Why the next generation mmorpgs are failing

LegacyDM

Let me pose a theory on why I think the next generation mmorpgs are failing. There is a fundamental lack of social and reward integration which has led to a breakdown in gaming success. I'm not going to write a wall of text and a thesis paper here, but I think it's important that the industry refocus on what is important to be successful.

In the old days, why was d&d paper so successful? Because it revolved around social integration. It was more than just games designed to progress and win. They were games designed around building up relationships and conquering challenges through those relationships. The problem with the industry today is, is the business model. The business model hasn't changed since EQ. Sure, each game comes with its own gimmick. Rift was randomly spawned dark anchors. STWOR was storyline, hirelings, and story choices. AoC was open world brutal pvp siege vs siege. WAR was rvr. GW2 is free to play. AION was gliding and portaling between enemy worlds. EQNext is voxels to create an environmentally interactive world. Terra is fps style pvp with no targeting locks. ESO's gimmick is mega server and play the way you want by choosing any race using any armor weapon type. The list goes on and on. The idea of let's create a world with content and design a gimmick to differentiate our product from someone else's is not working.

The games I listed above don't last and here's why. They all excite the masses because of their "gimmick" when the gimmick novelty where's off people get bored and leave. The game becomes nothing but a recycle of the same rinse and repeat garbage that has been released since WoW. Peel the onion and what are you left with? The same grind, pvp, alternate advancement, and quest racing that has been around since EQ and MUDs. This is the de facto standard. Every gaming company that releases an mmorpg thinks they nailed it. They think they figured out the gimmick that will be the next wow killer and become the next 10million+ copies sold mmo with millions of subscribers or players. all examples above have never gotten to where they want to be. Save Eqnext because it's not out yet, but it's only a matter of time before that one falls into the same trap.

The problem becomes the Developer mentality of if you build it with a gimmick, they will come and stay. No. These games need to be designed and built beyond the idea of let's build a new world with a gimmick and release new content periodically to keep gamers interested. No. These games need to be built around social interactions that go beyond "raids". People want living breathing worlds that evolve based on player interactions. Worlds need to be developed from the start with social tools. Integrate voice chat. Integrate LFG tools that work. Integrate player housing, integrate more dynamic trade systems. Integrate mobile device apps that allow trading in real time and player instant chat tools. Integrate esports and a world wide tournament system. Sponsor events. Advertise tournaments at conventions. Allow for more character customizations. Allow characters to design their own costumes. Allow more combat skill choices options so characters aren't forced to re-roll. Allow for titles that mean something with big rewards. Allow for big rewards. People want challenge! Remember back in the day when someone killed the king in ultimate online! That was a big deal in the gaming industry! Allow for challenges. Allow for consequences both in pve and pvp with bigger rewards. Remember that feeling of accomplishment when beating dosha when game first came out? Now it's watered down. Do something with achievements. Integrate an online achievement system so players can see others achievements. Calculate and advertise player statistics so players can see who is the best in the world at stuff. For example, killing dosha the fastest. Give players records to beat. Add Guild halls where player guilds mean something. Stop segregating factions.why in gods name are companies doing thIs? Integrate people! Not separate worlds and then develop a doofy silver gold quest line after the fact. Look I get it. Stupid that a Jedi would be with a sith. But there's ways to make this work so that players can play with each other. Bring the world to the player don't expect the average player to go off on his own and download vent or mumble and re login to a new IP server every time he wants to group with a random group of people. Don't be lazy and put the social development on the player. Don't wash and dry your hands and say, I did my job, I created a world, now it's up to the player to develop social relationships. No. Hire knowledge managers and statistically aggregate and determine what people want. Developers need to be more interactive with players. Not just question and answer sessions or forum presence. Developers need to challenge players with contests in and out of the game. Let players develop content ideas. Let players develop reviewed contents. More in game random and coordinated events. (Rift was actually good at this). The developer MUST design a world that forces social interaction and makes it easy and convenient to do so. You want this game to be successful? Bring it to the player. Not the other way around. All of these examples need to be implemented when a game is released otherwise it's too late. People have moved on and Lost interest.

Heromofo

I have yet to see any mmo be close to "A next gen mmo".

But i would say warframe is the closest and eso would be close to the bottom.

nastuug

Warframe as next-gen? Oh no you didn't just go there...

SeptimusDova

Joshdm2001 you nailed it. Thank you sir I have printed this . Worthy post and spot on.

NewBlacksmurf

nice post.....try console as you may be pleasantly surprised with the massive social changes.

Armitas

I noticed the same thing when I compared dungeon siege 2 with diablo 2. I loved dungeon siege 2, the story, the characters everything, but I couldn't play it through the 3 tiers. I wanted to gear them up but the gear, despite being equivalent to D2 didn't seem worth it once the story was gone. In contrast Diablo 2 had very little story or memorable characters and yet I played that for years, all for the loot. The loot became valuable because people were there. Having real people in the game changes everything. It's the core of an MMO's longevity.

Gidorick

GTA 5 is the closest I've seen to next gen mmo...

traigusb14_ESO2

I generally agree with the OP

The 2 games I have played that seriously forced social interaction EQ1 and Star Wars: Galaxies (through entertainers and crafters) created a lot stronger communities than new super solo friendly games.

Indeed, you can trace a lot of guilds in other games to these 2 games (either directly or as spin-offs)...

A lot of people have a guild, met their friends 10 + years ago, and have no interest in meeting new people... PUGs are considered the realm of plague-ridden lackwits instead of normal every day activities.

The weeding out of "hard" and "distasteful" game mechanics lessen communities. Sometimes there is vitamins in the spinach you hate to eat so much. I met a good friend of mine (was best man at his wedding) because he could summon corpses in EQ 1 and was nearly the same level as me... and I was a frequent customer.

I met a bunch of people I Drive stupid hours every year to BBQ with in SWG cantinas.

In modern games, I have more contact with the forum regulars than I have with people ingame. (incluiding ESO). I came to ESO in a guild that has mostly quit, and I'm copying over to Xbox one to play with people on my friends list already. There is no incentive for me to meet new people.. .and I'm even someone complaining about it!

Modern games are kinda lifeless single player experiences. Communities are what keeps MMOs going... and the modern games focus on importing existing groups/guilds, but really don't help create new groups.

It makes me kinda sad.

stewhead2ub17_ESO

"The games I listed above don't last and here's why."

While I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points, define "don't last". For example AoC is celebrating it's seventh anniversary this month, Rift has several years under it's belt and shows no sign of slowing down, etc..

daemonios

I'll add one more reason why they fail: they too easily turn to the sacred cash cow of micro-transactions to keep the game on life support by milking a few whales when the majority of players have deserted the game, driving even more people away.

Not saying this is the case in ESO right now (far from it), but it's a possible future.

traigusb14_ESO2

stewhead2ub17_ESO wrote: »

The games I listed above don't last and here's why.

While I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points, define "don't last". For example AoC is celebrating it's seventh anniversary this month, Rift has several years under it's belt and shows no sign of slowing down, etc..

Yeah, "don't last" is kinda sensational. it is more ... They have massive launches and bleed huge player numbers after 2-3 months.

Rift did slow down. A huge number of people who bought it stopped playing (I know literally 50).

It stabilized at a much lower population, but imagine if it kept even 1/2 the people that stopped playing.

BTW this is a huge issue in MMOS too. They have to rent massive amounts of hardware and do huge tests on load scaling.. then 2-3 months after release a huge number of people wander off because they feel "done" and have no community hooks to keep them.

wilsonirayb16_ESO

Actually I think by now most game developers understand that their online longevity/success is finite, with a short shelf life.
And so they go with whatever rakes in the most money the quickest before the ride is over. Basically, they're game is expendable.

Games of old, such as EQ, Meridian 59, UO etc, worked because the concept of online gaming was still in it's infancy. ust being able to 'meet up' with people around the world was an adventure in itself. Then you add on games that have taken MUDD and put them into a 3d virtual environment, and you have a prescription for awe and amazement.

That combination was powerful.

But after so many years, online gaming because less of a wonderment and more of a toxic cesspool.
And thus developers departed from the 'social' aspect because they knew people spent more time being negative than positive. In comes your gimmicks to steer consumer's attention away from the lack of social integration in their game.


This is why we need to support projects like Pantheon, and Project 1999 to help keep old school MMORPG alive and make them influence the next generation.

stewhead2ub17_ESO wrote: »

The games I listed above don't last and here's why.

While I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points, define "don't last". For example AoC is celebrating it's seventh anniversary this month, Rift has several years under it's belt and shows no sign of slowing down, etc..

Just because a set of servers exists, doesn't mean it's doing well. AoC is a fine example. It had plenty of servers across all regions once. Now there's only a few.

Or EQOA lasted a decade, and by the time it was over there were probably two hundred players, one developer, one moderator and one game guide.

Sure, population isn't every thing, but you have to wonder, why did they get so low?

Danikat

stewhead2ub17_ESO wrote: »

The games I listed above don't last and here's why.

While I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points, define "don't last". For example AoC is celebrating it's seventh anniversary this month, Rift has several years under it's belt and shows no sign of slowing down, etc..

I was thinking the same thing.

Rift and The Old Republic were released in 2011.
Age of Conan was released in 2008.
Guild Wars 2 was released in 2012. (And Guild Wars 1 which has the same "gimmick" of being free buy to play just hit 10 years old.)
Aion was released in 2008.
Terra was released in 1996 so that one actually predates EverQuest.

(I don't recognise the acronym WAR and searching for 'MMO WAR' or even 'MMO W.A.R.' turned up nothing useful so I couldn't look that one up.)

All of those games are still running. Some of them have changed business model or received major updates (hardly surprising after several years) but that's not the same thing as not lasting. So I'd love to know what that does mean in this context.

DDuke

Heromofo wrote: »

I have yet to see any mmo be close to "A next gen mmo".

But i would say warframe is the closest and eso would be close to the bottom.

Gidorick wrote: »

GTA 5 is the closest I've seen to next gen mmo...

Wait, Warframe is a MMO? GTAV MMO?

People have strange definitions of MMO these days..

Danikat

As far as the social side goes IMO it is what you make it, in any game.

I actually live with my guild leader from Guild Wars 2. We didn't know each other before I joined her guild, but 8 months later we were close enough that when she needed a place to live and I had space to offer it seemed totally natural. I know other people who have met their husbands or wives and life long friends in those games with 'no' social interaction.

It's the same as in real life. You can use 'tools' designed to facilitate social interaction, go to events and groups intended to encourage people to get to know each other. Or you can simply talk to people whilst doing your own thing in your own time in the same place. It's not instant of course, but over time you get to know people anyway.

Danikat

DDuke wrote: »

Heromofo wrote: »

I have yet to see any mmo be close to "A next gen mmo".

But i would say warframe is the closest and eso would be close to the bottom.

Gidorick wrote: »

GTA 5 is the closest I've seen to next gen mmo...

Wait, Warframe is a MMO? GTAV MMO?

People have strange definitions of MMO these days..

Never heard of Warframe, but GTA 5 has an online mode.

It's not a Massively Multiplayer Online game since it only allows 30 people to share a map, but in other ways it's very similar.

izenkim_ESO

joshdm2001_ESO wrote: »

The idea of let's create a world with content and design a gimmick to differentiate our product from someone else's is not working

But it is working. These companies are making money, and making money is the Hokey Pokey of the gaming industry (that's what it's all about).

The problem with the business model isn't that it hasn't changed, as it has changed to try different approaches of making money. The problem from the gamers perspective with the MMO business model is that it is the same business model of virtually every other game out there. Hit games of less than a year ago are now on sale, last years games are old, it is too risky to make games with a 10 year plan.

If I put on my investor hat and was asked to pick between investing in a 'flash in a pan' MMO that makes a lot of money at launch or to invest in a game that would make a lot more money but stretched over 5 years, I'm going with the 'flash in the pan', it's a safer bet from a business perspective.

Now as a gamer I wish every MMO were designed with a 5 to 10 year plan, and every RPG or sandbox had the depth and longevity of Skyrim or GTAV. However, that wish isn't realistic. There are too many game buyers out there that suffer from gamer-ADHD.

traigusb14_ESO2

Danikat wrote: »

As far as the social side goes IMO it is what you make it, in any game.

I actually live with my guild leader from Guild Wars 2. We didn't know each other before I joined her guild, but 8 months later we were close enough that when she needed a place to live and I had space to offer it seemed totally natural. I know other people who have met their husbands or wives and life long friends in those games with 'no' social interaction.

It's the same as in real life. You can use 'tools' designed to facilitate social interaction, go to events and groups intended to encourage people to get to know each other. Or you can simply talk to people whilst doing your own thing in your own time in the same place. It's not instant of course, but over time you get to know people anyway.

Fair enough.

I'm not a social person by nature. The people that are (I dunno if you are or not) can do whatever they want in any game and create social interaction.

If someone doesn't make me group with other people to get important stuff done, I'll be in a VR7 zone fishing or puttering around with Caldwell's gold on an alt.. Many of my friends are the same way.

Modern mmos don't have as many tools. in SW:G You had to go to an entertainer to get one of your stat bars healed. It made people congregate in towns between activities for a while until your bar healed. Sure you could go AFK, but it was where the intrinsically social people hung out and talked to the paste eating rejects like me.

30 second group to do a dolmen or overland boss isn't really social, if you even group at all.

I had hopes for Craiglorn.. but weird phasing, bad XP and loot... turned it into a Zerg grind zone for a while, now it is pretty much a Nirn harvest gank war.

PKMN12

Ff14 arr says hi. Next gen mmo, staying p2p.

The real problem is devs, or at least companies,make mmos simply to cash in, instead of making a game that will last. Another problem is players simply want everything handed to them

Fhaerron

You say GW2 is free to play.

In order to play GW2 you have to BUY a CD-key to create an account... tell me how is that free?

wolfydog

The bottom line is, we have a ton of MMO choices nowadays. Back in the day we had maybe 2 choices tops. There was Everquest 1 and a little later Dark Age of Camelot. Then Eq2 and WoW came out. Then to me at least, around the time Vanguard came out and then LOTRO, there has just been tons of MMO's. If players are bored or have to many bugs, or don't like something its easier to move onto another game.

Also, WAR is Warhammer Online. Probably most disappointing MMO ever, such a same it turned out the way it did and is now shut down.

Whendim_ESO

I certainly don't have the solution, but I think one of the biggest problems is that the genre itself (MMORPG's, that is) is no longer the brave new world it once was - it just doesn't have the inherent "wow" factor it once had. Gamers now have fairly ingrained expectations from each new title and other than the look, there's not a lot new under the sun - Fantasy world with monsters to kill, gold to be earned and levels to be acheived. It's not that this is bad, it's just it's no longer the wild frontier.

I also think that the voices of those of us who want to really delve into a game are drowned out by those we old timers call Greifers and PK's.There's also such a rush to get the best gear, the most kills, etc. that most of what was metculously thought out and placed in Tamriel is lost to the race to the end game and leveling.

stewhead2ub17_ESO

Indeed there is a saturation in the MMO marketplace. I would point out also, that EQ is still up and running, albeit with a modified sub model.

stewhead2ub17_ESO

"Rift did slow down. A huge number of people who bought it stopped playing (I know literally 50).

It stabilized at a much lower population, but imagine if it kept even 1/2 the people that stopped playing.

BTW this is a huge issue in MMOS too. They have to rent massive amounts of hardware and do huge tests on load scaling.. then 2-3 months after release a huge number of people wander off because they feel "done" and have no community hooks to keep them."


The shard I play on Rift seems packed 24/7. It seems that after their FTP conversion many returned and keep coming IMO. As for the mass exodus after a few months I somewhat agree with you, many seem to rush to "endgame" these days, but I also think this has to do with the sheer number of MMO options available to gamers nowadays.

stewhead2ub17_ESO

wilsonirayb16_ESO wrote: »

Actually I think by now most game developers understand that their online longevity/success is finite, with a short shelf life.
And so they go with whatever rakes in the most money the quickest before the ride is over. Basically, they're game is expendable.

Games of old, such as EQ, Meridian 59, UO etc, worked because the concept of online gaming was still in it's infancy. ust being able to 'meet up' with people around the world was an adventure in itself. Then you add on games that have taken MUDD and put them into a 3d virtual environment, and you have a prescription for awe and amazement.

That combination was powerful.

But after so many years, online gaming because less of a wonderment and more of a toxic cesspool.
And thus developers departed from the 'social' aspect because they knew people spent more time being negative than positive. In comes your gimmicks to steer consumer's attention away from the lack of social integration in their game.


This is why we need to support projects like Pantheon, and Project 1999 to help keep old school MMORPG alive and make them influence the next generation.

stewhead2ub17_ESO wrote: »

The games I listed above don't last and here's why.

While I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points, define "don't last". For example AoC is celebrating it's seventh anniversary this month, Rift has several years under it's belt and shows no sign of slowing down, etc..

Just because a set of servers exists, doesn't mean it's doing well. AoC is a fine example. It had plenty of servers across all regions once. Now there's only a few.

Or EQOA lasted a decade, and by the time it was over there were probably two hundred players, one developer, one moderator and one game guide.

Sure, population isn't every thing, but you have to wonder, why did they get so low?

As far as AoC goes, it's true there have been server consolidations (not uncommon over the course of a game's life, as most seem to start with many then slim down after the game settles in) but last I saw when Funcom released their numbers AoC was still their top money maker, even over TSW.

Uberkull

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

nice post.....try console as you may be pleasantly surprised with the massive social changes.

My god, stop. Did you even read his epic post? He gets it. There isn't any social change for console ESO, they actually are taking away social features. console is going to be lifeless and dull once everyone mutes voice chat because it is so damn annoying.

Then what are you left with? A solo game that builds zero community.

Iselin

It's funny how you blame MMOs for being the same but with gimmicks and then your solution includes a long list of gimmicks like e-sports, trading apps for your phone, etc.

And I also find it hilarious that a small fraction of the MMO forum posting gamers, which is a small minority itself, insist on describing the reality of how MMOs are played these days with a large portion leaving after a couple of months as "fail" when this is the core business model of the industry due to the player's own behavior.

And there are always attempts to find "solutions" to non-existent problems while missing the obvious: in those "glorious" olden days, players stuck around MMOs longer simply because the choices were very limited and likewise leave them after a shorter period of time these days because the choices are many.

It's not "fail", it's the reality of a market with a hundred choices instead of three. And it's a reality obviously embraced by ZOS when they removed the monthly sub as a requirement, which recognizes player's desires to take breaks and go do something else for a while.There's no need to make a "tough decision" about where to put your monthly sub money when none is required. You can just casually fade away and fade back in without the need for drama... although the dramatic "I'm quitting because..." posts are a habit that some find hard to break

liammozzb16_ESO

You over thought this it's very easy to explain why.

People complain because a new MMO that's only a day old doesn't have the same amount of content as wow that's been going for 10 years. They all leave and it bombs. It's happened with every MMO in the last 5 years.

PKMN12

liammozzb16_ESO wrote: »

You over thought this it's very easy to explain why.

People complain because a new MMO that's only a day old doesn't have the same amount of content as wow that's been going for 10 years. They all leave and it bombs. It's happened with every MMO in the last 5 years.

Except ff14: arr

liammozzb16_ESO

PKMN12 wrote: »

liammozzb16_ESO wrote: »

You over thought this it's very easy to explain why.

People complain because a new MMO that's only a day old doesn't have the same amount of content as wow that's been going for 10 years. They all leave and it bombs. It's happened with every MMO in the last 5 years.

Except ff14: arr

There's always an exception to the rule lol

nimander99

All the games you mentioned still exist today and are played by fiercely loyal communities but I do agree the whole gimmick thing is annoying kinda like Tamriel Unlimited annoys the crap out of me every time I see it or hear it but w/e thus is the world of marketing that we live in.

I honestly think if companies would get away from the whole faction A vs faction B ideas thatd be a start, players will form their own factions and alliances if allowed to do so and it feels like a lot of rules and systems are put into games just to be arbitrary.

I think rules for the sake of rules is a mistake, after all small government always leads to a freer and self supporting people... and that could be applied to games.

I may have gotten off topic a bit