Originally posted by Tayah
Mmo's have taken giant leaps backwards. Games like Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, Dark Age of Camelot, had so much more to do than todays mmos.

I don't think DAoC belongs in the same category.  Lineage yes, DAoC not so much.  It's not that DAoC was bad, but it was kind of the first game where pvp was starting to go themepark.  Even though it had a couple sandboxy features the contrived pre-defined only 3 faction thing is a step in the wrong direction with regards to the discussion.  They started removing freedom and defining content.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Bill Murphy

The problem is MMOs by their very nature are dependent upon players sticking around in game for months or years at a time. 

---

 

And this premise is based on...?

Really? C'mon now, think this one through...

MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online

Originally posted by orbitxo

Originally posted by ShakyMo
The problem is company execs keep seeing the "10 million" playing wow and think if we make a game like wow and only pull 1 in 10 of those people we will make more money. We just have to make a game like wow with a couple of things that are missing from it.

Hence you get all these wow with a twist games. E.g.

Lotro - wow with rp features
Rift - wow with rifts and free spec switching
Swtor - wow with personal story
War - wow with rvr and pqs
Aoc - wow with action combat and boobies
Tsw - wow with puzzles, story, semi action combat and skill based progression
Tera - wow with action combat and bams
TESO - wow with rvr and open dungeons?
Nw - wow with player made dungeons?

twist games. E.g. ...with Better wow graphics.

<.<

Except none of those are WoW clones.  They are themepark twists.  They might have been going for the WoW themepark success story, but they're essentially all EQ children trying to solve the same problem WoW did only with very marginal success.  WoW may own the themepark market but it doesn't own the themepark definition.

And please people let's not be ignorant and put TESO and NWO in that lineage yet because they haven't even released.  We have no idea how the games will play.  There is so much wrong thinking in going with the "if it's not a sandbox it must be a wow-clone mentality".  Just because something is a themepark doesn't mean it's a wow-clone.  TERA and RaiderZ play and feel nothing like WoW and have a much more hybrid approach to their design than WoW or RIFT do.

Great article Bill, I agree wholeheartedly.

The sentiments expressed within are pretty much a dead ringer for the way I've felt for quite some time in regards to what needs to be done to get this industry back to the prosperous state it was once in. The game systems themselves are an exceptionally big deal, and I'd personally love to see the level of complexity that existed a decade ago restablished in the modern day titles that are being released.

Well put chief, a good read.

Originally posted by Zekiah

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Bill Murphy

The problem is MMOs by their very nature are dependent upon players sticking around in game for months or years at a time. 

---

And this premise is based on...?

Really? C'mon now, think this one through...

MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online

Yeah, it's boggling that you or another would have to explain this.  Does Gdemami really not get why MMO require some form of retention?  It's this sort of silliness along with all the cardboard wow-clone responses that distract.

The problems Bill touches on are real.  If the genre is going to mature in a healthy way it needs to deal with them.

The barrier for entry, and then retention or return to the game is real and no amount of content delivery is going to solve that.  Can a developer pump out content and patches faster than Trion has done over the last couple of years?  Even then they've only really put out one major update (Ember Isle) and a few smaller updates that kind of add up to Ember Isle.  Even though they bust ass they still can't keep up with the consumption.

Games need system, but they also need to be systems that matter.  We'll see how Trion does with housing, but even though it looks very nice and robust from a design point will the housing matter to the rest of the game?  One reason why EQ2 housing has been so popular is because of it's robust design (ie: free form placement, etc), but even more so because it is heavily integrated with crafting, adventuring, and the broker.

So while we need systems, those systems need to matter.

The payment model as a barrier should be a no brainer but for some reason we're stuck in a rut there.  Arena Net might prove that you don't need a sub for content updates (that really remains to be seen over the next year or two) as they're pretty much matching Trion's pace at this point.  But what they really need to show is that a B2P game can have robust systems in place.  They still need to show that B2P can be relevant.

Well, Bill, you're quite late to the party, welcome anyway.

So, the Problem No One's Talking about? Looks like you never read you own forums. We, the regular posters here, are talking about the very same thing since years. You would have no problems to find 1000s of posts telling you so. The Problem No One's Talking about? Smedley from SOE talks about it, Funcom makes noises in the same general direction, Cryptic as well - it wasn't that no one talked about the problem - it was that no one at MMORPG.com wanted to hear anything about it. You guys rather prefer to praise the longevity of these same games ... wasn't it you who rewarded GW2 with a 9 for longevity a few weeks ago? :)

From AoC to GW2 games have launched with great fanfare from this website, have sold millions of boxes - and you are talking about "barrier to entry"? Sorry, but talking about a "barrier to entry" when games with a barrier of $60 for you US guys sell millions of boxes (no matter whether the game has a subscription or not, see SWToR and GW2) should tell you that "barrier to entry" is a complete non-issue. None of the big games of the last 5 years had any problem with it. Marketing removes any barrier to entry for an entertainment product.

Anyway, I welcome that you now put same emphasis on non-content design in MMORPGs - apart from that, thanks, I prefer my subscription games, just like Blizzard and CCP and Trion do.

Originally posted by elocke

Yes!  Systems!  Thank you!  Finally, someone saying what I've been trying to say for a few years now but more so in the last few months after sinking my teeth into GW2 and realizing it is lack of systems that stops me from playing.   The games adding the systems are the ones I'm playing right now.  Like Lotro and Rift, heck even WoW(although it could definitely use more focus in this department, but apparently they get this and 5.1 looks interesting with a new Brawler Arena system).

The key to those old games everyone talks about like AC, EQ, FFXI are the sheer volume of systems in those games that keep people logging in.  Extra content is awesome and should never stop coming, but MMORPGs are all about adding systems and keeping players in the game.  Somewhere along the way, this core idea has become lost and needs to make a reappearance fast.

This is how Bill writes his colums. Reading here in Forum. Its not something he thought about himself. Im not saying its bad what hes doing either. Keep it up Billyboy.

Originally posted by Larsa

Well, Bill, you're quite late to the party, welcome anyway.

So, the Problem No One's Talking about? Looks like you never read you own forums. We, the regular posters here, are talking about the very same thing since years. You would have no problems to find 1000s of posts telling you so. The Problem No One's Talking about? Smedley from SOE talks about it, Funcom makes noises in the same general direction, Cryptic as well - it wasn't that no one talked about the problem - it was that no one at MMORPG.com wanted to hear anything about it. You guys rather prefer to praise the longevity of these same games ... wasn't it you who rewarded GW2 with a 9 for longevity a few weeks ago? :)

You, sir, win the internetz.

Worms from can have been removed they have. Put them back in box they cannot. 

Erectile Dysfunction? Painful Hemorrhoids? Jock itch? Toenail fungus?

Oh, thank god Bill, for going somewhere else entirely.  The title's like an intro for one of those commercials.

Originally posted by colddog04
Just for the record, I am also pro-features. I thought everyone was.

Gamers have been conned into thinking million-dollar cut scenes and one-time content were what we really wanted.

Now, where are all the devs who come here to scan these articles?

Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...

I agree with this. Some other points is that MMO companies should be realistic about game design. An MMO doesn't need millions of players to be successful. Most servers by popular standards house 3-4 thousand players at a time. They can make design risks and build a niche core within themselves.

That's the problem I've seen. Many MMO's these days are afraid to jump into uncharted waters (pun, intended). They haven't tried to push theirselves because they belive an MMO requires an extensive sum of money to develop; they are falling into AAA category that doesn't need to be brought.

Originally posted by Sora2810

That's the problem I've seen. Many MMO's these days are afraid to jump into uncharted waters (pun, intended). They haven't tried to push theirselves because they belive an MMO requires an extensive sum of money to develop; they are falling into AAA category that doesn't need to be brought.

But the thing is, those waters have already been charted and sailed successfully. There's plenty of gaming systems out there ready to be reborn and improved upon.

UO, SWG, EQ, DAoC, etc. etc. There are wonderful systems in those titles alone that could easily be improved upon.

It's up to us, the gamers, as to where the future of MMO development takes us. Do we continue paying for subpar games designed around box sales or do we say enough is enough and DEMAND developers to take notice?

Ever since Smedley talked about sand box elements and then clearly took EQ into that direction, this has been just about the major topic of the day. I've been preaching it for years amongst the many others here chatting over fundamental flaws of themepark games. Some of the largest threads over the last few months have been about the whole themepark/sandbox debate. Simply look over my post history (from a modest post count person) and see the amount of thread content I've posted in on this very subject. I'd say this topic is the fundamental theme (outside if individual game subjects) on these boards and others for months which leads to the massive coverage of upcoming sandbox games and the obvious change in mmo design direction by both indie and AAA companies.

Now let's look at the title of this articile: "The Problem No One's Talking About". Perhaps it should be changed to: "The Problem No One's Talking About: Short Term Memory Loss".

Originally posted by Larsa

Well, Bill, you're quite late to the party, welcome anyway.

Yeah, i was thinking "You guys only figured this out now?" all the way while reading the article .

Regardless, i completly agree Bill. I don't hate story, questing, dungeons, cutscenes, voice-overs, etc at all (expect "personal" stories and voiced pc's). I think they bring good things to the game and give it greater quality. It's developers abusing them and turning them into the main focus of the entire game by 90% that angers. Once you're finished with it, it's over and there's nothing left to achive and play.

More "systems" and "non ending" activities are necessary and fortunatly, it seems quite a few devs are figuring this out. Let's hope mmorpgs like these are coming in the future.

I consider myself the typical mmo gamer, one that plays for one or two months.  In the past, you actually had more GOOD options, CoH, DAoC, EQ, or WoW.  Now that all of those games are aged and one is going to be closing, the real options for mmorpg fans are slimmer by the day.

It's actually quite sad.  For over ten years I've seen the potential of mmorpgs squandered.  I wanted a virtual world that satisfied my different needs.  PvP, creation, adventure, social interaction.  But in most those areas, every mmo fails in some way. 

While I only played any mmo for a month or two at a time (subscribed to CoH 18 months which is only 20% of it's lifetime), I would have played the 'right' mmo for ten years straight.  I say 'would have', because I'm getting old and life is getting busier and more complicated, and my desire to stay plugged into a game 20+ hours a week is waning.  So in a way, any new great game that finally gets it right is too little, too late.  The genre failed me, end of story.

Originally posted by MMOwanderer

Originally posted by Larsa

Well, Bill, you're quite late to the party, welcome anyway.

Yeah, i was thinking "You guys only figured this out now?" all the way while reading the article .

Regardless, i completly agree Bill. I don't hate story, questing, dungeons, cutscenes, voice-overs, etc at all (expect "personal" stories and voiced pc's). I think they bring good things to the game and give it greater quality. It's developers abusing them and turning them into the main focus of the entire game by 90% that angers. Once you're finished with it, it's over and there's nothing left to achive and play.

More "systems" and "non ending" activities are necessary and fortunatly, it seems quite a few devs are figuring this out. Let's hope mmorpgs like these are coming in the future.

 

I suppose I actually should have said, "The Problem Few Devs Are Acknowledging" but this seemed catchier.  :)

In regards to GW2, I still think the game's fantastic... in fact, I love themeparks as much as I long for a good quality take on the Sandbox (Malu and EQNext I'm particularly looking forward to, as well as Darkfall:UW's PVP-oriented take).  But a Theme-park can have quality longevity, just the same.  For millions, WoW does the trick.  I don't know how, but it does.

However, WoW (as the article states) is a fluke. It can afford to take time and sustain itself because of its insane amount of subscribers.  As we've seen lately, that model just doesn't work with any other title.