Can an MMORPG exist without massive time sinks?

[bbr]

That's kind of the essence of an MMO in a way,.
well, aside the "massive multiplayer", "online" and well "roleplaying game" stuff,. obviously.
But how do you keep that many people interested, online, and playing the game?
Sure they could keep busy with each other - but if you focus squarely on the "roleplaying" part,. that's not going to work. It'd just be a big MUD (multi user dungeon),. with no content.

Content keeps people busy,. and timesinks are content which keep people busy a LOT,. it's just a logical conclusion in the end.
The trick is to disguise the timesink in such a way that people willingly perform the task, again, and again in different forms.
Blizzard has done a great job at it over the years. Revolutionized the market even.

[Allenseiei]

There are just a few good ways to solve such a problem.
First one is one of the millons of browser games where you only need to do a few things every few hours.

Second one is an MMORPG with an RMAH and all items are Tradeable so you have the choice if you want to invest tones of time or to pay other player for investing their time for you.

I think, if someone creates a good MMORPG with an RMAH (a good working RMAH not such a thing like in Diablo III) it would be the best cause harcore players with a high investment of time can earn real money while playing their video game and other people with less time can pay for their items.

But the system itself must be good. Including a link between gold and RMAH so that you can buy a item with gold that someone is selling for realmoney. Like the system is selling your gold to people who set a bid for an amount of gold and then the system is automatic selling your gold to them and then paying the item seller with this money.
And to say the truth the main problem with the RMAH in Diablo 3 wasnt the RMAH itself. It was the high random factor for item stats, the restrictions for auctions, like min and max price + the enormous infation of gold and the nearly useless search system for items.

If there would be a MMORPG with a great world and intresting content + RMAH + grafic like wow or better then I would play it for sure.

So pay to win then? Because that's what RMAH does.

[Adlian]

No not really. Look at D3 right now and imagine that its an MMO. People gear up fast, do the conquests and then stop because there is nothing else to do.

[fangless]

Man, just give me back Ultima Online. Where the adventures you go on are what kept you playing, not how many loot points you earn per week or what raid items you're getting :P

[Rimtia]

So pay to win then? Because that's what RMAH does.

pay-to-win
Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying.

RMAH:
better items then everyone else for money? false, cause the items still need to be found!
makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying? false, cause if you have the skill and you are willing to spend time you will get the same gear!

In conclusion:
An RMAH is no Pay-to-Win!

[Deleted]

No MMO need repetitive content, the challenge is making that content enjoyable as long as possible.
Creating content take a disproportionate amount of time in relation to how fast player get through it.

Even not entering into MMos as an example, consider how many years took to make a game like The Witcher 3, so rich of content and how long the average player goes through it.

[TrueGamer]

No MMO need repetitive content, the challenge is making that content enjoyable as long as possible.
Creating content take a disproportionate amount of time in relation to how fast player get through it.

Even not entering into MMos as an example, consider how many years took to make a game like The Witcher 3, so rich of content and how long the average player goes through it.

The above is the only semi-intelligent response in this (yes I know it's old) entire thread. The purpose of grind is filler to give the illusion of gameplay. Creating engaging and fun content takes a lot of time and money, much more than putting together some boring, repetitious and completely pointless activities. And since time is money and making money has become the primary goal these days, crappy grindfests are what you get more often than not.

As technology evolves, it has become easier and faster to create games full of eye-candy, but the core game mechanics and quests still take actual talent and work to make them fun and immersive. That's why PVP games are so prevalent, They don't have to do anything more than create virtual spaces with eye-candy since the content is all player interaction with each other.

It all boils down to greed. Game companies have changed from being groups of passionate people who enjoy creating games to a bunch of greedy money-grabbers who just want what's in your wallet and will do as much work as necessary to get it.

[TrueGamer]

No MMO need repetitive content, the challenge is making that content enjoyable as long as possible.
Creating content take a disproportionate amount of time in relation to how fast player get through it.

Even not entering into MMos as an example, consider how many years took to make a game like The Witcher 3, so rich of content and how long the average player goes through it.

The above is the only semi-intelligent response in this (yes I know it's old) entire thread. The purpose of grind is filler to give the illusion of gameplay. Creating engaging and fun content takes a lot of time and money, much more than putting together some boring, repetitious and completely pointless activities. And since time is money and making money has become the primary goal these days, crappy grindfests are what you get more often than not.

As technology evolves, it has become easier and faster to create games full of eye-candy, but the core game mechanics and quests still take actual talent and work to make them fun and immersive. That's why PVP games are so prevalent, They don't have to do anything more than create virtual spaces with eye-candy since the content is all player interaction with each other.

It all boils down to greed. Game companies have changed from being groups of passionate people who enjoy creating games to a bunch of greedy money-grabbers who just want what's in your wallet and will do as little work as possible to get it.

[Coldkil]

Can it be done? Yes.
Will it still be an MMORPG? Not really.

More or less this. Massive time sinks are not "needed" - but the point is actually different. For any game to have long term retention/replayability it needs to have long term objectives. If you want something to last, you need to make something that will last (either though "natural" or artificial meanings).

One of the issues right now is that many players are now used (and feel entitled to) "everything and now" type of games, so anything that requires a long term commitment is usually frowned upon or straight abandoned after the novelty wears off. Also, there are people whose goal is just to "rush" through content as much as possible and again lots of players just feel they're "left behind" because they played an hour less than their youtuber of choice, in a sort of self imposed competition which only result is to burn people out faster and faster.

Bear in mind that this doesn't mean that a game needs long play sessions. It needs that something that makes you start it every day - be it for 15minutes or 5 hours - and play it over the years. The problem lies in the fact that now most games involve some sort of direct or indirect "competition" where everyone just pushes himself just to "be better then the others", with rankings, ladders and all sort of comparisons, which imho have slowly eroded the mentality of playing "because it's fun".

Ask yourself: how many games have (generic) you played because they were the "new stuff" and they were so much alive for the first period and then died because people just bored themselves out of them? Doesn't mean they were bad games, just think about how much they lasted for you.

- - - Updated - - -

not how many loot points you earn per week or what raid items you're getting :P

That's one example of the above.

[Kakera]

No. The only people that believe so are the new generation RPG players that are pampered by what WoW has become.

[Deleted]

I think MMOs primarily live through an immersive world and a huge community. For both, timesinks are not required, but immensely helpful. A world becomes more immersive, if it is hard to exhaust it, and if it has certain time sinks that are not immediately accessible it will always feel like there is more to it, and a challenge remains. Such a time sink must not even be the focus, but rather a restriction of completing everything to fast.
For the community it is benefical as well, as it attracts the hard core gamers that will form the center of the community, in a sense those characters everyone can look up to, progression wise.
Without time sinks, players who come close to content completition might drop the game, what can impact the motivation of the whole community, i think.

[chooi]

I think that when you recognize doing something in a game as being an obvious, intentional timesink it's already badly designed and a problem. Because it shows that you actually don't have fun playing which is bad for a game that is supposed to be fun!

But, to answer your question, I don't think there can be an MMORPG without massive "time sinks" as it's basically the essence of the genre. The question is rather how to design the game so well that investing a lot of time in the game doesn't feel like a chore but actually a fun journey?

[The Casualty]

I think the biggest hurdle new MMOs face is getting people to invest the time required to play. Can MMORPGs fundamentally change their models to fit a 15min hop in and out gaming sessions that are currently most popular right now? Or are the grinds, timesinks, etc too integral to the MMO formula that it would essentially remove it from the genre and put it in another?

Time sinks and keeping to 15 minute play intervals are two entirely separate arguments. If you have a persistent sandbox world (old school Ultima Online comes to mind) you could have tons of ways to eat at your time, but you would always have the option of dropping out at any point - say that arbitrary 15 minute block of time - and still be making progress toward a personal goal.

Conversely, you can have a lobby game comprised of 15 minute matches/encounters/whatever, with each win chipping away at a larger goal of unlocking the next rank/perk/saving that portion of the galaxy. Even though it met your time criteria, it is nevertheless a time sink. That time limit could even be that hurdle you referenced in your opening sentence if it takes a lot of 15 minute matches before you are no longer underpowered/missing necessary gear or otherwise able to access the same content as the older playerbase.

[Deleted]

Conversely, you can have a lobby game comprised of 15 minute matches/encounters/whatever, with each win chipping away at a larger goal of unlocking the next rank/perk/saving that portion of the galaxy.

Spreading Managed Democracy are we?

[Cyclone Jack]

Can MMORPGs fundamentally change their models to fit a 15min hop in and out gaming sessions that are currently most popular right now?

Of course. City of Heroes did this quite well. You could log in, grab a group, run a mission, and then log out. Or you could get in a group that ran together for hours on end.

[Lotus Victoria]

Ragnarok Online is pretty casual. I've been playing it casually for 10 years, always having a shit load of fun. You need time to level your characters, yes, but it is not mandatory for you to get 99/70 to enjoy the game. So is GW2.

[Deleted]

I think if the notion was to make something that was consistent with 15 minutes being the optimal game time, I doubt that the MMO aspect would even be palpable.