I'm seeing a lot of talk lately about people who are concerned about the lack of content, and/or lackluster replayability in these new games a few short months after they come out.  The problem these developers are having is a simple one.  It's called "theme park".  The issue is that since they create their worlds to hand deliver an experience (theme park rides, quests, instances), they can't possibly give people enough content to make them happy.

Many, many people on this website have been talking smack about sandbox-type design for years now, while I and others have been advocates of it having experienced how amazing they can be.  Star Wars Galaxies was a mess of a game from a technical and polish standpoint, yet most of the people who played it back in the day still proclaim their undying love for it.  There are many reasons people loved this game, and I can't recall anyone ever complaining about lack of content. Indeed, SWG could have benefited greatly from some of today's questing standards, as long as they were added in addition to the sandbox play already existing.

I'm not saying all games should be sandboxes, or that they need to be sandboxes even to the limited extent SWG was one, but what I am saying is that these new games need to be designed with perpetual replayability in mind, and this must go beyond PvP.  PvE replayability can be as easy as adding new explorable zones that do not require quests, or at least do not require nearly as many quests as a standard PvE zone.  These 'freestyle' zones could be filled with beautiful terrain, interesting mobs, dungeons, camps and other fun things that people could attack whenever they feel like it.  These realms could also potentially be opened up to PvP, making them something like the wild-west of the game world.

There is another aspect that is popping up more and more as well, and that is people complain that the worlds feel 'dead'.  They feel dead because they are dead.  They are little more than movie sets for you to walk past and not look too closely at.  There are no real social features, nothing in there for the RP crowd, crafting and trade has been reduced to the equivelent of a Mc Donalds Happy Meal served through a Drive-Thru window (auction house).  There is little or no player interaction required.

If you are wondering why these games are boring you, it's because they are the same thing, generally speaking, rehashed over and over again.  What you want is something different, and that different is going to come from starting to take these games back in the direction of living, breathing virtual worlds rather than completely scripted and contrived experiences.  The players need a chance to become their own content, as was true in SWG and other sandbox games, and they also need to be given the tools to forge their own adventure without having six "stories" to follow until they are bored to death with them.  I want my own damned story, and all I want from the game developers is an interesting and interactive world, a hybrid of theme park and sandbox ideals that will give me a place to do it.

Again, I'm not saying full-on hardcore sandboxes are going to appeal to everyone, but what I am saying is that theme parks could greatly benefit from many of the principals of sandboxes.  As long as game companies continue to crank out these cardboard worlds with no depth to them, you will continue to be bored with them shortly after purchasing the games.

What say you?

Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

** edit **
* Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.

Originally posted by lizardbones

Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

** edit **
* Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.

I think this is a big part of it. Back in the EQ/UO era, what choices did you really have for an MMO? Sure AC and EQ came out around the same time but...what else was there? Not much. So, if you enjoyed the game, you'd stay there forever because there wasn't a "new shiny MMO" every year.

Originally posted by lizardbones

Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

I don't think this is true of everyone at all, but I agree there is a segment out there who are uber-casual who don't care to stick around a game that long.  However, more and more people are blowing through themepark content, and then bitching and moaning on forums like this as well as official forums, because they are already bored.  THAT is a design problem, and it's a business problem from the perspective of trying to keep your customers around.

The only reason people see these games as 3-6 month experiences is because that is all they offer anyway.  Look at EVE.  Sure, you can point out that it is a niche game, but I believe if there was a high quality hybrid or full sandbox that was more traditional instead of space based, it would be a fairly large and long-term hit.  Many players in EVE have been playing for years, and there is no theme park content to speak of.

You need to stop thinking so dichotomously.  This isn't a black and white subject.  I am talking to those people out there who are looking for a longer experience in their MMO games, not the A.D.D crowd who hop MMOs as often as they can.  Besides, according to what I read around gaming forums, most people leave their current MMO game because they get bored, not because something better comes along.

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by lizardbones

Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most* players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

** edit **
* Change this to "a lot". Most implies > 50% and I'm not sure that's true.

I think this is a big part of it. Back in the EQ/UO era, what choices did you really have for an MMO? Sure AC and EQ came out around the same time but...what else was there? Not much. So, if you enjoyed the game, you'd stay there forever because there wasn't a "new shiny MMO" every year.

Well, the problem with your theories is WoW.  Even with all of the games on the market, many, many people who end up leaving that shiny new game they bought, head right back to WoW.  They have invested time and effort there, have built friendships and communities, and they consider it their "home" game. 

Sure there are plenty of people who hop games regularly now, but I think that's more of a symptom of the problem I decribed in the OP, rather than some sweeping trend with gamers.

The other issue with your idea is that if it's true, then I won't need to worry about it because it will be self-correcting.  Corps and investers sink more money, and MUCH more time into some of these MMO games than they would for a blockbuster Summer movie.  They will not continue doing so if the genre isn't showing long-term, high proft returns.  There is little benefit to building a $100million MMO game that takes five plus years to build, if it's only going to be popular for a year. They would do a lot better to design Facebook games.

Originally posted by MindTrigger

 

I'm seeing a lot of talk lately about people who are concerned about the lack of content, and/or lackluster replayability in these new games a few short months after they come out.  The problem these developers are having is a simple one.  It's called "theme park".  The issue is that since they create their worlds to hand deliver an experience (theme park rides, quests, instances), they can't possibly give people enough content to make them happy.

Many, many people on this website have been talking smack about sandbox-type design for years now, while I and others have been advocates of it having experienced how amazing they can be.  Star Wars Galaxies was a mess of a game from a technical and polish standpoint, yet most of the people who played it back in the day still proclaim their undying love for it.  There are many reasons people loved this game, and I can't recall anyone ever complaining about lack of content. Indeed, SWG could have benefited greatly from some of today's questing standards, as long as they were added in addition to the sandbox play already existing.

I'm not saying all games should be sandboxes, or that they need to be sandboxes even to the limited extent SWG was one, but what I am saying is that these new games need to be designed with perpetual replayability in mind, and this must go beyond PvP.  PvE replayability can be as easy as adding new explorable zones that do not require quests, or at least do not require nearly as many quests as a standard PvE zone.  These 'freestyle' zones could be filled with beautiful terrain, interesting mobs, dungeons, camps and other fun things that people could attack whenever they feel like it.  These realms could also potentially be opened up to PvP, making them something like the wild-west of the game world.

There is another aspect that is popping up more and more as well, and that is people complain that the worlds feel 'dead'.  They feel dead because they are dead.  They are little more than movie sets for you to walk past and not look too closely at.  There are no real social features, nothing in there for the RP crowd, crafting and trade has been reduced to the equivelent of a Mc Donalds Happy Meal served through a Drive-Thru window (auction house).  There is little or no player interaction required.

If you are wondering why these games are boring you, it's because they are the same thing, generally speaking, rehashed over and over again.  What you want is something different, and that different is going to come from starting to take these games back in the direction of living, breathing virtual worlds rather than completely scripted and contrived experiences.  The players need a chance to become their own content, as was true in SWG and other sandbox games, and they also need to be given the tools to forge their own adventure without having six "stories" to follow until they are bored to death with them.  I want my own damned story, and all I want from the game developers is an interesting and interactive world, a hybrid of theme park and sandbox ideals that will give me a place to do it.

Again, I'm not saying full-on hardcore sandboxes are going to appeal to everyone, but what I am saying is that theme parks could greatly benefit from many of the principals of sandboxes.  As long as game companies continue to crank out these cardboard worlds with no depth to them, you will continue to be bored with them shortly after purchasing the games.

What say you?

Some excellent points there. Ultimately developers will struggle, and fail, to produce content at a rate to keep up with the speed that players can complete it. Techniques, including some sandbox elements, that allow for greater replay value will serve developers well. Such can essentially buy the devs time to continue to produce new content without players becoming bored.

I think that a robust user generated content system has the potential to aid in this regard as well.

Originally posted by Ashen_X

Originally posted by MindTrigger

 

What say you?

Some excellent points there. Ultimately developers will struggle, and fail, to produce content at a rate to keep up with the speed that players can complete it. Techniques, including some sandbox elements, that allow for greater replay value will serve developers well. Such can essentially buy the devs time to continue to produce new content without players becoming bored.

I think that a robust user generated content system has the potential to aid in this regard as well.

Thanks for the comment, and I agree.  The other aspect of this is more long term income.  The more inherent replayability there is, and more of a chance for player to grow roots in a game, the longer they will stick around and the harder it will become for them to leave for some other game.

As you can see from other people's comments in here, people who have grown up in theme park design automatically think it is normal for someone to only play a game for a short time, and then leave.  I do not think this is the case, but I think it's a symptom of games that lack community, depth and replayability in some form other than simply re-rolling or being in the 5% of people who actually do end-game raids.

remake ffxi with modern graphics and without abyssea and boom i'll play that game for another 6 years without even looking at a different title.

the reason people are playing current mmo's for only 3 months is because current mmo's are bad.

---

Originally posted by MindTrigger

---

Originally posted by lizardbones Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

---

I don't think this is true of everyone at all, but I agree there is a segment out there who are uber-casual who don't care to stick around a game that long.  However, more and more people are blowing through themepark content, and then bitching and moaning on forums like this as well as official forums, because they are already bored.  THAT is a design problem, and it's a business problem from the perspective of trying to keep your customers around.

The only reason people see these games as 3-6 month experiences is because that is all they offer anyway.  Look at EVE.  Sure, you can point out that it is a niche game, but I believe if there was a high quality hybrid or full sandbox that was more traditional instead of space based, it would be a fairly large and long-term hit.  Many players in EVE have been playing for years, and there is no theme park content to speak of.

You need to stop thinking so dichotomously.  This isn't a black and white subject.  I am talking to those people out there who are looking for a longer experience in their MMO games, not the A.D.D crowd who hop MMOs as often as they can.  Besides, according to what I read around gaming forums, most people leave their current MMO game because they get bored, not because something better comes along.

---

Originally posted by MindTrigger

 Star Wars Galaxies was a mess of a game from a technical and polish standpoint, yet most of the people who played it back in the day still proclaim their undying love for it.  There are many reasons people loved this game, and I can't recall anyone ever complaining about lack of content.

SWG seriously lacked content and it was the primary reason why I quit playing the game after a few months.  There were only so many times you could run the same repeatable missions over and over and the Jedi grind just highlighted the fact that the devs wanted you to keep repeating stuff because they were out of ideas.

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by Ashen_X

Originally posted by MindTrigger

 

What say you?

Some excellent points there. Ultimately developers will struggle, and fail, to produce content at a rate to keep up with the speed that players can complete it. Techniques, including some sandbox elements, that allow for greater replay value will serve developers well. Such can essentially buy the devs time to continue to produce new content without players becoming bored.

I think that a robust user generated content system has the potential to aid in this regard as well.

Thanks for the comment, and I agree.  The other aspect of this is more long term income.  The more inherent replayability there is, and more of a chance for player to grow roots in a game, the longer they will stick around and the harder it will become for them to leave for some other game.

As you can see from other people's comments in here, people who have grown up in theme park design automatically think it is normal for someone to only play a game for a short time, and then leave.  I do not think this is the case, but I think it's a symptom of games that lack community, depth and replayability in some form other than simply re-rolling or being in the 5% of people who actually do end-game raids.

I don't think that its a matter of games that lack commmunity and such (although that could be part of the matter).

I think that the demographic has changed quite a bit over the last few years. MMO's are more mainstream than they have ever been, and not everyone playing now is looking for a world to live in.

Keep in mind that for some (perhaps even most) people a game is a short term diversion, perhaps one of many hobbies or interests. They are not necessarily ever, no matter how good the game, become invested to the degree that you seek. This is not (necessarily) a failing of the game, its the nature of the player base. 

Well people are probably gonna be playing Diablo 3 six months from now.  It's a themepark.

Themeparks aren't bad.

Bad games are bad.

Old games are bad.  (Well really they're just old...but old is boring.)

Making a great copy of a great game is creating an old game.  The game is old the moment it hits the shelves.

I agree OP.

I think that after SWTOR, TSW and TESO all become F2P, developers will start trying to make good games again.

It doesn't even have to be a full sandbox, but this shallow crap just doesn't have any kind of longevity anymore, instanced dungeons, instanced battlegrounds... what a borefest... no one can play the same scrap for so long without getting bored.

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by lizardbones

Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

I don't think this is true of everyone at all, but I agree there is a segment out there who are uber-casual who don't care to stick around a game that long.  However, more and more people are blowing through themepark content, and then bitching and moaning on forums like this as well as official forums, because they are already bored.  THAT is a design problem, and it's a business problem from the perspective of trying to keep your customers around.

The only reason people see these games as 3-6 month experiences is because that is all they offer anyway.  Look at EVE.  Sure, you can point out that it is a niche game, but I believe if there was a high quality hybrid or full sandbox that was more traditional instead of space based, it would be a fairly large and long-term hit.  Many players in EVE have been playing for years, and there is no theme park content to speak of.

You need to stop thinking so dichotomously.  This isn't a black and white subject.  I am talking to those people out there who are looking for a longer experience in their MMO games, not the A.D.D crowd who hop MMOs as often as they can.  Besides, according to what I read around gaming forums, most people leave their current MMO game because they get bored, not because something better comes along.

That is a PLAYER problem. There is absolutely nothing in these games that forces people to race to max, kill all the content then piss about it. that is totally on the players.

And as far as sandboxes. I have seen people posting about EvE not having enough content... Don't the players make their own in that game?

Originally posted by Slampig

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by lizardbones

Or maybe it's just time to realize that the audience for MMORPG is no longer a bunch of people who want to play the same game for a year or more. Theme park or not, sandbox or not, 3 months will be the Mean Play Time and 6 months will the be Max Play Time for most players. The details will be different - # of initial sales, peak initial subscriptions, and steady state subscriptions will all be a bit different depending on a lot of different factors, but the general trend will continue because of the audience, not the games.

I don't think this is true of everyone at all, but I agree there is a segment out there who are uber-casual who don't care to stick around a game that long.  However, more and more people are blowing through themepark content, and then bitching and moaning on forums like this as well as official forums, because they are already bored.  THAT is a design problem, and it's a business problem from the perspective of trying to keep your customers around.

The only reason people see these games as 3-6 month experiences is because that is all they offer anyway.  Look at EVE.  Sure, you can point out that it is a niche game, but I believe if there was a high quality hybrid or full sandbox that was more traditional instead of space based, it would be a fairly large and long-term hit.  Many players in EVE have been playing for years, and there is no theme park content to speak of.

You need to stop thinking so dichotomously.  This isn't a black and white subject.  I am talking to those people out there who are looking for a longer experience in their MMO games, not the A.D.D crowd who hop MMOs as often as they can.  Besides, according to what I read around gaming forums, most people leave their current MMO game because they get bored, not because something better comes along.

That is a PLAYER problem. There is absolutely nothing in these games that forces people to race to max, kill all the content then piss about it. that is totally on the players.

 

Really? what's the difference?

Race to max and clear all the content in 1 month, or take your time and finish the game in 3-6 months.

The end result is the same, bored people quitting a boring and shallow game.

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by MindTrigger

 Star Wars Galaxies was a mess of a game from a technical and polish standpoint, yet most of the people who played it back in the day still proclaim their undying love for it.  There are many reasons people loved this game, and I can't recall anyone ever complaining about lack of content.

SWG seriously lacked content and it was the primary reason why I quit playing the game after a few months.  There were only so many times you could run the same repeatable missions over and over and the Jedi grind just highlighted the fact that the devs wanted you to keep repeating stuff because they were out of ideas.

So how does your experience from the many, many people like me who played the game for years?  Your experience does not equal everyone else's.

I completely agree 100% on EVERY point that  the OP has made. And I would LOVE if mmos were like that again.

The only problem is.. there's NO money in it, or very little. And thats that problem. The % of players that would enjoy a sandbox with an imersive world is completly shadowed by the Short term  "give me a flashy game for 2 months before school starts" crowd.

All comes down to where the money is, and its just not in sandboxes.

The Genre went Main stream - and that ruined it.

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by MindTrigger

 

So how does your experience from the many, many people like me who played the game for years?  Your experience does not equal everyone else's.

For one, his experiences represent  a larger consensus. Old MMOs were not popular games. Todays MMOs are - thanks to the changes. Also, today you have a wide array of MMOs to choose from so you don't have to stick to one game for years. This is partly why Ultima Online is never, ever coming back. Players have options now and they don't have to put up with anything. You don't make a game massive with a collection of unpopular design decisions.

Is Mortal Online massive? -No it is not. I see more people on a TF2 server in ten minutes than in a day with MO.

It certainly doesn't help that "sandbox" is synonomous to piss poor production values and gameplay. They are a lucrative business for an indie developer because even if you did a shitty job, the competition is not much better. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" is exactly how I would describe the sandbox market.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by MindTrigger

 

So how does your experience from the many, many people like me who played the game for years?  Your experience does not equal everyone else's.

For one, his experiences represent  a larger consensus. Old MMOs were not popular games. Todays MMOs are - thanks to the changes. Also, today you have a wide array of MMOs to choose from so you don't have to stick to one game for years. This is partly why Ultima Online is never, ever coming back. Players have options now and they don't have to put up with anything. You don't make a game massive with a collection of unpopular design decisions.

Is Mortal Online massive? -No it is not. I see more people on a TF2 server in ten minutes than in a day with MO.

It certainly doesn't help that "sandbox" is synonomous to piss poor production values and gameplay. They are a lucrative business for an indie developer because even if you did a shitty job, the competition is not much better. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" is exactly how I would describe the sandbox market.

I dont think the return of "sandboxes", if there is such a thing, is what he was arguing.

What he is arguing is, within the scope of your argument, is a idea that "the changes went too far", that the devs are too much focused on quick bucks from the game jumpers, loosing long term players in the process.

It is interesting that you mention TF2, which has crafting, "drops" and limited character customisation with gear, while lately you can get the idea that this is something we want to drop from mmos :)

Runescape is (still, somehow) massive :)

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Quirhid

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" is exactly how I would describe the sandbox market.

That's a great quote and a reasonable description of the market.