MMO market growth and burnout?

[Mark Asher]

I know the market's growing, but the enormous time committment these games require make me wonder if there isn't a cap to that growth around the corner?

I feel like I'm nearing the end of my time in WoW -- not forever, but I will probably cancel and not play for several months -- and I have no desire to play another MMO in its place. I don't want to even try other MMO games. So not only do MMOs displace my purchasing of traditional PC games, I don't seem to want to invest much in the MMO genre itself. I could get Vanguard right now, but I have no desire to. I could play DDO, which I've heard is at least pretty interesting for a bit. No desire. I could try to get into the LotR MMO beta -- absolutely no interest. I don't even think I'd jump into the Warhammer beta (or alpha) if it was open.

Anyway, the growth limiting factors for MMOs seem to be the time required and the monthly fees. I think these are significant barriers to entry. I haven't seen a revenue model yet that abandons monthly fees that seems to work well enough to make a game profitable and generate enough revenue to continue to add to the game. Does Planetside get much in the way of new content?

[mouselock]

I know the market's growing, but the enormous time committment these games require make me wonder if there isn't a cap to that growth around the corner?

That time commitment is a product of you and your playstyles, not inherent in the genre. I know that sounds crazy since the entire genre is about the long grind, but it is possible to play MMO's in moderation and casually without feeling compelled to always be on levelling up at the expense of all other forms of entertainment. I will often (and happily) decide not to play WoW so I can play something else on the computer or one of my consoles or simply just watch some of my DVR'd tv shows. Of course it means I'm behind everyone in my guild who I started out even with at 60, but so what?

[Mark Asher]

I think the issue with the time committment is that most players will chew through content, so the developers are inclined to build in time sinks just as governors on player progress. These sinks slap the truly casual player right in the face. You're just not going to get much out of a game like WoW if you only play a couple of hours a week.

Maybe another way of putting it is what kind of MMO would players play that only required a couple of hours a week? And how would that fit players who like to play 20-30 hours a week? Can you make one MMO that works for both playstyles?

[Ben Sones]

Mouselock is right. I'm back into WoW after a long-ish hiatus, and I'm sticking to playing just once or twice a week, in planned sessions with a few friends. I'm enjoying it a lot, but I feel no desire to spend every minute of my game time playing WoW. It really is fun in limited sessions, thanks to the quantity of quests and the relative speed with which you can resolve many of them. The only thing that's a time sink is getting to 60, but that, as mouselook says, is a playstyle thing. If you don't worry about maxing your character and just enjoy the ride, it's great fun even in small amounts.

[Xemu]

I don't deny the possibility that that could be going on, but people were saying the same thing about the size of the market after EQ1.

[Mark Asher]

WoW can still be classified as an exception, however. We haven't seen anything like EQ1 in the North American and European markets besides WoW. Everything else hasn't matched EQ1.

[EvilIdler]

I'm not entirely burnt out on MMOs, but I only play short sessions of whatever
is the current game. Nowadays, it's Vanguard. It has everything WoW has,
except PvP (and I don't like non-DAoC PvP!), plus a few neat features and
additional subgames. Plus a gigantic world. I like exploration.

I think getting lost in a new MMO is fun. I mean literally walking outside the
recommended areas just to go exploring :)

[Gordon Cameron]

I am eagerly waiting to burn out on WoW.

As Shatner said, "It hasn't happened yet."

[Tom McNamara]

The most significant barrier to entry is that your average MMO isn't very good. The development cycle appears to be quite large, and Cool Ideas usually have to get left by the wayside so that you can finish before the money runs out. All that polish and "art direction" in WoW is the end result of at least five solid years of self-funded development, and as much as 50 million dollars. I know, that sounds like a crazy number, but we're talking about a long pipeline and a lot of contributers. We're talking about a situation where you know you're next paycheck is not going to get held up, really, because your employer is very successful and has a celebrated line of products.

The morale issue there is underestimated, I think. There's no worry that you're going to end up with a nasty-looking mistake that's still pretty much in beta. Everyone who developed WoW knew that they were crafting something good, something that wouldn't get rushed. There's still the possibility that it will get cancelled late in the game, as Warcraft Adventures taught us, but the team members know it's unlikely that such an event will lead to unemployment.

You look at screenshots of other MMOs; if they look strangely barren or plastic, that's because there wasn't enough time and/or money to make it look like a tangible location. In WoW, there's cruft everywhere -- little bits and pieces that must have been deadly tedious to place by hand, one square virtual meter after another. But they had the time, the talent, and the money to make it happen. They had other popular games on the shelf, and yet others in development. It was and will probably continue to be a unique situation.

Of course, WoW is still just a pretty diku in the end. You go to all the dungeons eventually, and you see all there is to see. And you either hang on because you're addicted to the rhythm, or you leave because you got bored. To be fair, though, it's a fun experience in its own right.

[Sarkus]

MMO's need to (and are) evolve to attract a larger audience. Compare WoW and LOTRO to Everquest and it's like night and day. Solo content, quests that are related to an unfolding storyline, that is the future. Sure, there will always be room for the "grinders" who are all about maxing their character out ASAP, but the more casual player needs lots of solo content and some storyline hooks to keep them playing.

[steve]

We haven't seen anything like EQ1 in the North American and European markets besides WoW. Everything else hasn't matched EQ1.
Actually, we have: Final Fantasy XI. It has more players than EQ ever had at peak.

[Qenan]

Actually, we have: Final Fantasy XI. It has more players than EQ ever had at peak.

In North America? I thought it did worldwide, but not here.

I've been burned out on MMOGs for a long time. Mouselock is right that you can play them for fewer hours, but the problem (for me, at least) is that the basic gameplay is less than compelling. Getting new levels and abilities is the fun part, and you don't get much of that on a few hours a week.

I just can't rouse the enthusiasm. I still have two unopened boxes of EQ2, and two more unopened Nightfall boxes.

[steve]

In North America? I thought it did worldwide, but not here.
EverQuest's 400,000 maximum was worldwide, and Final Fantasy isn't quite as extreme in foreign/US players as something like Lineage, so I think it's fair to say that it's similar to EQ.

I've been burned out on MMOGs for a long time. Mouselock is right that you can play them for fewer hours, but the problem (for me, at least) is that the basic gameplay is less than compelling. Getting new levels and abilities is the fun part, and you don't get much of that on a few hours a week.
I'm with others in thinking this is more of a problem of how you play them than flaws with the genre itself. If your goals are "finish that quest" rather than "get from 38-39," you'll get just as much satisfaction for 30 minutes of play as you do with 8 hours.

Sure, they reward time more than skill, and are full of grindy things designed to keep you playing longer. But unless you're obsessive about leveling, you can dabble in most of these games and still have a good time.

Hell, I have 50 hours in Vanguard and am level 13. In WoW, I'd be at 30 or so. Yet I still log in, do a quest, mess around with some crafting, or check my auctions.

[Aeon221]

Is it safe to label this thread "MMOs are d0med?"

Based on the fact that there are more retired people every day, and not all of those retired people play golf, and at least some of them are interested in gaming, I'd say that there is probably plenty of room for growth for the MMO market.

With Guild Wars, it seems like I run into old people (50+ years old) more frequently than I do people under the age of 16, which strikes me as quite odd.

[Jason Becker]

I know the market's growing, but the enormous time committment these games require make me wonder if there isn't a cap to that growth around the corner?

I feel like I'm nearing the end of my time in WoW -- not forever, but I will probably cancel and not play for several months -- and I have no desire to play another MMO in its place. I don't want to even try other MMO games. So not only do MMOs displace my purchasing of traditional PC games, I don't seem to want to invest much in the MMO genre itself. I could get Vanguard right now, but I have no desire to. I could play DDO, which I've heard is at least pretty interesting for a bit. No desire. I could try to get into the LotR MMO beta -- absolutely no interest. I don't even think I'd jump into the Warhammer beta (or alpha) if it was open.

Anyway, the growth limiting factors for MMOs seem to be the time required and the monthly fees. I think these are significant barriers to entry. I haven't seen a revenue model yet that abandons monthly fees that seems to work well enough to make a game profitable and generate enough revenue to continue to add to the game. Does Planetside get much in the way of new content?

So tell me why I shouldn't just take this as anything more than you expanding what are your current personal feelings on the matter to everyone else for some reason. Because thats what is sounds like.

[Drastic]

Even if the market is growing, I don't really think a Burnout MMO would do well. Who really wants to grind dozens of compacts to collect three bumpers and twenty hubcaps?

Of course, I only skimmed the thread. I'm sure I have the gist of it, though.

[Mark Asher]

So tell me why I shouldn't just take this as anything more than you expanding what are your current personal feelings on the matter to everyone else for some reason. Because thats what is sounds like.

Yeah, what did you expect? A report with market research and statistics? It was just something I was thinking about and I decided to start a thread. I thought that was sort of what people did on message boards.

[Sarkus]

So tell me why I shouldn't just take this as anything more than you expanding what are your current personal feelings on the matter to everyone else for some reason. Because thats what is sounds like.

If that's the bar to starting a thread these boards are going to be mighty dull soon.

There's nothing wrong with someone saying "this is how I feel" and starting a thread about it.

[Jason Becker]

If that's the bar to starting a thread these boards are going to be mighty dull soon.

There's nothing wrong with someone saying "this is how I feel" and starting a thread about it.

Well as anyone who has spent time on this board knows this is something Mark starts up every few months or so.

It just gets a tad old...

[SpoofyChop]

My feeling for a while has been that MMOs need to expand their gameplay. Most games basically have three or four distinct elements to them:

1) Questing
2) Fighting stuff
3) Crafting stuff
4) Owning/developing a house

Usually the fighting part of the game is highly highly developed and so is the questing, but the crafting is essentially a minor element of gameplay and owning and developing housing is underdeveloped.

I think that any game that wants to do better than WoW seriously has to add to this list. The questing and fighting need to be awesome but the crafting has to be almost a separate game. EQ2 tried this but they made it really boring. Only The Sims Online has ever done anything really significant with player housing but that was the entire game.

These games need to have crafting that is a serious economic style game in its own right. They need to have Sims 2 level house design and interaction. Your house should impact your gameplay and your character.

They need to add minigames and things like MTG style games (I gather that Vanguard does this to some extent) and these minigames need to have a role in the overall world. We need to see games that have two or three complete genres represented...games where there is not only a third person questing/fighting/dungeon game like we have now but that also add RTS, turn based strategy, and FPS elements.

We need to see games that completely break the mold or I can easily see a kind of MMO boredom set in like you're describing Mark. As WoW ages and newer games copycat it shamelessly over the next few years I think we'll start to see a much more evenly divided pie that looks nothing like the absurd 50% market share pwnage that WoW currently enjoys. At that point unless the game designs improve dramatically we'll probably just have a ton of very similar games that don't advance the genre and that people don't find very compelling.

[Mark Asher]

I probably should have stated something a bit better -- there seems to be a time committment built into these games that may be a barrier to entry. You might out-WoW WoW with a $100M game, but if you need to play the game 10+ hours per week, it may not attract a significant number of first-time MMO players.

The burnout issue is just an observation -- burning out on one MMO may essentially mean you've burned out on all of them, if they all require a significant time investment.

[bloo]

The morale issue there is underestimated, I think. There's no worry that you're going to end up with a nasty-looking mistake that's still pretty much in beta.

*cough*

[RichVR]

Well, I recently purchased City of Villains for $19.99 on impulse so I've been playing CoX for a while again. There is a bit of new content, and I was able to level a villain char up to 21 in two weeks when it took me 6 months to level hero char up to 14 back at startup. I have to guess that there were changes while I was gone. ;)

As well I hadn't played Eve Online for a long while, but I figured that a (really) free (no credit card needed) 14 day trial was worth downloading. So I'm doing that as well. Makes me want to re-up there also.

OTOH, I wouldn't go back to WOW on a bet, but that's just me. Maybe you're just burnt out on WOW? The girlfriend's son is back on WOW since the new expansion and he's playing AC too.

I think there can be game burnout if you are on any MMO for too long, if you're a casual type player. But games keeping your account in limbo so that you can go back to old games and start where you left off with the same characters works in their favor. I was kinda happy to see all of the perks that I got for my old toons when I restarted my CoX account. New powers, free respecs, free tailor sessions (costume changes). They gave me a reason to stay a while. I'm wondering if Eve keeps old characters. Anybody know? Because I had a few million ISK on my old account. I wouldn't mind restarting that sucker. OTOH I don't remember anything but his name. It has been a while.

[steve]

I probably should have stated something a bit better -- there seems to be a time committment built into these games that may be a barrier to entry. You might out-WoW WoW with a $100M game, but if you need to play the game 10+ hours per week, it may not attract a significant number of first-time MMO players.
This makes zero sense. Doesn't WoW show that you can attract a lot of first-time MMO players with the exact same time commitment?

The burnout issue is just an observation -- burning out on one MMO may essentially mean you've burned out on all of them, if they all require a significant time investment.
Depends on what's burning you out. Is it the world you're in, the mechanics, or just the time? If it's the time--and I get burned out on games, in general, at least once a year--you just don't play for a few weeks or a month or more and recharge. (Or you go to comfort games, ones you just don't get sick of.)

Then again, maybe your problem is that you're just playing WoW. I play WoW, but also a lot of other ones. I don't put as much time into any of them as some people (exceptions being games I'm reviewing), but dabbling ends up keeping things interesting because I get to experience a lot of different worlds/mechanics, etc.

[Mark Asher]

"This makes zero sense. Doesn't WoW show that you can attract a lot of first-time MMO players with the exact same time commitment?"

Is that an infinite pool of first-time players, or has WoW already grabbed a significant percentage of this pool? I'm assuming that WoW attracted gamers and not non-gamers for the most part.

It's sort of like RTS games. By now, most of us have tried one. Where would you expect to see significant growth in the number of RTS players? I don't think you will, unless you manage to attract non-gamers somehow. MMOs may be getting near that too. By now many of the potential audience who are willing to invest 10 or more hours a week into an MMO may have already sampled one.

[Sidd_Budd]

I'm wondering if Eve keeps old characters. Anybody know? Because I had a few million ISK on my old account. I wouldn't mind restarting that sucker. OTOH I don't remember anything but his name. It has been a while.
I'm pretty sure EVE keeps old characters. In fact, I think Final Fantasy XI is the only decent-sized MMO that *doesn't* keep old characters. Or they didn't, last time I looked into it.

[DeepT]

I know the market's growing, but the enormous time committment these games require make me wonder if there isn't a cap to that growth around the corner?

This kind of question really annoys me. It annoys me because of all the Bulls**t people were spouting in the days of EQ. "The market is saturated, it can't hold that many more people." "1 Million is the absolute max, and EQ already has 450k subs!".

The answer is simple: Nobody knows or can know. Nobody can speak with authority on this, and if they claim to, they are a fool. Only bigger fools will listen to them.

Regardless, this idea will persists and become a 'fact' until someone comes along and proves how wrong everyone was. Maybe blizzard will release a Diablo MMOG and push the market to 20 million subs.

[Slainte Mhath]

Having been a long time MMO player through a dozen or more games over the years, I can relate to MMO burnout. Two main reasons I see for burnout are:

1) Sameness. Let's face it, EQ2, WoW, Vanguard, LotR Online and Warhammer Online are all pretty similar at their core. All are fantasy themed MMOs with level treadmills and variations on the same theme of questing, crafting, leveling, raiding. Go back a generation (of games, not people) and you see EQ, UO, AC and DAoC in the same situation. People are getting tired of the same old game in a shiney new wrapper.

The solution is to provide something different. We're seeing developers try that with current games like Eve Online and A Tale in the Desert and coming attractions like Pirates of the Burning Sea. Hopefully more publishers take a chance on games without elves in the near future.

2) Cost. $15 a month is now the standard fee for online gaming. That's a relative bargain if you play 30-40 hours or more of WoW per month. But for casual players, or players who have experienced a lot of the content already, playtime may fall off to as little as 8-10 hours a month (one night a week). $15 seems like a lot to pay monthly if you're only putting in a token appearance weekly, especially when you could reroute that $15 to the next shiney new MMO or even a single player game.

The fix here is both Guild Wars style "free play" with the profit coming in consistant expansions and downloadable content that can be purchased, or in a major rethinking of fee schedules for online games. What if you had two payment plans for WoW. On the "Unlimited" plan, you pay the $15 a month and can play all you want. On the "Basic" plan, you pay $5 and you get 20 hours of gameplay during that 30 day period. More than enough for a casual player to log in a couple nights a week for 2-3 hours at a time, and cheap enough that they'd keep the subscription even if they missed a month or only logged in one night a week to play with a set group of friends.


Personally, I know these two factors play a major role in my decision to cancel an MMO subscription. I won't pay $15 to maintain a once a week presence in a game, especially when I start feeling like I NEED to log in just to get my money's worth. I also am tired of the same-old same-old. Vanguard may be pretty and have some new ideas in crafting and diplomacy, but it's still EQ in a sexy new dress, and chances are I'll tire of it faster than something that provided a unique and different play experience.

[SlyFrog]

Having been a long time MMO player through a dozen or more games over the years, I can relate to MMO burnout. Two main reasons I see for burnout are:

1) Sameness. Let's face it, EQ2, WoW, Vanguard, LotR Online and Warhammer Online are all pretty similar at their core. All are fantasy themed MMOs with level treadmills and variations on the same theme of questing, crafting, leveling, raiding. Go back a generation (of games, not people) and you see EQ, UO, AC and DAoC in the same situation. People are getting tired of the same old game in a shiney new wrapper.

The solution is to provide something different. We're seeing developers try that with current games like Eve Online and A Tale in the Desert and coming attractions like Pirates of the Burning Sea. Hopefully more publishers take a chance on games without elves in the near future.

2) Cost. $15 a month is now the standard fee for online gaming. That's a relative bargain if you play 30-40 hours or more of WoW per month. But for casual players, or players who have experienced a lot of the content already, playtime may fall off to as little as 8-10 hours a month (one night a week). $15 seems like a lot to pay monthly if you're only putting in a token appearance weekly, especially when you could reroute that $15 to the next shiney new MMO or even a single player game.

The fix here is both Guild Wars style "free play" with the profit coming in consistant expansions and downloadable content that can be purchased, or in a major rethinking of fee schedules for online games. What if you had two payment plans for WoW. On the "Unlimited" plan, you pay the $15 a month and can play all you want. On the "Basic" plan, you pay $5 and you get 20 hours of gameplay during that 30 day period. More than enough for a casual player to log in a couple nights a week for 2-3 hours at a time, and cheap enough that they'd keep the subscription even if they missed a month or only logged in one night a week to play with a set group of friends.


Personally, I know these two factors play a major role in my decision to cancel an MMO subscription. I won't pay $15 to maintain a once a week presence in a game, especially when I start feeling like I NEED to log in just to get my money's worth. I also am tired of the same-old same-old. Vanguard may be pretty and have some new ideas in crafting and diplomacy, but it's still EQ in a sexy new dress, and chances are I'll tire of it faster than something that provided a unique and different play experience.


If I could get to the point where I didn't feel compelled to still buy other games, I would have no issue with the $15. Hell, even if I spent a couple of hours one night a week playing, that amounts to less than $2 per hour in entertainment costs.

Where I get irritated is with the EQII model of releasing so many damn expansions. I actually do expect that the $15 is going to pay for major, material new content. However, how many new modules have come out for EQII? 5 or 6? Costing between $8 and $40 (some of the smaller modules that are downloadable are only $8, but I believe there has been at least 3 $30+ modules that have come out as well).

I hate games where I don't have the "entire" game. I don't like having to pay a subscription, in addition to buying the base game, and then having to go out and pay another $40 to be able to play the fairy people.

[Coca Cola Zero]

The fix here is both Guild Wars style "free play" with the profit coming in consistant expansions and downloadable content that can be purchased, or in a major rethinking of fee schedules for online games. What if you had two payment plans for WoW.


I'm all for having flexible payment plans in WoW. In fact, they already do have different payment styles but AFAIK, they just use a single one in each region (eg. from what I hear, Chinese players pay a very small amount by the minute or hour). But I'm not a fan of the constant expansions idea. I don't want to have to even think about what expansions I currently own and whether I should buy others. It is just a bit too much confusion to ask for from casual players and even though it is admittedly somewhat irrational given that the base game is "free" compared to $15/mo for WoW, having all those expansions makes it feel like you're getting nickel and dimed, sort of like some XBLA updates. In the long run, you may even pay less with that model, but flat rate subscriptions are just so common that they feel natural these days, constant expansions don't, at least not to me. Maybe this will change as we see more of this type of thing. Anyway, I'm a huge fan of the WoW "one big expansion that virtually every player will buy" model, even if it means expansions only come out every couple of years.

I think MMO burnout is inevitable for most people. I played WoW for about 8 months from release and then quit. I just restarted playing when BC was released and I'm having a ton of fun with it again. I'm sure I'll eventually burnout and shelf the game for a while, perhaps until the next big expansion or until some other MMO game comes out that has something that makes it more interesting than WoW to me.

And lastly, you actually can play WoW pretty casually. It helps to have a small group of people you always play with who all want to play casually so you stay around the same level. In my experience this works best with people you know IRL. It is funny to see WoW being called out for slapping casual players in the face when other MMOs are so much worse... not that there isn't still room for improvement, but still...

[Walter Yarbrough]

Anyway, the growth limiting factors for MMOs seem to be the time required and the monthly fees. I think these are significant barriers to entry. I haven't seen a revenue model yet that abandons monthly fees that seems to work well enough to make a game profitable and generate enough revenue to continue to add to the game. Does Planetside get much in the way of new content?

A surprising result of playing MMO's is that I spend significantly less on Computer Games than I have in the past. And I've talked to some other players who have noted the same thing.

So, I'm not sure that monthly fees are so much of a limiting factor, these days. Particularly as the number of 'ex-players' expands.

-Walt

[Qenan]

As far as burnout goes, I seem to recall Jessica saying that typically players put more hours into their first MMOG than subsequent ones, and take longer to quit. If my memory is correct, that might point to burnout being a natural factor.

[steve]

As far as burnout goes, I seem to recall Jessica saying that typically players put more hours into their first MMOG than subsequent ones, and take longer to quit. If my memory is correct, that might point to burnout being a natural factor.
It's odd to think of it as burnout when people are putting hundreds, or even thousands of hours into these games before bailing. Do people really expect to want to play any single game forever?

[Alan Dunkin]

If I put so much time and effort into playing a game like that, why wouldn't I want to stay for a long time?

--- Alan

[Aeon221]

If I put so much time and effort into playing a game like that, why wouldn't I want to stay for a long time?

--- Alan

That sounds a lot like the sunk cost effect.

[HRose]

Burnout happens in every genre, mmorpgs aren't special.

The problem is to keep the game well alive so that there's constant influx of new players, there are no "growth limiting factors" aside that one. As there are players "exiting" there are players coming in.

And the even more real problem is that MMO's management is usually for "short term good and long term bad" type of direction. Also because devs legitimately give priority to the longevity of their careers than the longevity of the game.

Example: focusing on players retention more than new players appeal (ex. expansions).

[metta]

My wife and I played DAoC for over four years. We loved the RvR game mechanic, but what really kept us there was the community - we met people playing that game that we have developed meaningful, out-of-game, friendships with.

We'd probably have played WoW for longer than a year if the community we found there hadn't been so bloody awful.

[Jab2565]

I've gotten to the point where I just can't get excited about any mmo games anymore. I bought the new guild wars expansion and played it for about 3 days and never looked at it again. I played Wow for about 6 months and now I have no desire to play it.

I think I'm really not a fan of the mmo genre. The idea that a game "doesn't start" until the end annoys the hell out of me. Also I'm a very solo minded player , even when I was in a few guilds in Wow I always perfer to do my own thing, I doubt I could ever do a raid . Really, the only MMO game I played that almost hooked me was A tale in the Desert, but playing that game would have probably destroyed my academic life.

quick list of mmos I tired(not all played beyond trial): Atitd, Matrix online, EQ2, Wow, Shattered Galaxy,Coh, GuildWars, PSO, Earth and Beyond.

[EFlannum]

I think I'm really not a fan of the mmo genre. The idea that a game "doesn't start" until the end annoys the hell out of me.



So you mentioned that you had played some guild wars... did you have this impression of the game? And if so what made you feel that way? I've seen this comment from a lot of people but ussualy only in cases where the "endgame" is substantially different from what you do to reach that point.

[Gordon Cameron]

The idea that a game "doesn't start" until the end annoys the hell out of me.

Most of my best memories/experiences playing WoW came before "the end" (i.e. level 60).

[Jab2565]

So you mentioned that you had played some guild wars... did you have this impression of the game? And if so what made you feel that way? I've seen this comment from a lot of people but ussualy only in cases where the "endgame" is substantially different from what you do to reach that point.

I think that and Coh I technically "beat". My first GW guy I played all the way thru all the missions. I think with guild wars I just got tired of the gameplay itself, I just didn't see any rewards or advancements that made the gameplay meaningful. Coh I got my favorite guy to lvl 50 and did a few taskforce missions.

With Wow, the grind from 40-50 killed all sense of fun I had with Wow. I enjoyed the early game of Wow, but when it got to the point where your talents basically dictated your entire gameplay experience, I lost interest. I remember how certain "builds" were pretty much required to get any where with certain characters, and going any other direction meant screwing up your character.

[Charlatan]

I'm definitely a "journey is the reward" kind of guy, and therefore I really enjoy playing WOW and leveling a character from 1 to 70. When I hit max level with my first character a couple years ago, I didn't really understand the concept of continuing to evolve your guy by improving armor and getting different colored shiney stuff, but I do now. But I agree that the community is as important as anything else in MMORPGS - playing one by yourself can be fun, sure, but eventually you'll get drawn away if there's no other connection to the world.

The only reason I don't level more characters to 60 is that even if you switch sides, eventually you do run out of fresh stuff to encounter, and after a while you really DO get tired of collecting 15 plainstrider beaks, or killing 10 Gnoll Scavengers, or fetching the stupid workman's box of tools that he dropped in the river.

[cliffski]

I love the idea of MMOs, but tend to get really narked with the reality of them, due to the following:

1) fixed monthly fee regardless how little I play
2) repetitive and tedious grinding masquerading as gameplay.
3) Griefers
4) Unneccesary layers of complexity and jargon that just put off casual or new players. Most MMo players seem to speak a foreign language, all about shards, instances, buffs etc.

number 4) is never addressed. If you are doing an MMO where (for example) you can play a pirate, then the game should be simple to pick up and play for someone who hasn't read the manual, who has maybe watched pirates of the carribean twice, and who can't be arsed to read 30 pages of stats.

I guess in some ways I want to be in a hardcore roleplaying MMO, where people are playing to roleplay and have fun in a virtual world, and where points, levels and skillz are just a sideshow. Too many people gravitate towards the mentality of a 5 year old when playing an MMO, where the whole game becomes about getting more points and more stuff.

I already play a game like that called life.

I hope someday, someone does an MMO with no stats, no levels, and thus no grind. The only ones I'm aware of are the Sims Online and Second Life. TSO is too real-world for my tastes, and SL just seems to look inconsistant and frankly, horrible.

I know, 99% of people enjoy grinding by stabbing 500 4 hit-point rats to get points. I just don't get it ;(

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Too many people gravitate towards the mentality of a 5 year old when playing an MMO, where the whole game becomes about getting more points and more stuff.

Isn't that Kudos in a nutshell?

;)

Troy

[mouselock]

number 4) is never addressed. If you are doing an MMO where (for example) you can play a pirate, then the game should be simple to pick up and play for someone who hasn't read the manual, who has maybe watched pirates of the carribean twice, and who can't be arsed to read 30 pages of stats.

While I understand the complaint, I never, ever am able to understand why this persists when it's entirely on the player's side. If you boot up most MMO's and start playing, the game itself will teach you what you need to know. There, at some point, exists a gap between a brand new player and a seasoned veteran replaying low level characters for the Nth time, but why is this a problem? It's no different than trying to communicate with someone outside of your field in real life - it's often not important that you understand the jargon, and if it is for some reason invariably someone will take the time to explain it to you.

If the entire point of an MMO is to enjoy the journey, there needs to be a journey there to enjoy. Part of that is gaining experience with the gameworld.


I guess in some ways I want to be in a hardcore roleplaying MMO, where people are playing to roleplay and have fun in a virtual world, and where points, levels and skillz are just a sideshow. Too many people gravitate towards the mentality of a 5 year old when playing an MMO, where the whole game becomes about getting more points and more stuff.

I already play a game like that called life.


What does it matter what "too many people do"? Play the game you want to play and keep an eye out for people who do likewise. They exist, I assure you. Are they harder to find? Perhaps. But that works both ways: If they're rare enough to be hard to find, then it's that much more likely they'll gravitate toward each other when they are found.

I just don't think I'll ever get the complaints that basically boil down to "I don't like the fact that this game expects me to play like this; what it really ought to be is a game that plays like this and everyone else should play like this too." I think that's intrinsically incompatible with the idea of an MMO* (I like roleplaying as well, but I'd wager that your definition and mine don't sync. That doesn't make me wrong, you right, or vice versa.)


I hope someday, someone does an MMO with no stats, no levels, and thus no grind. The only ones I'm aware of are the Sims Online and Second Life. TSO is too real-world for my tastes, and SL just seems to look inconsistant and frankly, horrible.

If you don't want to grind, don't grind. The choice of whether or not you grind is, oddly, up to you. We have players in my guild (including myself at this point in time) who outright refuse to grind. Yeah, I'm 7 levels behind the rest of my guild. Yeah, they'll see all the new stuff first. So what? I'll get to see it anyway eventually, and in the meantime I don't have to "endure" a gameplay style that makes me want to drink drain cleaner.

What is it about MMOs that makes so many players' first reaction come out along the lines of "I can't be bothered to manage anything about my play style or habits whatsoever, therefore this game sucks because I'm forced to play in this way!"?

I know, 99% of people enjoy grinding by stabbing 500 4 hit-point rats to get points. I just don't get it ;(

Have you even tried WoW, for example? Just out of curiosity? If WoW qualifies for the above disclaimer, I can only say that I'd have to be able to level the exact same complaint at every CRPG ever made.

[cliffski]

Yes it's true I wrote a game with stats in (Kudos), although it's written to be fun, not as a perfectly balanced stat-climbing exercise by any means, but my real point is that an online game is supposed to be different. Surely the whole plus-point for an MMO is the fact that there are other people playing, and that you can interact with them in a more meaningful way than just aiming at them, otherwise, why bother? if you want singleplayer fantasy RPGs there are plenty of them around, and they don't require monthly fees. In an MMO, there surely has to be some element of it being about people, rather than just points, otherwise the online aspect becomes pretty redundant.

Interactions with real people are just so much more subtle and cool than with even the cleverest AI, and will remain like that for a long time. I think one of the most interesting developments in these games has been all the scandals of corps being double-crossed in eve-online. This was a scandal because it was real social engineering, carried out in a virtual world, which made it all the more notable, and infamous. Think about it, how many of us are interested to hear if corp X outgunned corp Y and blew up Z ships? Generally, unless its our corp, or our game, it doesn't sound cool. Maybe corp X had more money, or had been playing longer, or had ships with better guns due to poor game balance. who cares?
But dude X conned 100 real life people into lending him shedloads of virtual money, then did a runner? *that's* cool. And that's the stuff you can get in an MMO but just can't get in singleplayer games.

That's what I'm getting at, I'd like more of that, and less of the other stuff, which I can get in my singleplayer games (even kudos!). I guess what I'm asking for is for developers to build interesting virtual worlds for people to interact, and let us decide how to do it. Don't impose artificial ladders for us to climb, because that will crowd out any chance of more interesting stuff emerging.

I'm not saying everyone *MUST* play this way, it's just my opinion, and as I've already said, I know I'm the minority :D