Did the Games Industry give up on MMOs?

[Bznga]

At least for me,the problem with mmo's is the group size of the end game content.Im fine with vertical progression,long time invesment requirements and such but what deterring me from playing them is the 10-25man raids.Granted ive only played WoW and Rift.

In all online games i play,i have very close 1-2 friends that i like to play with.I can play with such a small party Battlefield,any sports games,Diablo,mobas but when it comes to mmo's,you need a group of 10/25.Especially in 25man raiding,at least 15 of those people are just people that i group up to get shit done,outside of raiding i dont want to have interaction with them.

I'd like an mmo with its end game catering to smaller groups,like 3 man dungeons and 6-7man raids,where i could organize my own group from my own friends,instead of committing to a schedule with lots of other people i dont know.I really wonder if there are other people in the same mindset as me.

[Advent]

At least for me,the problem with mmo's is the group size of the end game content.Im fine with vertical progression,long time invesment requirements and such but what deterring me from playing them is the 10-25man raids.Granted ive only played WoW and Rift.

In all online games i play,i have very close 1-2 friends that i like to play with.I can play with such a small party Battlefield,any sports games,Diablo,mobas but when it comes to mmo's,you need a group of 10/25.Especially in 25man raiding,at least 15 of those people are just people that i group up to get shit done,outside of raiding i dont want to have interaction with them.

I'd like an mmo with its end game catering to smaller groups,like 3 man dungeons and 6-7man raids,where i could organize my own group from my own friends,instead of committing to a schedule with lots of other people i dont know.I really wonder if there are other people in the same mindset as me.

To me, it sounds like you would like Final Fantasy 14.

[ro9ue]

At least for me,the problem with mmo's is the group size of the end game content.Im fine with vertical progression,long time invesment requirements and such but what deterring me from playing them is the 10-25man raids.Granted ive only played WoW and Rift.

In all online games i play,i have very close 1-2 friends that i like to play with.I can play with such a small party Battlefield,any sports games,Diablo,mobas but when it comes to mmo's,you need a group of 10/25.Especially in 25man raiding,at least 15 of those people are just people that i group up to get shit done,outside of raiding i dont want to have interaction with them.

I'd like an mmo with its end game catering to smaller groups,like 3 man dungeons and 6-7man raids,where i could organize my own group from my own friends,instead of committing to a schedule with lots of other people i dont know.I really wonder if there are other people in the same mindset as me.

I agree. I have like maybe 4-5 good friends I play games with, and generally speaking - only 1 or 2 are on at a time. We all have busy lives so we can't -schedule- game time together. Some of them have kids. All of us have pretty intense jobs. It's just not feasible.

In general I'd like to see more personal skill based progression that scales to any # of characters. It would definitely be hard to develop for but with WoW at least they tried with Flexible raiding.

I'd like to see flexible 3-12 man groups. Anything more than that just seems like way too much to organize - and I used to do 40 mans back in the day. And I don't miss it for one second.

[Deleted]

A game isn't an MMO unless it allows ungrouped people into the same server

Then WoW isnt a MMO either as everything takes place in instances with grouped people. The world itself is more like a tutorial/storymode/lobby.. and even then, only the tiny latest expansion part. The rest of the world might just as well not exist at all and most players wouldnt even notice.

[ro9ue]

Weird, isn't it? Back in EQ I ran around in 72-man raids, which were often more like 100-man raids because things weren't instanced and you could just bring tagalongs.

That never seemed daunting or problematic to me at the time. Probably because things weren't quite as rigid back then, once you started needing more specific role/class compositions the numbers got more and more problematic.

Yeah I think you're exactly right. When I think of raids back in EQ, they were more akin to world bosses like Kazzak in WoW. If I make a Kazzak group I can basically have [] Auto Accept checked in the Premade finder and just make sure I have a few tanks or healers. Maybe it's that flexibility that makes those easier logistically.

I personally would like to see more large group content to be laid back, and the small group content be the primary progression path since it's easier to put together a few people.

[Coldkil]

Weird, isn't it? Back in EQ I ran around in 72-man raids, which were often more like 100-man raids because things weren't instanced and you could just bring tagalongs.

That never seemed daunting or problematic to me at the time. Probably because things weren't quite as rigid back then, once you started needing more specific role/class compositions the numbers got more and more problematic.

Well, modern games are very different but you are right on the rigid systems that basically "force" people to group up.

Flexible content is the real future and what the industry should focus on - yes, usually smaller groups have an easier time, but sincerely who cares. If people can play with their small friends group and have no issues why the systems should force bigger groups on players.

The mindset has completely changed, if you want the game to survive and be popular you need to setup a structure where differently organized players can experience the same content.

[ro9ue]

Well, modern games are very different but you are right on the rigid systems that basically "force" people to group up.

Flexible content is the real future and what the industry should focus on - yes, usually smaller groups have an easier time, but sincerely who cares. If people can play with their small friends group and have no issues why the systems should force bigger groups on players.

The mindset has completely changed, if you want the game to survive and be popular you need to setup a structure where differently organized players can experience the same content.

Yeah... I agree with smaller group focus and more flexible large group content. But I'm not sure I feel the same about "solo" accessibility - at least with ease. I think these online games need to advocate for groups and player cooperation whenever they can.

In EQ soloing was actually extremely hard - unless you could kite - but it still took forever. I remember trying to solo on my level 50 Paladin, taking 3min to kill a single mob and then having to heal myself to full by spam clicking my Helmet of Valor lol. It was always more efficient to find a group.

I don't want it to be that difficult to solo, but one of the problems I've seen in WoW is that you aren't really incentivized to group while leveling, only in the harder content. In EQ it was so hard to do anything solo that you did whatever you could to get a group together and get into a "camp". It was safer, more efficient and if you died you generally had a healer to rez and all that.


So in a way I guess I want them to focus on small group (3-6 players) content. Maybe allow for soloable, but inefficient content, and if they want massive group content like raids, it should be on the same level of difficulty and organization required as say a Kazzak in WOW currently...

..if that makes sense.

[Coldkil]

That actually makes a lot of sense.

Tbh i like the implementation of Wildstar Expeditions - they are small dungeons tuned for 1-3 player groups.

An ideal endgame system for me (better safe than sorry):
- content varies from 1 to 6 players
- open world missions that can be tackled in multiple ways, meaning some are doable solo while others require other people
- 1 to 3 small dungeons
- 3 to 6 bigger dungeons

Ideally you want to setup a parallel progression where you release different tiers of content (and thus rewards) with both small and big dungeons, aswell with the open world missions stated above (all packed in a new zone maybe? would be awesome).

Reward-wise, big dungeons would net the best ones (would it be higher level gear or more currency doesn't matter it depends entirely on the system that's set up), with small dungeons being behind. This means that one can have a complete solo progression experience even without taking a single step into group content - the reward of willing to play with other people is going to be better/more stuff, which is completely fine with me.
Adding to this, the world missions will make you progress on a separate bar which at certain tresholds you get rewards at the big dungeons level. This way no one can say that we're forcing people playing in groups, but as you say, grouping will be much much more efficient, also because group missions will make you progress faster. If you look at wildstar contracts system you will have an idea of what i'm talking about - they are totally NOT LIKE Wow reputation or similar stuff. more like an XP bar that you fill up doing activities and when you max it it gives you a good reward then reset.

The issue of old content being ignored when new one is released: well this is more complicated, as it's natural that people will gravit towards latest content no matter what. So the idea is that tier 2 small dungeons rewards will be of the same quality of the tier 1 big dungeons, tier 2 big dungeons will have the best ones and new world missions will have a new separated progress bar. So a new player can go full solo and experience a progression system as the day1 player had. The new player will have to run some old content to get enough gear/progress/power to tackle tier 2 dungeons/missions, but will be able to catch up. No catch up mechanisms or similar, since you will be able to progress though everything even if solo, and if you find better geared people willing to boost you, well, good for you. but 'ts not forced on anyone to do so - since you can reach tier 2 content only by running solo stuff, and then if you want try to tackle tier 2 group content for best rewards.

Making old content replayable: even harder issue. Adding a cosmetic/xmog system is the safest bet as everyone like to play dresses with their toons. Specific/rare drops will help a lot on this purpose, and they can be specifically cosmetic only drops so one won't feel to run old content because "that trinket taht drops on tier 0.5". Still something to discuss on anyway.

[Osmeric]

Group world content in Rift was very nice. Simply being in an area with an event occurring with other players would cause you to automatically group up.

[Deleted]

I agree with a lot of what's been said so far, and there seem to be plenty of people that are interested in similar things to what I would like to see out of a new MMO. More variable end-game content (especially small group, and even very challenging, but possible single player content), less gear treadmill more actual content , smaller upgrades that don't "force" everyone to have the same gear, etc.

However, while I do think the gaming industry has somewhat given up on MMOs, I don't really think that's a bad thing. I think there were a lot of publishers jumping into the market for entirely the wrong reason (i.e. chasing WoW's buckets of cash). Hopefully now that they've largely seen that WoW was kind of an isolated phenomenon, and MMOs are not a free ticket to infinite money, they will move to trying to make better games. I feel like it's significantly better for everyone if developers and publishers are working on games that are well conceived as games, regardless of the genre. If the concept works well as an MMO, then I am all for trying it out; but make it because it would be a good MMO, not because they just want to make some kind of MMO.

[ro9ue]

Group world content in Rift was very nice. Simply being in an area with an event occurring with other players would cause you to automatically group up.

I believe Warhammer Online was the origin of that system with public quests. Was one the best things ever added to the genre.

[JamesGoblin]

I believe Warhammer Online was the origin of that system with public quests. Was one the best things ever added to the genre.

Yea, Warhammer Online sank together with lots of good ideas it had :P

On topic, MMOs are not dead - it seems that AAA MMOs are slowly dying, but the genre moves to indies and crowdfunding, that's all.

[Zaqwert]

MMO's were a genre that attracted committed players. Those players have largely moved on, and the younger generation doesn't like games that take commitment.

Games have evolved to cater to skillless, clueless casuals who want to button mash till they get to the next cut scene. WoW has evolve to suit this crowd.

MMO's are just a dead genre, hopefully we see another swing at some point back to games being made for gamers and not for "everybody"

I'd rather play a great MMO with 500k players than a crappy, watered down McDonald's one with 5 million.

- - - Updated - - -

It's so expensive to make a AAA title these days, as a business you sadly have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

[ro9ue]

MMO's were a genre that attracted committed players. Those players have largely moved on, and the younger generation doesn't like games that take commitment.

Games have evolved to cater to skillless, clueless casuals who want to button mash till they get to the next cut scene. WoW has evolve to suit this crowd.

Is that actually true though?

I see plenty of young gamers being dedicated but to more fast paced games. Tons of hours in CoD or LoL. Maybe it's just more along the lines of younger kids growing up with so much entertainment they are more "twitchy" with their attention, and running around killing boars ain't their thang.


For our generation (I'm almost 30) just the fact you could inhabit a virtual, persistent world with other people like in EverQuest was such an awe-inducing experience. The gameplay didn't have to be fast. Hell, one 5hr game session could just be getting to where you were going to grind xp the next day. This was all prior to the rise of social media as well.

So I'm not buying it's a dedication/commitment issue.

[Dilbon]

People are committed but it's the elitist tryhards that turn them away. And those are the result of the way games are designed. It's no longer about the world, it's about progress.

[Zaqwert]

For our generation (I'm almost 30) just the fact you could inhabit a virtual, persistent world with other people like in EverQuest was such an awe-inducing experience. The gameplay didn't have to be fast. Hell, one 5hr game session could just be getting to where you were going to grind xp the next day. This was all prior to the rise of social media as well.

Well, I think that's likely a big part of it. massive online play is no big deal to younger players, and as such they aren't necessarily as impressed with it as the older crowd was back when they first started to hit the scene.

But gaming tastes and trends do a play a part. There's no doubt that gaming has gotten easier and watered down as it's gotten bigger.

The industry PC buzzword for it is "accessible", I run like hell whenever I hear a game developer talking about how "accessible" their game is.

I'd say another reason for the death of the MMO genre is more gaming choice too. People like to play a ton of different games a ton of different ways. MMO's were designed largely to be the only game you played. Gamers don't want to sit down and play the same game 8 hours a day, they have lots of different games on lots of different platforms competing for their attention.

That's why WoW has been modified over the years to be playable in like 1-2 hour chunks if you choose to.

[Deleted]

That's why WoW has been modified over the years to be playable in like 1-2 hour chunks if you choose to.

WoW is still not "accessible" enough though.. or well, not at all. Take games like LoL for example. You can play that once a month or take a long break and after a few games against AI, youre good to go again. WoW on the other hands needs you to level up and then gear up and the only casual things you can do are rather mindless and pointless activities, such as running dungeons and LFR.. and maybe BGs (long wait in the queue though).

WoW needs to get rid of the level cap, let players level ad infinitum and stop gating content. So say you come back after a few year, your character, if it was high level and geared before will still be high level and geared.. maybe not the best stuff but good enough to get started. No one cares about e-sports anyway, so whats wrong with letting more active players get a head start?

[ro9ue]

I'd say another reason for the death of the MMO genre is more gaming choice too. People like to play a ton of different games a ton of different ways. MMO's were designed largely to be the only game you played. Gamers don't want to sit down and play the same game 8 hours a day, they have lots of different games on lots of different platforms competing for their attention.

That's why WoW has been modified over the years to be playable in like 1-2 hour chunks if you choose to.

Talking from my own perspective. I would much rather dive deep in 1-3 games (as long as the depth is there) than play a wide array of games. Just imo.

World of Warcraft, prior to the whole casualization of it, earned almost all of my gaming attention from 2004-2009 or so. I played a bit of Rift. I played a bit of the Uncharted series and some Gears of War... but the majority of my free time during those years was spent on WoW.

I miss having a game with that much depth and interest to really bury myself in.

Prior to WoW even, I focused on EQ1, D2 and WC3. I had games I "focused" on.

I don't think that desire to invest a lot of time in a single game is gone... I just think the quality of games has diminished personally.

[ro9ue]

Is that really true, though? Or have expectations just changed?

EQ1 for instance...what depth did that game actually have? What could you really "dive deep" into other than just throwing ungodly amounts of time at it? Was it actually better than what we have today, or just newer?

Yeah that's a good point. I'm not sure. I think the thing about EQ1 was that it didn't take you along on a themepark ride to see all it has to offer, you had to find things, so in that regard it always had a little corner of mystery that was left unexplored. With spells, you didn't just learn them as you leveled up, you had to find them on certain vendors scattered throughout different cities or get it to drop off mobs.

You had to travel everyone you wanted to go the hard way.

So maybe EQ1 and WoW both actually had the same amount of "depth", but one had you walk slowly without guidance to explore it while the other put you on a 100mph sight-seeing train.

[Jibjub]

Is that actually true though?

I see plenty of young gamers being dedicated but to more fast paced games. Tons of hours in CoD or LoL. Maybe it's just more along the lines of younger kids growing up with so much entertainment they are more "twitchy" with their attention, and running around killing boars ain't their thang.

Playing a lot of hours doesn't equal commitment. It's an addiction, more. (Not saying WoW/MMOs aren't also). It's what these butt-easy games do ...

That's like saying people who spend hours on slots machines are committed.

- - - Updated - - -

It used be an addiction to the challenge and overcoming it. Now video games are about bright lights, big numbers, and rewarding skill-less play. (See Hearthstone)