Is it even possible to make brand new AAA MMORPG which will be hugely successful?

NerZhulen89

I began to think about completely new MMORPG releases in general. In last two-four years plenty of new MMORPGs were released in the western world, all of them pretty much failed in terms of amount of players which would invest longer time than few months into the game.

I want to hear your opinion about this.
Is it because all new gamers are playing MOBAs? (the most popular one reported 27 million daily players, last year january), where they can eventually make it to professional level and make it a living? Since only way to make real money by playing MMOs will usually result in a ban. Also there are no tournament possibilities which could have been streamed in ESO and similar new MMORPGs. All things you can stream are usually boring compared to other stuff you can watch on the Twi*** tv.

Is it because the most popular MMORPG (not sure if I can name it here) was simply so popular only by artificial hype, maybe by accident? MMORPG is simply D&D brought to a virtual level. D&D was always popular only amongst the nerdiest nerds, so why the MMO made by "icestorm" company made such a huge success?

Probably most of you know that the "icestorm" company was developing a second MMORPG for many years, and this winter on their "icecon" event, it was announced that the project is over, because they did not manage to make the game fun. So after making the most successful MMORPG of all times, they admit that they actually do not know how they made it successful. Money or lack of creativity could not have been the reason for cancel, since they are well supplied and experienced from other projects.

Last possible reason that comes to my mind is that for every single gamer only one MMORPG can be truly fun. Usually the first one he played. Sure there are some differences, but in the end every single MMORPG out there is eventually exactly the same. And after you spend your time on your first, loose few years of life, and realize what happend, your brain simply becomes immune to repeating it again. Which would eventually mean that it is simply impossible to make really big AAA MMORPG anymore, which would get played by the masses.

nastuug

Poor customer service, failure to properly patch game, and delayed/vaporware content.

IMO, big killers.

edit: grammarderp

P3ZZL3

Is it possible to make one? Sure it is. The formula is there. Can it be done? Only if the investment and time lines are set correctly.

I think the largest problem any Studio / Title owner has is the development phase and cost association. Society in general is "now now now" these days. Information is collected at lightning fast speed and disseminated the same way. Be it good or bad. Players are fickle now days. Back when I started playing games, we had the likes of the ZX81 and Spectrum. You never had a chance to "patch" or update games or download more content.

Back then:

• Titles HAD to be completed and released for consumption
• All testing had to be done to a decent level as they couldn't patch later
• There weren't really forums or general internet to discuss titles
• Each person who bought it, would invest hours and hours into a single game, even though it only cost £5.00
• Games were developed by a small group of friends so there was a common love/theme

Alas Today:

• Titles are created and built at break neck speed because of the development time
• Time = Money and Investors don't like losing money. So turn around and release is paramount
• Testing comes second to a large extent because of the now common "we can always release a patch"
• Substance has been replaced by shiny and getting peoples attention for the purchase (£40+ for a title is crazy)
• Community and moderation, build or maintenance of said community is secondary to almost everything. Clear evidence of that can be seen by companies posting on Facebook/Twitter/Reddit rather than their own community forums (i.e. League and all the others)

So going back to the original question, COULD it be done? Yep, definitely! The real question is whether now, in todays markets, is it likely to happen, alas No

Thymos

TBH, it all depends on what you define as hugely successful? Will we ever get another game that gets 7 million subscribers, probably not. That's just the nature of the digital market. The market has expanded greatly over the past 15 years. There are so many options for MMOs now.

Heck, you can even look at how Microsoft intends to make money now that Windows 10 is going to be given away. They are changing their methods of generating revenue, by focusing more on ads, like google.

Egonieser

MMOs were hugely successful only during way back when because it was something "new" something "exciting and groundbreaking"
Games like WoW, Lineage2, Mu Online in the early 2000's had millions of players at the time (now though only WoW has survived) because it was something amazing for it's time. Players who played Ultima Online and similar ancestors of MMO's saw it as something space-age - thus it drew all the players in those handful of games. There was little to no competition back then and the titles generation millions/billions in revenues as there just wan't anything else. Either you played it or you didn't, you had no choice.

As companies saw their success, everyone jumped ship and started their own versions of those successful games and a few years later we saw countless of WoW, Lineage etc clones each with their own spin on things and some just blatantly lazy and reskinned copies.

Will it be like that today? No - gamers have too much choice and options. There is nothing groundbreaking or original released that hasn't been done before already, thus not a real incentive for someone to choose "that particular" game.

Also, companies aro too afraid to experiment with something new, they will always rehash the old and proven methods, but with "fancy graphics". Thus we get stale and generic MMO's that make people go like... "Wait, i've played this before on... 3 other MMO's... Why can't I play something new?" And then those games eventually fail or slow down in development.

golfer.dub17_ESO

Most new games regardless of genre die because they copy the popular competition and don't offer any unique experience to keep people from playing the competition.

Stop thinking with a "we can't do this because WoW didn't do this" or "we can't do this because it's an MMO" mentality.

Last possible reason that comes to my mind is that for every single gamer only one MMORPG can be truly fun. Usually the first one he played

I wouldn't really say that. There were a few MMO's and MMORPG's I've played before ESO, some of which I simply hated. The problem is it's a very time consuming genre, I simply can't devote playtime to more than one, especially when there's so many non-MMO's I also spend time playing.

nastuug

P3ZZL3 wrote: »

Is it possible to make one? Sure it is. The formula is there. Can it be done? Only if the investment and time lines are set correctly.

I think the largest problem any Studio / Title owner has is the development phase and cost association. Society in general is "now now now" these days. Information is collected at lightning fast speed and disseminated the same way. Be it good or bad. Players are fickle now days. Back when I started playing games, we had the likes of the ZX81 and Spectrum. You never had a chance to "patch" or update games or download more content.

Back then:

• Titles HAD to be completed and released for consumption
• All testing had to be done to a decent level as they couldn't patch later
• There weren't really forums or general internet to discuss titles
• Each person who bought it, would invest hours and hours into a single game, even though it only cost £5.00
• Games were developed by a small group of friends so there was a common love/theme

Alas Today:

• Titles are created and built at break neck speed because of the development time
• Time = Money and Investors don't like losing money. So turn around and release is paramount
• Testing comes second to a large extent because of the now common "we can always release a patch"
• Substance has been replaced by shiny and getting peoples attention for the purchase (£40+ for a title is crazy)
• Community and moderation, build or maintenance of said community is secondary to almost everything. Clear evidence of that can be seen by companies posting on Facebook/Twitter/Reddit rather than their own community forums (i.e. League and all the others)

So going back to the original question, COULD it be done? Yep, definitely! The real question is whether now, in todays markets, is it likely to happen, alas No

I think @P3ZZL3 nailed it on the above post. When you compare current releases with successful games produced over 15 years ago, you might get sick to your stomach.

Sallington

Not with the way developers are forced to show immediate ROI to the publishers. The need to make quick money dictates priorities in most new MMOs, and they all suffer because of it. ESO is a perfect example of this.

In my opinion, only smaller MMOs will succeed in the way I'd like them to form here on out. The bigger they are, the more pressure from "the suits" to just turn the game into a cash cow.

Sylvyr

Sallington wrote: »

Not with the way developers are forced to show immediate ROI to the publishers. The need to make quick money dictates priorities in most new MMOs, and they all suffer because of it. ESO is a perfect example of this.

In my opinion, only smaller MMOs will succeed in the way I'd like them to form here on out. The bigger they are, the more pressure from "the suits" to just turn the game into a cash cow.

Yep.

Instead of a quality/awesome production being the goal (and money coming in as a by-product BECAUSE it's an awesome product), it's more about the money being the goal and the product is hammered out/mutated/stretched/deformed/dressed up/rushed/hyped to realize said profit.

It's like a music manager trying to milk as much as they can out of the latest boy band and tossing them aside for the next boy band.

UrQuan

P3ZZL3 wrote: »

Back then:

[*] Titles HAD to be completed and released for consumption
[*] All testing had to be done to a decent level as they couldn't patch later
[*] There weren't really forums or general internet to discuss titles
[*] Each person who bought it, would invest hours and hours into a single game, even though it only cost £5.00
[*] Games were developed by a small group of friends so there was a common love/theme

The parts that I've bolded really aren't possible anymore when it comes to developing a new piece of software (and haven't been possible for some time).

For all 3 of those items the reason they're no longer possible is the shear amount of advancements we've seen in gaming (much of which is driven by the advances in hardware, which makes much more complex and impressive software possible).

To the last bolded point first, for a large AAA title, you simply can't take that approach any more. You need a large team of people with a wide range of areas of expertise in order to make the game. It's simply not possible to do it otherwise (again, I'm saying this with regard to a large AAA title: for a smaller game, it's still possible to take this approach). You need specialized artists, you need specialized gameplay designers, you need people specialized in whatever engine you're building the game on (assuming you're not creating a brand new engine - in which case you need people who can build it), and so on and so on. You have to hire professionals in those areas - you can't just get a bunch of computer geeks together and make a game like you used to do.

As far as the first 2 bolded points, they're no longer truly possible for one reason: a AAA game can't afford to take the time to do them properly. If they do, then by the time they release the game will already look dated. The pace of advances is just too fast to get the proper cycles to get everything in and tested, get bug fixes, re-test, etc. If you wanted to make a game perfect with all of the content you want, and with no bugs, then it would take vastly longer to release, and by the time it got out it would be 2-4 years behind the times as far as the graphics and engine goes. In today's world, that would make it a failure. Not only would it have cost vastly more to produce, but far fewer people would buy it because there would be a whole world of newer-looking shinier games out there.

Lord_Kreegan

Answer this question:

Do use want a robust game (all of the expected features and functionality) or pretty graphics?

Good graphics do not a good game make, but significant time and money are spent on fancy graphics, fancy VFX (to the point you can't even see your screen sometimes), fancy animations, etc. While all of that is a big contributor to immersion and an even bigger contributor to early marketing (you don't see trailers advertising "Hey! Look at our neat netcode!"), it isn't what makes a game tick.

EVERYTHING published since "the game that shall remain nameless" has been less than fully featured/functional at release, and if you don't make a good impression initially, you're not going to retain customers and you're not going to have a good reputation. At the same time, today's discerning marketplace isn't going to buy cartoon-characters anymore.

It's a Catch-22...

IMHO, ever since "the game that shall remain nameless", the only game published that was close to being fully featured at release was Rift (really enjoyed its PvP), although its zones were certainly too small for the explorer in me... GW2 was surprisingly close for a B2P game... but different folks have different preferences in gameplay, so what I consider fully featured may not be the same as someone else's preferences.

Nestor

UrQuan wrote: »

To the last bolded point first, for a large AAA title, you simply can't take that approach any more. You need a large team of people with a wide range of areas of expertise in order to make the game. It's simply not possible to do it otherwise (again, I'm saying this with regard to a large AAA title: for a smaller game, it's still possible to take this approach).

Small teams or single creative people can still come up with a game that will be successful. It all depends on their vision. What they can't have are the money people telling them to throw in this feature or that feature because it polls well and has some IRR benefits. Problem is, the process costs money and the money people are always going to screw up the game to assure themselves of an ROI. Which is why every shooter today is the same as every other shooter for example.

The problem is, and always will be, the Vision and and how much it gets diluted by the process and the competition. By competition I mean making the game too much like what already exists. But not doing something just because someone else is doing it is not the answer either.

UrQuan

Nestor wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

To the last bolded point first, for a large AAA title, you simply can't take that approach any more. You need a large team of people with a wide range of areas of expertise in order to make the game. It's simply not possible to do it otherwise (again, I'm saying this with regard to a large AAA title: for a smaller game, it's still possible to take this approach).

Small teams or single creative people can still come up with a game that will be successful.

For smaller games, absolutely. Smaller games don't have the expectation of massive revenues and the expectation that everything will be built on the latest greatest technology and feature the most amazing graphics and physics possible. Those aspects are what prevents the approach from working with a large AAA title: the expectations of what it means to be a large AAA title.

Nestor wrote: »

It all depends on their vision. What they can't have are the money people telling them to throw in this feature or that feature because it polls well and has some IRR benefits. Problem is, the process costs money and the money people are always going to screw up the game to assure themselves of an ROI. Which is why every shooter today is the same as every other shooter for example.

The problem is, and always will be, the Vision and and how much it gets diluted by the process and the competition. By competition I mean making the game too much like what already exists. But not doing something just because someone else is doing it is not the answer either.

Part of the problem is that those things can't be avoided in a large AAA title. A large AAA title simply can't be made without the money people. And even if you somehow miraculously get money people who literally just throw cash at you without any oversight, you still need a massive team to make the game, and the vision will inevitably get diluted because there are so many people working on it, and they can't possibly all be consulting with each other over everything.

There's also the problem that even when there's one person with a strong vision driving the team, that person will often be used to working with a smaller team on smaller games (the people who are used to working with larger teams aren't usually the same people with a strong vision of how the game should be), and not truly understand how to run a large studio. That, in and of itself, can lead to the vision being diluted, because the person driving it doesn't know what level of direction needs to be given to the members of the team, and either ends up micro-managing things, or being too hands-off and only giving feedback ("it's wrong!") too late, further delaying the process. Frequently the same person will make both mistakes.

milkbox

Everything you ever wanted to know about commercial creative endeavors.

Alright, thanks for participating in our focus group, kids. Today, we're going to show you some Itchy & Scratchy cartoons.

The kids cheer in delight.

NELSON
Cool!

MAN
We want you to tell us what you think. And, be honest, because no one from the show is here spying on you. (chuckles)

A sneezing sound comes from a large mirror on the wall.

LISA
Why is that mirror sneezing?

MAN
Ah, look, it's just an old, creaky mirror, y'know, sometimes it sounds a little like it's sneezing, or coughing, or talking softly.

LISA
Hmm...

The man gives a thumbs-up to the mirror.

MAN
Now, you each have a knob in front of you. When you like what you see, turn the knob to the right. When you don't like what you see, turn it left.

RALPH
(with knob in mouth) My knob tastes funny.

MAN
Please refrain from tasting the knob.

First up, Itchy & Scratchy play pool. Itchy knocks out Scratchy's eyeballs with a cue ball and Scratchy replaces them with two pool balls. The kids laugh turn their knobs to the right. The next cartoon is set on an island. While Itchy & Scratchy sunbathe, a muscle-bound man in bikini trunks flexes in front of the camera. Nelson turns Milhouse's knob repeatedly to the right.

MILHOUSE
Hey, quit it!

From behind the mirror, Meyers and two other people watch on a monitor.

MEYERS
They like Itchy, they like Scratchy, one kid seems to love the Speedo man... what more do they want?

Back with the focus group.

MAN
Okay, how many of you kids would like Itchy & Scratchy to deal with real-life problems, like the ones you face every day? (the kids all cheer and agree) And who would like to see them do just the opposite - getting into far-out situations involving robots and magic powers? (more cheering) So, you want a realistic, down-to-earth show... that's completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots? (The kids agree)

NELSON
Yeah, good.

MILHOUSE
And also, you should win things by watching!

The man sighs. The light is turned on in the observation booth, and Meyers appears at the mirror.

MEYERS
You kids don't know what you want! That's why you're still kids: 'cause you're stupid! Just tell me what's wrong with the freakin' show!

He turns the lights out. Ralph starts crying and turns his knob to the left.

RALPH
Mommy!

LISA
(talking to the mirror) Um, excuse me sir. The thing is, there's not really anything wrong with the Itchy & Scratchy show, it's as good as ever. But after so many years, the characters just can't have the same impact they once had.

Meyers turns the light back on.

MEYERS
That's it. That's it, little girl! You've saved Itchy & Scratchy!

A lawyer enters the room, holding papers.

LAWYER
Please sign these papers indicating that you did not save Itchy & Scratchy.

At Itchy & Scratchy, Intl., Meyers has called a meeting of the writers (who look strikingly similar to the real Simpsons writers) along with Krusty and a female network executive.

MEYERS
I have figured out how to rejuvenate the show. It's so simple, you egghead writers would've never thought of it! What we need is... a new character! One that today's kids can relate to!

The writers look at each other, uncertain.

OAKLEY
Are you absolutely sure that's wise, sir? I mean, I don't want to sound pretentious here, but Itchy and Scratchy comprise a dramaturgical dyad.

KRUSTY
Hey, this ain't art, it's business! (to Meyers) Whaddya got in mind? Sexy broad? Gangster octopus?

MEYERS
No, no. The animal chain of command goes mouse, cat, dog. (to the writers) D-O-G.

WEINSTEIN
Uh, a dog? Isn't that a tad predictable?

EXECUTIVE
In your dreams. We're talking the original dog from hell.

OAKLEY
You mean Cerberus?

EXECUTIVE
(pause) We at the network want a dog with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"? Well, this is a dog who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and thoroughly.

KRUSTY
So he's proactive, huh?

EXECUTIVE
Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.

MEYER
Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that. I'm fired, aren't I?

MEYERS
Oh, yes.

MEYERS
The rest of you writers start thinking up a name for this funky dog; I dunno, something along the line of say... Poochie, only more proactive.

KRUSTY
Yeah!

Meyers, Krusty and the network executive leave.

OAKLEY
So, Poochie okay with everybody?

WRITERS
Yeah...

An animator, who looks like David Silverman, draws a sketch of a dog.

MEYERS
No, no, no! He was supposed to have attitude.

SILVERMAN
Um... wh-what do you mean, exactly?

MEYERS
Oh, you know, attitude, attitude! Uh... sunglasses!

EXECUTIVE
Can we put him in more of a "hip-hop" context?

KRUSTY
Forget context, he's gotta be a surfer. Give me a nice shmear of surfer.

EXECUTIVE
I feel we should rastafy him by ... ten percent or so.

Silverman redraws Poochie. They're still not totally satisfied.

MEYERS
Hmm... I think he needs a little more attitude.

Silverman blackens in Poochie's sunglasses.

EXECUTIVE
Oh yeah, bingo. There it is, right there!

KRUSTY
Yeah, that's it!

MEYERS
I love it!

The next morning, The Simpsons eat breakfast. Bart notices the headline in the newspaper Homer is reading: "Funny Dog To Make Life Worthwhile".

Emma_Overload

I think the biggest problem facing any new MMO, including this one, is the expectation from many players (and devs!) that MMO gameplay must include the DPS/Tank/Healer trinity. Combine this with the apparent need for every game to have both PvE and PvP, and you have a recipe for disaster. How can they ever give PvP the "balance" they're always demanding while rigging the classes and skill lines to force PvE players into specialized roles?

If ZoS wants to solve this problem for ESO, they basically have two choices, in my opinion:

1) Spin off PvP and PvE into a separate games, so they can be balanced appropriately for their respective player bases. Or...

2) Redesign PvE content, classes and skills to support "jack-of-all-trades" player characters, who are capable of performing all essential tasks equally well. Player choices regarding race and class would be purely for aesthetics and role-play.

Solution #1 is probably off the table, so the best we can hope for at this point is some version of Solution #2.

c.p.garrett1993_ESO

nastuug wrote: »

Poor customer service, failure to properly patch game, and delayed/vaporware content.

IMO, big killers.

edit: grammarderp

This. [/thread]

ESO had a horrible beta/ launch.
No efforts were made to reach back out to those who had played at these times until recently.
I regret my purchase, as the game is still barely functional...

- The subscription model is overpriced and offers little.
- It's been almost/ over a year without any real content releases.
- Cash Shop is, like every other game, overpriced. Not worth it, IMO.
- Community is torn between blind loyalty and unrelenting disappointment.

The game is great when it's working, but it's not worth throwing $300+ a year at when the base content is not even fully functional and nothing has really been added. Even if it were functional it's not worth it.

This game is little more than a cheaply made IRL cash sink, as things presently stand, but has the potential to be so much more. Count me among the disappointed but hopeful.

Faugaun

Egonieser wrote: »

MMOs were hugely successful only during way back when because it was something "new" something "exciting and groundbreaking"
Games like WoW, Lineage2, Mu Online in the early 2000's had millions of players at the time (now though only WoW has survived) because it was something amazing for it's time. Players who played Ultima Online and similar ancestors of MMO's saw it as something space-age - thus it drew all the players in those handful of games. There was little to no competition back then and the titles generation millions/billions in revenues as there just wan't anything else. Either you played it or you didn't, you had no choice.

As companies saw their success, everyone jumped ship and started their own versions of those successful games and a few years later we saw countless of WoW, Lineage etc clones each with their own spin on things and some just blatantly lazy and reskinned copies.

Will it be like that today? No - gamers have too much choice and options. There is nothing groundbreaking or original released that hasn't been done before already, thus not a real incentive for someone to choose "that particular" game.

Also, companies aro too afraid to experiment with something new, they will always rehash the old and proven methods, but with "fancy graphics". Thus we get stale and generic MMO's that make people go like... "Wait, i've played this before on... 3 other MMO's... Why can't I play something new?" And then those games eventually fail or slow down in development.

Faugaun

Boo

idk

An mmo can have success in today's environment if they spent the capital and time to design it right from the start. I think ESO, like others underestimate what it takes to launch a top game and as a result they likely lose more subscribers. The big question is, which provides a better return from investment, a well polished game or a game that had average effort put into its creation such as ESO.

Acrolas

I throw out countless hours of content each month because I think it's merely average.
What's the point of a 300 page book that is 80% word count padding?
What's the point of a 120 hour game where 80 hours is replaying average content?
What is the point of a 24 episode television series where 16 episodes are filler?

Awesome Per Second. Because people who are afraid of editing will always give you less than stellar entertainment.

Sylvyr

c.p.garrett1993_ESO wrote: »

nastuug wrote: »

Poor customer service, failure to properly patch game, and delayed/vaporware content.

IMO, big killers.

edit: grammarderp

This. [/thread]

ESO had a horrible beta/ launch.
No efforts were made to reach back out to those who had played at these times until recently.
I regret my purchase, as the game is still barely functional...

- The subscription model is overpriced and offers little.
- It's been almost/ over a year without any real content releases.
- Cash Shop is, like every other game, overpriced. Not worth it, IMO.
- Community is torn between blind loyalty and unrelenting disappointment.

The game is great when it's working, but it's not worth throwing $300+ a year at when the base content is not even fully functional and nothing has really been added. Even if it were functional it's not worth it.

This game is little more than a cheaply made IRL cash sink, as things presently stand, but has the potential to be so much more. Count me among the disappointed but hopeful.

Well put.

I don't feel regretful.

I feel that for the money I have spent up to this point has been generally worth it - from the perspective that I paid for entertainment and have received it.

But what that describes is kind of a *** for tat exchange. Like paying for a burger and eating it. Was it a good burger for the money?

What a lot of people don't see though is that unlike an exchange of money for goods like a consumable item, this good is continuous. We progress in the game and build constantly so there is a certain investment. That investment also keeps the consumers interested.

So I feel disappointed that I've invested a lot of time (and hope) and did wish it would continue. I have some hope but every week it diminishes. Personally, I'm at the point where I'm playing with no ESO+, enjoying company with in game friends, in a holding pattern for another game I can invest my time and money in. I like MMORPGs and love ES games but I really don't think the corp culture around this title is going to change any time soon and it just becomes more and more apparent what is going on.

I think it is possible to produce a AAA title that is awesome and well produced but it's probably impossible to START off that way these days. So any title wanting to achieve that will need to start small and build up to it, while trying to attract customers before getting "there" which is the trick.

But I think it's totally possible.

So many of us are sick of this crap though. And sick of established AAA titles turning into farmvilles. The demand is out there for good MMOs, but the big companies are just trying to 1) create alternatives in the same way 2) primarily concerned with money.

If a game production/company comes along, that can start up a good game, and show continued improvement and inclusion of the players, and isn't overly pressure by money and making decision around money as the PRIMARY factor, I think they would grow into something really cool. Which is why I think the crowdsourcing model has so much potential as the answer to the current predicament.

MCMancub

This question shouldn't even be directed at MMOs, but to all multiplayer games. Very few multiplayer games released in the last 5 years have lots of players, and if they do it's because they are simply redoing what has been done.

WoW is still the biggest MMO, but it didn't start out that way, not by any means. It was released 11 years ago, and it took several years for it to hit its peak.

League of Legends is the most played MOBA by far. It took something like 5-6 years for its popularity to take off. In fact, for a while it had a smaller player base than HoN, which capped at around 200k.

Just take a look at the most played games on Steam per day:
DotA 2 is a remake of a 10 year old game.
CS:GO is a remake of a 16 year old game.
Team Fortress 2 is 8 years old.

The only multiplayer game within the last 5 years that I can think of that did really well after its initial release was Minecraft, and you could argue that it doesn't even count, since it is now 6 years old (although it has been popular for quite some time).

ESO is an MMO, but it's one that doesn't even fit the traditional style of MMOs. I wouldn't be surprised if it took 5+ years to take off, if it ever did.

TL;DR: It takes a long time for a multiplayer game to gain the acceptance of a large audience, if it ever does.

BuggeX

The time is the answer.
Nowdays noone can affort or want to effort time wath you need to Play a MMORPG.
A Moba like LOL or DOTA2 for telling the 2 famos one, you can achive anything faster and easyer (not speaking from a premate 5 grp on esl) A match goes 30min in most case it fast, anyone starting with the same in this match, with nothing.

nastuug

UrQuan wrote: »

Nestor wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

To the last bolded point first, for a large AAA title, you simply can't take that approach any more. You need a large team of people with a wide range of areas of expertise in order to make the game. It's simply not possible to do it otherwise (again, I'm saying this with regard to a large AAA title: for a smaller game, it's still possible to take this approach).

Small teams or single creative people can still come up with a game that will be successful.

For smaller games, absolutely. Smaller games don't have the expectation of massive revenues and the expectation that everything will be built on the latest greatest technology and feature the most amazing graphics and physics possible. Those aspects are what prevents the approach from working with a large AAA title: the expectations of what it means to be a large AAA title.

Nestor wrote: »

It all depends on their vision. What they can't have are the money people telling them to throw in this feature or that feature because it polls well and has some IRR benefits. Problem is, the process costs money and the money people are always going to screw up the game to assure themselves of an ROI. Which is why every shooter today is the same as every other shooter for example.

The problem is, and always will be, the Vision and and how much it gets diluted by the process and the competition. By competition I mean making the game too much like what already exists. But not doing something just because someone else is doing it is not the answer either.

Part of the problem is that those things can't be avoided in a large AAA title. A large AAA title simply can't be made without the money people. And even if you somehow miraculously get money people who literally just throw cash at you without any oversight, you still need a massive team to make the game, and the vision will inevitably get diluted because there are so many people working on it, and they can't possibly all be consulting with each other over everything.

There's also the problem that even when there's one person with a strong vision driving the team, that person will often be used to working with a smaller team on smaller games (the people who are used to working with larger teams aren't usually the same people with a strong vision of how the game should be), and not truly understand how to run a large studio. That, in and of itself, can lead to the vision being diluted, because the person driving it doesn't know what level of direction needs to be given to the members of the team, and either ends up micro-managing things, or being too hands-off and only giving feedback ("it's wrong!") too late, further delaying the process. Frequently the same person will make both mistakes.

@UrQuan Path of Exile -- Grinding Gear Games. You'd call that a large, modern success, right?

UrQuan

MCMancub wrote: »

The only multiplayer game within the last 5 years that I can think of that did really well after its initial release was Minecraft, and you could argue that it doesn't even count, since it is now 6 years old (although it has been popular for quite some time).

And you also really can't call Minecraft a AAA title. It's an indy game that struck a chord and found an audience amongst people who were intrigued by the novelty factor of it.

MCMancub

UrQuan wrote: »

MCMancub wrote: »

The only multiplayer game within the last 5 years that I can think of that did really well after its initial release was Minecraft, and you could argue that it doesn't even count, since it is now 6 years old (although it has been popular for quite some time).

And you also really can't call Minecraft a AAA title. It's an indy game that struck a chord and found an audience amongst people who were intrigued by the novelty factor of it.

Very true! It's rare that a AAA title gets released and becomes a well known, well played game immediately, if ever.

EQBallzz

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

Answer this question:

Do use want a robust game (all of the expected features and functionality) or pretty graphics?

Good graphics do not a good game make, but significant time and money are spent on fancy graphics, fancy VFX (to the point you can't even see your screen sometimes), fancy animations, etc. While all of that is a big contributor to immersion and an even bigger contributor to early marketing (you don't see trailers advertising "Hey! Look at our neat netcode!"), it isn't what makes a game tick.

EVERYTHING published since "the game that shall remain nameless" has been less than fully featured/functional at release, and if you don't make a good impression initially, you're not going to retain customers and you're not going to have a good reputation. At the same time, today's discerning marketplace isn't going to buy cartoon-characters anymore.

It's a Catch-22...

IMHO, ever since "the game that shall remain nameless", the only game published that was close to being fully featured at release was Rift (really enjoyed its PvP), although its zones were certainly too small for the explorer in me... GW2 was surprisingly close for a B2P game... but different folks have different preferences in gameplay, so what I consider fully featured may not be the same as someone else's preferences.

I'm hoping in the future that more advanced game engines will allow for smaller teams the freedom to focus on making more niche type games. We are already heading down that path but I think most game engines get heavily modified which probably still takes quite a bit of time/money. Maybe in the future it will be that more robust game engines can essentially be used "out of box" which would allow a smaller team to concentrate on other things like content and art which would produce a high quality product that doesn't have to compromise too much and could cater to an audience that doesn't have to include "the masses" to be considered successful.

Carde

Huge success isn't the only type of success. MMO developers and investors would do well to remember that if they ever want to stop churning out garbage.

nastuug

Carde wrote: »

Huge success isn't the only type of success. MMO developers and investors would do well to remember that if they ever want to stop churning out garbage.

Aye. You don't have to be #1 to turn a large profit/distribute a successful product.

rb2001

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

I think the biggest problem facing any new MMO, including this one, is the expectation from many players (and devs!) that MMO gameplay must include the DPS/Tank/Healer trinity. Combine this with the apparent need for every game to have both PvE and PvP, and you have a recipe for disaster. How can they ever give PvP the "balance" they're always demanding while rigging the classes and skill lines to force PvE players into specialized roles?

If ZoS wants to solve this problem for ESO, they basically have two choices, in my opinion:

1) Spin off PvP and PvE into a separate games, so they can be balanced appropriately for their respective player bases. Or...

2) Redesign PvE content, classes and skills to support "jack-of-all-trades" player characters, who are capable of performing all essential tasks equally well. Player choices regarding race and class would be purely for aesthetics and role-play.

Solution #1 is probably off the table, so the best we can hope for at this point is some version of Solution #2.

I honestly just want something like Zelda world and item real-time interaction, with real-time combat without all the skill bars, spam skills, and all that rubbish (just finely tuned block, attack and dodge thank you) with Witcher 2 like story branching, with multiplayer.

No, none of those cancel each other out. People just keep saying that and others keep buying it.

Pallmor

They only "fail" because every MMO judges itself next to World of Warcraft. If everyone would stop trying to produce the next "WoW Killer" and stop dreaming of millions of subscribers, and instead have more realistic expectations, then there wouldn't be so many of these "failures."

An MMO with 500,000 regular subscribers is only a failure if the developer overspent on development with the unrealistic expectation that they were going to have 5 million regular subscribers.