(Editor's Note: This was originally a facebook post that brought on a really deep discussion about the MMO genre as a whole, Pantheon's place in it, and some analysis of where the genre has gone since the early days of NWN and UO. The post is shared here and is flagged public, so anyone who'd like to see the discussion prior to this is welcome to head there).
This is a long post and is a mix of game historian, armchair quarterbacking and lots of experience managing projects, products and people in a very competitive space.
WoW is failing, little by little. The theme park model, unlike brick and mortar theme parks, is not sustainable. It's just not possible to deliver fresh content that improves on previous content at the pace required to continually grow your subscriber base while also keeping subscription prices competitive - or worse, static. When Disney or Six Flags adds new attractions, the price of admission and concessions always goes up.
Does this mean the 'Theme Park' MMO is a fad? The recent round of floptastic cash shop-driven free-to-plays and the seemingly perennial failure of other theme park modeled games - despite having budgets in the hundreds of millions - tells me yes.
What we're seeing in the market is more forays into new gameplay experiences, rather than studio after studio trying and failing to essentially build a better Disneyland than Disney. At the end of the day, there never was a wow killer, but there have been dozens if not hundreds of ideas that could have worked had they been developed with solid management, responsible scope, commercially available tools, and most importantly - with user experiences in mind rather than simply content.
The best example I can give of this mindset is Dark Age of Camelot, which was designed by Mark Jacobs to turn a profit at the 50,000 subscriber mark. Not only did it succeed far beyond his wildest dreams, but it continues to this day to turn a profit and EA kept the servers running despite everything else about Mythic being shuttered long ago. How did DAoC stay alive in a time when the market was dominated first by Everquest and then by WoW? The answer is simple: it never competed with them, or competed with them only on small subsets of features. Everything from group size, to combat roles, to the way PvP is woven into the fabric of the game without being an annoying gankfest carved out a niche for the unique experience that playing DAoC delivers.
There's lots of "would have, could have, should have" room here for sure. What if LOTRO focused on delivering the experience of being a hero in Middle-Earth, rather than a person playing WoW in middle earth? Would it have successfully pulled away the audience group of MMO fans who are also Tolkien fans? Simply skinning the same old same old rotational combat, global cooldown oriented gameplay and repetitive fedex questing was clearly, clearly not the correct way to lure Tolkien fans.
The exact same statement is true for SWTOR. If the license doesn't make the theme park successful, it's time to rethink the theme park approach.
The same is true for nostalgia. Wildstar reskinned wow with sci-fi and steampunk and promised brutal grinds and extremely exclusive and difficult raid content to draw away jaded wow players. Yet it bombed. Why? Because it was trying to make a better Disneyland rather than deliver a unique experience. Blizzard didn't move to a more inclusive model because they 'got soft' - they moved to a more inclusive model because it grew their subscriber base.
Publishers, on the other hand, are too big, and too slow to understand that MMOs require a unique player experience to be successful, so the suits have pushed their projects toward the theme park - usually resulting in disastrous market performance. The publisher wants the yearly release revenue - and rightly so. It's foolish for EA or Activision to dump tons of money into an MMO when yearly releases like a Madden or Call of Duty are guaranteed to turn a profit. Instead, what we've seen the big publishers do is take traditional elements from MMO games and incorporate them into their tried and true yearly releases. Why do you think you have to level up in Call of Duty?
The publishers who specialize in MMO - NCSoft, Turbine, and SoE (now Daybreak) are all seemingly always in a state of crisis. I have seen friends laid off from each of these companies and the studios they represent as they flounder, continually trying to chase 'the wow killer', yet repeatedly delivering sub par 'me too!' content.
Based on this, I am led to the conclusion that MMOs are not a good space for the publisher driven design model. Mythic, Verant, CCP, and Blizzard - the titans of the first generations of MMO all have one thing in common - they all used studio driven publishing models to develop their product. Sony ponied up a lot of cash to make Everquest, but Verant was essentially free and clear to develop their game on their own terms. Need more evidence? How is WoW doing since the Activision merger? Their entire model has shifted now to publishing new content only when subscriber numbers fall - thus incentivizing letting one's subscription lapse.
I think that there's a bright future for the MMO in niche products that are engineered from the ground up to be relatively inexpensive to expand (both in onboarding new developers and leveraging those developers to deliver great content) and focused around delivering their own experiences, rather than trying to deliver someone else's experience better. The experience of playing the game MUST be the main core competency of the product for it to thrive. As soon as that's lost, the game - even WoW - begins to list and will eventually capsize. Legion is clearly showing signs of this, with the promised return of many favorite attractions unable to sweeten the systems in the new expansion that are clearly engineered around retention models rather than engineered around the user experience (RNG legendaries, glacial content release pace, content blocked by built in time locks).
The MMO market is prime for disruption, and we won't see "the next wow", but we will see a lot of quirky, experimental games that try their best to deliver fun experiences. Some will succeed, some will fail - but I, for one, will not shed a single tear to see the reign of the theme park end.
EDIT: Punctuation/OCD
I don't think the genre is a fad, I just think that WoW hit the market at the right time and gathered a huge player base the likes of that will never be repeated again due to market saturation. There are so many differing MMO's out there now, catering to all tastes (not just D&D like) and using all sorts of revenue models, that it will just be impossible to reach the peaks of the WoW golden years ever again. It's also a bit disingenuous to compare everything else to WoW and also to keep looking at the number of subscribers and note that they're falling for this exact reason. No game lasts forever and as the player population gets more spread around due to choices, it is only natural less and less players will be logging on.
I heartily agree with the last paragraph though - perfect time for market disruptors. More EvE's, more City of Heroes, more EQ and more niche games that are not looking at trying to turn over $200m per year
I think people have finally come to conclusion that the only Wow killer will be Wow..in the end. I've been saying for some time, stop trying to imitate Wow..be your own game your own uniqueness..if you build it they will come. That's why when Pantheon finally showed up and did their kickstarter...I jumped on board. The theme parks will be out there..but finally ..us old schoolers will have the challenging game we've been missing all this time. And perhaps it will hang on as long as EQ1 has...and EQ1 is STILL going and going and going...hehe (energizer bunny reference)
Very well put. Some of us actually do like to read walls of text (and I am being serious)
In our case I think we are extremely lucky... our dev's and publishers I think all play and are fans of MMO's for the most part and are aware of so many of the positive and negative aspects of MMO creation and the risks involved with sustaining them in industry - pure win for us, the playerbase imo, these guys have been around the block more than once or twice and know their stuff.
Couldn't ask for a better bunch for Team VRI
I agree the genre is ripe for innovation or prime for disruption.
Yet, the problem of implementing innovation/disruption starts with developers and players alike. Players are extremely resistant to change, and developers are extremely reticent to cede control to players.
And that's where it needs to go, imo. The same tired implementation of a static database of skills, spells, recipes and loot needs to die. It is technically possible to procedurally generate almost any aspect of any game, now. Including all quests. All NPC's. Plots. Stories. Races. Gear. Even landscapes and dungeons, if appropriate.
It is technically possible to, if desired, allow players to customize all spells, skills, gear, and recipes, and simply limit them with soft caps/DR and/or hard caps/limits.
Try and get a player to accept the possibility of such an innovative experience, or get a developer to give up their control. Even starting those discussions is difficult if not impossible. Never going to happen in this decade. Players can't imagine a world with so much freedom and developers will never give it to the players, due to fear of losing control.
I agree largely with most of the OP. Your notion of innovation being more important that "one-uping" what is already out there is correct.
One thing I would like to add - I think one of the big problems in the MMO market has been a lack business acumen. Start-ups in any industry aren't easy. Most of them faily, actually. That is why you see so many failures in the MMO industry. There have been some really great ideas... Most of them failed - not because they weren't trying to be innovative, but because of poor business decisions. Here's why I am hopeful for this game. One, I think Brad understands this as a natural progression in his career. He's put together a team that is committed to the scope of the project. His team seems to be letting the people who know the area of which decisions are being made, make those decisions. They just didn't plan well enought for the challenges they may face. VR has faced challenges - Heck already with PORTF. The idea is what will make or break "success." The business decisions will bring it to life. The engine has to keep running - the right people, persistence, belief, etc. I think they've shown us they have that. Sometimes it comes down to just sheer will, and, that, I have seen a lot of with this project.
Here's my version of the crux of the problem for games as a whole (broadly speaking) and something I've been "trying" by word of mouth to open peoples eyes too over the last 11 years.
1) Standardisation (as pretty much explained in the OP).
Too much standardisation leads to saturation and a pure lack of creative innovation; due to publisher restrictions. Why do they standardise? Fear. Fear of the unknown.. "playing it safe" monetary wise. I mean.. after all the money has to come from somewhere/someone.. and to a certain degree you can't expect someone to randomly hand over the cash willy-nilly.. But that's the catch 22.. no risk no reward.
2) Consolisation/Platform merging.
Pretty much the same as standardisation.. it's a way for games companies to lessen the costs and gain funds.. but at the limitation of the controller, hardware and even design. While shiny graphics aren't everything and abstract controller inputs & gui can fix this.. games companies tend not too. I personally feel cheated when I bought a game for £40 and it ends up being restricted/limited/setup for console/ported.
3) Casualisation.
The easier the game the more market appeal/availablity.. aka more sales and more sales = more cash. While yes it's good in some respects to have a nice casual game.. and I have no issue with that.. what I do have an issue with is you can clearly see a pattern of games getting easier and easier... It's this 'casual gamestyle' that's making games boring for the people whom want to invest time into a game.. and want a challenge.. (FF13 for example. auto-battle? really?) Game companies/publishers using mobile market design tactics.
4) Too much fan input.
Sounds bad doesn't it? "How can fans ever have too much input?".. I've done a few community mmo mods; nothing major only amateur.. but when you get into making them and you allow user input.. you begin to realise "it's impossible to please everyone".. but that's just the first lesson you learn.. the second is that people always think of easier ways todo a task or want something easier.. and most of them will push for this agenda because it "make's logical sense" and others will agree to anything that makes their life easier too. I got bombarded with ideas and suggestions.. some even really drove home their ideas and went "above my head" to see their gamestyle agenda get into the mod, even by force. But the thing is.. if you do let fans/users (myself included) have too much say, the game would devolve into something it's not because each person has their own ideas and agendas that generally doesn't think about the bigger picture or what you're trying to achieve within the mod. So what happens is.. you start off with a mod/game that has a bigger picture until eventually you have much smaller picture; it ends up being bland and a cookie cutter feeling too all.. This is what I also believe to have happened with WoW.. it's lost it's mojo.. it's "bigger picture". That's why it's truely failing slowly by slowly... it's lost it's way by listening to the fans too much while also trying to cater to all. That's why I'm against it generally speaking... ideas yes; pushing agendas away from the grander vision of the game? no. Cater to all? no. A game is not a fan democracy. It's a vision.. something I believe Brad knows already (way more experience).
So there you have it.. that's how I feel.. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.. but games need to evolve/be free and mass market/fan standardisation stops that.
For the few of us who enjoyed the early MMOs they have become bland and very mechanical in nature. They no longer offer the freedom they once did and instead focus almost soley on raiding and PvP as the main event. The open world and leveling is just something to get through to the real content. To me it's a tragedy. For people like my freind enjoying Neverwinter on PS4 they enjoy following the glowy trail riding mounts, having easy content, and even having a vendor they can call out and sell to on demand. It doesn't seem like much of an adventure. It sounds more like a chore. Easy things quickly become chores.
Draslin said:
How did DAoC stay alive in a time when the market was dominated first by Everquest and then by WoW? The answer is simple: it never competed with them, or competed with them only on small subsets of features.
.....
Publishers, on the other hand, are too big, and too slow to understand that MMOs require a unique player experience to be successful, so the suits have pushed their projects toward the theme park - usually resulting in disastrous market performance.
......
I think that there's a bright future for the MMO in niche products that are engineered from the ground up to be relatively inexpensive to expand (both in onboarding new developers and leveraging those developers to deliver great content) and focused around delivering their own experiences, rather than trying to deliver someone else's experience better.
Well I have often noticed that there is often a considerable lack of perspective which leads to distorted conclusions especially as far as WoW is concerned .
First and vastly before theme park/sand box etc considerations is the fact of an unprecedented market growth . This had little to do with the content of MMORPGs but everything with the decreasing costs of Internet connexions .
In 2000 the MMORPG market was around 2 millions worldwide .
In 2005 we were at 10 millions .
And in 2010 there were 20 millions .
Since around 2010 the (MMORPG) market stopped increasing and even started a slight erosion .
So, to take the DAOC example, it didn't survive because it had or had not something more than the competition . Back then the market was neither dominated by EQ nor by WoW . It was largely dominated by Lineage which had 5 times more customers than either EQ or UOL .
But the WoW of the 2000ies which was Lineage targeted only the Asian market . The NA+EU much smaller market had EQ at around 450 k, UOL around 250 K and was fast growing . So Daoc (and about every MMORPG released between 2000 and 2005) easily reached its 250 k and there was still room for many more new MMORPGs .
Then came WoW in 2005 . Basically WoW didn't kill anybody either and its growth was more or less the growth of the market .
But WoW did something what no other MMORPG did before and what is the major part of its success - it went worldwide .
Up to WoW there were Asian giants (Lineage) and EU+NA Dwarves (EQ,UOL), all existing on different but growing markets .
But WoW choose a manga style set up in a classical Tolkienish fantasy . Because of the former it became a super hit in Asia and because of the latter (and catering to the fast growing casual population) a decent success in EU+NA .
I don't know if it was purpose or a lucky strike but it was such a success because it succeeded both in Asia and EU+NA .
Actually significantly more in Asia because some 60% of WoW players are Asian .
What happened in early 2010 is not that the publishers ignored players' experience or released theme parks . They did so no more and no less than in the decade before .
But what happened is that the MMORPG market stopped growing . Of course the growth of the game market continued unabated but in very different segments - MOBA and cell phone games .
And obviously it is a marketing 101 that while in a growing market any pile of .... (see f.ex Aion which is probably the worst game ever but it made it beyond 2M subscriptions too) may succeed, in a saturated market it is differentiate or die .
So even if I mostly disagree about the theme park part of the analysis, I agree fully with the conclusion .
Indeed the MMORPG future IS in "niche" games because "niche" is just a synonym of "differentiated" . Sometimes people (wrongly) assimilate "niche" to small and cheap while in reality inside a saturated market "niche" strategy is the main way to success .
This is one of the main reasons why I became enthousiastic about Pantheon . AFAIK Pantheon is the very first game in history that claims its "niche" strategy and actually bases its design on the idea that its features must appeal to a well defined consumer segment but not necessarily to all other segments .
For me this is indeed Visionary . Pun intended :)
Great read in the OP. Not sure I am 100% on board, but it mostly makes sense to me. But as Ive said in different posts I like the idea of sandboxy themeparks, but not straight up themeparks or sandboxes. Modern Themeparks are too streamlined and gamified. Sandboxes are a little boring to me due to lazy design. So I say Themebox or Sandpark is the better way to go.
@Nimryl
Agree with points 3 and 4. And very strongly agree with point 1. For instance Im not a fan of what FFXIV became, but I noticed something a bit disturbing about peoples complaints about combat. There were many people that were upset that the GCD was 2.5 sec. and not 1.5 sec. like in WoW. That 1 second was apparently like an eternity to some (yeeesh). People can like what they like and I dont care for either game. But this seemed to be more about folks getting brain washed into believing that there should be a standard and normal universal GCD time or it just wasnt right. I mean what if WoW had made there GCD 2.5 sec all these years? Im pretty sure people would be saying FFXIV having 1.5 sec GCD was just too fast. I guess my point is devs need to be free and feel free to break the mold. And gamers need to lighten up about how devs make unique or different elements in games to some extent. I do have strong feelings about various features and what not, but at the end of the day if devs make a game and there are features it I dont like or I dont like the game at all. Then the game was not built wrong. It just wasnt for me (obviously not talking about a bug ridden game).
Point 2 I some what disagree with. I can agree that there have been many bad console to PC and PC to console ports. But I think consoles are a legit avenue for gaming and that includes MMOs. Yes there have been some shitty implementations of MMOs on console, but they dont have to be that way. FFXI was very innovative for its time in a few ways. It was the first international and cross-platform MMO. They didnt have different servers for different nations and people were playing on PC, Ps2, and Xbox 360. I Beta tested EQOA and also went on to play FFXI for many years on PS2 with a keyboard as the primary mode of communication before things like teamspeak became popular/normal. MMOs on console are not destined to fail. This is only happening with bad implementation or devs making a conscious decision to take short cuts or dumb down gameplay...... or just terrible game concept period which can happen in any platform or genre. So in my mind as long as the devs take the time to actually make a console game right or to make cross-platform games right then its a non-issue.
I also think sometimes PC folks get the idea that console gamers = casual gamers. Its true that there is probably a larger casual audience in the console market than on the PC. But Ive been gaming since I was like 11 and Im 40 now. Most of those years I was a console gamer, and Im pretty hard core about devoting most of my free time to gaming even now. I actually used to think PC gaming was for people that werent really serious about gaming (visited friends playing PC games quite a few times and was always underwhelmed). Make no mistake there are plenty of hardcore players in the console market that dont what the games dumbed down and do want a challenge (Dark Souls anyone). The only thing casual about these players is there lack of desire to put up with the potential tech problems of a PC. Consoles are mostly plug and play.
In regards to hardware limitations and control limitations, I have a few things to say. For hardware limitations I dont think a PC MMO should be dumbed down to accomodate console gamers (except maybe graphically). If this cant be done then dont make a console version. If at a certain point in the games life it looks like the console version wont be able to support an MMO, then give advanced warning and discontinue console support but pick it up on the next console upgrade (FFXIV will stop support of PS3 I think this coming Xpac but will still be on PS4). There is nothing wrong with this as most console gamers upgrade eventually anyway. As for control limitations, there is really only 3 that would prevent crossplatform gameplay. That is mouse aim (or in this case stick aim) targeting, ground targeting abilities, and Diablo style movement. The last 2 can be overcome with simple changes to how it functions. The only one that is a gamebreaking problem or one that require a lot of AI assistance would be the mouse aim targetting, in which case I would be against cross-platform or even making a console version. But in the case of tab target, not a big deal. With only 10 abilities skills at a time even better. As for using a controller just do something like FFXIV with their cross hotbar. Now developing a seperate but completely functional control scheme for gamepad users vs KB and M might be a manpower or budget issue but thats another topic. Also keep in mind I was using KB way back on PS2. There is nothing stoping any dev from making a KB and mouse game on PS4 or Xboxone that I am aware of.
Another thing is people might think console gamers have no interest in niche or indie games. PSN says different. There are thousands of useres every month that download to their PS some of the same cheaply made indie games youd find on steam.
Final thought is if its in the budget (in the future) and doesnt dumbdown gameplay then there is no reason not to pursue a console market. Dont under estimate the value or potential fan base from the console market. And remember there thousands of EQ fans that wouldnt be if not for the console counterpart EQOA.
During certain periods, EQ2 was one of my favorite games. It had insanely fun raids and dungeons that were extremely hard to do. A few expacs back? I think it was ToV instance dungeon that took us a long time to beat and I still remember the feelign when we finally did.
If EQ2 didnt have such a shitty start I think it could have been extremely succesful given how some of the later content was so good.
I played ESO online and my god was that one of the worst games ive ever played(played from launch and maxed a toon) and they spend hundreds of millions on it.
Umbra said:I don't think the genre is a fad, I just think that WoW hit the market at the right time and gathered a huge player base the likes of that will never be repeated again due to market saturation. There are so many differing MMO's out there now, catering to all tastes (not just D&D like) and using all sorts of revenue models, that it will just be impossible to reach the peaks of the WoW golden years ever again. It's also a bit disingenuous to compare everything else to WoW and also to keep looking at the number of subscribers and note that they're falling for this exact reason. No game lasts forever and as the player population gets more spread around due to choices, it is only natural less and less players will be logging on.
I heartily agree with the last paragraph though - perfect time for market disruptors. More EvE's, more City of Heroes, more EQ and more niche games that are not looking at trying to turn over $200m per year
I agree Umbra with the fact WOW hit the market at the right time. Sony had almost Destroyed EQ by this time and massive amounts of guilds were leaving EQ as a whole. Bugs were rampent and the gold sellers were really taking off ( tho they had been around for a while at this point).
If you add in the fact that several other MMO's were trying new things WARHAMMER/AOC Vanguard/EQ2 SWG......alll had a large amount of bugs while the devs were pushing to keep up with wow. No other game in that 5 years was really relased with the polish of wow. Granted i hated the grafics with a passion and in the end i only played because my entire guild moved to play it. It was very catching after 6+ years in EQ.
Amsai said:@NimrylPoint 2 I some what disagree with. I can agree that there have been many bad console to PC and PC to console ports. But I think consoles are a legit avenue for gaming and that includes MMOs. Yes there have been some shitty implementations of MMOs on console, but they dont have to be that way. FFXI was very innovative for its time in a few ways. It was the first international and cross-platform MMO. They didnt have different servers for different nations and people were playing on PC, Ps2, and Xbox 360. I Beta tested EQOA and also went on to play FFXI for many years on PS2 with a keyboard as the primary mode of communication before things like teamspeak became popular/normal. MMOs on console are not destined to fail. This is only happening with bad implementation or devs making a conscious decision to take short cuts or dumb down gameplay...... or just terrible game concept period which can happen in any platform or genre. So in my mind as long as the devs take the time to actually make a console game right or to make cross-platform games right then its a non-issue.
Nimryl said:Amsai said:@NimrylPoint 2 I some what disagree with. I can agree that there have been many bad console to PC and PC to console ports. But I think consoles are a legit avenue for gaming and that includes MMOs. Yes there have been some shitty implementations of MMOs on console, but they dont have to be that way. FFXI was very innovative for its time in a few ways. It was the first international and cross-platform MMO. They didnt have different servers for different nations and people were playing on PC, Ps2, and Xbox 360. I Beta tested EQOA and also went on to play FFXI for many years on PS2 with a keyboard as the primary mode of communication before things like teamspeak became popular/normal. MMOs on console are not destined to fail. This is only happening with bad implementation or devs making a conscious decision to take short cuts or dumb down gameplay...... or just terrible game concept period which can happen in any platform or genre. So in my mind as long as the devs take the time to actually make a console game right or to make cross-platform games right then its a non-issue.
I agree with you. But what I was referring too was not only just mmos but games as a whole... (may not have come across very well) is that basically the games companies/publishers don't TRY to abstract the versions of the game more. Is it possible so we can't tell the difference between? absolutely! do they do it often? nope is what I'm saying. Different controller methods have different requirements, abstracting from there will allow for a much better experience.. they just don't do it! :) FFXIV does a very nice job of this. But at a global cooldown cost. (MMO) - So does the dead island series. (Single player/co-op).
Ahhh got it. Yup nevermind then, looks like we are on the same page then.
vjek said:I agree the genre is ripe for innovation or prime for disruption.
Yet, the problem of implementing innovation/disruption starts with developers and players alike. Players are extremely resistant to change, and developers are extremely reticent to cede control to players.
And that's where it needs to go, imo. The same tired implementation of a static database of skills, spells, recipes and loot needs to die. It is technically possible to procedurally generate almost any aspect of any game, now. Including all quests. All NPC's. Plots. Stories. Races. Gear. Even landscapes and dungeons, if appropriate.
It is technically possible to, if desired, allow players to customize all spells, skills, gear, and recipes, and simply limit them with soft caps/DR and/or hard caps/limits.
Try and get a player to accept the possibility of such an innovative experience, or get a developer to give up their control. Even starting those discussions is difficult if not impossible. Never going to happen in this decade. Players can't imagine a world with so much freedom and developers will never give it to the players, due to fear of losing control.
It IS possible to allow players to customize (build and mix) spells, skills..etc As I have stated before ..a European (French) game by the name of Saga of Ryzom (released in 2004 ..same time as Wow) was already allowing customizable spells and skills. Basically create your own with what is offered or possible. They also had animal migration, seasons....outposts (pvp was limited to a specific area of the server) anyway not suggesting ANY of this be put into Pantheon, just saying its out there and possible. Depends on VR and their vision for Pantheon, and what fits with that vision. :)
Awesome discussion so far! Thanks for reading and contributing!
I think that the market flatlining and then decaying in 2010 and since, while the rest of the game market continued to expand is an indicator that the genre did not adapt to shifting gamer desires. At the same time, other games and genres arrived on the scene to fill that void and gather up those players. I'm mainly talking about MOBA here, as that's where most of the people who left MMOs during the 2010-2012 period went.
It's not hard to see why the MOBA was able to draw off so many players from MMO games. The characters are fairly simple, but through loot and leveling systems, deep choices are presented to the player that have a tangible impact on the game. Couple that with not requiring time investment to reach a point where it felt like decisions mattered or there were enough choices present to make the decisions interesting (whereas MMOs were still gating all of their interesting content behind astronomical time sinks in comparison).
(opinion time!)
Personally, I think vertical, level-based progression is one concept most MMOs should consider leaving in the past, as it is incredibly expensive to build quality content that just gets used while leveling, and those budget dollars could be going toward content with a longer life cycle and deeper experiential value to the player. I know in Pantheon's case, leveling is a core mechanic and part of the niche it fills, but for other titles in the space I think there's huge benefits to discarding levels and embracing wholly horizontal schemes that allow players to group together across much larger swaths of population. My basic design philosophy is that MMO content should always push players together, and any system that spreads them out is due for an overhaul - as most of these systems existed in previous iterations in part to keep population spread out rather than clogging up hardware (n squared is a real problem), but there are more effective ways to geographically disperse the population.
The mostly-horizontal progression paths that were laid out in the design of Everquest Next looked pretty much exactly like this, and was easily the feature I was most excited about. It's a shame that it was cancelled - it was bold and experimental, and had it stuck to a proper scope or had better top level management (or management that didn't siphon talent off to work on a pet project zombie game), it would have stretched the boundaries, I think.
WoW didn't just hit the market at the right time, but literally had a cult like following that would of played the game even if it was just playing with poop in the miidle of a room. Name recogniztion plays a huge part in the success of a company, and some of these companies like WoW and SE had those already. Not just had them, but had them for many many years.
Over the years more and more MMOs are being delevoped. I sometiems see this misconception that the MMO genre is a dying breed. This couldn't be more wrong. The amount of people playing MMOs now is higher than it has ever been, they are just spread out between so many. Go to places like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games and you can see a list of game to understand this. I mean just assuming the list is 100% accurate, by 2015 there was roughly 185 MMORPGs to flock to. Ultimately this point is to support the idea that like other people have said that need a new MMORPG with some innovation. Sadly a lot of things that look great on paper actually aren't great.
CanadinaXegony said: @Nimryl there's an old saying "too many chefs, spoil the broth" VR needs to stay firm about their vision for this game...what fits, what doesn't fit. :) In the end gamers will adapt to VR's version of how it should be. :)
Definitely.. EQ has had a good track record of standing firm with its choices so I'm sure VR will be just fine.
People being laid off from game companies is not indicitive of MMO's success, failure, future viability at all.
Working in the gaming industry is not like working in a regular job per se. It's more like working in the entertainment industry where it's project based. You are only as good as your last success.
When you see companies making 100's of millions from mobile games that cost 5-20 million to create, why spend a 100 million on a huge gamble of an MMO.
Newer age P2W MMOs like AA and BD are just RNG cash shops these days. No skill involved to play, just grind, swipe, random slot machines to play. Not really games any more. More like a casino.
And how many people think Star Citizen will ever be a truly playable game? It's turning out to just be a big cash grab in a perpetual state of development. The game is now so old, it's underlying engine is unusable for a modern game.
Want to make a great mmo today? Its really simple.
First get RID of the fetch quest system. I am BORED to death of having to talk to an NPC then go kill 10 spiders, and then let the damn npc know I did it. Make questing similar to what Guild Wars 2 has, just roam around, and help out on events. Thats really fun. Sure put in a quest chain for the main storyline, but avoid making playing run from point A to point B, then back to A again. Its tiring and not fun.
Put in cash shops, but for ONLY cosmetic and experience gain items. Mounts ETC. People WILL buy them. Trust me.
Make Combat mean something, and be interesting, focusing on teamwork for the best content, but have enough content for casuals so they can get some time in without having to drop a ton of time to compete.
Under no circumstances put in the RNG for gear, period, please dont. After YEARS of grinding for a particular item, and never seeing it, then have 5 people fight the mob once I fought and get it, I am done with those games. Put in Tokens and embrace a absolute grind. I should be able to get the gear I want in I put in the work.
Put in meaningful realm vs realm combat, with keeps etc. DAoC made the perfect pvp and there is no real reason not to follow its model.
gofortheko said:Want to make a great mmo today? Its really simple.
First get RID of the fetch quest system. I am BORED to death of having to talk to an NPC then go kill 10 spiders, and then let the damn npc know I did it. Make questing similar to what Guild Wars 2 has, just roam around, and help out on events. Thats really fun. Sure put in a quest chain for the main storyline, but avoid making playing run from point A to point B, then back to A again. Its tiring and not fun.
Put in cash shops, but for ONLY cosmetic and experience gain items. Mounts ETC. People WILL buy them. Trust me.
Make Combat mean something, and be interesting, focusing on teamwork for the best content, but have enough content for casuals so they can get some time in without having to drop a ton of time to compete.
Under no circumstances put in the RNG for gear, period, please dont. After YEARS of grinding for a particular item, and never seeing it, then have 5 people fight the mob once I fought and get it, I am done with those games. Put in Tokens and embrace a absolute grind. I should be able to get the gear I want in I put in the work.
Put in meaningful realm vs realm combat, with keeps etc. DAoC made the perfect pvp and there is no real reason not to follow its model.
While cash shops are unfortunately a very high point of controversy here, I agree.
As far as PvP, I doubt we'll see DAoC style PvP in Pantheon. I expect open world PvP along the lines of EQ/EQ2/WoW, though. Camelot Unchained will probably fill that need.
zewtastic said:People being laid off from game companies is not indicitive of MMO's success, failure, future viability at all.
Working in the gaming industry is not like working in a regular job per se. It's more like working in the entertainment industry where it's project based. You are only as good as your last success.
If I had money i would change this. I would want the Des to be paid to stay and play. Nothing like a steady paycheck to make someone feel valued and secure.
I would want this kind of interaction to happen: Dev is out in the world, having a drink or something. People find out he works for Game company, people ask " so you play games all day?" To which the dev replies, " yes, took alot to plan it alot of hard work, but now my job is to play in game as a sort of god. I can be a normal character and play with you, or I can influence the mechanics from outside as I watch your guild take on a raid boss, or sometimes take a broader vew and overlook the world, affect game play from the smallest to the largest, maybe allow a special item to drop from this group in this area because I eavesdropped on their conversations-read the chat logs- and like what they are doing so I'll add this item in for them to get. Then I will swoop out and find another- there's a low level asking for a rez and some clown dragged their corpse deaper, I'll get their corpse, give them the rez, find out who that clown was and maybe plan an inconvenience for the clown maybe slow down some progression they are working on just enough so they almost give up, but not quite. Playing god you say? well, yes. That's what I get to do being a dev for this game, And the steady check ain't too bad, either. You should see the conventions! One designer even had a player fan commission them for painting of a landscape."