On the current state of MMO's, part 1

File: 8649352.jpg (93KB, 495x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 495x600px

>>283713916
>As a business model

World of Warcraft is a simulacrum or a microcosm of corporate behavior.

The way to describe the business model of corportism is that of a cancer cell. Expand, expand, expand. Expand endlessly without ever strengthening the source of such expansion and it’s capability to uphold the demands of such expansion. Expansion until the elements that were meant to be emphasized BY WAY OF such expansion, are swallowed up. This is where points made in the first part of the post come in; the idea of quality over quantity. The game would have required very little oversight from the devs apart from technical maintenance if the depth of the game was focused on first and crucial game mechanics were not tacked onto others, but augmented. Intentional or no, Blizzard withheld WoW’s best features and introduced its worst features UNTIL the expansions were released to the public. It was mandatory for players to wait until the next big xpac for the game to “finally be fixed.” This was an effective selling/marketing ploy, but lacked ultimate sustainability.

What is sustainability in an MMO? This question leads me to my final point:

oh cool a new blog

They're not trying to be sustainable. They recognize the game is dead. They're just milking it as much as possible.

File: 1408232945569.jpg (239KB, 834x1000px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 834x1000px

>>283714039

>Failure to adhere to the MMO principle

An MMO is a “massively MULTIPLAYER” online game. It is a multiplayer game first and foremost, and a multiplayer game is defined by the interaction between PLAYERS. The players are those who define the game and give it its meaning; the game is but a medium for the interpersonal adventure.

Recent history has shown that the greatest MMOs are the ones that let the players create their own content WITHIN the game, using the game’s environment. It is the communal, social part of MMOs that we are so in love with.

File: 1386352817728.jpg (159KB, 1280x697px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1280x697px

>>283714307

Games like Star Wars: Galaxies, City of Heroes, Shadowbane all had a strong emphasis on player created adventures within a game-space that encouraged them to get together and fuck around. That is not to say that PvE heavy games are not sustainable. PvE content is perfectly adjustable to the focus of an MMO; the important thing however is to not let it undermine the social dimension of the game.
For example, the decrease in player communication in WoW is a result of features like Garrisons, the LFG/PUG feature, the obsolescence of Meeting Stones, the hand-holding of quests, etc. In addition to undermining the social aspect of PvE, social PvP was also greatly disrupted with cross-server battlegrounds, elite guards that do not stop respawning in small outposts and contested zones, etc. It is now possible (read: encouraged) for players to go through the entire game with the bare minimum of social interaction.
Why would they need anything else? The game has already provided them with everything needed to create their own “speshul snowflake” game experience. Players are sequestered from each other, classes are homogenized, and the game has effectively become an online single player.

This is the kiss of death. This is also why I have no faith in any MMO, released or upcoming. The picture painted here is quite simple. Big name publishers and developers must be bold and willing to demonstrate initiative in order to break the current MMO mold. Until a game is created with the MMO principle in mind, there can be no end to this ride.

END

>>283713916
>>283714039
>>283714520

By the logic of your initial argument, FFXIV:ARR is a MMO supreme that has correctly handled the issues you describe (important features by the bucketload, huge content updates at high frequency)

It falls very short on your last comment on social interaction (could be considered the worst for its inclusion of console players without keyboards) but you cannot claim MMOs as a genre are dead/dying if some of them have already(!) addressed your concerns

Games like Destiny and The Division are the future of MMOs.
Those games themselves might suck, but the idea behind them is a good one.

>>283715149
I never said it was a dying genre, my point was that it is a genre constrained by limiting models. There is much money to be made in the genre, but the games produced are essentially copies of games like Everquest, WoW, etc.

>>283715315
I don't want those

>>283713916
>WoW could have been slightly more successful and lasted even longer if Blizzards weren't a bunch of lazy fucks.
More at 11

mortal online and darkfall unholy wars the only modern mmos that takes advantage of the genre all other mmos are glorified lobby sims

>>283715149

Perhaps the definition of "dying" is a bit vague, but you are either asserting that the current MMO model is not successful on a creative level or business level

Disregarding the latter (successful MMOs generate mad dosh), why is the current themepark MMO model doomed? I see "themepark" being used a derisory remark about these games, but the same people would not express derision towards Mario for always running to the right. Why is this popular standard a bad thing?

>>283715730

wrong reply

>>283716724

the whole warcraft universe is a lord of the rings ripoff..

>>283716724
I'm not trying to argue, I'm just genuinely curious as to which MMOs are successful other than WoW? Wildstar has crashed and burned and TESO is going B2P soon.

>>283717158

Check out FFXIV, the subscriber base is steadily increasing despite little to no marketing (a similar situation to WoW's launch if I recall)

I have been playing MMOs since Ultima Online and I am certain that the key aspect to their success is refining on past successes. UO/EQ, then WoW, now FFXIV and beyond