MMO Long Life Cycles and new MMO development

[maniacalpha1-1]

What do you all think about MMOs, and how their long, lingering life cycles affect new game development?

Case in point: Everquest has been around 15 years and WoW 11 and they still have lots of players. Yes, I know WoW has more than EQ, but I am talking about the cumulative number of players they hold, not comparing one to the other. I am sure there are other games 10+ years old too with a few players. They all add up to millions of potential customers tied up in 10+ year old games.

Anyway, the point is, all these players playing old games, doesn't that tie up a customer base that could stimulate new game development? And what, if anything, could/should be done about it?

Could MMORPG and other MMO developers plan on a 5-8 year life cycle that will end, so that the playerbase can be freed up?

I understand the emotional attachment, I did not quit EQ until 3-4 years ago but I am now detached from my characters. Admittedly I would still be playing except for two reasons: Graphics, and starting over a new character would be a completely non-social/solo venture until I reach high level like everyone else. (Note: I still support leveling systems)

So, what could be done, what kind of compromises? Would a 5-8 year cutoff of some kind help?

 

[Markbnj]

So, what could be done, what kind of compromises? Would a 5-8 year cutoff of some kind help?

What do you mean by cut-off? If people are still playing these old games doesn't that say more about the quality of the new ones?

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

What do you mean by cut-off? If people are still playing these old games doesn't that say more about the quality of the new ones?

Well, possibly...

New games are definitely lower in quality (not graphical quality, gameplay). At least in my opinion but I'm sure some would disagree. I believe that making games easier, which in devspeak is often translated as "making it to appeal to a wider audience", is a reduction in quality.

Game devs (or the publishers that hold their leash) want to adjust their games to be less complex, or easier, or closer to instant gratification to get more sales.

Or if you think about EQN; I don't know if they are making it easier/less complex, but they certainly are not going to make it a true EQ successor. I guess what I'm really getting at is that with EQ1 still viable, people have a valid fallback position of "just play EQ if that's what you want".

Anyway, we can certainly talk about all that, but I think it's a battle that gamers can't win, because game companies feel they need the extra sales to survive.

To an extent, gamers are to blame. They/we rebelled against $15/month subscriptions, leaving us with the free2play model, which greatly drives the need to get as many players as possible.

 

[robvp]

I still play wow, but i play other things too, people take breaks from the mmo to play other stuff

 

[Grooveriding]

WoW has been losing about 2 million subscribers per every expansion released since Cataclysm. 10 million at Cataclysm's launch down from the 12 million peak, 8 million at Pandaria launch and now approximately 6 million with the upcoming launch.

My guesstimate/estimate is that WoW will be down to a million players or less in about 5-6 years. Once WoW dies off I think that will be the final death knell for Blizzard in the MMO space and for the typical MMO.

I think that in approximately 10 years or so, once technology has progressed to a point it's feasible, what we will see is a sort of VR MMO. Something involving a system similar to Occulus, but much more advanced and possibly with more sensory integration, incorporating social media and providing an online world in which you can interact and play as yourself or something else of your choosing.

TLDR: The MMO market is 'freeing up' players as you are saying right now. Even with all the new MMOs released since WoW, none have been successful, and combined do not have anything near the subscribers that have bled from WoW in that time. So I'd conclude the interest in MMOs is simply waning and whatever appeal WoW had above all other MMOs is also fading away.

But, I do think something with a large online population will be in the future, but may not even be thought of as gaming so much as an online social platform with its own virtual world you interact within.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

WoW has been losing about 2 million subscribers per every expansion released since Cataclysm. 10 million at Cataclysm's launch down from the 12 million peak, 8 million at Pandaria launch and now approximately 6 million with the upcoming launch.

My guesstimate/estimate is that WoW will be down to a million players or less in about 5-6 years. Once WoW dies off I think that will be the final death knell for Blizzard in the MMO space and for the typical MMO.

I think that in approximately 10 years or so, once technology has progressed to a point it's feasible, what we will see is a sort of VR MMO. Something involving a system similar to Occulus, but much more advanced and possible with more sensory integration, incorporating social media and providing an online world in which you can interact and play as yourself or something else of your choosing.

TLDR: The MMO market is 'freeing up' players as you are saying right now. Even with all the new MMOs released since WoW, none have been successful, and combined do not have anything near the subscribers that have bled from WoW in that time. So I'd conclude the interest in MMOs is simply waning and whatever appeal WoW had above all other MMOs is also fading away.

But, I do think something with a large online population will be in the future, but may not even be thought of as gaming so much as an online social platform with its own virtual world you interact within.

I've often wondered if Facebook is going to have 3D pages like, well, a house? i.e. you can visit someone's page and walk around a 3D representation. Pictures are on the wall, for example. Or someone's homepage could be set in the middle of the woods, with pictures hanging from trees, whatever they make it.

Now imagine that it's not in Facebook, but in some game that just happens to have that as a feature.

What if your own computer's desktop was your personal 3D homepage? Eh, that wouldn't work if it meant hosting it at home...

But back on true topic, I just want to get back into an immersive world where the game isn't so easy that I feel like I beat it in 4 weeks.

 

[Grooveriding]

I've often wondered if Facebook is going to have 3D pages like, well, a house? i.e. you can visit someone's page and walk around a 3D representation. Pictures are on the wall, for example.

Now imagine that it's not in Facebook, but in some game that just happens to have that as a feature.

What if your own computer's desktop was your personal 3D homepage? Eh, that wouldn't work if it meant hosting it at home...

My hypothesis is largely based on Facebook acquiring Occulus and I think this is exactly what they have planned for the future.

Ten years may have been optimistic for what I think they have planned for the end game. My guess is in ten years it will be available in your home and maybe another 5-10, dependent on technology's progression, it will be available on mobile devices.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

My hypothesis is largely based on Facebook acquiring Occulus and I think this is exactly what they have planned for the future.

Ten years may have been optimistic for what I think they have planned for the end game. My guess is in ten years it will be available in your home and maybe another 5-10, dependent on technology's progression, it will be available on mobile devices.

Hah! So what if Facebook makes this super capable gaming engine, that also allows your homespace design? So basically...your friends come knock on your virtual door, and say hey, let's get in the car and go drive to BattlefieldLand and play! And BattlefieldLand will just happen to be a free2play extension of the FaceGame Engine. Physically, you just walk right in and it seamlessly downloads as you go.

 

[Bateluer]

Or if you think about EQN; I don't know if they are making it easier/less complex, but they certainly are not going to make it a true EQ successor. I guess what I'm really getting at is that with EQ1 still viable, people have a valid fallback position of "just play EQ if that's what you want".

Based on EQ Landmark, EQ Next is going to be full on Pay to Win and loaded to the gills with micro transactions for every little little thing.

To an extent, gamers are to blame. They/we rebelled against $15/month subscriptions, leaving us with the free2play model, which greatly drives the need to get as many players as possible.

The sub model seems to get a lot of flak these days, and thats a shame, because if you do it right, its a better experience than the f2p/p2w cancer infecting gaming in general these days.

Done poorly, such as having a monthly sub, whilst having paid DLC, cash shops, micro transactions, and regular paid expansions is obscene. And just annoys games; 'oh, I have to pay again for this? Or grind for days on end?' Screw it, I'm going to play something else. Do it right, no MTs, no cash shops, and regular free content updates with full expansions on a yearly or 18 month cadence is a very good model.

So far as talking about the original question regarding freeing up player bases for newer games . . . thats a double edge sword where the publisher is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the rock, they want to keep those players playing the game and paying the monthly sub, but on the other hand, they'd prefer they play newer P2W MMO so they'll funnel more money into the publisher while simultaneously the publisher has to develop less actual content for the game.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Based on EQ Landmark, EQ Next is going to be full on Pay to Win and loaded to the gills with micro transactions for every little little thing.




The sub model seems to get a lot of flak these days, and thats a shame, because if you do it right, its a better experience than the f2p/p2w cancer infecting gaming in general these days.

Done poorly, such as having a monthly sub, whilst having paid DLC, cash shops, micro transactions, and regular paid expansions is obscene. And just annoys games; 'oh, I have to pay again for this? Or grind for days on end?' Screw it, I'm going to play something else. Do it right, no MTs, no cash shops, and regular free content updates with full expansions on a yearly or 18 month cadence is a very good model.

So far as talking about the original question regarding freeing up player bases for newer games . . . thats a double edge sword where the publisher is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the rock, they want to keep those players playing the game and paying the monthly sub, but on the other hand, they'd prefer they play newer P2W MMO so they'll funnel more money into the publisher while simultaneously the publisher has to develop less actual content for the game.

I remember when EQ had a sub...until we got closer to the F2P switch, only cosmetic stuff costed more (and server transfers, etc). In fact, back in 1999 I think the only thing that cost extra WAS server transfers. There wasn't cosmetics then...

I'm not sure how to qualify your last sentence though, most of the older sub games have been switched to free2play? Everquest certainly has, I don't play WoW so I don't know about them?

 

[Punter]

Are MOBA's more appealing to the younger folks?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don't get why a reasonable payment model something like $60 for the year or less and more expansion zones (think DLC) hasn't been popular. I'd think that having around one million paying $60 per year plus some of them paying $20 more could fund a challenging game for a long time.

 

[Red Storm]

I shudder at the thought of developing games with a planned end to the fun so that players go and buy the next new game, rinse and repeat. Sounds like something an EA shareholder would vouch for (I do know this already happens with certain games).

I completely disagree with you OP, I think games should be made to be the absolute best they can be, not intentionally designed with a set lifetime.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I shudder at the thought of developing games with a planned end to the fun so that players go and buy the next new game, rinse and repeat. Sounds like something an EA shareholder would vouch for (I do know this already happens with certain games).

I completely disagree with you OP, I think games should be made to be the absolute best they can be, not intentionally designed with a set lifetime.

I get where you're coming from, but understand that I was not saying this from a standpoint of "EA" develops MMO X, then 8 years later ends it in favor of EA's new MMO Y. This was an industry-wide thing I'm suggesting; people playing WoW and EQ are just lingering now. I don't think it's a quality issue; it's an emotional attachment issue.

But it's also a design philosophy thing, and this is where I am really hitting at. Apparently, if you need to group to accomplish anything, and if the game doesn't hand you everything on a silver platter, i.e., Everquest 1, it's "niche and hardcore". I disagree but that's what people who want to be max level in 4 weeks and be able to get best-of-game equipment with ease say. What I'm hitting at is that no gaming company is going to create EQ1 style gameplay, with all the new graphics and physics and other improvements we've had since 1999, no one is going to do that because of this "niche" perception, while EQ1's playerbase is still clinging and lingering in EQ1.

That said, can an MMO really remain top quality 10+ years down the road, when the original engine used to make it is unable to take advantage of improvements made in gaming technology over the years? Forget EA's shareholders, do we, the players, want to see MMOs last 20 years and stunt the development of replacements that take advantage of new tech?

 

[Red Storm]

So you're talking specifically about MMOs?

I don't see the problem in an MMO lasting so long. That just means there are enough players out there that really like that game, so good for them for getting so much value for their money. Right now we have a problem where there are too many crappy/average games out there. I would personally prefer a smaller selection of great games that last many years over the opposite. Unfortunately capitalism favors pumping out middling games asap.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

So you're talking specifically about MMOs?

I don't see the problem in an MMO lasting so long. That just means there are enough players out there that really like that game, so good for them for getting so much value for their money. Right now we have a problem where there are too many crappy/average games out there. I would personally prefer a smaller selection of great games that last many years over the opposite. Unfortunately capitalism favors pumping out middling games asap.

Oh, yes, MMOs....if we were talking about non-MMOs, sure, I could imagine EA salivating over this idea. They'd love to clear out the last bastions of BF2/2142 and perhaps even BF1942 players to get some more BF4 sales, I don't doubt.

I think part of what I'm getting at is that so long as these old MMOs are tied up, the big players like SOE, Blizzard and so forth are only going to make drastically different games that are experiments. Personally I would rather see them make a game that, sure, it is very different, but has a design basis that's at least recognizable.

EverquestNext may indeed be recognizable from things like place names, and the name of the game itself, but the gameplay is shaping up not to be recognizable. Now, it's very possible it will be so fun that it doesn't matter. But what if it isn't? Then there will have been a great opportunity cost lost to the player who has been sitting there in EQ1 waiting for something that's going to strike his fancy...EQN could have been it, but wasn't. Moral being - maybe these folks should volunteer to give up the ghost, unless they want to find themselves still playing EQ1 in 2024.

Free2play complicates the value for your money thing, though.

 

[imaheadcase]

The problem i have with MMO is that you compare every new one to the one you played the longest and liked the most. I played DAOC for 7+ years. Every game that has came out I keep comparing it to it and dont get why they do certain things a certain way.

Since DAOC i've tried maybe 20 MMO..none lasted more than a few months. THey just seem to cookie cutter to me and nothing innovated like daoc was. Its almost like a MMO was designed backwards, meaning they just do things to get as much players as possible for every type of play. But nothing is done really well, its just all stuff that has done before.

Archeage is something I really do like now, I been playing the beta (releases end of Sep) and having a blast, so much to do in this MMO and looks great. The people who made it took the time to make a good mmo and it shows. It has issues that lots of MMO have, but nothing ground breaking. It has stupid quest system every MMO has ever done. You know lots of people LOVE kill quests that want you to kill dozens of things..you have to travel far to get to. Every MMO quest: Kill 3 goblins..walk 10 feet out of town kill 3 goblin. OH SO HARD.

Give me quests that feel like it matters. Kill quests are fine, but why not give quests for ALL levels. How about a kill quest to kill 30 goblins on a island, they are level 30 and you are level 20. Bring a friend or wait till near level. Or better yet, kill 300 gobins, if you do it within a certain time get bonus..like you have 5 days to kill that many. So many ways to make quests interesting.

The WORST part is making players do a certain thing or you miss out. Advanced gear is the worst thing for a MMO ever made. If its not a player driven economy, its not a MMO.

Between archeage and waiting for Camelot Unchained that will prob be my last MMO i ever play.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

The problem i have with MMO is that you compare every new one to the one you played the longest and liked the most. I played DAOC for 7+ years. Every game that has came out I keep comparing it to it and dont get why they do certain things a certain way.

Since DAOC i've tried maybe 20 MMO..none lasted more than a few months. THey just seem to cookie cutter to me and nothing innovated like daoc was. Its almost like a MMO was designed backwards, meaning they just do things to get as much players as possible for every type of play. But nothing is done really well, its just all stuff that has done before.

Archeage is something I really do like now, I been playing the beta (releases end of Sep) and having a blast, so much to do in this MMO and looks great. The people who made it took the time to make a good mmo and it shows. It has issues that lots of MMO have, but nothing ground breaking. It has stupid quest system every MMO has ever done. You know lots of people LOVE kill quests that want you to kill dozens of things..you have to travel far to get to. Every MMO quest: Kill 3 goblins..walk 10 feet out of town kill 3 goblin. OH SO HARD.

Give me quests that feel like it matters. Kill quests are fine, but why not give quests for ALL levels. How about a kill quest to kill 30 goblins on a island, they are level 30 and you are level 20. Bring a friend or wait till near level. Or better yet, kill 300 gobins, if you do it within a certain time get bonus..like you have 5 days to kill that many. So many ways to make quests interesting.

The WORST part is making players do a certain thing or you miss out. Advanced gear is the worst thing for a MMO ever made. If its not a player driven economy, its not a MMO.

Between archeage and waiting for Camelot Unchained that will prob be my last MMO i ever play.

What do you mean by advanced gear?

Also, as far as player driven economy; my experience is limited to EQ, and SW TOR. I mean, I tried TERA, and Fallen Earth and AIon but I couldn't even tolerate their gameplay to get past a few hours.

That said though, what do you think of player driven economy when it's a game like Everquest? Most of the good gear that drops off NPCs is no trade, so you can't sell it, and it's better than what you can craft, so there's little selling going on there, too.

I have seen ArcheAge and will probably try it in 2 weeks, what's attracting you about that?

 

[GaiaHunter]

What do you mean by cut-off? If people are still playing these old games doesn't that say more about the quality of the new ones?

Many of those players aren't videogamers.
They have a hobby called WoW or EQ or whatever.

When they finally stop playing then won't migrate to another MMO.

 

[s44]

What do you mean by cut-off? If people are still playing these old games doesn't that say more about the quality of the new ones?

No, it says a lot about the significance of network effects and sunk cost for MMO players.

 

[Markbnj]

No, it says a lot about the significance of network effects and sunk cost for MMO players.

If that's true it's pretty sad. But in my experience people have been very willing to try new games. But when every game feels pretty much the same then what incentive do they have to switch to something else?

 

[MeldarthX]

Based on EQ Landmark, EQ Next is going to be full on Pay to Win and loaded to the gills with micro transactions for every little little thing.




The sub model seems to get a lot of flak these days, and thats a shame, because if you do it right, its a better experience than the f2p/p2w cancer infecting gaming in general these days.

Done poorly, such as having a monthly sub, whilst having paid DLC, cash shops, micro transactions, and regular paid expansions is obscene. And just annoys games; 'oh, I have to pay again for this? Or grind for days on end?' Screw it, I'm going to play something else. Do it right, no MTs, no cash shops, and regular free content updates with full expansions on a yearly or 18 month cadence is a very good model.

So far as talking about the original question regarding freeing up player bases for newer games . . . thats a double edge sword where the publisher is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the rock, they want to keep those players playing the game and paying the monthly sub, but on the other hand, they'd prefer they play newer P2W MMO so they'll funnel more money into the publisher while simultaneously the publisher has to develop less actual content for the game.

Not sure how you are thinking EQNext will be pay to win; pay to win is something like WoT if you got the golden ammo you will win most of the time.

SOE does need to improve their ftp; most of it is more like a free to test our games; where subbing gives you the best stuff; but you can fully play their ftp games.......you just won't the best stuff.

I know if I fire up EQ/EQ2 games; I will sub for a month as I have fairly rare stuff on my characters and they are locked out of a lot of the equipment. I could stupidly buy lock out stuff for 10x what a sub costs.

but EQ next won't be ptw ......it will be more of a pay to play..

 

[Veliko]

I've played and enjoyed MMOs in the past and I may well do so again in the future.

Not sure what else there is to say about the matter really.

 

[nettrader]

WoW has the most subscribers. It has 6.8 millions and with the new expansion will rise again but it is not likely to reach 12 millions like in 2010

 

[imaheadcase]

What do you mean by advanced gear?

Also, as far as player driven economy; my experience is limited to EQ, and SW TOR. I mean, I tried TERA, and Fallen Earth and AIon but I couldn't even tolerate their gameplay to get past a few hours.

That said though, what do you think of player driven economy when it's a game like Everquest? Most of the good gear that drops off NPCs is no trade, so you can't sell it, and it's better than what you can craft, so there's little selling going on there, too.

I have seen ArcheAge and will probably try it in 2 weeks, what's attracting you about that?

Like dungeon specific gear if you don't have you have not completed the game type of stuff. Reach level 50 and want endgame content? You have to raid this dungeon. I never liked that concept, it seems lazy development.

Drops from NPC are another issue I have. They are not random drops like DAOC had (comparing to it because again best game I ever played). Games now-a-days have drops based on certain loot rules. Level 1-3 mobs dropped the same stuff, everyone got. MMO now do that same thing, but they make it worse, you only get certain drops at certain levels, and only certain items. Archeage does this same crap as well, but its forgivable because later on you can buy/craft better gear anyways.

DAoC was different, Farm a certain mob enough you get a rares drop that will last you maybe to level 8 if you are level 1-3. You could get a ring at level 8 that would be better than random grey drops till level 20 if you are lucky. Drops in other MMO are just "stuff" to get you to higher level, everyone gets drops just to sell for gold in MMO now. You don't get many types of drops in MMO anymore like used to. Very rarely you see MMO that do the grey/green/yellow/blue/purple rarity. If they do, its just on boss mobs, which require a dungeon raid. You could get RoG items in daoc with crazy stats, that only you would have. You could get a ring with +24dex at level 30 as a archer farming the same mobs for 4 hours straight, sell if to 1plat because that ring was really wanted by level 50s. Stuff like that is exciting for everyone the player playing and the person wanting the ring.

The other thing that is bothersome is leveling. I work 40 hours a week, but MMO now you can get to max level in a month of casual play. That is INSANE. Back to my favorite MMO, it took me a YEAR to get to max level, because it was just the way it was designed. Later on it became easier, but it felt like a fulfilling experience and something proud full of. You would go Ding 50! in chat and everyone was like OMG grats. Now its just like "so..its not hard".

I know I sound like a old grump MMO player, but I don't see the point in making a MASSIVe multiplayer game and limit it to stupid restrictive design concepts. You can copy other MMO concepts, but please make the core something better than the older concepts, just don't copy and paste how the old way was.

Don't get me started on the stupid "every class can play this" bullshit trend.