Originally posted by chryses

Maybe the market has changed direction(?) and is now(???) targeting 15-25 year olds.  Maybe the 'old school' board, paper based gamer which was my generation is not being considered as the most lucrative market.

Target isn't different. That's always been, always will be MMO's primary target.

We, on the other hand (general we) have aged a bit. Resulting, as you can see, in all of this grumping and dooooom.

Originally posted by Sidraket

Originally posted by Boardwalker

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

Originally posted by Boardwalker

Nope, they aren't.

 

Well, not entirely. The "bitter vets" on this site who post their myopic views of the MMORPG industry tend to answer "yes" to the OP's question. However, I imagine for most non-jaded gamers (which is the majority of gamers), MMOs are doing just fine.

 

Personally, I've been playing computer games since the early 80s, but I haven't touched a single-player game since I logged into my first MMO over a decade ago. Playing single-player games is like masturbation: playing by yourself can be ok, but once you play with others, there is no going back. (Well, unless you have don't have internet access, that is.)

Don't agree at all. While I don't think mmos are failing by any means not everyone that has left is bitter or somehow jaded as you seem to think.

Many of them still do multiplayer in their game of choice just in a different genre.

 

Perhaps I was a little harsh. But it often seems that most of the people who post on this site have a very narrow, and jaded, view of MMORPGs and their current state.  I think that 2012 was a banner year for MMORPGs, so I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with many of the people here.

Youre playing EVE, which is one of the few really open mmos out there. The vast majority of mmos are all more or less clones of each other mechanically and follow very linear paths.

Go play an elder scrolls game, any of them. When i first played one back in like 2000 or 2001, it felt exactly like an 'offline mmo' of the time, just with out people and different combat mechanics. I remember thinking that this was pretty much an offline mmo.

If you compare them to modern day mmos you see where they are lacking. Modern mmos are much more linear, are much more focused on creating repetitive endgame content and getting the player to it quickly and effortlessly than fleshing out a vast living world to exist in.

EVE is a world to exist in. Most mmos arent anymore.

Vanguard is a world to exist in, Age Of Wushu is a world you can exist in, DFUW will be world to exist in, ArcheAge will be a world you can exist in.

If mmo's gamers chose to play the linear mmo's  they have no one but themselves to blame.

The trend has been for MMOs to emulate single-player RPGs.  There was a time, not so long ago, when industry watchers were predicting the death of the single-player RPG.   Everything was going to be online and subscription-based -- even other types of games like shooters and strategy.  It's a seductive idea for game publishers: not only could they sell you the box, they could also charge you rent.

Titles like Dragon Age and Skyrim proved that single-player RPGs weren't going away, but MMO development is a slow moving beast.  The publishers couldn't change direction fast enough to keep up.  So what we have are a lot of second-rate single-player RPGs with optional multiplayer, cash-shops, and subscription fees.   And in the process, we sacrificed the persistence that made MMOs so addictive in the first place.

Compare Mass Effect 3 to Star Wars The Old Republic:  both games were developed by the same company and feature fully voice-acted, single-player stories and character progression.  Both have online multi-player unrelated to the story.  One could be had for the price of the box, and the other required ongoing payments.

Most consumers will eventually figure out when they're not getting their money's worth.

I'm optimistic though.  There are a pile of indie sandboxes now in development -- some of them might even be good.  SOE, the mother of the themepark game, recently scrapped their future flagship title in favor of a sandbox design.  Unless Zenimax has their head totally up their ass, they're probably scrambling to add more persistent-world features to ESO ahead of launch.  I could be setting myself up for disappointment, but I'm actually looking forward to the next generation of MMOs.    

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by Sidraket

Originally posted by Boardwalker

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

Originally posted by Boardwalker

Nope, they aren't.

 

Well, not entirely. The "bitter vets" on this site who post their myopic views of the MMORPG industry tend to answer "yes" to the OP's question. However, I imagine for most non-jaded gamers (which is the majority of gamers), MMOs are doing just fine.

 

Personally, I've been playing computer games since the early 80s, but I haven't touched a single-player game since I logged into my first MMO over a decade ago. Playing single-player games is like masturbation: playing by yourself can be ok, but once you play with others, there is no going back. (Well, unless you have don't have internet access, that is.)

Don't agree at all. While I don't think mmos are failing by any means not everyone that has left is bitter or somehow jaded as you seem to think.

Many of them still do multiplayer in their game of choice just in a different genre.

 

Perhaps I was a little harsh. But it often seems that most of the people who post on this site have a very narrow, and jaded, view of MMORPGs and their current state.  I think that 2012 was a banner year for MMORPGs, so I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with many of the people here.

Youre playing EVE, which is one of the few really open mmos out there. The vast majority of mmos are all more or less clones of each other mechanically and follow very linear paths.

Go play an elder scrolls game, any of them. When i first played one back in like 2000 or 2001, it felt exactly like an 'offline mmo' of the time, just with out people and different combat mechanics. I remember thinking that this was pretty much an offline mmo.

If you compare them to modern day mmos you see where they are lacking. Modern mmos are much more linear, are much more focused on creating repetitive endgame content and getting the player to it quickly and effortlessly than fleshing out a vast living world to exist in.

EVE is a world to exist in. Most mmos arent anymore.

Vanguard is a world to exist in, Age Of Wushu is a world you can exist in, DFUW will be world to exist in, ArcheAge will be a world you can exist in.

 

If mmo's gamers chose to play the linear mmo's  they have no one but themselves to blame.

Having a world to exist in does not equate to a quality title to sink time in.  I play Vanguard and while it has the features I enjoy its age, and lack of improvement, hold it back from being truly enjoyable.  Its sad that in order to play what I like I have to play something old, or sub par.

I have tried Age of Wushu and I dont have an opinion yet.  I cant determine if my fustration stems from the system being totally different than what Im used to or if its the horrible translation.  Either way, right now I feel the game is not exposing enough about its systems for me to use them in a way I enjoy.  Perhaps its a time thing.

Completely on board with ArcheAge.  I actually believe this will be the game I stick with.  I already know its going to have its set of problems/flaws/limitations, but if it can deliver on the simple aspects I have seen I'll be a happy camper.

Originally posted by Rusque

Single player games have always had the advantage that the game is tailored to the person playing it and that there is no concern for fairness or complaints about being OP.  Take a game like Skyrim and put 1000 people in the same world and you'll quickly find that what was once a fun game with tons of exploration will be boiled down to 2 or 3 of the most lucractive dungeons followed by people farming the crap out of them. 27 runs of the same dungeon later you'll be asking why it's so boring.

The beauty of single player games is that you only do the content you feel like, at the pace you enjoy, for the reasons chosen by you. Does it feel epic to hunt down that evil wizard? Do that. Do you prefer to weild sub-optimal, but totally awesome weapons? Do that.

But other people are what ruin it. X is better than Y. You're not geared enough to run this dungeon 10 times a day, come back when you are. Sorry, this mount requires you to grind gold for the next 6 months to buy it.  MMO's are designed to limit accessibility and freedom so that people can earn rewards based on effort and time spent.

Single player games are free to reward players with all sorts of stuff and freedom because you're not competing against anyone. Even sandbox mmo's fall prey to the human need to be the best, to limit and restrict, to determine the most effecient methods without concern for fun.

And there's balance. PvP has always and will continue to ruin fun and freedom in game worlds. Once pvp is introduced, balance becomes a thing and holy moly is it hotly contested. It never ends, even in game which were held up for their relatively fair pvp (like gw1) have people foaming at the mouth about some class or skill that's woefully OP.

That's why we can't have nice things. Because of people.

I think someone else mentioned it.  I think its an age thing.  I've been playing games since I was 5 and I'm 40 now.   Console games just dont do it for me anymore.  It could be because I grew up on the 'hardcore' titles like mega man and contra where when your lives were over so was the game.   I liked the idea of checkpoints, but feel consoles have been simplified to accomodate a younger (and somewhat entitled?) audience?   When I played Developers were challenging our skills.  They tried to kill us.  Today they want you to play through the whole thing and if you cant they add things to help you.  But what they dont do is add a feature to turn that stuff OFF.

In terms of single player RPGs I'm just different.  I loved Oblivion but was luke warm to Skyrim even though it blew the other games out of the stratosphere.  They simplified it (and for the that was good), not so much for me.  Being older I want my RPG challenge to come from attribute management.  The story will progress based on how well I manage the challenge.  But as the challenge increases (i.e. - making me die over and over) there needs to be OTHER things to do to consume my time.

Thats what I look for in an MMO that I don't find often in single player RPGs.  There just isnt enough customization.  Now I'm noticing MMOs are following the console route which is disappointing.   But I believe as MMOs (MMORPGs specifically) become more mainstream it will open up the door for niche markets, same as what happened in consoles.   At one time you could only buy full games.   As consoles became mainstream so did its options with downloadable titles and DLC.  And to mention that some of the downloadables were throwbacks to earlier games which was a request from the older gamers.  

Saturation gives way to innovation as a portion of the (paying) population will easily support something smaller, different, and catering to their wants.

Give it time...