raking in more cash than by having a subscription. Being good enough or not has nothing to do with the fact that F2P is just plain and simple more cash if you do it right, changing over or not.

 

I can't believe I have to explain this, but...

 

If the game's developer believed that F2P was the "right" business model for their game, they would have set it up that way from the beginning. Making such an overhaul - because it's not just about payment, there are game systems that have to be created or changed to accommodate it - is a massive departure from the original plan.

 

So in that context, the game is a failure if it has to convert to F2P. It may get a revitalization, but if you'll note - NONE of the F2P converts have gone on to eclipse the level of content and updates that the subscription market leader - WoW - has. They are minuscule and still pale in comparison to the developer's original hopes and dreams, and they've had to shelve their true content plans.

 

Ed: It boggles my mind that WoW hasn't gone f2p yet. They're already selling mounts by the millions, having another 20 million people cash in wouldn't be bad for them at all...

 

Because it's good enough to warrant a subscription, and stick to its original business model.

[marshalleck]

Dude, you need to do some reading. F2P isn't "doom." Most companies make more money that way.

 

You have this misconception that F2P = has failed. This is false.

 

And again, it's not a challenge to the viability of F2P. The argument is that a game started as subscription based, but couldn't get players through the door and retain them, so it had to switch to F2P to get players in.

 

I agree that F2P is a viable strategy, and one which can vitalize a game, but the point remains that for whatever reason, a game that switches to F2P from a subscription model never does so without seeing a prior trend of sharply decreasing subscription retention. In other words, failure to achieve the original goal.

[Lethality]

I disagree.

Check this out mate:

 

Did you read what I said? Launching that way is different then a panic drill to convert to it.

[JustTed]

I can't believe I have to explain this, but...

 

If the game's developer believed that F2P was the "right" business model for their game, they would have set it up that way from the beginning. Making such an overhaul - because it's not just about payment, there are game systems that have to be created or changed to accommodate it - is a massive departure from the original plan.

 

So in that context, the game is a failure if it has to convert to F2P

 

Pure fiction. Business models change with changing times. The new paradigm is, "Make your game free, but charge for a lot of little things within it once they're hooked."

 

You make more money this way.

 

You know who we have to thank for this? You'd never guess in a million years. You should really do some research.

[Ansultares]

Once "beating the game" becomes a little-pursued objective, designers will start building interesting worlds again.

I'm hoping developers are smart enough to get this one on their own, after watching their peers crash and burn.

 

I know it's certainly said often enough with each of these releases. So many of us are looking for the same thing, and express it, but every developer falls prey to the same mistakes.

 

I don't think it's necessarily a truth about the playerbase that you describe, but rather it's a convenient excuse for lazy or uncreative developers.

[themacr]

What i'm missing is the immersion (even in swtor).

 

I mean stuff like player housing, defending your village, upgrading your tier X chest with enchants that might fail (and break the chest), more misc stuff like cooking and fishing, better craft systems (as in, to build a house you need wood which is cut by a woodcutter, then sawed by a carpenter, and the house is build by a Builder (3 proffesions right there )

 

The idea of a perfect MMO for me would be an MMO where you could feel like it's "real" if you know what I mean.

[JustTed]

Did you read what I said? Launching that way is different then a panic drill to convert to it.

 

Converting your game to F2P doesn't automatically mean it's a panic to stay afloat. You made this up.

 

Here.

[Riddickcz]

Did you read what I said? Launching that way is different then a panic drill to convert to it.

 

Its new business model that wasnt here when the game launched...so the game is adjusting to make more money.

 

Its like saying "there was no automatic gear unit for cars when this model went out...there is now, but adding it to this car model that was built with manual gear unit makes the car model a failure."

 

Its not. Everything is changing and strategies are changing and publishers are just adjusting their games to fit better business model to make them more money. Doesnt mean its failure.

[Drannor]

Pure fiction. Business models change with changing times. The new paradigm is, "Make your game free, but charge for a lot of little things within it once they're hooked."

 

You make more money this way.

 

You know who we have to thank for this? You'd never guess in a million years. You should really do some research.

 

This and this: http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/

[Tic-]

This huge post basically says "MMOs need to go back to being hardcore time sinks," is that it?

 

Its unfortunate they can't actually strive for fun instead..

 

between the grind, and rehashing the same old, same old, it honestly doesnt even feel like developers try for fun anymore.

[Lethality]

Pure fiction. Business models change with changing times. The new paradigm is, "Make your game free, but charge for a lot of little things within it once they're hooked."

 

You make more money this way.

 

You know who we have to thank for this? You'd never guess in a million years. You should really do some research.

 

No, you don't.

 

It does not mach the revenue forecasts or pro formas that the developer originally had envisioned. There's no two ways about it.

 

"More" players still doesn't mean they are meeting their original vision and player goals. And in every case so far, that's true.

[ActionPrinny]

I'm curious as to how well DUST 514 is going to do when it releases this summer. For anyone that doesn't know -- DUST 514 is a console FPS game for PS3 that is directly tied to the EVE universe server. You join mercenary corporations and get paid directly by corporations and alliances in the EVE MMO to defend planets under their control and to attack planets held by other rival corporations.

 

The money they give you is used to improve the equipment of your merc group and allow them to buy better ground transports and ships, etc. I think if there are ships in orbit in the EVE server, they can even intercede in the battle via orbital bombardment (I'm not sure exactly how that works though)

 

There is obviously a very large potential market of console FPS players. The question is whether they buy into this more tactical and integrated system, or prefer the fluff braindead gameplay of COD. (Also the game won't be available on 360 because Microsoft expects all games to be intregrated with LIVE, which wouldn't work since they have to interface with EVE)

[marshalleck]

Converting your game to F2P doesn't automatically mean it's a panic to stay afloat. You made this up.

 

Here.

 

Can you show me a subscription-based game that was either growing or trending steady, which switched from subscriptions to F2P?

 

Not saying they aren't out there, but I've never seen one. Just curious.

[Lethality]

Its new business model that wasnt here when the game launched...so the game is adjusting to make more money.

 

Its like saying "there was no automatic gear unit for cars when this model went out...there is now, but adding it to this car model that was built with manual gear unit makes the car model a failure."

 

Its not. Everything is changing and strategies are changing and publishers are just adjusting their games to fit better business model to make them more money. Doesnt mean its failure.

 

It does, in fact, mean that it failed in it's original incarnation.

 

Not sure how anyone can deny that.

[Lethality]

Can you show me a subscription-based game that was either growing or trending steady, which switched from subscriptions to F2P?

 

Not saying they aren't out there, but I've never seen one. Just curious.

 

Exactly right. There are none.

 

The only MMO to have grown and met expectations is WoW. Notice, they didn't switch to F2P to make "more money" because it's a fallacy.

[JustTed]

No, you don't.

 

Yeah, you didn't read this and you didn't watch the video I linked. This is why you're wrong. You won't take in new information.

[Truga]

Because it's good enough to warrant a subscription, and stick to its original business model.

 

I understand this. It boggles my mind because I'm 90% certain that if they let the people game without sub but instead introduced more microtransactions they'd have even more money. It's not about whether it's good enough for people to hold a subscription, when subscription will make you less money. I personally know 5 people that would try and buy wow content if it wasn't sub based, and out of those 5, two would also buy some cosmetic "upgrades". Now, they won't even touch it, because it's sub based, and they know they'll have to spend $15 a month on it whether they play for 1 hour that month or for 100.

 

I personally don't mind subs either. They're easier. Pay cash, play game. You don't have to worry about "oh, do I own this and that story line" etc, which is why I have a LotRO sub running every now and then for a month or two.

 

And that's the thing. You can keep the subs, just add ways for people to play without the sub. BAM, people that already subbed are still here, but you get a whole new stream of players that would never sub, but will buy content if it's a one-time investment.

[ArmchairMagpie]

Enlighten Yourself if You are interested. You can simply check out on youtube 10 reasons why to be interested in GW2.

 

Anyway in what way? Compared to all of the recently released MMOs? In EVERY way.

 

Yes, but you realize that this stuff is all the positives with the negatives carefully faded out?

Warhammer:Online has been hyped that way. SW:TOR has been hyped the same way as well. It's been like that with every MMO and when it finally launches people are getting a shock that in the end nothing seems to be perfect once again.

People falling blindly to hypes and zealously advertising games before launch make me cringe sometimes. You'd think by now people have learned but nope, here we are again!

[Riddickcz]

It does, in fact, mean that it failed in it's original incarnation.

 

Not sure how anyone can deny that.

 

So You know You are wrong but while on the floor still kicking and want to play word games?

The GAME doesnt fail if the business model is changed. Its all about definition.

And I wont play this game with You, sorry sir.

[peaceandpassion]

The main issue? social mmo's are becoming less social. When i 1st played swg we did things for the fun of it, for the experiance. Now people need rewards, amazing loot and gear to give them reasons to continue. There is afew interesting articles on this issue regarding how the human race is going backwards not forwards and online gaming is a tool used to indicate that.

 

"I cant see, touch or hear you, why should i care?" - SamX (old swg forum troll)