Trending Games | Star Wars: The Old Republic | Elder Scrolls Online | WildStar | World of Warcraft

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,645,026 Users Online:0
Games:681  Posts:6,078,823
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » How the "I pay $15/mo like everyone, i should see everything" mentality has contributed to the current state of MMO's.

9 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search
163 posts found
  mrrshann618

Apprentice Member

Joined: 4/25/12
Posts: 183

6/30/13 8:02:54 PM#21

Bahhh, I call Shenanigans on the OP's Theory.

 

I'm one of those casual players who only get to play a handful of hours a week. I personally think things level to fast.

I went back to wow several years ago because a friend said things have changed for the better. I made it to cap (I think it was frozen throne of something like that, Liche king... whatever) within 2 months of "MY" schedule for being able to play. I canceled my sub as to me THAT wasn't worth it.

"Content locust" are not to blame for any more than those who call themselves purists. Everyone Votes with their wallet and it is all worth the same in the long run. I'm now a F2P player... WHY for the love of god do you ask? I LIKE the exp gimp, it makes me explore the world more, it makes me actually EARN my levels rather than having them handed to me. EVERYONE keeps on playing the game "hoping" that it will get better, but they still pay the game, so the devs and backers think "WOW they all like it, we are not loosing a single person!!"

 

But then again, it is always the fault of someone else right?

  azzamasin

Elite Member

Joined: 6/06/12
Posts: 2400

We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality.

6/30/13 8:04:43 PM#22
Actually the invention of the F2P is the best way for casuals can get to see content.  It allows the them to pay real life $$$ to skip inconvenience's.

If your idea of a Sandbox is open FFA Full Loot PvP, full crafted world with minimal support for anything combat then your sandbox ideas are bad! Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

  Distopia

Drifter

Joined: 11/22/05
Posts: 14386

"what a boring life, HATING everything" -Gorilla Biscuits

6/30/13 8:12:05 PM#23
Access to everything for 15 bucks is one thing, being able to reach everything is entirely something else. The 10% are important customers to cater for as well, and without difficult to reach content, they hardly ever stick around.

For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason

  aesperus

Elite Member

Joined: 1/04/05
Posts: 4508

6/30/13 8:16:41 PM#24
Originally posted by Hrimnir
Originally posted by Jadedangel1
I agree with a lot of what you said, but not everything can be blamed on casual players and their entitlement. A lot of this is on the developers shoulders. Yes, these are games, but for the developers its a business too. And they want that business to be profitable. If games were so great back then before all the casuals stepped in, the developers wouldn't have had to implement the easier features we expect today. But this was not the case. Though the players that they had enjoyed the game, it was not enough to sustain them profit wise. Next came the "If you build it, they will come" way of thinking, and like fish drawn to bait, the casual players were hooked in. You can't have the egg before the chicken, and likewise you can't fully blame casual players for asking for more of what was first handed out to them.

I understand where you're coming from on the profitability argument, the problem is that MMO's can be extremely profitable with a lot less subscribers than people think.

Just for some numbers. Rift cost approx $50 million to make (original Rift, not sure on xpac).

Now, according to this article they sold a million copies of the game as of about 3 months after release:

http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/07/rift-has-almost-one-million-folks-playing-it-according-to-trion-wolrds/

According to this article, as of 9 months after release, they made over $100 million in revenue:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/rift-revenues-reach-100-million-in-2011-6348954?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=600&width=850&caption=GameSpots+PlayStation+3+News

 

So, basically with less than a million subscribers, keep in mind that was 1 million sold over the three months, that wasnt neccesarily 1 million subbed as of 3 months later.   Whatever they lost in the months following up to the end of the year (guesses at the time were down to between 400 and 500k actual subs), they made back their development costs and then an extra 50 million on top of that.

 

That means it was already extremely profitable.

 

An mmo could have a 100 million dollar budget, sell 500k copies, and retain 40% of those subs and it would be profitable within a couple of years.  And thats on a HUGE budget.  They could easily make a fantastic mmo with a 20-30mil budget, sell 500k copies, retain 40% of that and be profitable in less than a year.

Problem is.. out of that 100mil, how much of that do you think actually went to the developers? Between publisher fees, investor returns, and tax codes, that 100mil tends to shrink substantially, and fast. The reality of the situation is many of these big budget game studios are struggling to stay afloat. They are either heavily backed by a publisher (which ensures their games get out and sell, but also has their cashflow severely handcuffed in most cases), or they are not trying to make MMOs.

Indies are mostly doing alright, but it's impossible to deliver on all demands 100% with the turnaround expectations of the average gamer. Combine that with the issue of financials when trying to ship a game like an MMO, and it's no big shocker that studios will often buckle on a design decision if it means their game will get financed, and they are much more likely to get a return. It's extremely rare to be able to control a passion project 100%, especially if you are working on a large / complicated project (which is pretty much every MMO ever).

The irony of all this, is that gamers like to complain about how little the devs 'listen to them'. When the whole time devs are trying to give gamers as much of what they want as possible. This isn't always true, but it's a lot more frequent then a lot of people here seem to realize. Many of the things we are seeing in this latest batch of MMOs are a direct result of gamer criticisms over the last group of MMOs. The problem is these games take ~5-8 years to make, and by then it's often too late in our eyes. We criticise MMOs like we do standard games, which often have ~1/8-1/10th the production schedule of an MMO.

Entitlement is definitely a hugely toxic component to todays games. Gamers are entitled there's no other way to put it, even if you think you're innocent, it's probably not true. The big problem with entitlement isn't even that devs are catering to it. It's that people aren't really supporting the games that don't, and then complaining that they have no games. Just to make a point, how many people on this site are waiting for the perfect MMO that never comes? It's not going to come if none of the games that are trying to implement some of your desired features are shown there's a market for those features.

MMOs, by their nature, cannot be treated like an 'all or nothing' genre. It's time we stopped viewing them in such ways. All MMOs will have features that not every likely. It's something we need to put up w/ if we want to enjoy playing with others. Also, MMOs have been improving, it just takes 5x longer to see the changes than it does w/ other genres (due to a 500% + production timetable)

  Teala

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 6/16/04
Posts: 7400

"Really officer, they're herbs."

6/30/13 8:17:53 PM#25

I think the OP is grabbing at straws.   The problem with these MMO's is they stopped being persistent virtual worlds and become Disney Land.   Everything was laid out for you - they were stagnant.   In games like AC with monthly story updates - whole towns could be laid waste.   Also, players could impact the story...there is still a statue that pays respects to the players of a server in AC that changed the outcome of the Shadow Invasion and won - no other populace on the other servers did this.  

Unlike EVE, today's MMO's are lacking any kind of player involvement.    EVE continues to grow while these other games continue to die and EVE was one of the few MMO's that hasn't gone free to play yet.  

I've said it before...and I will keep saying it...the further these games move away from their roots - the more they will slip into the abyss of mediocrity. 

  rodingo

Elite Member

Joined: 1/18/07
Posts: 1384

6/30/13 8:18:12 PM#26

I don't think I have ever seen anyone complain about how long it takes to level in an MMO on these forums.  Well maybe except for Aion when it first launched. 

The thing is, a casual's $15 is the exact same value as a hardcore player's $15 when you are talking p2p games.  The hardcore didn't need to spend anymore money and the casual wasn't able to spend less.  It was a flat rate for everyone, no matter what. 

So if you build a theme park with only a certain number of rides that mainly catered to one group of people, you would probably notice that the Jones' theme park down the street that has more rides catering to even more types of people is making more money and also people from your theme park visit and buy tickets with them as well. 

Business is about competition and catering to your customer's needs and wants.  If you can't supply that then sure, you will have some loyal customers who like your few products that you offer, but you will lose out on all that profit from sales from other customers if you would have diversified.  So you have to stay competitive and offer more goods and services to attract more customers. 

TLDR:  In way you thread title is right, except only close minded people will see it as a negative.

"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor

  JRRNeiklot

Apprentice Member

Joined: 2/03/11
Posts: 101

6/30/13 8:20:05 PM#27
Originally posted by Hrimnir

W


So instead of being like normal, sane people, who take 2 or 3 months maybe to read through the whole lord of the rings, you instead feel like the author should be obligated to cut it down to make it more palatable for you.  In the process the thing is ruined.

I agree with your point, but this is perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read.  Being a HUGE Tolkien fan, I re-read the LoTR trilogy once a year or so, and it takes me all of about 2 days reading a few hours a day.  That said, Peter Jackson did EXACTLY that with his crappy movies.  If it takes anyone a month to read a book, they should really learn to read.  Every form of entertainment is dumbed down these days, not just mmos.

  Hrimnir

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/24/10
Posts: 1019

 
OP  6/30/13 8:34:55 PM#28
Originally posted by Quizzical

You're conflating a bunch of different issues in this thread that need to be addressed separately.  At an absolute minimum, we need to separate the issues of cumulative time spent on a game across many play sessions versus time spend continuously in a single play session.

 

*snip*

 

However, for the second player to demand that real content be removed in order to allow him to finish the game faster is wholly unreasonable.  But when do players ever demand that?  The problem with "kill 1000 furbolgs to proceed" isn't that you're asked to kill furbolgs.  The problem is that once you've killed 10, you've demonstrated that you readily could kill 1000 if you put the time in, but actually going through the motions of grinding something stupid to proceed is boring.

So, i understand what you're saying, but here is where i differ in opinion.  What you describe is fine when you're talking about a single player game.  I'm all for being able to pause, save, whatever a single player game whenever you want, even if its right before a boss fight.  Thats kind of the point of single player games is that you play them at your pace.

The mistake you are making is the mistake a lot of people make which is confusing a long leveling curve/time investment with being a "grind".

Its only a grind when there is a lack of content.  MMO's since WOW have had people level by doing quests.  So if you ran out of quests your only option was to go slaughter mobs until you leveled.  This was a failure in design principles of the game.

Looking at a game like EQ, which took most people over 600 hours to get a character to max level, worked just fine without having to "grind" because there was a plethora of content.  They also made wise design decisions.  I'll explain further.

In EQ you had usually between 3 and 6 zones you could go level in at any given level.  It was like today where at best you have 2 small zones, or usually 1 small zone that is level appropriate.    You also had multiple dungeons that overlapped a large range of levels.  So if you didnt want to level outside, you could get buddies together and run a dungeon.  This was incentivized by dungeons having an XP bonus, and by the potential for nice loot.  If it took 10 hours to level one time, it wasn't a big deal because each dungeon was so large, you could easily spend 2 hours getting to 1 camp spot of a dungeon, and you usually had at least 2 other dungeons that were lvl appropriate.

People only sat in one area for 10 hours on end grinding mobs because it minimized downtime, and like all min/maxers they try to do everything as efficiently as possible.  So yes, they could make XP 10% faster lets say by never moving from one area to another because the 10-15 minutes you spent getting to the new area was XP you weren't getting.  But again, thats just standard min/maxer mentality on everything.

The problem then comes back to the casual entitlement whiners.  They basically went, "well, i can only play solo by running quests, so you're disenfranchising me by making grouping level faster than soloing quests.  So of course as people pointed out, the developers pandered to these people and made it so that questing was the fastest way of leveling.  This basically negated any reason to run dungeons or pursue any of the other content.  Normally gear would be a reason to pursue the other content, but as Mark Kern pointed out in his opinion piece, when the leveling curve is so fast that the 2 hours you spent in the dungeon getting the sword, had it been spent on XPing via questing, would of outleveled the sword you got...., then whats the point?

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

  Hrimnir

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/24/10
Posts: 1019

 
OP  6/30/13 8:36:57 PM#29
Originally posted by JRRNeiklot
Originally posted by Hrimnir

W


So instead of being like normal, sane people, who take 2 or 3 months maybe to read through the whole lord of the rings, you instead feel like the author should be obligated to cut it down to make it more palatable for you.  In the process the thing is ruined.

I agree with your point, but this is perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read.  Being a HUGE Tolkien fan, I re-read the LoTR trilogy once a year or so, and it takes me all of about 2 days reading a few hours a day.  That said, Peter Jackson did EXACTLY that with his crappy movies.  If it takes anyone a month to read a book, they should really learn to read.  Every form of entertainment is dumbed down these days, not just mmos.

I was being generous.  I've seen people at work take 2 weeks to read a novel i would kill in 2 hours.  So, /shrug.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

  Ridelynn

Elite Member

Joined: 12/19/10
Posts: 3168

6/30/13 8:46:04 PM#30

I don't think it was a feeling of entitlement to the content, although I do recognize that there was(is) some of that sentiment that exists.

Rather, I firmly blame World of Warcraft.

The marketing geniuses at Blizzard/Activision figured out if you could lessen (or remove) the burdens to get to content, so that casual players could get at it, you'd get more casual players. Not just a few more players; a lot more players. Millions more players.

It isn't because the players that were there felt entitled to content, it was that developers removed the restrictions and opened the floodgates, and the people came in droves.

I can make a gimpy analogy:
There are those that despise people who shop at (Insert some high-end retailer here), but by and large, those people that shop there are not really torn down. Rather, someone like Wal-Mart comes in, offers similar products at much lower prices, and lo and behold - WalMart becomes the largest retailer in the world. It wasn't because the shopper demanded products and services, it was because the retailer found a way to make them available.

I think the OP is on to something, but has rather latched on to the wrong cause for the outcome.

  aesperus

Elite Member

Joined: 1/04/05
Posts: 4508

6/30/13 8:46:46 PM#31
Originally posted by Teala

I think the OP is grabbing at straws.   The problem with these MMO's is they stopped being persistent virtual worlds and become Disney Land.   Everything was laid out for you - they were stagnant.   In games like AC with monthly story updates - whole towns could be laid waste.   Also, players could impact the story...there is still a statue that pays respects to the players of a server in AC that changed the outcome of the Shadow Invasion and won - no other populace on the other servers did this.  

Unlike EVE, today's MMO's are lacking any kind of player involvement.    EVE continues to grow while these other games continue to die and EVE was one of the few MMO's that hasn't gone free to play yet.  

I've said it before...and I will keep saying it...the further these games move away from their roots - the more they will slip into the abyss of mediocrity. 

Which roots exactly?

Not all of the first MMOs were sandboxes. UO was just one of many. Most of todays MMOs are coming from WoW, which was based on Everquest, which was never really a sandbox.

Then you look at all the old asian MMOs, and realize most of them weren't sandboxes either.

I do agree that some MMOs are moving further away from what they should be (marvel heroes.. really?!), but a lot of the loss of 'player involvement' is a biproduct of a growing market. Back during the birth of MMOs, players were forced to cooperate, or not have a game to play. Now? There are multiple MMOs a year being made, and players can easily (and are) just hop from game to game the second things don't go their way. Such climate makes it nearly impossible to nurture the kind of risk / reward system & commitment it takes to develope a truly good sandbox. Essentially the players need to be patient, commited, and open to new game types. Currently, most gamers are none of those things.

  Hrimnir

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/24/10
Posts: 1019

 
OP  6/30/13 8:47:03 PM#32
Originally posted by rodingo

I don't think I have ever seen anyone complain about how long it takes to level in an MMO on these forums.  Well maybe except for Aion when it first launched. 

The thing is, a casual's $15 is the exact same value as a hardcore player's $15 when you are talking p2p games.  The hardcore didn't need to spend anymore money and the casual wasn't able to spend less.  It was a flat rate for everyone, no matter what. 

So if you build a theme park with only a certain number of rides that mainly catered to one group of people, you would probably notice that the Jones' theme park down the street that has more rides catering to even more types of people is making more money and also people from your theme park visit and buy tickets with them as well. 

Business is about competition and catering to your customer's needs and wants.  If you can't supply that then sure, you will have some loyal customers who like your few products that you offer, but you will lose out on all that profit from sales from other customers if you would have diversified.  So you have to stay competitive and offer more goods and services to attract more customers. 

TLDR:  In way you thread title is right, except only close minded people will see it as a negative.

You must be blind. There were multiple threads in GW2 complaining that 50 hours to max level was ASIAN GRINDER MMO ridiculous...

Moving on, im not sure what you're trying to say because you're arguing the point we're making, but you don't even realize it.

Nobody is asking anybody to build a theme park filled with hard core high G' death defying roller coasters and nothing else.

A real themepark is just like you said, it has something for everyone.  Tea Cups for the young girls, rollercoasters for the grown men or strapping young lads,  crazy tall free fall rides for those people.  Water rides, etc etc.

The difference is that when some parent comes up to the park manager and says "you know you should slow those high G rollercoasters down substantially so that my young girl can ride them and not be so scared", instead of the manager saying, "well sir, those coasters are not designed for small children and are designed to entertain people who like fast rides and high G's,  Im sorry you feel that way, but we have multiple OTHER rides you can take your small girl on", the MMO developers have essentially gone "Oh jeez mister, let me change that for you, i guess all those other customers can F right off, i wanna make sure YOU are taken care of, even though your request is irresponsible and ridiculous'

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

  Axehilt

Novice Member

Joined: 5/09/09
Posts: 7213

6/30/13 8:51:54 PM#33

Seeing everything is fine.

Beating it on the hardest difficulty to earn the best gear isn't.  (But no MMORPGs are designed this way.)

The Disneyland analogy isn't really appropriate because MMORPGs don't exactly strive to make everything visible to players on Day 1 of buying the game.  It's basically the the opposite: they want to stretch their content as far as it can go without compromising quality.

  Ginaz

Hard Core Member

Joined: 4/01/07
Posts: 1632

6/30/13 8:53:49 PM#34

Maybe if the OP hadn't used words like "whiny" "dumb" and "entitled" I might seriously consider what he's saying.  Instead, I'm going to ignore the insulting language and whatever the OP's "theory" is and chalk it up as another MMO elitist rant.

You can make a point without insulting people.

Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?

Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.

  Robokapp

Elite Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4152

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

6/30/13 8:58:38 PM#35
Originally posted by maplestone
Originally posted by Robokapp

I should see more than everyone else because I am willing to go looking around and doing what it takes. Meritocracy.

That's a perfectly valid gaming style and a perfectly valid expectation to have for an esport (it's ok to be an elitist in a competitive environment).

The problem is that not everyone wants that.  But people still want their playstyle to get as much attention as yours for their $15.  So it's going to be in the form of an easier difficulty on the same content, or other content that they will be playing more than you.

I worry that spinning your playstyle as a meritocracy isn't convincing other people to play your way - it's just blinding you to the validity of other playstyles.

I couldnt enter world 1-2 until i finished world 1-1 in mario and I payed for the full game...

  maplestone

Advanced Member

Joined: 12/10/08
Posts: 3109

6/30/13 9:01:39 PM#36
Originally posted by Robokapp

I couldnt enter world 1-2 until i finished world 1-1 in mario and I payed for the full game...

But you were allowed to play Mario2 before finishing Mario.

meh ... ok, not a good analogy, I'll give you that round ... but mario isn't an MMO and we could go a long way down that rabbit hole getting more and more irrelevent in our analogies. 

My point should be that if you don't want to coexist with other playstyles, if it's "us or them", then the only metric that matters is which one side brings in more money.

  Hrimnir

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/24/10
Posts: 1019

 
OP  6/30/13 9:04:09 PM#37
Originally posted by Ridelynn

I don't think it was a feeling of entitlement to the content, although I do recognize that there was(is) some of that sentiment that exists.

Rather, I firmly blame World of Warcraft.

The marketing geniuses at Blizzard/Activision figured out if you could lessen (or remove) the burdens to get to content, so that casual players could get at it, you'd get more casual players. Not just a few more players; a lot more players. Millions more players.

It isn't because the players that were there felt entitled to content, it was that developers removed the restrictions and opened the floodgates, and the people came in droves.

I can make a gimpy analogy:
There are those that despise people who shop at (Insert some high-end retailer here), but by and large, those people that shop there are not really torn down. Rather, someone like Wal-Mart comes in, offers similar products at much lower prices, and lo and behold - WalMart becomes the largest retailer in the world. It wasn't because the shopper demanded products and services, it was because the retailer found a way to make them available.

I think the OP is on to something, but has rather latched on to the wrong cause for the outcome.

I see where you are coming from, but i disagree, i'll give you a good example:

The main community arm/developer point of contact for WOW was a guy named Ghostcrawler.

Now, what happened is in Burning Crusade, the playerbase whined and pissed and moaned about having to crowd control mobs in dungeon runs, it was too hard and tedious, and it made them have to have a super specific group make up and blah blah blah blah.  So, in WOTLK they made it so you could faceroll dungeons.  Tanks literally would just run into a group, spam some AOE taunts, and then the DPS would AOE down the mobs.  There was no more of this "kill the healer first, or take out the caster who is mana burning, etc".  So, then when that happened people started complaining that dungeons were too easy, etc.  So, in Cataclysm, they brought back some of the group mechanics, and guess what.  People bitched, i mean 1000+ page threads on the forums, just bitching incessantly.   So Ghostcrawler goes and makes a big blog post trying to explain to everyone the thinking behind this, and essentially tells people to L2P.  This literally throws jet fuel on the fire and created a forum explosion of bitching that was unlike anything you had ever seen before.

People talk about vanilla wow with reverence because the game degenerated into ultra casual face roll MMO, SOLELY because of casual player whining.  They whined about EVERYTHING, leveling times, loot drops, how hard mobs were, how having to spend 2 minutes walking to a dungeon entrance was ridiculous, so they added in porting straight into the dungeon.  They complained that the skill tree was too complicated and so blizzard dumbed it down so basically you had enough points to fill almost the entire tree instead of actually havign to think about your spec and try to synergize abilities and such.  The casuals complained EVEN MORE so they dumbed it down EVEN further to where you dont even have a skill tree.  Now you can literally just mash 2 or 3 abilities and do MAXIMUM DPS!!!!11.

People wonder why MMOs have no community and dont feel like worlds.  But then god forbid they give up their porting straight into dungeons, LFG tools, flying mounts, quest trackers, taking more than an hour to make 1 level, etc, etc.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

  Robokapp

Elite Member

Joined: 11/15/09
Posts: 4152

The only luck I had today was to have you as my opponent.

6/30/13 9:05:01 PM#38
Originally posted by maplestone
Originally posted by Robokapp

I couldnt enter world 1-2 until i finished world 1-1 in mario and I payed for the full game...

But you were allowed to play Mario2 before finishing Mario.

i was also allowed to play soccer before finishing mario. I'm not seeing your argument.

  Novusod

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/30/09
Posts: 840

6/30/13 9:09:30 PM#39

Although I agree with the original poster's thesis here I don't think the arguments he uses are very convincing. It is true that  "I should see everything" crowd has contributed to the death of the subscription model.

 

The issue here is it is subscriptions are nothing like Disney World. No roller coaster takes two hours to ride on. What takes two hours is the line waiting to get on the roller coaster. The ride itself is maybe 2 or 3 minutes long. Part of the reason the lines are so long is Disney theme parks have a VIP system where people who pay more get to cut in line. Guests who stay in expensive Disney owned hotels also get to enter the park an hour early. Sound familiar? The pay to get ahead mentality is not just something that afflicts MMOs. It is deeply engrained in real world economics and in modern capitalist society as a whole.

Look at how the air lines run things. First class passengers get on the plane first and get a big meal and unlimited free beverage. Coach passengers have to wait to get on and then they are lucky if they get a meal at all or a can of soda. Go back even further and look at the titanic. First class passengers got on the lifeboats while 3rd class drowned. The idea that money talks in the real world is the Elephant in the living room nobody really wants to acknowledge. These trends have been going on forever.

 

When the subscription MMO got started in the late 90s the standard sub was $15/mo. In the 90s that was a lot of money to pay for online games. The MMO subscription could be seen as a First class ticket. You got everything because it was first class and the player was VIP. What has changed between now and then? The biggest thing is inflation. It is not 1999 anymore when gas cost gas cost 90 cents compared now it where costs almost 4 bucks. Everything has gone up in price from rents, labor costs, training, taxes, etc all have gone up since the late 90s. What has not gone up in price is MMO subscriptions. They are still $15/mo the same as 1999. I pay $100/mo for fiber optic internet connection but the MMO sub is still stuck in the dial up era.

The $15/mo sub isn't first class anymore in 2013. It is second or third class. First class is the cash shop now. People in the subscription bucket are complaining that they don't receive first class service anymore but are NOT willing to pay for first class. The subscription cannot remain at $15, it has to go up to regain first class status. Maybe $40/mo would be a more realistic expectation to see "everything." The $15 sub doesn't entitle you to anything. The standard sub payer is like the basic Disney patron who has to wait in 2 hour roller coaster lines while they watch the VIPs cut ahead. That is the cold reality that is setting in on MMO market. 

 

Either adapt or perish, that is the mantra the will exist going forward. No company is going to run their game as a charity so players can keep their $15 subs and "see everything." Those days are over.

  Wizardry

Elite Member

Joined: 8/27/04
Posts: 6352

Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

6/30/13 9:15:51 PM#40

I agree complaints on THEIR time restrictions should not be shared by all,it is very selfish to think a game needs to cater to your needs.However game developers are making a huge mistake in their content ideals.

The premise has been for a long time that the challenging combat needs to take place in a large alliance and often instanced and often for many hours.That is far from the truth,a good developer should be able to create challenging fights that take less time and with only a standard 6 man group,Raids are NOT needed what so ever.A larger group size does not mean better,if anything it means worse because you might have 3/4/5 tanks ,one dies another moves in,but in a normal group ,your tank dies your whole group might wipe.Same goes for the healer,a Raid might have 4/5 healers where a normal group might have 1.

You can cater to everyone by creating a large array of AI.The Boss would change form several times and change resistances as well.This keeps players thinking and also does not cater to one type of DPS or play style as it would change all the time.

By creating that versatile AI,you could make it so the fight COULD end quickly if the players are on their toes and thinking,yet can be challenging and longer if you are not.This way the challenging aspect is there and the ability to end fast is there as well.

Then if players still complain because they are dying or can't end it fast,it is their fault,they need to think about what they are doing and not blame everyone else or the game.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Napolianboo#p/u/15/rCYLLQCNc1w
Samoan Diamond

9 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search