Originally posted by Ortwig
Interesting. What if the guild community became the central organizing factor rather than the game? I can see the social networking people licking their chops over something like that.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Iselin

Because that's part of creating a virtual life in a virtual world? ... we are both talking about MMORPGs here aren't we?

You're really reaching here bud.

You're description rather more resembled insularity than community... but we've heard that thread a few million times before.

Grass was actually greener.  About a decade before DAoC...

Yup. A community in an MMO island. That fits. It's how I remember MMO comunities before social media. EQ had its own and so did UO, AC...etc. And they were all separate.

But then... most definitions of community imply a certain amount of insularity through the specific common interest... Like this one: "... a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage."

Just replace the word "locality" with "MMO"

Originally posted by Ortwig
Interesting. What if the guild community became the central organizing factor rather than the game? I can see the social networking people licking their chops over something like that.

Richard Garriot (AKA Lord British) keeps talking about that very thing. But his ideas seem to be all about cross-platform "light" games.

You can read all about it at his new game company, Portalarium: http://www.portalarium.com/

MMO's are less like a product and more like a service.  You subscribe to a game you like knowing that you are part of a larger community, and that the time and effort you put into your character means more than a random single player game where the story ends when you beat it.

The problem is that new generations of gamers are less patient, less interested in the lore and settings, more interested in the immediate gratification, have expectations that are too high to be realistic, and somehow think MMO's should be run as charities where the games are given away for free and the dev's make their money through some vague cashshop method that also isn't realistic.

Also, MMO's have long development cycles, which means they aren't usually as relevant when they get released as they were when they startged to get designed.  Either they change direction mid way through and hope for the best, or they end up releasing a product that isn't in line with what the "cummunity" wants.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of sandbox style games that have been greenlit in the last year to get released in 3 or 4 years to a totally different market complaining about how everything is just the same old sandbox and how we need more <insert design philosophy>.

Basically, you can't please everyone.

Originally posted by jpnz

Over the past few months, the advice / things I've seen are that more businesses accept that most players will leave their MMO wihtin 6 months after launch.

Make the investment back on box sales and any subs after that is mostly profit. If the game has staying power, great! Expansion packs for more $$$. 

People are treating MMOs like what they are, an entertainment product.

Players certainly do so why can't game makers?

My question is, why is this a 'bad' thing?

Game makers make more MMOs, more players play them and after awhile players / game makers move on to their next game.

I bought every Civilization / SimCity game that came out. I don't play the previous ones once I buy the current one though. Why can't MMOs be treated this way?

As long as the game makers make smart business decisions, I don't see a down side.

More MMOs for players to play and more game makers make money.

Someone may want an MMO that they'll play for years, but they are the minority.

The problem isn't content locusts but the complaining and whining that follows their wake. They cannot be 100% catered to because of their unrealistic demands.

If these people accepted the fact, no game can provide them content fast enough and settled for the fact games will only last a month or two for them, then no problem. The fact is they don't. They expect new content faster than it's possible to produce

Originally posted by Iselin

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Iselin

The communities I'm talking about were self-contained within a specific MMO and available only there. They had a life of their own and only made sense in that context. We made plans there... such as all the pre-invasion preparations we made in DAoC... scheduled meetings at certain times...as when we executed the raid into the enemy's territory and went after their keeps as we had planned... and played together for hours sometimes when we had a tough fight on our hands.

That is very limiting. Why settle for a community that is constraint by a single game (and server) when you can have a larger community across many games and server?

I thought you LIKE interacting with more people.

Because that's part of creating a virtual life in a virtual world? ... we are both talking about MMORPGs here aren't we?

You're really reaching here bud.

No. We are talking about MMORPG ... G stands for GAME. MMORPGs are games, entertainment products. I am certainly NOT living a virtual life in a virtual world. I am playing online games that happens to have many people.

MMORPGs can evolve. There is no 3D graphics when i first started to game. There is no reason why a MMO has to limit everything inside ONE virtual world, on one server.

Look at Xfire, Battlenet, and many gaming services that connect players to multiple games. Who says a guild cannot play multiple games. In fact, many do. You are being left behind if you don't adapt.

I suppose people who are used to UO and Eve cannot be open to new ideas and new style of play. However, not even you play only one game, right? Most of my guildies in WOW also play D3. It is a GOOD thing i have them on cross-game friend list. If you don't like it, you don't have to use the function, and limit yourself to one game one server.

I won't be so limiting in my entertainment.

The biggest problem I see with content locusts (people who buy, play and discard an MMO in a few months) is that developer / publishers have to realize that flash-and-die is becoming the new norm for MMORPG releases.  If they cannot count on several years of revenue, they have to price in development, operation and advertising costs into having the game holding popularity for only a year or at best a couple years.

In a way this fits fairly well with the trend of box+sub at release and F2P conversion 2 years in (or sooner).  As F2P they can open the doors to free players and recycle the game into pay as you go monetization.  Eventually it will get old, so it either lingers on as F2P or the game is discontinued.

Because the OP and others on here do not realise that this is making the industry eating itself.

Solo game profitability are based on a couple of months play. MMO’s are not. Without  assured long term profit, funding for MMO’s must come into question.

Gaming companies have tried to ensure profit by making their games more polished at launch. But that comes with a price, less time is spent on end game. The MMO game format is becoming more like the solo game format with each MMO release.

As I have said on here before, I like solo games, but why can’t we have long term sustainable MMO’s as well? I am happy to have both types of games, why are you advocating only one kind? Gaming as a form of entertainment is better with more types of games and gameplay. Why do you want to straightjacket MMO’s into the streamlined easyMMO version?

Originally posted by Scot

Because the OP and others on here do not realise that this is making the industry eating itself.

Solo game profitability are based on a couple of months play. MMO’s are not. Without  assured long term profit, funding for MMO’s must come into question.

Gaming companies have tried to ensure profit by making their games more polished at launch. But that comes with a price, less time is spent on end game. The MMO game format is becoming more like the solo game format with each MMO release.

As I have said on here before, I like solo games, but why can’t we have long term sustainable MMO’s as well? I am happy to have both types of games, why are you advocating only one kind? Gaming as a form of entertainment is better with more types of games and gameplay. Why do you want to straightjacket MMO’s into the streamlined easyMMO version?

How is the industry eating itself?

It is making more money than ever before and it has more people playing than ever before.

I'm not advocating anything, just looking at what people are buying / behaving and seeing the industry reaction to it.

If lots of people suddenly buy chocolate ice cream, we'll see the ice cream industry react to that trend. Doesn't mean it is good or bad, just that there is a reaction and how you personally feel about it.

Originally posted by Iselin

 

Because that's part of creating a virtual life in a virtual world? ... we are both talking about MMORPGs here aren't we?

You're really reaching here bud.

You seem to have a very strange definition on what is a 'community'.

So if I get a bunch of people from SA and play WoW together with them, that's not a community? lolwut?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

No. We are talking about MMORPG ... G stands for GAME. MMORPGs are games, entertainment products. I am certainly NOT living a virtual life in a virtual world. I am playing online games that happens to have many people.

MMORPGs can evolve. There is no 3D graphics when i first started to game. There is no reason why a MMO has to limit everything inside ONE virtual world, on one server.

Look at Xfire, Battlenet, and many gaming services that connect players to multiple games. Who says a guild cannot play multiple games. In fact, many do. You are being left behind if you don't adapt.

I suppose people who are used to UO and Eve cannot be open to new ideas and new style of play. However, not even you play only one game, right? Most of my guildies in WOW also play D3. It is a GOOD thing i have them on cross-game friend list. If you don't like it, you don't have to use the function, and limit yourself to one game one server.

I won't be so limiting in my entertainment.

 

Well, personally i refuse to buy into the idea that having online and/or game friends playing different games and interacting with each other as new and revolutionary idea, i have those since 1995, especially if it comes as excuse for the particular games becoming shoddy, shallow and unimaginative.

Because that is in the end the main argument here, you say "wee, arcade/lobby gameplay, progress, fun!!!", i say "oh crap, arcade/lobby gameplay, we are back to the 90's and it has half the features".

As for game, the definition is not as straightforward as you would like, it incorporates everything from tic tac toe trough sport up to military wargames, including virtual reality and simulations.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by wordiz

Originally posted by aWRAY

Are the players to blame for blowing through the content too quickly? Or is it the developers fault for making the games too easy?

Or maybe, just maybe, the MMO genre as a whole hasn't blossomed into its full potential yet.

The devs are the ones responsible. They rushed out some half finished games over the last few years and pissed off the players and community. It's a vicious cycle at this point because players are hesitant to invest time and money into new MMO's and afterwards will murder them in the forums if they're let down. This is making it extremely difficult to get proper financing behind new MMO projects, which leads to more crappy games, which leads to more pissed off, sceptical players...and it goes and goes.

I'd like to think the genre hasn't reached it's full potential, but judging that earlier MMOs were more advanced than most modern ones; I don't think it's the case.

Hmm I don't actually think so. I think most of the MMO releases in the past 5-6 years have had more content at release than really any of the original MMO's and most of the ones preceding them (them being any MMO since basically WoW).

I also don't believe that the old MMO's were more advanced. A couple games had more features but not most of them. Most of them IMO have less features than current ones.

I just think the mindset of the community as a whole has changed. There is just a much greater percentage of people looking for fast paced content and end-game type play while the ones that want to do things slower are either fading out or being drowned out.

.

three games ive played, picked them as a early game (EQ), mid game (WoW) later game (rift) ive choose these cause there 3 games ive played so i know a reasonable amount of info on them all.

Size

EQ = 75-100 somewhere between there

WoW = about 34 zones+ 15 dunguens

Rift  = 11

Each of these zones were roughtly the same size.

Races

EQ = 12 races each with there own starter city xcept for half elfs which either started with the wod elfs or humans, (humans also had 2 cities and ranger had a special starter zone they could choose)

WoW = 8 with 6 cities to choose from

Rift = 8 aswell but only 2 cities

Classes

EQ =13

WoW= 9

Rift = 4 roll each with 8 classes each whcih you could mix and match skill between the 3 classes

Factions (reputation)

EQ = Way Way tomany to count and every faction you could change by killing different mobs one city has atleast 8 different factions in. And you could eventualy work your faction up so an darkelf can go into human cities (sworn enemies and vice versa or human can become Kill on sight of there own cities if they kill their own guards) http://www.therunes.net/faction.htm (a little on how it works) 

WoW = somewhere round 12-20

Rift = 2 whcih you couldnt change your alignment with at all

Zone Variety

EQ = Landbased, (open world)land dunguen and completly underwater one (which is like a 3d maze sometimes, Kedge keep ><)

WoW = Landbased, (instanced)land dunguens

Rift = Landbased, (instanced)land Dunguens

Everquest also had a skill based system aswell each weapon skil had a skill lvl same with spell castiong had 5 or so, then u had general ones such as language skill and sense heading, class skill such as tracking for rangers, harmtouch for shadownights, layonhands for paladins. But had less in the way of combat skills that u see nowadays but that allowed you to socialise while fighting since it was groupbased game.

Seems to me older games had alot more stuff on release and as we get to new game such as rift if drops down substantaly (although rift had more classes option they had least of everything else)

Originally posted by Scot

Because the OP and others on here do not realise that this is making the industry eating itself.

Solo game profitability are based on a couple of months play. MMO’s are not. Without  assured long term profit, funding for MMO’s must come into question.

Gaming companies have tried to ensure profit by making their games more polished at launch. But that comes with a price, less time is spent on end game. The MMO game format is becoming more like the solo game format with each MMO release.

As I have said on here before, I like solo games, but why can’t we have long term sustainable MMO’s as well? I am happy to have both types of games, why are you advocating only one kind? Gaming as a form of entertainment is better with more types of games and gameplay. Why do you want to straightjacket MMO’s into the streamlined easyMMO version?

YOu can .. but if play style is such that players will play a few month and move on, the dev needs to design as such.

Why do you want to straightjacket MMOs into the long term commited version? There is no reason why people should not play MMOs as short term game. They are already doing so, whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by nariusseldon

No. We are talking about MMORPG ... G stands for GAME. MMORPGs are games, entertainment products. I am certainly NOT living a virtual life in a virtual world. I am playing online games that happens to have many people.

MMORPGs can evolve. There is no 3D graphics when i first started to game. There is no reason why a MMO has to limit everything inside ONE virtual world, on one server.

Look at Xfire, Battlenet, and many gaming services that connect players to multiple games. Who says a guild cannot play multiple games. In fact, many do. You are being left behind if you don't adapt.

I suppose people who are used to UO and Eve cannot be open to new ideas and new style of play. However, not even you play only one game, right? Most of my guildies in WOW also play D3. It is a GOOD thing i have them on cross-game friend list. If you don't like it, you don't have to use the function, and limit yourself to one game one server.

I won't be so limiting in my entertainment.

 

Well, personally i refuse to buy into the idea that having online and/or game friends playing different games and interacting with each other as new and revolutionary idea, i have those since 1995, especially if it comes as excuse for the particular games becoming shoddy, shallow and unimaginative.

Because that is in the end the main argument here, you say "wee, arcade/lobby gameplay, progress, fun!!!", i say "oh crap, arcade/lobby gameplay, we are back to the 90's and it has half the features".

As for game, the definition is not as straightforward as you would like, it incorporates everything from tic tac toe trough sport up to military wargames, including virtual reality and simulations.

Flame on!

:)

Back to 90s? What online service have cross game chat, and access to friend list like Battle net in the 90s? You can refuse to believe it.

But people like to play different games, with the same group of friends. I am surprise you can't see that. How many people you know play only ONE game?

So once again, new or old, like it or not, you think players should play only one game in only one world with their friends? I think you are sadly wrong. How many guilds move from one game to another?

And if that is the case, why don't dev give people tools to do that better?

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Iselin

 

Because that's part of creating a virtual life in a virtual world? ... we are both talking about MMORPGs here aren't we?

You're really reaching here bud.

You seem to have a very strange definition on what is a 'community'.

So if I get a bunch of people from SA and play WoW together with them, that's not a community? lolwut?

 

Exactly. Community is just people. Don't make it sound like it is magical. MMORPGs are just games. I don't see why friends shouldn't play multiple games, including MMOs, together. This is just entertainment. It is not like when i log into WOW, i commit to play nothing but it.

Originally posted by Starpower

The problem isn't content locusts but the complaining and whining that follows their wake. They cannot be 100% catered to because of their unrealistic demands.

If these people accepted the fact, no game can provide them content fast enough and settled for the fact games will only last a month or two for them, then no problem. The fact is they don't. They expect new content faster than it's possible to produce

Have you ever noticed that the majority of the complaining comes from places other than the 'locusts"?

Generally, it's from players whose offended sensibilities tell them that other players shouldn't be allowed to play 'wrong' like that.

"Console Kiddies", we like to call them, waving our canes.  But their play style doesn't bother themselves; it just bothers Mrs. Grundy.  Mrs. Grundy knows how MMOs should be properly played, and if it weren't for this horrible school system, she'd have them whipped into shape in no time.

Busybodies are most concerned with how other people should be playing.  Mrs. Grundy is miserable when other people are having fun doing it "wrong".

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Starpower

The problem isn't content locusts but the complaining and whining that follows their wake. They cannot be 100% catered to because of their unrealistic demands.

If these people accepted the fact, no game can provide them content fast enough and settled for the fact games will only last a month or two for them, then no problem. The fact is they don't. They expect new content faster than it's possible to produce

Have you ever noticed that the majority of the complaining comes from places other than the 'locusts'?

Generally, it's from players whose offended sensibilities tell them that other players shouldn't be allowed to play 'wrong' like that.

"Console Kiddies", we like to call them, waving our canes.  But their play style doesn't bother themselves; it just bothers Mrs. Grundy.  Mrs. Grundy knows how MMOs should be properly played, and if it weren't for this horrible school system, she'd have them whipped into shape in no time.

Busybodies are most concerned with how other people should be playing.

hahah .. yeah.

I would play a MMO like a lobby game and some will blow a gasket here reading about it. I wonder why. It does not bother me there are those who wants to go to meetings when they play Eve or whatever high commitment MMOs. In fact, it is kind of fun to discuss it.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

high commitment MMOs.

I'm glad that they still exist, but somewhat concerned that their business model may be what's killing them off.

Still, the market seems to be adapting to "flash bang here and gone waves of players".  Could be that what I preferred isn't what works best for corporate thinking.

Could be that chasing these surly old coots out of your player base is the only possible way to advance to more efficient models.  Play by mail games died out.  Pay per hour games are gone too.  Tabletop...pretty close to dead, except for my nephew.  PnP...ghost still clinging maybe, but not what they were.  Arcade games, pffft.

Seems reasonable that some day the last MMO may close shop too.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Scot

Because the OP and others on here do not realise that this is making the industry eating itself.

Solo game profitability are based on a couple of months play. MMO’s are not. Without  assured long term profit, funding for MMO’s must come into question.

Gaming companies have tried to ensure profit by making their games more polished at launch. But that comes with a price, less time is spent on end game. The MMO game format is becoming more like the solo game format with each MMO release.

As I have said on here before, I like solo games, but why can’t we have long term sustainable MMO’s as well? I am happy to have both types of games, why are you advocating only one kind? Gaming as a form of entertainment is better with more types of games and gameplay. Why do you want to straightjacket MMO’s into the streamlined easyMMO version?

YOu can .. but if play style is such that players will play a few month and move on, the dev needs to design as such.

Why do you want to straightjacket MMOs into the long term commited version? There is no reason why people should not play MMOs as short term game. They are already doing so, whether you like it or not.

I am sure the 400k EvE players might have something to say about that. as they are not. You have to allow for the possibility that a good sizable chunk of people do not want to play a new mmo every month. Enough people in fact to sustain a long term game whether you like it or not, and you evidently do not like that fact as you run around the forums arguing with anyone who doesn't like throwaway f2p 1 month cashshop mmos. Do you not have a credit card or something?