Should companies figure out a different approach to the MMO?
MMO. The genre has been around for a long time (longer than WoW for those who aren't aware, I believe a franchise called "Ultima" existed once). World of Warcraft of course came along and pretty much mainstreamed the genre and before you knew it, publishers/developers were climbing out of the woodwork trying to capitalize on its success, and they've been continuously trying to do so for years now it seems.
Yet here we are. I am unable to name another MMO that one could say even came close to mimicking WoW's success (and many have come, such as warhammer, aion, rift, age of conan, lord of the rings online, etc.). EA tried so hard with SWTOR recently, and well, that doesn't appear to be heading anywhere good. And we can name the countless developers that have folded staking everything on an MMO, with 38 Studios sadly being the latest example.
I've long felt for many years now that WoW was lightning in a bottle and anyone believing they could replicate its success were going to end up mistaken. But how then can companies create alternatives to WoW in the genre and market them to the consumers as a viable alternative to begin with? (servers being taken offline doesn't give consumers confidence).
Is Free2Play the new way to go in terms of generating revenues? It seems like consumers have shifted to accepting that pricing model as opposed to a monthly/yearly subscription based one.
I myself do not play MMO's, but I cannot ignore the fact that the industry in general seems to believe there is a huge market for them and thus continues to create so many.
Yet here we are. I am unable to name another MMO that one could say even came close to mimicking WoW's success (and many have come, such as warhammer, aion, rift, age of conan, lord of the rings online, etc.). EA tried so hard with SWTOR recently, and well, that doesn't appear to be heading anywhere good. And we can name the countless developers that have folded staking everything on an MMO, with 38 Studios sadly being the latest example.
I've long felt for many years now that WoW was lightning in a bottle and anyone believing they could replicate its success were going to end up mistaken. But how then can companies create alternatives to WoW in the genre and market them to the consumers as a viable alternative to begin with? (servers being taken offline doesn't give consumers confidence).
Is Free2Play the new way to go in terms of generating revenues? It seems like consumers have shifted to accepting that pricing model as opposed to a monthly/yearly subscription based one.
I myself do not play MMO's, but I cannot ignore the fact that the industry in general seems to believe there is a huge market for them and thus continues to create so many.
Replies
WoW has 15million subscribers. It does not mean All MMOs need to have 15million subscribers to be successful, just like a console game doesn't have to match Call of Duty sales numbers to be considered a success.
All those MMOs you mentioned are VERY successful, and have huge subscription bases and are HIGHLY profitable.
F2P does not mean failure, as Age of Conan went F2P last year (and is VERY profitable). Heck, Anarchy Online is still profitable, as are games such as Eve Online, Ascheron's Call, LOTR Online, and City of Heroes.
Personally, I'm curious if Blizzard's latest Not-very-massive/Single-player MMO will set a new trend. Although you still need servers and have to survive launch day. But since Blizz got away with something that would have driven users on the barricades if any other studio would have tried it (remember the always online outries that followed, for example, Ubi's games), we can surely expect that other games will follow suit. Maybe even seeing hybrids between two genres (after all Diablo 3 already has an auction house).
With diablo 3 there are no fees, but you could easily slap more freemium features on top - all the possibilities: generate more money from single player games, without even to having to develop tons of DLC!
The fact that they're free to play makes sure that there's always a constant stream of new players, which is what subscriptions ones usually have a hard time with.
They all say they're highly succesful and profitable though, while in reality some of them might just be breaking even.
Then there are those that are more smartly developed by a smaller team and thus being able to have a smaller playerbase and yet bring in way more profit such as wizard 101 mentioned above.
I do agree that (and even though I absolutely love world of warcraft and those type of mmo's) the standard mmo formula needs to make way for fresh new ideas, (or even old ones) since eve online is going very strong, and ultima online was very big back in the days.
It does become a bit shocking when you see someone make an mmo out of the rpg of rpg's but not lift a single element from the series, such as elderscrolls online.
Don't get me wrong i know behind those games are people like you and me who need the money to pay their bills and that is more than ok.
BUT i don't like the payment model, you have to pay for every little bit no matter if its just for cosmetic purpose or things like more char slots and so on.
Nonetheless you have to accept a currency that is mostly named after the company where "10$ = 750 trollpoints" or something. Customers think "Oh wow, look i can get 750trollpoints for just 10$" and back in game he realize that he can buy a Pet for 500TP and a [STAFF OF AWESOMENESS] which breaks once used. Not to mention locked chests or something else like that! Buy a Key for 250TP and get a random useful or useless item.
Thats why i prefer monthly payments, i know what i get for my money.
That's like saying "don't make games at all", the point of this thread is that many mmo's have by their mass joined together in a similar gameplay fashion, but mmo's can be as diverse as games themselves, there's no limit to your imagination.
Please not I will be often referencing to Guild Wars 2.
The main problem with MMOs right now is lack of innovation, and trying to copy-paste things that worked.. since EverQuest.
EverQuest was first game that we can consider as Theme Park MMO (on which theme most of current MMOs fall from WoW to GW2 pls go away GW2 fanboys, I'm GW2 fanboy as well).
But even it. Instead of extenting EQ2 forula, games were dumbing it down, and WoW is just master here. If can do more dumbed down MMO, you are good. Really.
What's the problems :
1. Static Combat. Yeah. Staying in single place, and killing mobs that essentialy posing no threat is so intresting.
2. Difficutly. Let's face it. Most of the MMO present no real challenge. You can just faceroll you keyboard and still win. My hammster can play MMO.
3. MMOs for many years were limited by RPG element.
Thats said why most mmos after WoW failed ? Well:
1. They tried to copy WoW. 1:1. But always did it worse. (worse animations, worse mechanics, worse design for classes there is many factors). Only game that have success here was RIFT.
As a RIFT case I think Trion went completely wrong direction focusing on exactly same features as WoW (end-game raiding). They had great dynamic content system for Open World. That they should push. That was what bring people in. And lack of it at level 50, was the reason why lots of people (including me) quit.
2. People want new game. Not old game with new graphics. They already played the same game for many years, how much more they can handle ?
And yes. While they might not be financial failures, they still failed for providing feature set that would attract bigger player base.
And here we get to GW2. It's by no means revolution, it's evolution by gather best ideas from past MMO.
Dynamic Content (Events), action combat, character progression we seen it the past (Tabula Rasa, WAR, RIFT).
Dynamic Events are heart of the game, instead of just addon.
Game is build from ground up around PvP.
It's really social. Not because you have facebook integration, but because you see people and you WANT to help them. In other MMO you see people and think "shit, they are stealing my mobs for quest...".
Combat is fluid, it's action and it something between CCG, FPS and hotbar combat.
It's extremely important to get this element as polished as possible. This is the thing you do for most of the time in MMO. And most MMO in past years simply failed miserably on this element.
There are new technology possibilities. MMORTS. MMOFPS.
MMORTS - End Of Nations. I've seen it. It's just amazing. If this would be in Warhammer 40k universe I would probably just lock my self in pavement and do not get out. Ever.
MMOFPS. Planetside 2. That's just war simulator.
Firefall. Hard to say for me what is it. But sole reason is not MMORPG it's worth mention, that MMO is not just RPG.
There is also ArcheAge. Game that finally is aware there was something like Ultima Online. It's mix between theme park mmo and fully fledged sandbox. It's really hard to say what is impossible to do in ArcheAge.
And as for F2P we will see. It's not arcane knowledge that is more profitable than subscriptions.
But there is also GW2 with B2P + itemshop model. Which may turnout to be even better than simple F2P.
Anyway. I don't like subscriptions, because I tend to play very irregular after few weeks/months and more important I don't play single MMO.
True though that may be (maybe), it doesn't change the fact that Funcom are messing about with an MMO instead of making games that I want to play.
That being said, there actually ARE a bunch of MMO's that will be redefining the genre. Torchlight MMO is being made. That's a ARPG (diablo style). Marvel Heroes is being made, which is an ARPG as well. I've heard numerous rumours of a few different first person shooter MMO's being made.
I haven't played it but I guess Tera does this?
Marketing has had a negative effect on MMO's. All the big MMO's that have come out are WOW clones because they want to steal the user base and make it easy on the people who don't like change. When large sums of money come into play, they start to play it safe and trust the marketing research telling them to make a wow clone.
I remember playing Anarchy Online, EQ, Star Wars Galaxies ~10 years ago and them just blowing my mind as to what possibilities lay ahead. Flash 10 years later and we have gone backwards. Open worlds for exploration were swapped for linear zones and questing. The graphics have gotten better but it has caused the zones to be smaller and more focused. More often than not the quests and storyline that people now expect reveals almost all of the content/world.
I liked the old way of being thrown into the world and having no idea what to do, but I guess most don't? I think they just don't know any better at this point.
I would be all for an MMO that went lower poly now so that there could be large scale battles and player cities of epic awesomeness. I thought I would be building modular cities with my friends at this point and protecting our resources with turrets and outposts.
The boss raids and arena's are all good and can stay, but I miss the massive.
"MMO" has to be one of the most missused words in the industry. It's current meaning can be boiled down to
> Hub world
> Persistent character
> Login
As far as gameplay goes you'll be lucky to have more than 10v10 pvp or 10-25 people in an instance (and most commonly five) Which puts it pretty much level with every FPS game on the market. You could add in a persistent town and unique avatars to l4d, keep the gameplay exactly the same and you'd have what is essentially the makings of what people like to consider an MMO.
Unfortunately MMOs are so massive in size and scale that they are really hard to make fun due to all the interdependecies on systems. Companies are beginning to become more focused and experienced and you'll see better MMOs in the future. The "fails" which are still all pretty successful were the growing pains of the industry.
It's silly to think that no one will ever be as succesful as WoW. Though if I had to say we're about to experience the same phenomenon with MOBAs and the success of League of Legends. I bet we see another huge MMO hit before we see another huge MOBA hit.
I'm sure there was some dispute between Infinity Ward and Activison about this.
Yeah I believe Tera has nailed the realtime combat and has thrown down the gauntlet for all MMORPG's to come. Well in my eyes at least. It sure makes a refreshing change from the turn base mechanics.
The thing about WoW is that its pretty much set the bar. Everyone compares every new mmo to it because they've have such a great experience/ guild run/ etc that is forever coated in bright spanky gold for all time and most new mmo's have to compete with this memory.
Another thing that comes to mind when thinking about Blizzard's new mmo is that will it ever topple their mighty WoW?
Not really TERA.
Darkfall Online was here before.
Planetside 1 as well.
Heck. Even Star Wars Galaxies had semi-aimed system.
System from TERA is quite nice, but it's focused to much on helping people. Mobs attacks are slow. Players attacks are slow. And many of them locks to target after shoot, so sometimes dodging is simply pointless. This is not the case in Darkfall Online.
To be honest. GW2 have more action packed combat than TERA. Even if it doesn't have corsshair.
As for Blizzard new MMO. Looking for Diablo 3... I expect P2W (Pay to win), age old graphics, dumped down everything you can, with big arrow pointing you what you have to do. I'm out of this ship already.
You mean The Longest Journey games?
^_^
I'd love for that!
(hint hint)
http://www.ragnartornquist.com/
The rumor is that Blizzard's next mmo, codename Titan, is a "next gen" (normal maps, fancy shaders, etc) sci-fi, MMOFPS.
Which is a good idea because they don't want to cannibalize their WoW playerbase - with the current subscriber numbers, WoW is going to be around for a really long time.
People want something different. WoW is now the norm. Something both great and different will draw the biggest user base. Thats it. Plain and simple. Stop trying to beat WoW, go make something NEW. Don't rehash WoW.
thats my 2 cents anyway...
I see innovation in multiplayer (in general) but I also see stagnation which is starting to make me really wonder what the next developments in massive online gaming will be.
I made this a few weeks ago to vent my feelings on some of the MMO's I've played and this underlying trend that I'm beginning to tire of. I love the ideas of more horizontal progression types fround in more close knit multiplayer games and many e-sport games. I compare these cyclic game types to non cyclic games, like your average single player game and theme park MMO.
In cyclic games people tend to not need so much constant addition of new major content to keep them wanting more (carrot on the stick) and instead master the game and compare their skill against others.
Take for example LoL which has one map. But mastery of the game's singular focus but with a myriad of tools keeps people interested for longer.
Another one is Dayz. One island, one focus. Stay alive and yet from this simple focus so many possibilities arise and make for a new experience every time.
So while it may look like its filling up with clones and stagnation, there are so many innovative sparks lighting up which can slowly see the progression in the future that could be something very exciting indeed!
(sorry if this is hard to read but its very cold here and my hands are numb >.<)
Well, there's a ton of icebergs out there, the one wow has climbed is just but one.
Eve online has a completely different, permanent and ever changing gameplay with a more living economy going on, yet it came out before world of warcraft.
Ultima online didn't have any quests at all, it gave you some clothes, a knife, some basic tools and just let you go your own direction, you'd be chopping wood, making items, killing rats and end up building castles or houses and having your own shop.
The game NEVER told you what to do, and items could be dropped on the ground, and later even picked up by monsters.
MUD's have been vastly outprogressing mainstream mmo's when it comes to world interaction, and this for years, the minor details and things you can do.
It's a largely untapped type of game we have in mmo's, they ARE complex, but we've had the technology for years to do something even more groundbreaking and different, but it is largely seen as too risky and unsafe for big developers, much like how minecraft would've been laughed all the way to someone losing his job if it was suggested somewhere.
That is until it was actually made and sold millions
Take spacestation 13 for example: it's a slightly more than multiplayer sandbox spacestation simulation, where everything can be dissambled, blown up, re-wired and repaired again, saboteurs can blow holes in the wall and let the fully simulated atmosphere out, doctors can do their doctor thing on hurt people, brains can be removed and put into cyborg bodies, AI can go rampant and make sure everyone dies, you can even smear your own feces on the ground... anyhow.. it fosters some true emergent gameplay and stories, much like DAYZ.
It's completely uncharted territory for mmo's and it's full of gold.
Some of the richest people in UO were crafters. And they had to run real shops which were decorared and painstakingly restocked with great goods - no auction house there.
Roleplayers who would run their taverns so well, you'd think it were scripted NPCs.
Real estate kings who sold and bought houses from and to other players, making money that way.
Some people collected and sold rare items, almost like in a virtual Sotherbie's.
Outlaws and "player killers" who'd rob anyne outside the guarded zones.
Or you could fight other guilds (maybe someone remembers the infamous Shadowclan Orcs on Catskills?), or just PvM for items and gold.
UO used to offer so many non-standard paths to sucess, it was really a medieval sims online. I think that was what made it so great and brought so many different people together. Unlike WoW, there was more than just raids and "endgame". Then again it was a rather unwieldy and very complex game and they never ever managed to squat all those bugs the complexity brought with them... ah good times, back then in '97. Damn shame it was EQ they modeled WoW after and not UO.
It's funny how no game ever came close, not even Aventurine's attempt where they mistakenly reduced UO's success to a free-to-kill-everyone formula, which didn't do UO's complexity any justice at all.
I worked at a company that did a market research study into making a sci-fi MMO. The research suggested MMO players were almost exclusively interested in the fantasy genre.
The MMO market is now fairly saturated with fantasy genre products, so it is going to be much harder to get a big piece of the pie.
A small team making a niche MMO could probably still make a nice profit ex. Dead Frontier, zombie MMO, Unity engine, 1 million registered users.
I think the MOBA focus on skill rather than the traditional loot and xp grind is the future. If they can merge skill games with story and a playstyle that won't alienate casual players you could have very successful MMOs that live off of incremental additions to the game rather than big chunks of content that has to be digested 1000 times by a player so they can get... well, a nice set of armor.