MMOs, where to now?

[Calistas]

Once WOW is fully operational (like the death star) I think we'll be at some kind of MMO appex, in terms of having a very polished, very professional MMO.

Between WoW, EQ2 and SWG the top MMO games will have many of the things we've all been wanting for years. Player government, crafting, quests, flying about in space (maybe thats just me), polished animations, events, PVP, wars, and the list goes on.

So where to from here? I can't think of what the next big MMO is goin to be (I've not heard of it). Sure, there are several companies doing "me toos", but nothing really interesting IMHO.

Are MMOs about to become like RTSs where seeing anything new in terms of design and content is a rare blessing?

I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on where too next?

[shang]

I personally hope that future MMORPGs drop the whole virtual world simulation and add more abstract elements. I'm thinking about something like massive Disgaea multiplayer in a persistent world. Also, keeping with the abstraction-over-realism theme, I'd like to see more "minigames" that'll replace monotonious things like crafting and travelling. Maybe a tiny bit like Puzzle Pirates, but with less tetris and more cooperative minigames.

[Shadari]

A few things come to mind:

1) More emphasis on community by putting more power into the hands of the people. Naturally this is highly subject to abuse, but it's still part of the holy grail in my opinion.

2) Twitch based gameplay. While quite a few people don't like twitch games I believe more do prefer it. SWG would so totally rock with Jedi Knight's lightsaber gameplay.

I also think that pretty much everything you mentioned can still be improved and refined quite a bit. Even simple things like chat balloons, for example, would have been a boon for WoW.

[Shadari]

I personally hope that future MMORPGs drop the whole virtual world simulation and add more abstract elements.
What about virtual community then? My best experiences with MMORPGs was when the games had a tight and somehow meaningful community. That's why older games like Meridian 59 and Ultima Online are still amongst my favorites. It's also why smaller MMORPGs like those provided by NWN made for some very compelling gameplay.

[Charles]

It would nice to see an MMORPG that has more of an action basis, and tries to innovate rather than just building the EQ formula with different graphics.

[Myth]

The only future MMORPG on the horizon for me is Middle Earth Online. At this point I know nothing about it's features, but I just love the lore and the high fantasy of Middle Earth. At this point though, with EQ2 and WoW, I have more than enough on my plate.

It will be very interesting to see how EQ2 and WoW develop new content over the years. I know lots of people dislike EQ Live for various reasons, but if you look at the game over the years the world sure grew, and tons of things were added.

EQ2 has a great way with immersing you in the game, like the talking NPC's and having them tell you and motion for you to come over when they had a quest available,.. As graphics and technology become more powerful, I think that there will be a movement towards melding single player rpg features with multi player features. Both EQ2 and WoW have started already .

Some of the current games out there today started with the design philisopyh that we don't need content "players will make the fun". To conclude, and along the alongs of melding the single player and multiplayer angles, in I think that CONTENT will be the new buzzword in future MMORPG game development.

Really exiting to think about........

[JM]

I loved Jumpgate, and I appreciated Planetside. I think a MMO space sim that combines the two would be cool.

Jumpgate was fantastic, but it had a lot of "grind", and a whole load of balance issues, whereas Planetside for a long time allowed even low-level characters to be very useful, and didn't make death such a painful event. PS showed me that if a MMO game's core gameplay is fun, and levelling is just a bonus side-effect of what you do ingame, then there's a lot of enjoyment to be had.

And both place a major emphasis on "skill" above player level. Jumpgate may have crappy ships at lower levels which stiffed that a bit, but then I was always a supporter of viable PvP vessels at low levels. Planetside's view of "higher level = more choice rather than just plain better kit" is one I appreciated.

[Calistas]

I think more ingame-out-of-game integration would be nice. Control your offline crafting via your mobile phone, web interfaces, etc etc.

I still don't think I've seen PvP wars 'done right'. But the inherent inconsistency between what is imagined and what players will put up with and can engage in might mean it never happens.

[HRose]

There's simply NOTHING on the horizon. At least of this scope.

Imho there's a lot of vaporware on the smaller titles and the bigger ones like MEO and D&D are Turbine-fluff. Richard Garriott's Tabula Rasa is again something on which I don't bet a cent.

What's left? Guild Wars. But it's not a mmorpg and it will head into a whole different direction. It will have a very good success but without the impact of WoW right now.

Then? Brad McQuaid's Vanguard. But it's just a very steamy idea into the future and all I read about the game is just blurred hype. It could be a worthy major player but also just a new stack of steam with nothing consistent inside.

Nothing else, really. I do not expect interesting innovation from smaller companies nor something changing at the higher levels. The current companies like Mythic are those going to suffer more from the situation because they lived for too long in a completely quiet and calm situation where they settled down at ease. Now WoW directly appeals their target, delivering more on too many levels. It's all but a comfortable cohabitation.

For these mid-high level companies there's now an evolutionary need to overcome or their long term survival will be compromised. But these years of relative quietness seems to have made them quite "lazy" when it comes to passion, dreams and expectations. The impression I got is about a motionless, lazy hippopotamus living into a shrinking puddle and no intention to move somewhere else than that.

But the more they are menaced the more they go blindly defensive, losing one by one every occasion of improvement. Exactly the main reason why I don't think that the direct competition really rises the bar.

This while SOE will start to *suffer* and have its dominion slowly collapsing.

Have fun :)

[Rollory]

You can't do real twitch given the classic server-client MMOG architecture combined with the internet being the way it is. There will always be lag spikes for reasons the game company can do absolutely nothing about, and that will cause user unhappiness and make twitch unplayable at times for reasons completely outside the user's and company's control.

Space sims are the one exception to this, actually; in any non-moronic flight engine (non-Wing Commander that is) the spaceships will have a tendency to keep moving in the direction they are already going, and to change their vectors comparatively slowly. Same with missiles and (to a lesser extent) with beam weapons. So each user's client can predict with some accuracy what the other players will be doing, regardless of actual input, and that can damp down a lot on lag-related warping back and forth across the screen.

The other thing that occurs to me as a way to enable twitch is to mix the peer-to-peer and client/server architectures; the game as a whole is client/server, but for fast-paced action between players, it dynamically sets up peer-to-peer networks with other users' clients to speed up the clients actually knowing what is going on and what the other users present nearby are doing. You'd have to also verify everything with the server to prevent cheating, but that would sort of follow along behind the more immediate action between the two clients.

Beyond that, somebody needs to get a game out where the basic game mechanic is NOT D&D. A game where the basic functionality is NOT "get a weapon, hit the monster, gain xp". That game has been done to death; all we're seeing anymore is new polish on the same idea. There are plenty of other games to be made that can be played massively multiplayer. I know I have ideas for a half a dozen that I want to play or make. But the market needs to get itself out of the current rut of cloning the MUD.

None of this will happen anytime soon. Ever notice how lots of the people running game companies are the same people who've been at it for years? They aren't getting any new ideas.

[hanji]

One thing I'd really like to see is more dynamic content. I have no idea how it would be achieved so that it wouldn't be abused by players. But back before Ultima Online I remember Garriot talking of an idea like this. His example was that a dragon could take up residence near a town and would be feeding on sheep, but someone decides he wants lots of wool and meat so he kills all the sheep. This leaves the dragon with no food thus the dragon goes into town to feed causing the townspeople to have to band together to fight the dragon.
I always thought something like that happening as a result of another action would be really cool. So, yeah, a world that feels more alive and interesting.

[Shadarr]

I could see that happening as a scripted event, but I think Garriott was talking about emergent events. I don't think the servers phycically have the horsepower to simulate a world made up of discreet entities making decisions in real time. More likely a system like that would obviate any flaws in the AI code, and you'd get really weird things happening that break immersion for the players. Or maybe the dragon just goes to the level one area and kicks the crap out of newbies, thus costing the company subscriptions.

A game like that would be really cool, but it would probably have to be smaller in scale and not based around a level grind.

[Calistas]

emergent behaviour is hard. Scripting events is easy. Wonder what we'll see for the next 10 years ;)

There's always imperator online. But what is going to be different about it?

And I liked Neocron.. a much MUCH underated game, IMHO, I will be keen to see what those guys do.

Perhaps i'm just getting too old :D

[Backov]

Well I can see a few ways that MMOs could be improved.

More mini games, I agree. Not tetris, but something. It would be interesting to have a good puzzle mini game for crafting, for instance. I also want a fully implemented ingame casino, although getting rid of collusion in games like poker would be tough. Perhaps an in game CCG? That would kick ass.

The player needs to be able to change the world. This is so hard I can't even begin to imagine a good way to do it, but it's doable. By this I mean he needs to be able to become a real hero, not just one of the thousands that killed the dragon this month.

Player created content. The idea that's in my head for implementing this is a very powerful offline dungeon creation tool. This would create blueprints which then can be made into pocket dungeons, basically dungeon "items" that at some point in the game you or your party can enter. This item should be easily duplicatable or something so that a lot of people can try them. They'd need an xp/gold cap over all your attempts to prevent cheezing out with Monty Haul dungeons. There's a lot of elements, but it could be balanced.

Add a user moderation system for these dungeons. When a dungeons get rated high enough by enough people, have the real content team take a look at it. If it's suitable, it gets placed somewhere in the world as a real dungeon, probably after some polish. The player responsible gets some noteriety out of this in some way - a statue of himself somewhere in the dungeon perhaps?

Anyway, there's lots of things that can be done. It's just too bad the barrier to entry is so high, without a lot of hungry competition the cool stuff will never get done, it'll continue to be (very polished) dikumuds like WoW.

[Calistas]

You can always come and build DarkLife with me and friends.

Guy is just adding farming to it this week hehe, and mining.

[Rollory]

You can always come and build DarkLife with me and friends.

Wazzat?

[Joel]

If EVE Online would just add space-sim elements to their otherwise amazing economics simulation, I would probably be in MMO heaven. I'm one of those weirdos for whom actually piloting and escorting trade ships (filled with goods that will make my corporation money) across vast, unpopulated expanses is actually thereputic.

Basically, TIE Fighter on top of Trade Wars 2002, or what Freelancer should have been.

[Calistas]

Yeah, I was amazed EVE shot itself in the foot.

DarkLife is a project inside Second Life. You can see pics of it at http://theconvocational.blogspot.com (somewhere thereon me blog).

In Second Life all this player-made stuff everyone dreams about happens and is all there is!

I would find SL boring but for the projects. Right now I'm working with a couple of friends on what is essentially a Diablo clone.. but it's getting more and more complex too ;)

Got a whole sim (16 acres) to build on as well... and possibilities of expanding.

It's a good MMO sandbox as any idea can be tested quite quickly.

We're in development right now and launching in about 3 weeks.

[HRose]

Basically, TIE Fighter on top of Trade Wars 2002, or what Freelancer should have been.
Isn't X2 like that?

[Mark Asher]

D&D Online is going to have realtime combat. Imperator, MEO, Vanguard -- they could all be interesting.

We've had different kinds of MMOs already. A Tale in the Desert, Second Life, Sims Online, WWII Online, Neocron, Puzzle Pirates, Motor City Online, Majestic, Jumpgate, etc.

I think the basic MUD model is still fine. Companies just need to match Blizzard at this point or else offer some kind of niche product that manages to not compete with WoW.

Maybe five years from now we'll be playing in the just-released World of Starcraft, with twitch combat on the ground and space battles.

[MikeSofaer]

I'm working on an overview for an MMO design with my brothers this weekend. It's going to have some emergent behaviour, a lot of emphasis on community (I played ATITD for a year) and semi-twitch gaming.

That's if we actually make the thing, we shall see.

I will have to check out Second Life, it might be a really cool place to develop.

[mutt]

I don't think things will go this way because I don't think roleplaying is actually the impetus behind any MMORPG, but I'd like to see a game that featured a full cast of fulltime actors (i.e. roleplayers) acting out a storyline. Players would be invited to take as little or as large a part as they wanted to in the story, and the actors would drive the action through their own choices as roleplayers. Players would not be the center of attention, but would participate in the game's drama in much the same way they participate in real life drama and activities. There would be no pre-scripted crap like in current level-games.

Anyway, it's a pipedream, since even if someone wanted to do it, where are you going to get (and pay for) the enormous number of actors you'd need to make such a game? But that's what I'd like to see.

[Talisker]

Just try and tell me that the dancing car ad (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/robots/dancing-citroen-transformer-025638.php) wouldn't be the best jumping off point for a MMO, evar.

[dmiller]

Beyond that, somebody needs to get a game out where the basic game mechanic is NOT D&D. A game where the basic functionality is NOT "get a weapon, hit the monster, gain xp". That game has been done to death; all we're seeing anymore is new polish on the same idea.

And you won't see anything new like this in the MMP arena. This longing for a 'revolution' in mmp gameplay just isn't going to happen anytime soon. Why? If you try to change a paradigm like this, the players simply won't like it. Everyone will complain about 'where are the monsters?' Where is my XP bar? Removing these core essentials will not yield you the audience needed to be a successful game and stay in business.

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, that was called Planetside, and it was (and is) a phenomenal game, but not many people are playing it.

[Foom]

The market for traditional MMOGs is pretty much covered by the old school games and the two 600lb. gorillas that just entered the market. And there don't seem to be many big titles on the horizon (Vanguard, Imperator and Middle Earth are still very far off).

So I'd say we'll be seeing more smallish products, designed on a tighter budget and made to appeal to a very specific demographic. If they want to survive, they'll need something to set themselves apart from the big, well established contenders, and if we're lucky that'll result in some nice innovations.

We should start a general - not just MMO - predictions thread so we can dig it out in an year and laugh our asses off :)

[Shadarr]

I've always thought it would be cool if an MMOG had gladiator fights. Specifically, I think it would be hilarious for people to make their avatars pay virtual money and sit in a stadium while watching other people do something.

[JM]

Eve had so much potential, but after weeks of mining I think I was ready to jump off a bridge.

[Marcin]

Eve had so much potential, but after weeks of mining I think I was ready to jump off a bridge.

Actually there are plenty of alternatives to that, if you don't mind the sloooooooooooooooooooow pace.

No, what got me was that every time I'd hook up with a likely corporation/friend/teammate, all they'd want to do was go mining. What's wrong with going somewhere FUN, taking on LOTS of bogeys and getting your ass nearly shot off (while getting tons of loot)?

But no. Mining it was. Sigh. :/

I'm going back in to check out the post-Shiva universe. Gonna get me a Destroyer (frigate class but with 8 turrets!) and prance around the universe, killing rats. Maybe the new station-building stuff will give it some life...territorial control in MMOs is long overdue.

[Rollory]

And you won't see anything new like this in the MMP arena. This longing for a 'revolution' in mmp gameplay just isn't going to happen anytime soon. Why? If you try to change a paradigm like this, the players simply won't like it. Everyone will complain about 'where are the monsters?' Where is my XP bar? Removing these core essentials will not yield you the audience needed to be a successful game and stay in business.

You just have absolutely no fucking clue whatsoever.

Well, maybe it's not that bad.

No, on second thought, it is; it's just that everyone else is thinking in these same exact terms, so it's unremarkable. You do not start designing a game by thinking "we're taking features X, Y, and Z away from game A". If you do that OF COURSE you will get players complaining, and justifiably so, and you deserve to go down as a total complete flaming ruin of failure as a game designer. The point is that you have to start thinking about a game that is a DIFFERENT game from the one you've chosen to play for most of your gaming life. People play card games. They are fun. There is no xp in those. People play tiddlywinks. That is fun. There is no monster to bash in tiddlywinks. People play (or used to) those "Host a Murder" role-playing games where you invite over some friends, randomly pass out cards for character identity, motives, and clues, and try to figure out whodunnit while enjoying a good dinner, in the finest Victorian spirit. Those are fun. There is no weapon-collecting in those. People also play big complicated tactical/strategic military adventure/simulation games with big-ass CRTs and hundred-page rulebooks where a move takes an hour to resolve. Those are fun too. They are the spiritual ancestor of D&D. They are not in any sense the only possible game one can make. One is not required to engage in avatar-versus-avatar combat in order to create an enjoyable game experience over the internet - or even an enjoyable virtual world experience. That assumption, that box around everyone's thinking, is the one thing that is crippling the online gaming field.

I actually saw some decent attempts to get outside of this box during my time at EA.com (attempts made by people who didn't know enough about the field to realize the box existed and they should stay inside). They all were sunk pretty quickly, but there are plenty more ideas out there than what has been done so far.

[MikeSofaer]

Exactly. Obviously a radically different MMO will lose some of the core MMO audience, and that's a risk. The possible benefit is you might open a new segment of the MMO market by having gameplay that is INTERESTING. Like all those old people who think they're still gamers ;0

It's like building a new coalition: risky, but if it works it allows you to suddenly get a lot more done.