Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

MMO's do NOT work in the U.S.Follow

#27 Jun 01 2013 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,313 posts
Quote:
I for one believe if XIV ARR and Elder Scrolls Online flop, you can kiss MMOs in the U.S. goodbye.


I think you're forgetting a little thing called project Titan.
____________________________
Eithne Draocht
My IG: archaicmachinery - Friend me!
#28 Jun 01 2013 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
***
3,718 posts
Quote:
I for one believe if XIV ARR and Elder Scrolls Online flop, you can kiss MMOs in the U.S. goodbye.


I'm not sure why you'd put ARR in as the linchpin to MMO success in the US, especially as it's not a US game.

The success or failure of a genre of media doesn't hinge on one or two products. ****, World of Warcraft by itself can carry MMOs for another four or five years without really noticing that it's done it. There's just too much importance being placed on one or two products here.

For instance, the first-person shooter genre doesn't hinge on how good the latest Modern Warfare is. The sports game genre doesn't hang on the success or failure of Fifa.

Genres don't work like that.

The problem is that the measurement of "success" is set so unreasonably high that only WoW can reach it. That's just silly, and it has to stop. The genre as a whole will do much MUCH better as soon as everyone stops trying to make the next WoW and starts filling niches and being happy with a few hundred thousand subscribers (or whatever the equivalent is in f2p players).
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#29 Jun 01 2013 at 9:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
LebargeX wrote:
Dizmo wrote:
They keep flopping because they're mostly terrible.

And take two has decided that rather than try to make something better they are just going to schlep more crap to Asia. Way to innovate Smiley: oyvey


This is my point exactly.

When your goal is to maximize profits this is what happens. Though it's not surprising, you see an ever expanding market in Asia and how ridiculous profits can be; why wouldn't you do this (as a company).

This then isn't a problem with MMOs or any other type of game, but rather how stale developers have become and speaks more about the state of the industry than anything else.

Just because you (generally) can't be innovative to find ways to be successful and profitable in other ways, doesn't mean its the genre's fault.

Ironically or coincidentally this is what happened to SE. JRPGs were never really popular here in the states, so what did SE do when they almost completely fell out of favor?

They bought companies like Eidos and became more of a publisher than developer. Well that and rehash FFVII spinoffs.

---

I don't know why but these sorts of dichotomies seem to be magnified in the gaming industry. Where it's profits over creativity. Yes, I know it exists, especially in other industries, like the music industry specifically. Maybe it exists because of the sheer complexity of games and the development costs to create a truly good game is so high, comparatively. That, and how difficult it is to get traction in the industry, especially if you're appealing to a niche group.

Whatever the case it's disheartening.
#30 Jun 01 2013 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
*
106 posts
Transmigration wrote:
Quote:
I for one believe if XIV ARR and Elder Scrolls Online flop, you can kiss MMOs in the U.S. goodbye.


I think you're forgetting a little thing called project Titan.


One of the things that triggered the original comment was the fact that Blizzard announced this week that Titan has been delayed, 70% of the project team has been reassigned, and they're reportedly doing a complete overhaul of what they've accomplished thus far. So Titan won't be a factor in the US MMO market in the next 3+ years.

I think one thing that may have been missed overall is that a lot of the NA gamer-base are still playing online, but they're choosing iOS apps, Facebook games, and FPS multiplayer. The "massively multiplayer online" part is alive and well, but the "role playing game" end of the equation seems to be falling out of favor.
#31 Jun 01 2013 at 10:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
We probably shouldn't rely on large developers too much. If they don't expect a game will reach mass appeal with millions of subs they won't even bother, which leaves little scope for innovation and creation of rich, challenging games unless they have people at the top who really understand the problems with the genre and are willing to take risks.

Though, listening to the EQ3 developers' interviews, it sounds like they realised mid-development that making another generic MMO would just flop again, and decided to start again from scratch, so I guess all hope isn't lost. Maybe Blizzard had similar reasons for doing a complete overhaul of Titan...

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 12:44am by Dizmo
#32 Jun 01 2013 at 10:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
273 posts
Kachi wrote:
Parathyroid wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Americans, at least the younger generation, do not have the patience or attention span to invest in a MMO, especially since most involve the creating and growing of a character. Most want instant gratification.


This is B.S., and your parents said the same thing about your generation.

Edit: Sorry, that came out harsher than intended. What I mean is, every generation thinks that "kids these days--no discipline." It's a known bias that has little to do with the success or failure of MMOs.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 2:22pm by Kachi


You don't believe there is any truth to modern technology having an "instant gratification" effect on each subsequent generation?


I do, but that's not the same thing as "lacking patience or attention span." It's contextual. The kids haven't changed--their environment has. And when it's an important social issue, like education, that's concerning, but also not their fault (and generally speaking, has shown that their patience and attention spans are fine). When it's a question of which video game they choose when they plop down in front of a screen, it has nothing to do with patience or attention span, but a desire for stimulation. You can blame MMOs for not being more stimulating (because they're repetitive, boring, and one of the last things you want young people to spend their time on), but you can't blame kids for being discerning consumers of media.

i.e., it's not about "instant" gratification, but the quality of the gratification. MMOs just don't really deliver much in that regard. And who cares?


I just don't agree that the "quality or uniqueness" of the experience in a FPS is somehow better than that on an MMO. Call of Duty for instance provides literally the same exact experience slightly modified over-and-over-and-over-and-over again with each new edition of the game.

You seem cynical towards the MMO genre in general, however I think the true frustration should be directed at no-ballsack-having developers who are scared s***less to push the envelope. And who can blame them, no one wants to invest millions of dollars into something which is going to stir-the-pot, when there is a set of commonly accepted tenants which are the gold standard for "what an MMORPG should be"... Really though, which genres haven't grown into a comfy routine?

You don't really see much in the way of groundbreaking experience in terms of gameplay anymore... the entire game industry (not including the mobile phone game industry) is one way or another tied to big business which tell the developer you do it my way or I'm pulling my dollars out.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 1:11am by Parathyroid
____________________________
[ffxivsig]2041793[/ffxivsig]

I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
#33 Jun 01 2013 at 10:54 PM Rating: Good
***
1,313 posts


Hankshmi wrote:
Transmigration wrote:
Quote:
I for one believe if XIV ARR and Elder Scrolls Online flop, you can kiss MMOs in the U.S. goodbye.


I think you're forgetting a little thing called project Titan.


One of the things that triggered the original comment was the fact that Blizzard announced this week that Titan has been delayed, 70% of the project team has been reassigned, and they're reportedly doing a complete overhaul of what they've accomplished thus far. So Titan won't be a factor in the US MMO market in the next 3+ years.

I think one thing that may have been missed overall is that a lot of the NA gamer-base are still playing online, but they're choosing iOS apps, Facebook games, and FPS multiplayer. The "massively multiplayer online" part is alive and well, but the "role playing game" end of the equation seems to be falling out of favor.


I see, that's a huge bummer. Then again, if things pan out for XIV, I won't be paying much attention to any gaming news for a while :p

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 12:54am by Transmigration
____________________________
Eithne Draocht
My IG: archaicmachinery - Friend me!
#34 Jun 01 2013 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
*****
12,816 posts
For the most part, the comment is right. While you have mainstay MMOs like WoW, every new MMO, when developers specifically try to target the US market, end up flopping hard and the MMO itself is necessarily not a bad one. When an MMO works in Korea/China/Japan and they want to expand and it flops, it's usually because the US market is so picky and critical about everything that it's hard to design an MMO that will please more than one region.

#35 Jun 01 2013 at 11:00 PM Rating: Good
***
2,232 posts
I think if they offered it I would probably roll on a RP server. I think it's probably where I'd find the most like minded people.

But yeah. If you're not head shot mobile app friends list buddy time shoot em up you're not selling games any more. Oh and by the way now offering DLC in app purchasing credits of goodness. BLEH
____________________________
Character: Urzol Thrush
Server: Ultros
FC: The Kraken Club

Outshined

Teneleven wrote:
We secretly replaced your tank wemelchor with Foldgers Crystal's. Let's see what happens.

#36 Jun 02 2013 at 4:38 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
972 posts
BrokenFox wrote:
MMOs work everywhere, it's just a matter of making a good game. 99% of the MMOs that have come out in the last 10 years have been WoW clones looking to bank on that success. Make something original and cool and people will play it.

If a game was 100% original you could be sure there would be somethings not so liked. I blame part of the clone thing combat wise on the hardware interfaces. Just as with a controller you can't type fast. A standard keyboard has no analogs or motion sensors and there is not much places to go besides hotkeys.

Ostia wrote:
You will never get the same feeling you got when playing your very first MMO. That is mostly why most MMO Fail, we go into them with the expectation of feeling this new fresh experience, when in fact, we already know what we are gonna get, so i have to kill x rats and you give me rewards ? Kay! I can craft my own weapons ? Duh!, i should party in order to progress... Kay! Is all the same, we just love to kid ourselves in expecting something new and shiny.

You will never get the same feeling of playing a game in your favorite genre for the first time period. The reason why mmos have it harder is because they want you to play years with the similar content while a non mmo game only needs you to play until their next offering releases. ****, not even that. They just need you to buy the box lol.

Parathyroid wrote:
You believe with the recent string of MMO failures, if two MEGA budget MMOs flop, developers/investors will continue to poor millions of dollars into investments that they believe will likely flop?

Now, I do believe small budget MMOs will still hang around, but nothing like the blockbuster type games we see today. I suppose I should have specified as such.

Investors will invest early regardless of the unknown outcome as they always have. When sh*t goes sour they duck and run.

Hankshmi wrote:
think one thing that may have been missed overall is that a lot of the NA gamer-base are still playing online, but they're choosing iOS apps, Facebook games, and FPS multiplayer. The "massively multiplayer online" part is alive and well, but the "role playing game" end of the equation seems to be falling out of favor.

When Google Fiber spreads across the US. The massive multiplayer genre is going to explode. And that devilsh FPS is going to come full storm. RPGS are not out of favor if you look at the single player genre and exclude WoW. It's the majority of mmorpgs that are falling out of favor. Mmorpgs need to step it up gameplay wise. How they do that is anyone's guess.

Dizmo wrote:
Though, listening to the EQ3 developers' interviews, it sounds like they realised mid-development that making another generic MMO would just flop again, and decided to start again from scratch, so I guess all hope isn't lost. Maybe Blizzard had similar reasons for doing a complete overhaul of Titan...

That is Smedley. He wants his company to make the dough. But he has always been a little whacko and oblivious to the risk/reward. I don't like everything he does but I like his passion. My guess is Blizzard saw how Dust 514 fared and see how good a job Destiny seems. So they are going back to the drawing board. Blizzard are the kings of reiteration. They look around and think of how they can one up others ideas.

Parathyroid wrote:
I just don't agree that the "quality or uniqueness" of the experience in a FPS is somehow better than that on an MMO. Call of Duty for instance provides literally the same exact experience slightly modified over-and-over-and-over-and-over again with each new edition of the game.

You seem cynical towards the MMO genre in general, however I think the true frustration should be directed at no-ballsack-having developers who are scared s***less to push the envelope. And who can blame them, no one wants to invest millions of dollars into something which is going to stir-the-pot, when there is a set of commonly accepted tenants which are the gold standard for "what an MMORPG should be"... Really though, which genres haven't grown into a comfy routine?

You don't really see much in the way of groundbreaking experience in terms of gameplay anymore... the entire game industry (not including the mobile phone game industry) is one way or another tied to big business which tell the developer you do it my way or I'm pulling my dollars out.

They do not have an edge in quality or uniqueness. They just appeal to male testosterone and don't require you to play one iteration years to turn a profit.

Yoshi said that SE and Blizzard were probably the only two big companies that could fund a project. I think Blizzard is still under the umbrella of Activision right? If SE could somehow turn ARR into a good profit fast. This triple A mmo is probably the only one with complete autonomy since they are funding it themselves. I do not know who they have on staff to take some risks or if anyone is qualified. But the opportunity is there.

If you were SE, Who would you hire to bring new innovation to the mmorpg genre? Designers, writers, or programmers?





Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 6:52am by sandpark
#37 Jun 02 2013 at 5:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
598 posts
Kierk wrote:
The last MMOs I've played were fun...while they lasted.

End game for me is, the end. I don't really like raiding in the classical sense.

However if there was a world that I loved to remain in, while being entertained in other ways, I'd keep playing forever.

I think MMOs need to focus less on "end game" and create either more horizontal content or just more content in general.

PvP, and Raids just aren't sufficient for longevity anymore.

Final Fantasy's strength is it's story and world and I'd argue it's novelty. It needs to keep me in that world, without repetitive content.

--


All I can say is, "thank you". This brief statement sums up what I believe.

On another note, there aren't many video games (MMO or otherwise) which capture my interest anymore. Probably part of getting old. I loved Starcraft and Warcraft 1&2 but most strategy games now lack appeal because they are all the same or have very similar elements. It was the story in most games that has captured my interest and loyalty. This hope for a good compelling story is what has kept me here and playing XIV since launch. Some might argue my sanity but I agree with other posts. We keep coming back to Square Enix because when we were kids the story and characters from FFIV, FFVI, and VII captured our interest and in sequence won our loyalty.
____________________________
"The next time you have the urge to stab me in the back have the guts to do it to my face." - Malcolm Reynolds
#38 Jun 02 2013 at 5:40 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
262 posts
Quote:
I think MMOs need to focus less on "end game" and create either more horizontal content


That right there is big for me once I do reach the cap and start joining in on the end game content. Once I start collecting some of the nice shiny weapons and armors for my chosen class/job, I don't want new content to just come in and make it completely obsolete in the next update.

I hated in DCUO how I raided my **** off for the top of the line gear, and once it was complete they would introduce new tiers of raids with new tiers of gear shortly thereafter. There was never anything to do with that gear other than use it to try and move up to the next tier to get that gear!

Sure, I know they eventually have to release new content with new shinies to collect. But do the new shinies really need to out class the old gear so much to make them completely obsolete?
#39 Jun 02 2013 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,779 posts
Horizontal content does not work. Guild Wars 2 for the most part attempted this when every quest and action essentially became backwards compatible. It suffered HUGE backlash in the fact that there was no direct endgame waiting for you there, and eventually had to install Fractals to satiate that desire.

Speaking plainly, Horizontal content works only at the endgame and only then in niche markets. FFXI was a standing example on how horizontal content with sidegrades could sustain a niche audience for quite a long time. And I'm somewhat surprised why Yoshida went for the strict progress route. (Honestly, perhaps it was a bid for time. A year is a short time to develop a fully flushed horizontal endgame. FFXI developed theirs over several.)

I flatly won't argue the concept of MMOs doomed to fail. It's silly and contrite. As far as MMOs are concerned, overinflated expectations are the only things that really hamper them. World of Warcraft got lucky in an incredible number of ways and the developers are aware of that. There are simply too many MMOs in the market now for anyone to duplicate that success.
#40 Jun 02 2013 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Google fiber will definitely help push MMOs forward. One of the problems we have now is developers not being able to push enough data through to the client for some of the more ambitious features they'd like to implement. Faster connectivity will also improve the ability to rely on reflexive online play.

Quote:
I just don't agree that the "quality or uniqueness" of the experience in a FPS is somehow better than that on an MMO. Call of Duty for instance provides literally the same exact experience slightly modified over-and-over-and-over-and-over again with each new edition of the game.


Call of Duty allows you to improve your reflexive and real-time tactical skills against other players in a way that MMOs fail to do overall. That's the abbreviated answer to your point.

Hyrist wrote:
Horizontal content does not work. Guild Wars 2 for the most part attempted this when every quest and action essentially became backwards compatible. It suffered HUGE backlash in the fact that there was no direct endgame waiting for you there, and eventually had to install Fractals to satiate that desire.

Speaking plainly, Horizontal content works only at the endgame and only then in niche markets. FFXI was a standing example on how horizontal content with sidegrades could sustain a niche audience for quite a long time. And I'm somewhat surprised why Yoshida went for the strict progress route. (Honestly, perhaps it was a bid for time. A year is a short time to develop a fully flushed horizontal endgame. FFXI developed theirs over several.)

I flatly won't argue the concept of MMOs doomed to fail. It's silly and contrite. As far as MMOs are concerned, overinflated expectations are the only things that really hamper them. World of Warcraft got lucky in an incredible number of ways and the developers are aware of that. There are simply too many MMOs in the market now for anyone to duplicate that success.


Er, GW2 only barely dips its toe into horizontal progression. Horizontal content works fine, but GW2 suffered because there was NO progression of any kind at the end game. And half the progression throughout the game was vertical. Any game with levels should tell you that it's not completely horizontal.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#41 Jun 02 2013 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,173 posts
To me, it feels like the gentleman in the article is trying to apply metrics that frankly haven't adapted to a new paradigm (I'll translate that to English, never fear).

I'd like to use cars as a stand-in for MMOs.

In the 50's, GM had more than 50% marketshare in US automobiles. (citation, http://www.cnbc.com/id/30962998). That is to say, 1 of every 2 cars being sold was a GM car. At the time, the market was relatively small, with only a few domestic manufacturers and very little foreign entrance.

Fast forward to 2012, and that market share is under 20% (citation, http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2011/1202_u_s_markets_share_for_the_top_five_automakers/). The market is quite packed, strong domestic and international competition. Automobile designs are now high segmented to the point where a person can shop for exactly the vehicle they want, not necessarily be stuck with the options any given single company offers.

The fool would say GM is dying because they lost 30% of the market. A wise man would seek to turn 20% into a success story.

SE provided it's own counterargument to Mr. Zelnick just in the game referenced in the initial post; FFXI. FFXI was never a bazillion player runaway success (read: unlike GM, they never hit 50%+ market share). However, it has turned into SE's most profitable game (citation, http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/24/the-most-profitable-final-fantasy-of-all-time-is). SE was able to find success within a smaller market share.

Declaring MMOs dead because they can't hit the sales that WoW hit is like declaring every auto company in the world a failure because they can't hit the old GM market share.

At the same time, you can't keep designing gas guzzlers and expect to compete with efficient cars once gas goes up in price. Recognize the market your in or you struggle.

Part of why I feel that MMOs have been struggling is that game developers are trying to apply lessons in non-MMO games to MMO development. How often do we look at CoD4 and think that it's just a slightly prettier version of CoD3 with updated maps. After all, the game only has to hold over until CoD5 comes out.

Trying to design MMOs that are flashier and shinier and prettier is all well and good, but a population built on that is on unstable footing. Someone will be able to make a flashier, shinier, prettier game next year. Gameplay and story are things not necessarily limited by the next big hardware/software breakthrough, so you can compete with newer games on equal footing. EQ, FFXI, even WoW (I did play it for a while, but never got attached to it) are all not the prettiest things on the market, but people still play them.
____________________________
Valion, San d'Oria - Retired
Odin Server
SAM90/PLD90/COR90/BLU90/RDM90/SCH90

Valion Chevalier, Limsa Lominsa
Hyperion Server
50 All Classes

"Please, I have had too much of the stupid today. Please wait until tomorrow to say these things so my tolerance has refreshed."
-New Gold Dreams (another short-lived webcomic)
#42 Jun 02 2013 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
972 posts
I think horizontal or vertical progress can work. What will surely make a game niche regardless of how you design progression is creating most content to take two years plus to acquire not because of difficulty or uniqueness but included timesinks and gates to hold players. Especially more so if that content comes with every expansion taking two years to implement. I enjoyed acquiring gear in XI somewhat because gear took a bit longer to become obsolete. But it was taken a bit too far and is part of the reason why XI never remained above the niche market.

Mmos are kind of doomed to fail as competition builds. The only over inflated expectation comes in the limitations of bandwidth and hardware power. In the non mmo genre players expect and usually receive a brand new game, set in a new area, with brand new AI, a brand new cgi, and brand new story(Original, not always but brand new). So why would the multitudes expect any less in the mmo space? In mmos they get expansions with 1-3 small areas(maps), 1-2 new classes(if lucky), usually not brand new AI on the whole, they get a short story(but not a brand new enduring/long story if you exclude gating).

90% of mmos all stick to the safe development route. And anytime the playerbase demands or requests something different or bold set in each games universe. They get the same answer which is not completely the devs fault. "It cost too much to implement" or The limitations of bandwidth prevent the gameplay you ask for".

If you want gamers money over the duration of a long time. The average gamer doesn't care what issues you give for excuses. All they see is that they are paying you monthly and you're not filling a need they would like to see from the game. If some limitation prevents you from stepping outside the box genuinely, because it would not function properly due to limitations, then do not do it. If however they see it done in some other game in the same genre. Then they know you are giving the standard mmo development response.

You either fill gamers needs or remain niche or shutdown. Case in point TERA. Released with the most refreshing combat system since sliced white bread according to various game sites. It's questing system was the most straight forward and dull you can think of. Do you have to come right out of the gate and innovate on every front? No. But at least show that some forethought was put into making a good amount of quest feel a bit different. People complain about WoW, the elephant in the room. But it has a boat load of quests and they have some of those cool ones like cannon fire or dragon flying, etc.
#43 Jun 02 2013 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
972 posts
I want to share one way SE could expand upon Chocobos in ARR. We already have them as mounts and combat companions in the standard PvE game. Since the art assets are already in place for them, why not spread it to other areas.
1.Player controlled chocobo jousting leagues with a tournament every three months.
2.Chocobo digging.
3.Different breeds of chocobo, some that run, some that swim, some that fly in special quests or zones.
4.Player controlled chocobo racing leagues with a tournament every three months.
5.Chocobo raising.
6.Different tiers of chocobos, maybe the most coveted is the silver chocobo which moves faster than the other breeds.
7.The evil chocobo forest quest line.

Not all in one shot, one expansion or huge patch at a time.
#44 Jun 02 2013 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
273 posts
sandpark wrote:


They do not have an edge in quality or uniqueness. They just appeal to male testosterone and don't require you to play one iteration years to turn a profit.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 6:52am by sandpark


I don't disagree with your premise that FPS appeals to a certain type of person, but so what? There aren't nerds anymore? Nerds have never been into guns and all that s***, classically nerds are into swords and dragons and magic... unless I'm so out of touch with reality that I don't even know what exists anymore, I would have to believe that you'll always have those kids who would rather fly around on a dragon and cast Fire III, than load up an M24 and shoot people...

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 1:56pm by Parathyroid
____________________________
[ffxivsig]2041793[/ffxivsig]

I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
#45 Jun 02 2013 at 2:42 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
972 posts
Parathyroid wrote:
sandpark wrote:


They do not have an edge in quality or uniqueness. They just appeal to male testosterone and don't require you to play one iteration years to turn a profit.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 6:52am by sandpark


I don't disagree with your premise that FPS appeals to a certain type of person, but so what? There aren't nerds anymore? Nerds have never been into guns and all that s***, classically nerds are into swords and dragons and magic... unless I'm so out of touch with reality that I don't even know what exists anymore, I would have to believe that you'll always have those kids who would rather fly around on a dragon and cast Fire III, than load up an M24 and shoot people...

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 1:56pm by Parathyroid

Oh there is still nerds just less than the common man. Hence why FPS and action games sell more usually. Most of the nerds are busy creating the games versus playing them lol. I'm a closet nerd....
#46Parathyroid, Posted: Jun 02 2013 at 3:05 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Haha same here! Point taken!
#47 Jun 02 2013 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
You know, I love these articles.

"Only two MMOs have been successful."

Orly?

Quote:
“FINAL FANTASY XI” has been continuing services for ten years since its launch, and even if we consider all the server, operational staffing, and maintenance costs in addition to the development costs, the accumulated operating profit generated by the title is close to ¥40 billion. As a single title, “FINAL FANTASY XI” has had the highest level of contribution to our profits. If successful, MMO is a genre where we can achieve very high profitability. Also, the MMO game market itself has been growing at a regular pace.”


Quote:
Turbine’s online role-playing game Lord of the Rings Online has doubled its revenue since it moved from a subscription model to a free-to-play model earlier last month, said the game’s executive producer, Kate Paiz. Paiz made the comment at GDC Online 2010 today.


I could sit here all day and show that companies are making money in the space. Are there ones failing? Sure, but most are WoW clones that were trying to kill WoW by being better at being WoW than WoW was. I mean, we're in an era where selling millions of units can be considered a failure because companies are not planning their budgets appropriately. "Success" seems to be a vary odd word to use.

Maybe he should said, "No MMO has successfully turned into a ginormous, endless money-making machine with the exception of WoW and Everquest."

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 5:51pm by Pawkeshup
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#48 Jun 02 2013 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,004 posts
There have been plenty of MMO's that have been succesful. Some more than others, but definatley more than just 2.

Off the top of my head, 1) WoW , 2) XI , 3) EVE , 4) EQ , 5) EQ2 , 6) runescape , 7) Aion , 8) Lotr , 9) D&D , 10) Tera , 11) Ragnarok , 12) maple story , 13) guildwars , 14) GW2

thats 14 games i can think of.

The problem i see with MMO's is that they don't focus on ALL the areas they need to. Combat and Content a lot of MMO's have (even if they coppied WoW, that formula works), but what a lot of them lack is story and proper questing. For story, this could just be because they present it badly, but i really could care less for the stories in a lot of MMO's ive played. As for questing, it really isn't hard to make a good questing system that doesn't involve fetch quests. I would like to see a system where quests are set up in a chain of maybe 4-5 quests that tells a small story. The only game that does this well that i have played is XI. I actually watched the cutscenes and did a lot of quests because they were fun and interesting (some of them though were a pain in the ***).

I don't know if it's time constraints or laziness, but story and questing are 2 areas that need major improvements (which by now you would think someone would do this). I think Tera, although has fun combat, gets the gold medal for worst questing i have ever had the misfortune to play through. On top of that, questing in that game is tied to leveling so theres no getting around that unless you love to grind.

Anyway thats my little rant. Obviously theres more issues than just the ones ive stated, but these are the ones i consider the big ones that should ALWAYS be given time and care.
#49 Jun 02 2013 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
****
6,899 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
I would like to see a system where quests are set up in a chain of maybe 4-5 quests that tells a small story. The only game that does this well that i have played is XI. I actually watched the cutscenes and did a lot of quests because they were fun and interesting (some of them though were a pain in the ***).


Swtor did this quite well also. Although they still had fetch quests, they were masked by so much story that it really didn't matter. I think you CAN mix in the generic quests, as long as they actually have a compelling reason behind them. For instance, kill 10 rats because they are vermin is silly... however if it's something like "The rats have gotten into toxic waste and are mutating and procreating at an alarming rate. Please go to this area, kill as many as you can find, and destroy their breeding grounds", I'm much more apt to enjoy that quest, as it at least gives me a compelling reason to do the quest. And if that leads into another quest chain where I have to find the source of the toxic waste and eliminate it, all the better.
#50 Jun 02 2013 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
530 posts
BartelX wrote:
Keysofgaruda wrote:
I would like to see a system where quests are set up in a chain of maybe 4-5 quests that tells a small story. The only game that does this well that i have played is XI. I actually watched the cutscenes and did a lot of quests because they were fun and interesting (some of them though were a pain in the ***).


Swtor did this quite well also. Although they still had fetch quests, they were masked by so much story that it really didn't matter. I think you CAN mix in the generic quests, as long as they actually have a compelling reason behind them. For instance, kill 10 rats because they are vermin is silly... however if it's something like "The rats have gotten into toxic waste and are mutating and procreating at an alarming rate. Please go to this area, kill as many as you can find, and destroy their breeding grounds", I'm much more apt to enjoy that quest, as it at least gives me a compelling reason to do the quest. And if that leads into another quest chain where I have to find the source of the toxic waste and eliminate it, all the better.


That actually could work, especially if the reward is based on the number you kill within a given time limit. It might give incentive for people to group up and quest together.
____________________________
i'm not saying, i'm just saying
_________________________
Babu Voyvoda - Hyur Midlander
White Mage
#51 Jun 02 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,004 posts
BartelX wrote:
Keysofgaruda wrote:
I would like to see a system where quests are set up in a chain of maybe 4-5 quests that tells a small story. The only game that does this well that i have played is XI. I actually watched the cutscenes and did a lot of quests because they were fun and interesting (some of them though were a pain in the ***).


Swtor did this quite well also. Although they still had fetch quests, they were masked by so much story that it really didn't matter. I think you CAN mix in the generic quests, as long as they actually have a compelling reason behind them. For instance, kill 10 rats because they are vermin is silly... however if it's something like "The rats have gotten into toxic waste and are mutating and procreating at an alarming rate. Please go to this area, kill as many as you can find, and destroy their breeding grounds", I'm much more apt to enjoy that quest, as it at least gives me a compelling reason to do the quest. And if that leads into another quest chain where I have to find the source of the toxic waste and eliminate it, all the better.


yeah that works too.

You know ive also been thinking about this since i wrote my last post, and what i think is missing from the story and quests from other MMO's are emotion. FFXI did that well by how the characters reacted, and the cutscenes. But since playing tera and aion and a few others, a lot of things are done by a simple wall of text. Sure i can read and gather everything i need to know from the text boxes, but they just don't feel real. It doesn't feel like the characters matter, even if they play a large roll or not.

Since XI was my first MMO it may have spoiled me a bit...but SE was always good at their story telling. I never played SWTOR but ive heard good things on that end though.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2)