Originally posted by delete5230

Now I'll add my two cents

- Star Wars Galaxies could still be alive

- DAOC could still be alive

- World of Warcraft would be wayyyy more popular than it's already 9 million players.

I see you went a whole 2.5 minutes without talking about sepcific MMO's, despite the claim in your first post...

The answer is fairly simple.

There is only so much content you can realistically add to a game, and gamers just aren't paying enough to keep that amount of content going. Furthermore, there is only so much content you can add to a game, before features start to feel recycled.

That's why there's such an interest in both user-generated content, and dynamic / replayable content. The games that last the longest are ones that have at least one of those, if not both.

Originally posted by Quirhid

How about I give you one positive example of change, hmm?

Eve Online. The players would've broken the game a long time ago if the game hadn't renewed itself regularly. Not doubt it wouldn't be as succesful it is now without changing overtime.

This is true, and what's more it gives the lie to the myth that "Sandoxes are easy to develop because you don't need content". The dev resources saved in not adding yet another quest or level boss are spent in improving and adding new game mechanics.

With reference to the OP, it's not always as simple as "as well as is better than instead of".

First, dev resources are finite; time spent implementing YOUR preferred change is time that can't be spent implementing MY preferred change. Thus I am against YOUR change.

Second, new features or mechanics can undermine old ones. To use a classic example, if some players are making an ingame profession of transporting other players to areas they want to go to, then their game experience will be destroyed if instant teleportation becomes trivially available.

What I'm saying is :

- Add new starting areas

- Add new continents

- Add new classes

- Add to end game

I already know what your about to say, many developers already do this, BUT leave existing how it is.  Concentrate all efforts on adding and ADDING LOTS. Make it unbelievable is size could be the focus. Don't like the same old starting zones, well start in new zones seven or eight.  Tired of the same levels 20-30 level area, take your character to one of the other new areas because you have so many choices. Nothing wrong with fixing bugs, better coding and repairing the ridicules bad content.

Marketing is more than just putting a product out and letting people know........It's often about tricking the public.  I'm sure everyone could agree on that, even if you don't agree on this topic.

- 9 Million could be 2 million. How are developers doing their math ?

- Easy mode to satisfy younger could really be " get to expansions faster ".

- Are players REALLY welcoming changes or are developers just telling you stuff ?

I believe in focusing on more, Wayyyy more.

Originally posted by BahamutKaiser
Honestly, with the amount of resources put in MMOs and the variance of preferences in gameplay, they should go a step further and attempt several alternate builds for big MMOs so they can capitalize on the resources used and satisfy more players.

I greatly wish I could remake FFXI and GW original... Those games had so much good content yet mechanical deficiencies greatly hindered their potential...

I'm with this.  I don't see why an mmo has to release only one version.  Oh, wait, I remember.  Humans are GREEDY and can only do things when money is involved.  Because profit, not creativity, is their god.  Back to putting gasoline in my non-solar powered car and living in my wood and brick above earth dwelling.

I voted for "additions, not changes."

I play game because I enjoy it. The mechanics, the choices, how it all fits together. Sure, there are some things I may not like, but if that list (the dislike list) becomes longer than the "like list" I quit playing. Change the mechanics and I think hard about sticking around, depending on the change.

Someone else already said that humans don't like re-learning things over and over. Game mechanics changes do exactly this. A lot of times in the name of "balancing." I am human (I think) and admit I don't like changes, especially massive ones.

I would rather a developer would add to their game instead of changing it. Add items (weapons, armor, food, races, classes). Add lands and settlements, ie: places to explore. Add races and classes for variety, though this can be tricky without making mechanical changes to the game. Add new spells. Add new monsters and factions/guilds to join and help out or declare against. Add new character and monster levels. Add dungeons and other similar places.

Don't mess with how combat works. Don't mess with already established classes or races and how they operate. Don't mess with skills or abilities.

I used to watch the TV show, "Chuck." It was a good, funny show about a geek who becomes an uncoordinated spy with a cute "handler" who covered his ass as a spy. About the third season, he got his cute spy to be his girlfriend and became a coordinated spy. 2 Factors that caused great turmoil were now gone. The show changed on its most basic level. Just like a game that takes away quests to gain certain abilities and now makes them automatic and free when a player reaches the appropriate level or changes player classes to be more/less effective at what they do.

tl/dr:
Rarely do game changing "additions" help. It may bring in more players who are looking for that new kind of gameplay, but it also loses loyal fans who enjoyed the gameplay as it was. It is a tough decision for developers and I wish that they would cater to their fans already playing more than to the fans "they don't have."

Originally posted by maplestone

Things change, even if you change nothing.

 Yes but there are different degrees of change.

Adding contents people can deal with because it is an evolution, it is just adding on things to learn, not asking people to relearn everything.

Core system change (such as SWG or swtor's change to free-to-play fo example, with SWG changes being wayyy worse) are what we con in change management as Re-engineering. Normally you don't do this UNLESS there is significant value or the current model is struggling significantly - because relearning always pisses stakeholders off, one has to justifying whether the investment on change is worthwhile. It is not something to just throw around (which both of the above example did with little regard and are both example of bad business re-engineering).

If something is not broke, then don't fix it.