[Megathread] Amazon's New World MMO

[Gaidax]

*snip*

That's just nonsense and you know it.

AGS pulled no stops advertising New World, they have the $$ for it and heck they own Twitch to boot. And the insinuations that people knew XYZ are just silly - it's a new game with army of streamers praising it to high heaven as 2nd coming of JC.

It wasn't advertised as PvP only game and was hyped to high heaven as "finally a new big high profile MMO" from Amazon no less. The brand alone carried a lot.

So again, how is it players' fault that AGS fucked it up and fell short?

As usual - the problem is not the players, it's the studio/publisher. Imagine that, when you change directions every other year and don't know what you even want to make you end up with players leaving because the game is neither fish nor meat.

---

Now, I personally would not mind the whole discussion, but the whole "it's players' fault" crap really triggered me. It's same old shitty denial I seen in Wildstar or heck even current WoW state. And here we go again, as if we did not learn that lesson already 500 times.

[potis]

Players are not wrong, you're talking like some detached Blizz exec. Imagine that in 2021 players expect a tad more than baseline crap when you have hundreds other games around with great stuff to offer.

This complete out of touch thinking. Nobody cares that 20 years ago this would be "fine", it's not in 2021 and that's what counts. Nobody cares that Runescape did not have much content 20 years ago - it's irrelevant, because when it released you did not have Steam at the ready with hundreds to thousands of games to insta bail to.

We are talking about people expecting content out of New World or any released MMO to reflect years of dev time and somehow you turned it back to WoW, what?

[Edge-]

AGS pulled no stops advertising New World, they have the $$ for it and heck they own Twitch to boot. And the insinuations that people knew XYZ are just silly - it's a new game with army of streamers praising it to high heaven as 2nd coming of JC.

Show me, then. Because I saw a largely digital-only marketing campaign fairly in-line with other major games, but without the physical adverts we historically see plastered on buildings and buses etc.

They own Twitch yes...and? We know they sponsored a bunch of streamers on launch day but that's, again, fairly standard. Was there anything to indicate they spent even bigger than other companies?

If you got all your information about the game from sponsored (which were all clearly labeled) streamers on launch day that's like...yeah, 100% a you problem for going to an obviously biased source of information because the streamer is being paid to play and promote the game. There was no shortage of opinions and previews and impressions based on beta events, which you (royal you) could have gotten into the open beta to check out yourself as well, so if you relied on that one source only, that's absolutely your fault.

It wasn't advertised as PvP only game and was hyped to high heaven as "finally a new big high profile MMO" from Amazon no less. The brand alone carried a lot.

Because it's not a PvP only game. It's also not a PvE only game. All of which is clear if you bother spending 10-15 minutes doing some casual research about the game before purchasing.

Why would the Amazon brand carry anything for games/gamers? Again, they had one game released prior to this, and it was unreleased and then canned. Just because it's "Amazon" doesn't mean shit, and if gamers automatically associated "Amazon = Money = Good products" that's, once more, on them for being a bit silly and not bothering to do any research.

So again, how is it players' fault that AGS fucked it up and fell short?

You haven't shown any failures on Amazon's part yet, just vague unsourced "big ad budget!" and "but sponsored streamer said good things and that may have mislead people who don't know what 'sponsored' means!"

when you change directions every other year and don't know what you even want to make you end up with players leaving because the game is neither fish nor meat.

They changed directions once, in response to player feedback that they didn't want a full loot sandbox PvP game. So they added in a lot of PvE content and more structured PvP content. Once more, this is a failure to understand or seek out pretty basic and very public information.

And here we go again, as if we did not learn that lesson already 500 times.

Players can be at fault when they fail to keep their expectations in check. Players can be at fault if they go into a game largely blind, assuming it is something radically different than what it is, and then getting upset to find out it's not what they thought.

It can go both ways.

[Gaidax]

We are talking about people expecting content out of New World or any released MMO to reflect years of dev time and somehow you turned it back to WoW, what?

Yeah, people expect content, how insane is that. Totally their fault there they are not staying for... nothing.

It's not about WoW, it's about blaming players for corporate development studio fuckups. Yeah, guess what - if you don't put content that makes people stay, they don't stay - crazy how that works.

I'd hope the studios would learn that one after so many MMOs crashed and burned exactly on this very same problem.

[Edge-]

Yeah, people expect content, how insane is that. Totally their fault there they are not staying for... nothing.

What kind of content? Tons of dungeons? New World was never advertised as having tons of dungeons. Traditonal raids? Never advertised as having traditional raids.

I'd hope the studios would learn that one after so many MMOs crashed and burned exactly on this very same problem.

Player dropoff/burnout is normal. And honestly looking at the Steam #'s New World is doing fine. Numbers are declining as normal/expected, with folks either outright quitting or playing less often so concurrency is lower. It's doing far better than what little data we've had to compare previous games that have struggled with, still with +50% of the original launch peak concurrency two weeks out. Which doesn't mean they've almost lost half their playerbase though, as we don't know how much is attributable to folks that quit vs. simply folks not logging on at the same time as much.

[potis]

Yeah, people expect content, how insane is that. Totally their fault there they are not staying for... nothing.

It's not about WoW, it's about blaming players for corporate development studio fuckups. Yeah, guess what - if you don't put content that makes people stay, they don't stay - crazy how that works.

I'd hope the studios would learn that one after so many MMOs crashed and burned exactly on this very same problem.

Then we are saying the same thing but somehow you didnt get it, the only difference is, its not 2010 to blame the studios, its the players now, they fund the hype and all the MMOs crash and burn for the same reason and thats my point, after 20 MMOs that are rinse and repeat and fail the first 2 months, you would expect people would learn by now.

Stop overhyping, stop pressuring them, and stop expecting to get back the WoW of 2005 where you are a clueless noob and took 500 hours to do what you were supposed to do in 100 cause of lack of knowledge/internet or w/e else.

People need to accept that if you are playing MMOs, you either do their endgame system or simply hop around them as people are doing, without complaining.

[rhorle]

So again, how is it players' fault that AGS fucked it up and fell short?

If players believe the hype and marketing of any game then they have some fault. Could it not have been over hyped? Sure. But removing any personal responsibility for blindly following hype is silly.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you implying that players are in the wrong to expect something more out of a high profile MMO launch of the last few years from studio swimming in big daddy's $$ no less that was hyped up to high heaven? Amazon pumped more $$ into hyping this game than many studios have budget to even make games.

Yes. People that expect to much are at fault for expecting to much. How is that even a question? Money doesn't mean quality. AGS has no released games that did well. The only one they did release for PC was moved back into beta and then ultimately cancelled. Money isn't the issue here. Believing hype and falling into it is partly the responsibility of the players. Part developers who over hype and part players for falling for it.

How often is it said that people shouldn't pre-order because it sends the wrong message to developers? And now we have the opposite position from you saying that it is the fault of the developers at all times. New World is an average game. If you paid attention to the actual design and development it would never have come across as a WoW killer or "greatest thing since sliced bread" type of thing. But hey it can't ever be the fault of the players because they can't possible think logically about stuff they consume.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, people expect content, how insane is that. Totally their fault there they are not staying for... nothing.

What developer can deliver content faster then players consume it? The game has been out for 3 weeks. Name one developer that can meet that schedule. Players can have unrealistic expectations and to deny that is possible is just silly. Could there have been more quests, dungeons, and end game stuff in the game at launch? Sure. But it isn't that important if they have a good plan to add that stuff post launch.

[pahbi]

There are so many fun things to do in a MMO.

Dungeons, PvP, farming and crafting, quests etc...

But what I spend 70% of my time doing in New World is walking which is absolutely the least interesting thing to do in a MMO.

What I wanted in New World was an adventure, what I got was a walking simulator.

[rhorle]

But what I spend 70% of my time doing in New World is walking which is absolutely the least interesting thing to do in a MMO.

The worst part is you can't even open your inventory to check/look at things while moving.

[Acidbaron]

This game has a lot of room for improvement on a lot of fronts, while i do find they need to stick true to their overall design philosophy or things start to do more harm than good in the long run, i am speaking of adding mounts, a minimap and other things they are used to in other MMOs without considering the negative impact it can have on the game. There are other design choices like the crafts for dungeon keys while elite farming is easier and just as good.

Plenty of bugs still around also once you reach max level you will know what i am talking about.

I find the comparison to juggernauts of MMOs like Runescape who have been around for more than 20 years if i am not mistaken to be really unfair, those games build up rather slowly.

The best part about this also is, it is B2P they shown there is interest in the game so now post-launch they can continue to improve on things i am interested to see where we stand a year from now, it can still do badly in the market mind you but i also believe it can carve out a nice corner for itself over time.

[Darkeon]

There are so many fun things to do in a MMO.

Dungeons, PvP, farming and crafting, quests etc...

But what I spend 70% of my time doing in New World is walking which is absolutely the least interesting thing to do in a MMO.

What I wanted in New World was an adventure, what I got was a walking simulator.

Didn't do any research before purchasing it?

- - - Updated - - -

The best part about this also is, it is B2P they shown there is interest in the game so now post-launch they can continue to improve on things i am interested to see where we stand a year from now, it can still do badly in the market mind you but i also believe it can carve out a nice corner for itself over time.

Their very loose assurance regarding the monetization of their in-game store almost guarantees that in a year~ my interest will be severely reduced due to it's state.

[Fencers]

Living World/Story existed from day 1, it was one of the main selling points of the game. (It was meant to eliminate the need for expansions at first, but that didn't pan out.)

I mean, if you were never aware of any narrative, then you were never aware. Still, it's like someone telling you they worked at McDonalds and were later shocked to find out there was a drive-thru.

I don't recall Living Story being in GW2 from day 1. Wikipedia says it was introduced post-launch on June 2013.

- - - Updated - - -

By your definition, do games with narratives even exist? I can ignore the story in pretty much every game and still play it to the end if i want to.

These are not the same things.

[damonskye]

What I wanted in New World was an adventure, what I got was a walking simulator.

That is EXACTLY why I quit during the second week. I was spending 95% of my time running and not doing anything fun. Very frustrating.

[Fencers]

GW2 at the day of its launch had an overarching narrative - and do you know what? It was different for each of the five races for half of the game! And those were voice acted quests with scenarios and in game cinematics on top of that.

I was talking about gameplay as already said. A narrative is gameplay. That's GW1, not GW2. The personal story is just text in GW2; it's not a metaphor of play.

[Nyel]

I was talking about gameplay as already said. A narrative is gameplay. That's GW1, not GW2. The personal story is just text in GW2; it's not a metaphor of play.

It's voice acted text in GW2. That's still way more than New World's main quest does.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't recall Living Story being in GW2 from day 1. Wikipedia says it was introduced post-launch on June 2013.

Yeah because the first max level stuff was related to Orr, which was there in the base game at launch. Living Story acted as additional content in patches. What's your point though?

Living World Season 1, also called Scarlet's War, is the first season of the Living World. It began proper with Flame and Frost: Prelude on January 28, 2013, and continued until March 18, 2014 Battle for Lion's Arch: Aftermath. January, not June 2013. That was 5 months after launch.

Source: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Living_World_Season_1

[Edge-]

It's voice acted text in GW2. That's still way more than New World's main quest does.

That's fairly irrelevant since the VO has nothing to do with the narrative or gameplay. I like the VO for the most part, but if it was removed literally nothing in the game actually changes. And amusingly, they released multiple updates without any VO during the early days of the pandemic as they were unable to get VO's in the boot to record and...it didn't matter in terms of the content itself at all.

VO can be a "nice to have", but when you aren't making story central to your game, why blow the budget on it? Especially when most folks, given the unimportance of the story/narrative (if one exists) are just going to skip through it?

[Nyel]

That's fairly irrelevant since the VO has nothing to do with the narrative or gameplay. I like the VO for the most part, but if it was removed literally nothing in the game actually changes. And amusingly, they released multiple updates without any VO during the early days of the pandemic as they were unable to get VO's in the boot to record and...it didn't matter in terms of the content itself at all.

VO can be a "nice to have", but when you aren't making story central to your game, why blow the budget on it? Especially when most folks, given the unimportance of the story/narrative (if one exists) are just going to skip through it?

Why are you two always contradicting each other in what you said?

One wants a narrative. Then the narrative must contain gameplay elements. One is praising that the main story in New World is partially voice acted. Now all of a sudden voice acting is a nice addition but not mandatory because most skip through it.

For the record: I don't give a damn about voice acting, I always read quest texts faster than the voice acting and that's why it's hardly relevant for me. The constant back and forth in arguments when it comes to defend this game is still baffling though, because no matter what negative point is brought up, you two always find a way to turn it around and make it a net positive or at least something that's irrelevant. It's amusing, really.

[Fencers]

It's voice acted text in GW2.

This is a meaningless distinction.

That's still way more than New World's main quest does.

For sure. I am not saying New World is a titan of storytelling or narrative. The opposite is my point; as I said earlier, NW is aggressively average.

I was saying the genre does not have many games which are narratively driven; meaning the narrative is part of gameplay. Such as Half-Life, God of War, The Last of Us, Guild Wars 1, et cetera.

This has nothing to do with whether you ignore it or not. Only that NW (and most games in the genre) do not use the plot as part of the gameplay. They provide text, story, and context for pressing a button or performing actions. However, the plot (which can be gameplay fwiw) is not commonly a gameplay process of the MMO genre. Certainly, NW is not an exception to this at all.

Yeah because the first max level stuff was related to Orr, which was there in the base game at launch. Living Story acted as additional content in patches. What's your point though?

It was a reply to a poster that talked about Living Story earlier. I told the poster I did not play that content or knew much about it. So my comments were strictly and admittedly based on when I did play the game. This poster was asking how I could be surprised by the Living Story and so on.

Living World Season 1, also called Scarlet's War, is the first season of the Living World. It began proper with Flame and Frost: Prelude on January 28, 2013, and continued until March 18, 2014 Battle for Lion's Arch: Aftermath. January, not June 2013. That was 5 months after launch.

Source: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Living_World_Season_1

Right, as I said in the very post you are quoting. From the source, you are quoting.

[Edge-]

Why are you two always contradicting each other in what you said?

...because we're different people and not part of a hive-mind? >.>

One wants a narrative. Then the narrative must contain gameplay elements. One is praising that the main story in New World is partially voice acted. Now all of a sudden voice acting is a nice addition but not mandatory because most skip through it.

I'm not speaking for others, only myself, though I was working off of Fencers definition since she's got very firm beliefs about this. And while I don't agree 100% with all of them, I agree with some of them on this topic including that simply having a story/voice acting doesn't mean there's any kind of actual "narrative, especially as it relates to gameplay.

The constant back and forth in arguments when it comes to defend this game is still baffling though, because no matter what negative point is brought up, you two always find a way to turn it around and make it a net positive or at least something that's irrelevant. It's amusing, really.

Different people have different opinions...sorry?

[Tonkaden]

Why are you two always contradicting each other in what you said?

One wants a narrative. Then the narrative must contain gameplay elements. One is praising that the main story in New World is partially voice acted. Now all of a sudden voice acting is a nice addition but not mandatory because most skip through it.

For the record: I don't give a damn about voice acting, I always read quest texts faster than the voice acting and that's why it's hardly relevant for me. The constant back and forth in arguments when it comes to defend this game is still baffling though, because no matter what negative point is brought up, you two always find a way to turn it around and make it a net positive or at least something that's irrelevant. It's amusing, really.

The same can be said for you with the negativity. Anything positive is shot down with negativity. This isn't a one way street my dude. None of you are able to give or take on either side of the street.