Is the MMO Market imploding?

Curious if I'm the only one who doesn't need , nor really want , a provided backstory for my mmo play?

The intro cartoon to EQ was plenty good enough for me , scrolling movie text of SWG , or whatever.
Dump me the hell off in world , fine with whatever guiding quests for actual gameplay , but I don't need to be special snowflake number 43784 who's going to save the same world single handedly , that everyone else is going to single handedly save.

Game lore can made in depth without it focusing on me.

Titan could have saved us. /pours a 40

Dahkoht_sl said:

Curious if I'm the only one who doesn't need , nor really want , a provided backstory for my mmo play?

Click to expand...

Lore : MMOGs
Plot : Porn

But yeah, there's a niche market for both.

mkopec_sl said:

The scrapping just means we wont be getting some wow clone, but something else.

Click to expand...

Thats quite an assumption your making there.

bixxby_sl said:

Even if someone makes an EQ clone it won't be the same. One of the things that made EQ amazing was people caring about what's going on. No one gives a shit no more. The markets too different and the players are too different. It's not the same without massive shit talking and drama.

Click to expand...

^yes

Is the MMO market imploding? I think it just settled down. The entire landscape has changed. I agree with people wanting instant-gratification/satisfaction. I believe the curiosity and intrigue associated with an MMO is gone. It was what it was when it was. Before EQ, what was there? It was new and exciting and ground-breaking. Most people had never seen anything like it. Of course there was excitement.

HEY, when I was a wee lass, we had a VIC-20 and I have some GREAT memories of playing those text-only games: "You are in a room. There is a door in front of you and a table to your right" etc. Would I waste my time with them today?? Uhm, no. But at the time, it was fun and exciting.

My point is, everyone wants to recapture their first high, their first love...and you're never gonna get that feeling again. But people line up to play the next, new, big MMO that is being released, in hopes of getting "that feeling" again. They log in, don't get their "EQ-high", log out, call it a failure and tell everyone what a crappy game it is.
I came along too late for EQ, so my "first love" is VG. But at some point I just had to accept that I'll never feel for another game the way I felt about VG. because it was all new and exciting to me. But I can still have fun playing, say, EQ2 and GW2... Just temper your expectations...

OR maybe I just have no imagination and can't see outside the box. I just can't envision an MMO that would make everyone happy and excited again...

TragedyAnn_sl said:

OR maybe I just have no imagination and can't see outside the box. I just can't envision an MMO that would make everyone happy and excited again...

Click to expand...

Like you said...

Early on bringing people together and letting them see each other within a virtual space was enough to amaze anyone who hadn't experienced that. Now, connecting with people online is about as routine as it gets. Just bringing people together is no longer enough, now those people need something to do. So we have seen the inclusion of more events and group content. These virtual worlds were no longer simply spaces to congregate, they became cluttered with rides and points of interest and every other kind of distraction the developers could throw in there to try and make people forget that they were still in a big empty box with 2000 other people.

Now that simply providing a static repeatable experience is no longer enough, what gets people excited? Well minecraft got attention because it allowed people to change the space they were in. Rather than fill the space with more static elements, minecraft makes the walls of the box malleable. But that too has it limits on keeping people occupied. Granted it can create a much more variable experience and going from world to world can be impressive, but there is a sort of hollowness to the interaction. You build and change things and then that's it, there isn't really a response from the game.

So I think that is where mmo's should really be heading. Creating spaces where players are given lots of freedom, but then have the game world react very strongly to each player's choices and actions. You end up shaping the way the game plays not by first laying out the rules and making sure the players adhere to them, but by creating a long list of contingencies that will then influence how the player behaves.

So lets say you allow the players to dig holes. Well if they dig a hole in the wrong spot, some agent of the game world might react to this action by getting upset. The player now has to deal with this reaction and make another choice, this causes more reactions from the game... and so on and so forth.

But what purpose would any of these actions serve? I think there is one more element that needs to exist in order for such a dialogue with the game world to have some relevance. That element is danger. I know that word gets said a lot, but I don't think people really understand what it can mean within an mmo space. In almost every mmo, the player can exist without interference indefinitely. There are lots of safe havens and shelters. Add to this that the consequence for any kind of failure is minimal and now the game world can tolerate non-responsive players forever, or until the power goes out.

To really make a game dangerous, the default state of the game, (i.e. the state of the game world if the servers were to be left on indefinitely and it eventually reached an equilibrium) should be one where all players are dead and everything they have built is destroyed. There should be agents acting within the game who actively seek out players and their achievements and try to undo them. The creepers in minecraft served this purpose, even if they weren't the greatest threat, but they provided the important motivation for the players to seek shelter.

A great game that illustrates this concept is dwarf fortress. The complexity of the world makes interacting with it a real treat, but the brutality with which it can destroy your work makes even small achievements seem incredible.

Create a space where people can band together and change the shape of a world that is out to utterly destroy them, and you will see people get excited about an mmo again.

Pancreas_sl said:

awesome words

Click to expand...

Too right. On paper, a lot of that even sounds like what EQN is going for - malleable world that reacts and changes. But we all know they'll stop short - it'll always end up going in that one main direction. It won't be dangerous. And there will never be REAL dangers or consequence. Hopefully the Next Big MMO can take it there.

I did want to respond to one bit specificaly though:

Pancreas_sl said:

To really make a game dangerous, the default state of the game, (i.e. the state of the game world if the servers were to be left on indefinitely and it eventually reached an equilibrium) should be one where all players are dead and everything they have built is destroyed.

Click to expand...

This made "Entropy: The MMO" pop into my head ;-)

Pancreas nailed it imo. The idea of "the game" vs the players is the basis of PvE, obviously, but that idea has never been taken to the degree that is possible. I feel like that is the natural progression of the PvE MMO and makes so much sense. Take the players, drop them on some coast of an unexplored continent and make it dangerous. Make the players work together to progress in any meaningful way. You can set the players as a pseudo faction, and let the 'native' NPC's comprise multiple other factions. Use something like that for a basis and make player decisions matter, and you're looking at a pretty dope game.

Flobee_sl said:

Pancreas nailed it imo. The idea of "the game" vs the players is the basis of PvE, obviously, but that idea has never been taken to the degree that is possible. I feel like that is the natural progression of the PvE MMO and makes so much sense. Take the players, drop them on some coast of an unexplored continent and make it dangerous. Make the players work together to progress in any meaningful way. You can set the players as a pseudo faction, and let the 'native' NPC's comprise multiple other factions. Use something like that for a basis and make player decisions matter, and you're looking at a pretty dope game.

Click to expand...

Just curious: Have you looked into EQN at all? Sure as hell sounds a lot like it.

TragedyAnn_sl said:

^yes

Is the MMO market imploding? I think it just settled down. The entire landscape has changed. I agree with people wanting instant-gratification/satisfaction. I believe the curiosity and intrigue associated with an MMO is gone. It was what it was when it was. Before EQ, what was there? It was new and exciting and ground-breaking. Most people had never seen anything like it. Of course there was excitement.

HEY, when I was a wee lass, we had a VIC-20 and I have some GREAT memories of playing those text-only games: "You are in a room. There is a door in front of you and a table to your right" etc. Would I waste my time with them today?? Uhm, no. But at the time, it was fun and exciting.

My point is, everyone wants to recapture their first high, their first love...and you're never gonna get that feeling again. But people line up to play the next, new, big MMO that is being released, in hopes of getting "that feeling" again. They log in, don't get their "EQ-high", log out, call it a failure and tell everyone what a crappy game it is.
I came along too late for EQ, so my "first love" is VG. But at some point I just had to accept that I'll never feel for another game the way I felt about VG. because it was all new and exciting to me. But I can still have fun playing, say, EQ2 and GW2... Just temper your expectations...

OR maybe I just have no imagination and can't see outside the box. I just can't envision an MMO that would make everyone happy and excited again...

Click to expand...

Not sure I can agree with you here. My MMO "virginity" was EQ. I played from 00' to 05'. Near late 03' I started playing 10+ hours a day. I will never forget it. Best time in my life. I retired after POP and started following both EQ2 and Vanguard. I was in both betas and started characters on launch day. EQ2 was....odd. I can't put my finger on it but the entire experience was uncomfortable. The one thing I can say is the grouping was, spastic. People would join, get their updates then leave and it was a constant battle to just fill spots and eventually the groups with just disintegrate. It wasn't fun, it wasn't adventurous, it was painful to play. Vanguard on the other hand was majestic. The music, the classes, the dungeons were all great! Yes, the bugs have been covered a hundred times, and the CTD's (although I rarely CTD'd), but the game, its design, its concepts were all spot on. It was close, very close and had it survived its launch and remained with Sigil and developers who loved gaming and fantasy and MMO's, it could have unseated any game Sony put out in under a year.
It can be done, making a game you want to play, and you want that "one more level", and a game that makes you fall in love with your character and enjoy hours and hours of dungeon crawling with your friends, but it can't be run by bureaucrats in suits whose only motivation is the almighty dollar with zero understanding of its customers and what they desire and why they bought your game in the first place. If a company is run by passionate people who work hard, love gaming, and want to run a successful fantasy MMO, I will pay top dollar and hope they do get rich, but it can't start with the entire motivation being only money. It can be done, but we haven't seen it done in a decade now.

Of course yea, I mean I like a lot of their ideas but I don't think they will take it to the n'th degree like what I have in mind.

Lets take this basic idea and see how far it goes, For example:

The game world is one enormous land mass, each 'server' is just a different landing point on this land mass. When the game first starts, day 1, release, you log in to a fortified beach head (or not, maybe just an empty beach) filled with other players. No NPC's to speak of, no quests, just you and your comrades against this world. Lets say that your character starts with food and water for x days. The characters first 'quest' is going to be gathering supplies. You would have players shouting for groups to gather safely, ya'know cause of the monsters.

Oh yea, I haven't even mentioned, this place you landed, yea there are monsters attacking your 'beach head' or starting area on the regular, attacking players foraging etc. An AI similar to EQNext could do something like this I would imagine, with some GM help. I mean, there are no quests or dialog at this point, so GM's might have some time to spice things up. I digress however, you take this dangerous world, plop players in, and create toolsets for them to 'evolve' as a nation lets say, social tools for creating leadership structures, diplomatic tools once expansion occurs, etc. Crafting tools would be super important. You need defenses built, and these are the guys to do it. A system that doesn't rely on some NPC trainer to auto teach you recipes, but something more organic would be required.

I am rambling a bit here, but the point is you can take the basic idea of a difficult game and push your players into creating very organic social groups. Using the rough example above you could have that original beach head become a city, people could use the city as a base to expand creating more cities, that eventually creates an empire, that meets the other servers empires' and now maybe you can have conflict over resources, pvp in a game that already have a punishing PvE side. GM's can create difficult situations for players. Players getting too strong a foothold? Well then, maybe the GM's send the equivalent of the Mongols at the players.

Let what the players create be destroyed by the NPC's. Make it hurt, make players work together to recover.

Some well thought out systems could have a challenging PVE game into something incredible.

EDIT: I just realized this kind of comes off as some weird sort of DayZ mmo. That isn't my intention, what i'm shooting for is more of a situation where difficult content pushes players into creating organic content for perhaps survival at first, but later on for different reasons, expansion, exploration, prosperity, whatever.

Exactly, it sounds counter intuitive at first, but if you punish the players... they will adapt. Some will quit sure, but not everyone or even the majority if the game is good. I think people want to be challenged in games, we bitch about things being hard because thats just human nature.

I think EQN is a huge step in the right direction, even if it doesn't end up being what I'm looking for. It is innovation, and the systems and ideas they present will be used elsewhere, and tweaked. Hopefully in a way this community can appreciate.

"The cooperation required" angle is kinda like Die Tonight, which was a pretty fun game as far as browser games go. I would soften it with an npc city to start out from for inevitable lone wolves that want to live off the scraps and for players from failed attempts to make their own towns. Beyond that require any meaningful advancement to be made by groups of players, guilds and alliances thereof that build new towns that are suspectible to being wiped out, and only those towns offer special crafting equipment and training to progress your character. Sounds very niche but interesting.

Flobee_sl said:

Pancreas nailed it imo. The idea of "the game" vs the players is the basis of PvE, obviously, but that idea has never been taken to the degree that is possible. I feel like that is the natural progression of the PvE MMO and makes so much sense. Take the players, drop them on some coast of an unexplored continent and make it dangerous. Make the players work together to progress in any meaningful way. You can set the players as a pseudo faction, and let the 'native' NPC's comprise multiple other factions. Use something like that for a basis and make player decisions matter, and you're looking at a pretty dope game.

Click to expand...

Survivor the MMO

I'd prefer Dark Souls, the MMO. Its lore setup was perfect. Just add evolving big, bad nasties, dangerous risk vs reward, good group content, and a dynamic persistent world with a dark and nasty environment and you'd have an MMO I'd subscribe to for years.

Well ultimately what made Sullon Zek so compelling to me was that there was no safe haven, I was afraid to leave my computer unattended. Each thing I accomplished set me up that much better to cope with the danger I faced.

After they added sanctuaries, the bazaar was bad, and then Plane of Knowledge was even worse, all that suspense evaporated. I was no longer competing against another person unless it was on my terms and they were always as ready and prepared for it as I was, and most of the time you could escape the danger easily... Not so when you were bound in Neriak... and Neriak was being invaded... Your home was VITALLY important.

If a developer could recreate that feeling in a PVE environment (or even in a pvp environment) they'd have my money and loyalty. (yes, EVE does this to a small extent, I also bought and subscribed to eve for at least a year, so it's not just an empty promise)

If a dozen years ago somebody would have told me "future MMOs will resemble more action games ala Diablo than actual RPG worlds" I'd have shaken my head in disbelief.
You can have nice ideas, knowing they'll never be implemented as they are fundamentally risky from a financial point of view, yet old ideas slightly reworked so far led to low RoIs if not proper failures.
People also are often reluctant to leave the known for the unknown, they still give "some" value to their character, saying that moving to a different game would be "wasting all that work" done on their current character in the current game, no matter if it's an extremely boring daily grind of tokens for whatever purpose they serve.

EQ Next is promising, but if I'd have a dime for all the empty promises I heard, I'd be running around in a different Ferrari each day.

So, no, I don't think the market is imploding, I think it's headed towards an action oriented genre with a 100% instanced world, closer to a GW1/Diablo style than to the games of old and the older games, wow first, are becoming too old to retain customers the way they did in the past.

Unless some big company, say SoE or better Blizzard, make a new game that is the second coming of Jesus on a skateboard, setting the trend for the years to come, I don't see anything really interesting ahead of us, except for two-month lasting games (when they are good).

The fact I consider WoW the only game worth paying for still today (and I currently have no sub to it), is a testament to the sad state of the industry from my gamer's point of view.
I enjoy GW2 in pills, but they seem to make design mistakes at every step (still imo).

/shrug

i was really hoping EQN was going to be my final home for my MMO career. unfortunately, i haven't really cared for one thing i've seen or heard from that game over the past few months. it's looks like disney meets mine craft, with a copy and paste of GW2 everyone does everything class design. no thank you. BTW, anyone catch the new South Park episode with the parents playing mine craft? was fucking hilarious.