What can be done to revive the MMO genre? Can it be revived? Is there any hope?

[Algol]

WoW ruined my life, but not because I actually played it (I barely did). It's because I grew up playing the actual Warcraft games, and figured that WoW was that, but with 3d graphics and in real-time with a bunch of other people all across the globe (i.e. a real-time strategy game with real-world players as soldiers in a campaign). After just a little over and hour of trying it back in, I want to say 2005, my dissapointment was massive to say the least.

Many wild boars were killed, but why? The whole thing made me feel so hollow. I'm thinking about giving Classic a shot lately, but yeah... seems pointless.

[sheet]

WoW ruined my life, but not because I actually played it (I barely did). It's because I grew up playing the actual Warcraft games, and figured that WoW was that, but with 3d graphics and in real-time with a bunch of other people all across the globe (i.e. a real-time strategy game with real-world players as soldiers in a campaign). After just a little over and hour of trying it back in, I want to say 2005, my dissapointment was massive to say the least.

Many wild boars were killed, but why? The whole thing made me feel so hollow. I'm thinking about giving Classic a shot lately, but yeah... seems pointless.

This happened to me, too. I was a huge WC2-3 fan. I bought WoW in early 2005, rolled a paladin, then misunderstood how judgments were used so I was just auto-attacking and refreshing buffs. I made it to 35 before I said "this is ******* boring" and gave my account to a friend. I tried it again a few months later but thankfully rolled a mage.

[J1M]

MMOs are saved. The solution was a cosmetic Barbie house.

[Maledict]

I don't get how someone would pay to play a game every single month. I would understand if they had special tier and people who pay monthly would get expansions for free, but they don't. This is some extreme cuckoldry.

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't get how someone would pay to play a game every single month. I would understand if they had special tier and people who pay monthly would get expansions for free, but they don't. This is some extreme cuckoldry.

It was warranted because of the cost of actually running such services in the 90s/00s, now the cost is much lower that you're supposed to be paying for regular content development, which is often just a scam — why would I want to pay for something that doesn't exist yet and I may not know if I even like?

[Maledict]

Imagine if they revived The Secter World with combat more like any of the mmo fighter shooter games with D-names.

[Xenich]

I don't get how someone would pay to play a game every single month. I would understand if they had special tier and people who pay monthly would get expansions for free, but they don't. This is some extreme cuckoldry.

What system do you think they should have?

[Maledict]

I don't get how someone would pay to play a game every single month. I would understand if they had special tier and people who pay monthly would get expansions for free, but they don't. This is some extreme cuckoldry.

What system do you think they should have?

F2P to maximise the amount of players. You can lock extension behind a paywall. Old extensions should get lower prices over time (MMOs infamously don't ever adjust prices). Itemshop focused on cosmetics, esp. pets and mounts (but don't lock F2P out of faster movement!). Lock housing behind itemshop. I'm okay with paid-for items cutting grind time. I can grind. I'm also okay with races and some classes being locked behind a paywall. I don't like the locks on maximum currency held though. I'm okay with full F2P players not having a bank to store items in. I'm even okay with full F2P not being able to list items on marketplace.

Full F2P == never made any purchase.

[Xenich]

I don't get how someone would pay to play a game every single month. I would understand if they had special tier and people who pay monthly would get expansions for free, but they don't. This is some extreme cuckoldry.

What system do you think they should have?

F2P to maximise the amount of players. You can lock extension behind a paywall. Old extensions should get lower prices over time (MMOs infamously don't ever adjust prices). Itemshop focused on cosmetics, esp. pets and mounts (but don't lock F2P out of faster movement!). Lock housing behind itemshop. I'm okay with paid-for items cutting grind time. I can grind. I'm also okay with races and some classes being locked behind a paywall. I don't like the locks on maximum currency held though. I'm okay with full F2P players not having a bank to store items in. I'm even okay with full F2P not being able to list items on marketplace.

Full F2P == never made any purchase.

Ok, so travel speed, housing, and "how you look" will be PTW? Paid for items? You mean.. item sales? Also it seems people have to "pay" for bank and storage as well as being able to "sell" items in game to a certain extent?

Question...

What does someone have to do to have all of that, no restrictions, etc... do they pay for every single item individually? If so, would the "pay for everything" be equivalent to that of someone who simply paid a "monthly fee" or would it be cheaper? More expensive? etc... in terms of traditional "sub" concepts?

[Maledict]

What system do you think they should have?

F2P to maximise the amount of players. You can lock extension behind a paywall. Old extensions should get lower prices over time (MMOs infamously don't ever adjust prices). Itemshop focused on cosmetics, esp. pets and mounts (but don't lock F2P out of faster movement!). Lock housing behind itemshop. I'm okay with paid-for items cutting grind time. I can grind. I'm also okay with races and some classes being locked behind a paywall. I don't like the locks on maximum currency held though. I'm okay with full F2P players not having a bank to store items in. I'm even okay with full F2P not being able to list items on marketplace.

Full F2P == never made any purchase.

Ok, so travel speed, housing, and "how you look" will be PTW? Paid for items? You mean.. item sales? Also it seems people have to "pay" for bank and storage as well as being able to "sell" items in game to a certain extent?

Question...

What does someone have to do to have all of that, no restrictions, etc... do they pay for every single item individually? If so, would the "pay for everything" be equivalent to that of someone who simply paid a "monthly fee" or would it be cheaper? More expensive? etc... in terms of traditional "sub" concepts?

If you ever bought any item with real money you get promoted to non-f2p account and have any gameplay resitrictions such as selling on the market lifted. E.g. if you buy a 5 quid mount or whatever else, no matter how cheap. As I said, travel speed wouldn't be restricted. Cosmetics, incl. housing, aren't P2W. They're vanity.

[Xenich]

F2P to maximise the amount of players. You can lock extension behind a paywall. Old extensions should get lower prices over time (MMOs infamously don't ever adjust prices). Itemshop focused on cosmetics, esp. pets and mounts (but don't lock F2P out of faster movement!). Lock housing behind itemshop. I'm okay with paid-for items cutting grind time. I can grind. I'm also okay with races and some classes being locked behind a paywall. I don't like the locks on maximum currency held though. I'm okay with full F2P players not having a bank to store items in. I'm even okay with full F2P not being able to list items on marketplace.

Full F2P == never made any purchase.

Ok, so travel speed, housing, and "how you look" will be PTW? Paid for items? You mean.. item sales? Also it seems people have to "pay" for bank and storage as well as being able to "sell" items in game to a certain extent?

Question...

What does someone have to do to have all of that, no restrictions, etc... do they pay for every single item individually? If so, would the "pay for everything" be equivalent to that of someone who simply paid a "monthly fee" or would it be cheaper? More expensive? etc... in terms of traditional "sub" concepts?

If you ever bought any item with real money you get promoted to non-f2p account and have any gameplay resitrictions such as selling on the market lifted. E.g. if you buy a 5 quid mount or whatever else, no matter how cheap. As I said, travel speed wouldn't be restricted. Cosmetics, incl. housing, aren't P2W. They're vanity.

So PTW features (ie you can "buy" game play advancement) to gain sub based membership?

Ok, so "game play" isn't your concern here. You don't have a problem with people "buying" advancement, as long as it funds the game I guess.

I would rather play with a bunch of people who "pay" to access the game and then "earn" their play through... play.

Basically, you just explained the problem with modern MMOs and the gamers that play them.

So why would people of the past pay a monthly sub to "play" a game? Because the wanted to "play" a game, not "game" the game.

[Norfleet]

I would rather play with a bunch of people who "pay" to access the game and then "earn" their play through... play.

Basically, you just explained the problem with modern MMOs and the gamers that play them.

The way I see it, if you're paying for something on a monthly basis, you are now obligated to use the entire month you paid for. I buy an entire month of Internets...I'm using the ENTIRE **** MONTH OF INTERNETS. Otherwise you're being suckered. So you've essentially bought yourself a second entire life, job included. Except most these people still bother logging off, for some reason, which, I said, youi must never do or you're leaving money on the table. And I would rather NOT be playing with people like this because these people are clearly mentally deficient in some way as they cannot see this obvious logic. Having them on the other team is fine, though.

Additionally: In the game you describe, you pay to lose. Even when you don't win, you're still requires to pay for it. In a pay-to-win game, you're only required to pay if you want to WIN, and I see it as a challenge to win without paying anyway.

You may argue that the structure of a pay-to-win game fundamentally distorts developer incentive towards a "create the problem, sell the solution" mindset. Well, subscriptions do the same, they just produce a different structure. In a pay-to-win game, the game is hard and/or tedious and the developers are attempting to sell a workaround for this. In a subscription game, the game is just tedious, not even hard, and, of course, you're paying already just to lose at it, as the goal is to drag out everything for as long as possible to keep people paying their shekels. For the developer, the ideal design is a game that nobody is actually playing anymore, but they keep paying for anyway because cancelling their subscription is too bothersome or they're locked in through sunk cost thinking. And I just don't see how this is an improvement.

So why would people of the past pay a monthly sub to "play" a game? Because the wanted to "play" a game, not "game" the game.

Because they were SUCKERS, that's why.

[Xenich]

I would rather play with a bunch of people who "pay" to access the game and then "earn" their play through... play.

Basically, you just explained the problem with modern MMOs and the gamers that play them.

The way I see it, if you're paying for something on a monthly basis, you are now obligated to use the entire month you paid for. I buy an entire month of Internets...I'm using the ENTIRE **** MONTH OF INTERNETS. Otherwise you're being suckered. So you've essentially bought yourself a second entire life, job included. Except most these people still bother logging off, for some reason, which, I said, youi must never do or you're leaving money on the table. And I would rather NOT be playing with people like this because these people are clearly mentally deficient in some way as they cannot see this obvious logic. Having them on the other team is fine, though.

Additionally: In the game you describe, you pay to lose. Even when you don't win, you're still requires to pay for it. In a pay-to-win game, you're only required to pay if you want to WIN, and I see it as a challenge to win without paying anyway.

You may argue that the structure of a pay-to-win game fundamentally distorts developer incentive towards a "create the problem, sell the solution" mindset. Well, subscriptions do the same, they just produce a different structure. In a pay-to-win game, the game is hard and/or tedious and the developers are attempting to sell a workaround for this. In a subscription game, the game is just tedious, not even hard, and, of course, you're paying already just to lose at it, as the goal is to drag out everything for as long as possible to keep people paying their shekels. For the developer, the ideal design is a game that nobody is actually playing anymore, but they keep paying for anyway because cancelling their subscription is too bothersome or they're locked in through sunk cost thinking. And I just don't see how this is an improvement.

So why would people of the past pay a monthly sub to "play" a game? Because the wanted to "play" a game, not "game" the game.

Because they were SUCKERS, that's why.

Norfleet, no offense, but the way and type of game you like to play isn't what I would say is what represents what I would prefer in gaming. Not saying you are bad in what you want, but I wouldn't play a game you designed even though I would find it interesting in how you approached that design.

[Xenich]

To give you an idea of what I like, what is acceptable and sought in terms of an MMO offering, I think of EQ... first three expansions (in terms of content and direction, "with some exceptions") and even a few expansions after in terms of consistent content release timing.

If a company can provide that rate of content release while retaining quality in terms of the amount of content, then it is worth a "monthly fee" and "Expansion" cost. I don't see a problem with that. I see FTP, or any other "cheat sale" focus as compromising game play to attend to an audience who isn't interested in a game, but something else.

I know what I am getting with that, a consistent pay amount for a consistent return. FTP is just hobo gamers hoping that "*****" will pay their way.

[Norfleet]

Norfleet, no offense, but the way and type of game you like to play isn't what I would say is what represents what I would prefer in gaming.

Honestly, I'm pretty open to any number of designs. I just have two absolute hard dealbreakers:

1. I won't install any spyware, malware, or any other thing that would break core functionality on my computer

2. I won't do anything that causes me personally to lose money. Whether or not I gain any money or someone else loses money, not my problem. But if *I'm* going to lose money on the deal, then this is the worst deal in the history of trade deals, and I'm out. If I can get a better position simply by doing nothing, then why would I do anything? Remember: Every deal has a sucker, and if you don't see him, it's you.

These points are strictly non-negotiable.

Not saying you are bad in what you want, but I wouldn't play a game you designed even though I would find it interesting in how you approached that design.

Yeah, I'll keep that in mind when I start handing out test codes.

To give you an idea of what I like, what is acceptable and sought in terms of an MMO offering, I think of EQ... first three expansions (in terms of content and direction, "with some exceptions") and even a few expansions after in terms of consistent content release timing.

See, this is all fine and good. I heard some pretty funny **** out of EQ. And if it weren't for it being a hard dealbreaker, I'd have probably played it and liked it. But, like I said: STRICTLY NON-NEGOTIABLE.

If a company can provide that rate of content release while retaining quality in terms of the amount of content, then it is worth a "monthly fee" and "Expansion" cost.

The moment money enters the equation, everything else shuts off and my brain becomes a strict number-crunching machine. I've had to be in this way in life, otherwise I'd be broke.

I don't see a problem with that.

Well, I do: The part where it becomes an unsustainable money pit where I lose all my money. *MY* money. That part is important. I'm willing to accept less, or even no, profit. The moment it becomes a loss, though, the deal is off. Negative cashflow is not a sustainable enterprise.

I see FTP, or any other "cheat sale" focus as compromising game play to attend to an audience who isn't interested in a game, but something else.

I see any kind of financial incentive as such.

I know what I am getting with that, a consistent pay amount for a consistent return.

No, no you don't. Sure, you get a consistent rate of loss. But a consistent return is hardly assured.

FTP is just hobo gamers hoping that "*****" will pay their way.

I'm okay with this. I'd prefer a return to the Good Old Days of MUDs where the notion of anyone having to pay for anything wasn't even really in the cards, but I understand that fancy servers cost cash to run and the devs aren't interested in losing money any more than I am. But I'm not giving up my money for something that gives me neither profit nor control. I don't have anything against it, but if they're going to view things in terms of greed, then so am I.

[Stack of Turtles]

Giving video game companies your money is ********.

[Ranselknulf]

money is ********.

fixed

[Stack of Turtles]

money is ********.

fixed

You're welcome to get rid of yours by mailing it to me

[asf]

WoW ruined my life, but not because I actually played it (I barely did). It's because I grew up playing the actual Warcraft games, and figured that WoW was that, but with 3d graphics and in real-time with a bunch of other people all across the globe (i.e. a real-time strategy game with real-world players as soldiers in a campaign). After just a little over and hour of trying it back in, I want to say 2005, my dissapointment was massive to say the least.

Many wild boars were killed, but why? The whole thing made me feel so hollow. I'm thinking about giving Classic a shot lately, but yeah... seems pointless.

writing was on the wall

[Oyster Sauce]

WoW ruined my life, but not because I actually played it (I barely did). It's because I grew up playing the actual Warcraft games, and figured that WoW was that, but with 3d graphics and in real-time with a bunch of other people all across the globe (i.e. a real-time strategy game with real-world players as soldiers in a campaign). After just a little over and hour of trying it back in, I want to say 2005, my dissapointment was massive to say the least.

Many wild boars were killed, but why? The whole thing made me feel so hollow. I'm thinking about giving Classic a shot lately, but yeah... seems pointless.

You should have been playing Savage II

[anvi]

I don't think MMOs should come back. They are too ********. I loved early EQ but it became a completely different game about a year later. Mostly because everyone became obsessed with raiding which I truly hate. But also because everyone basically started cheating. In early EQ the game used to lock your screen because it was early 3D graphics days. So you couldn't alt tab. And even if you could, there was hardly anything on the internet about it back then. A year or so later there were maps of every zone, guides to everything, databases of all the items and stuff. People are ******* ****** peasants sometimes. It's like buying a brand new game and the first thing you do is look up a Walktrhough to follow. I refused to be part of it but it only lead to problems and awkwardness. I would join a group of guildmates and one prick would be leading us somewhere in a hurry. I eventually asked wtf is going on, and they said oh he has a laptop! So he has maps and things on his second pc. I felt dirty. I had played the game for a year already and nobody knew anything. That was the main attraction. People were figuring things out by playing, together. Talking to people was the biggest source of information. It was perfect. As soon as everyone started following guides it became AspergersQuest full of dorks who didn't care about grouping anymore. They just formed cliques and guilds and were only interested in the shortest possible route towards the "Best In Slot" items they looked up online.

I really hated it. I probably would have hated it if it was like that when I started too. It would have seemed like school. You have to do homework to learn things on your own time, and then log in to go directly to what you read about. But the fact I went a year in the game when it was like a completely different type of experience just made me so disappointed. The raid obsession made things even worse too. Everyone went from being fascinated by the huge world full of group dungeons, and the gear from the many named mobs in the dungeons. But as soon as raids came along with gear with bigger stats, the entire rest of the game world became obsolete. Nobody gave a **** about dungeons or nameds anymore. They were just an inconvenience that people wanted to rush through asap to reach the high levels and join the raids.

I loved early EQ and talk about it a lot and yet I only played it for a couple of years. I quit because of all this stuff and never paid them again. I switched to emulator servers instead which were somewhat better. But they had the same problems too eventually, but at least I wasn't paying for it.

I think MMOs need to die and be reborn as different genres. They really should at the very least splinter into 3 separate genres instead of trying to be all things to all people. I don't believe that people really want raids. But I would like to see some games make huge "massively multiplayerrr" focused games. If only so they can go bankrupt and prove to the world that nobody really wants to play **** like that. People only did it for the past 20 years because raid loot had bigger numbers than group loot. Either way, people can play that and I can play something else.

Then there needs to be group based online RPGs. Like an MMO but it quickly matchmakes people into groups of 6 and then you go on big adventures that are well tuned for 6 people. Like EQ when it was at its best. But without all the extra ****, it would let them focus on just perfecting that. It also puts them in more direct competition with more tuned games like DoS2 or whatever. "Couch Co-op". That way everyone knows where they stand. Larian can't be half assed queers if they know they are competing with a big MMO type game that does the same thing. And any big group focused MMO knows it can't be too grindy and money whorish if it has to compete with cozy couch co-ops.

And then third option is a solo/duo/trio small group based MMO. I know it seems weird to have people that want to solo in an MMO. But it's not really. A lot of people really wanted to play Skyrim with a buddy. And ESO is not it. It may seem illogical to have soloing in an MMO. But you get a chatroom built into the game and people like that. You get to do your anti social soloing without being completely separated from humans. You see people talking about stuff in the big global chat. Also people constantly ask questions and if you read all the answers, you learn a lot. It's a lot better to learn things from overheard conversations than people reading guides and databases online. It also can make the world seem more interesting because there are real players running around doing things. Cities actually seem more like a populated city, not just a bunch of goofy AI's with day night cycles. Also The Heroes Journey helped prove there is a market for soloable MMOs. The multiclassing was an attraction too but a big part of it is people just want to play at their own pace without having to be part of a group of real people that you massively let down if you decide to go eat dinner.

[rusty_shackleford]

I suspect an MMO that focuses on small group content(2-4 people) would do well. No need to fundamentally alter the formula as there's something special about being in a world with other players even if you don't interact with them.

I also do not like games that consist entirely of instances, the over world itself is enjoyable.

[Xenich]

I suspect an MMO that focuses on small group content(2-4 people) would do well. No need to fundamentally alter the formula as there's something special about being in a world with other players even if you don't interact with them.

I also do not like games that consist entirely of instances, the over world itself is enjoyable.

What did you think of some of EQ 2's "mixed" dungeon content, where you had main areas of contested, but then various instances on key areas?

[rusty_shackleford]

I suspect an MMO that focuses on small group content(2-4 people) would do well. No need to fundamentally alter the formula as there's something special about being in a world with other players even if you don't interact with them.

I also do not like games that consist entirely of instances, the over world itself is enjoyable.

What did you think of some of EQ 2's "mixed" dungeon content, where you had main areas of contested, but then various instances on key areas?

I was going to say I don't remember this but then I did remember it in the same area I got my gliding mount.
I don't remember much about it!

[Xenich]

I suspect an MMO that focuses on small group content(2-4 people) would do well. No need to fundamentally alter the formula as there's something special about being in a world with other players even if you don't interact with them.

I also do not like games that consist entirely of instances, the over world itself is enjoyable.

What did you think of some of EQ 2's "mixed" dungeon content, where you had main areas of contested, but then various instances on key areas?

I was going to say I don't remember this but then I did remember it in the same area I got my gliding mount.
I don't remember much about it!

For the most part the dungeon was "contested" with standard EQ like respawns, but then for key areas for special quests, end mobs, etc... it would have an instance.

I think they did it more to control things with timers and locks. It was kind of wonky to be honest and had a lot of headaches as well. Nektropos Castle is an example of it, Ruins of Varsoon, etc.. they did this off and on throughout the expansions and in various implementations. I think they were trying to experiment with different ways to deal with contested vs instancing concepts. Eventually though they just started focusing on instancing everything, but it was an interesting concept though, not sure if it really was the right way to go to be honest.

I do enjoy contested content, but not for the sake of "competing", rather I just like the idea of camp cycles. I think THJs approach was actually the best implementation I had seen with its optional guaranteed all named up instance on a lock out timer, and a non-lockout timer instance where it acted like a traditional respawn cycle (ie named pops aren't guaranteed).

[anvi]

I suspect an MMO that focuses on small group content(2-4 people) would do well. No need to fundamentally alter the formula as there's something special about being in a world with other players even if you don't interact with them.

I also do not like games that consist entirely of instances, the over world itself is enjoyable.

I'd play that. The formula could mostly stay the same but my point is that if you focus on 4 people or less, then there could/should be no raid content at all. I think most EQ expansions were about 50% raid content so they could have been a lot better if focused on one thing. Vanguard did a good job of no instancing. It was just a big world with a lot of dungeons. They added some instanced stuff later on for the top levels. But I didn't play that. It also added stuff to help travelling. Like if you join a group that is already in a dungeon, they can summon you to them once you get close. Don't need a mage or anything.

[rusty_shackleford]

shame they're unwilling to put in any effort to fix up eq live or eq2, would need a pass to greatly reduce number & ability bloat but could probably get a good deal of new players

[Xenich]

shame they're unwilling to put in any effort to fix up eq live or eq2, would need a pass to greatly reduce number & ability bloat but could probably get a good deal of new players

They might, but for me, a TON of crap would have to change to make me want to go back and play it again traditionally. Too much QoL and modern gimmickry, and they would definitely have to reduce the raid sizes greatly (12, max 18). The only thing I am considering is their new THJ type server which could be interesting, especially if they continue that all the way up through the later expansions. It would be an interesting journey to be able to do most of that later content solo or with a couple other people. I barely touched the game much after GoD release, and never to any real depth of play.

[Xenich]

More on the concept of EQ for future. I think the THJ angle could be a solid approach for them, but to be honest... as Rusty said, a very solid "approach" to the original game, tweaking things back to more "game play" rather than "chase the bouncy ball" modern gimmicky could do well for them. The thing is, EQ is dying, and the only savior it has is trying to go back to its core design to pull back in the older players. Modern players don't give a flying crap about EQ and no amount of modernization is going to save it. If they want to ride it out, they have to go back to their roots, focus on game play, which I am sure many will disagree with, but that means hardship, frustration, long based goals, earned though blood sweat and tears. Game processes that have real consequence, real "risk vs reward" and elements of play that require the player to be responsible in play and not rely on numerous modern tools to do the work for them.

I also think they need to figure out how to make Vanguard viable and use that as a new starting point. It is a good game, good features, and a lot of people have not played it. If they could pull it out and make it viable, with the numerous unique features it has, they could ride that one for quite a while building new content and direction. Unfortunately, I think most of those developing these MMOs are not gamers, but business types and they have no vision unless it is trying to figure out ways for people to pay money for things they already can do for free, which makes them useless and will be the eventual death of the industry.

Honestly, I am interested to see how M&M plays out. I think... it might do well, and in doing so may spur daybreak and other companies to try and "capture" that essence, though I know they will get it wrong in the process, they always do.