Is the MMO Genre dead?

Playboy

There hasnt really been a success since WoW. There were lots of interesting and successfull MMO's until WoW, then WoW took over and everything since seems to have been a failure. Personally I have given up on the genre after playing for 10+ years. Currently playing MOBA's which I find much more entertaining and fun. Holding out some hope for Camelot Unchained though as I backed it on kickstarter and was a massive DAoC fan.

ShaShaBear

Playboy wrote: »

There hasnt really been a success since WoW. There were lots of interesting and successfull MMO's until WoW, then WoW took over and everything since seems to have been a failure. Personally I have given up on the genre after playing for 10+ years. Currently playing MOBA's which I find much more entertaining and fun. Holding out some hope for Camelot Unchained though as I backed it on kickstarter and was a massive DAoC fan.

I feel ya, desperately hoping for a revival game, tried them all but they all seem to fall short of WoW, which I keep going back to despite being bored of it

Nody

To be honest before WoW there was Everquest held up as the unbeatable game that every MMO tried to copy (sometimes with a twist). Before EQ it was Ultima Online. The simple fact is most MMOs fail because they are not different enough and/or polished enough at release. 95% of all MMOs polish the 1-30 out of 60 to heck and everyone sings praise yet once people hit the mid/end game it falls down due to lack of content and polish and people quit as they are bored. The second problem is that people want to complete with WoW and think if they don't get 10 million subscribers it has failed with out taking into the fact of the Blizzard effect on gaming in general or have insane requirements to run it at a decent graphic level (once again something Blizzard specifically targeted with going non realistic models).

Here's the formula if you want to beat WOW:
1) Compete polish from start to finish
2) A serious end game (with variety!) available from day 1
3) Plenty of area to explore with hidden away easter egg style locations etc.
4) Good stories in the quest lines that make sense & variety
5) Good variety on zone style & monsters & behavior (i.e. not copy and paste the same monster with different color 5 times or every zone is brown)
6) Runs well on a 5 year old machine
7) Fun to play which means it does not feel like a grind that it really is
8) Cheap subscription
9) No P2W options


Optional but worth considering:
10) Passive skill gain (ala Eve or PS2 that require someone to log in daily)
11) Daily quests (once again encourage people to log in daily but not feel like a grind!)
12) Dungeons (everyone loves dungeons!)
13) Group content (and only if you got a good way of supporting creation of groups etc.)

Things not to do:
1) Instance normal zones (removes immersion, dungeons etc. are ok)
2) Claim to be the WoW killer
3) Not expect so many people to want to log in so your servers lag/crash
4) Charge monthly fee + have a cash store with boosters etc.
5) Expect to be the next WoW killer game

Kiith

We'll never get another Warcraft, barring maybe Warcraft 2: Warcraftening (also known as Titan). The market is different now, and there's a far greater choice, with F2P becoming a serious player in the market.

One of the biggest problems for new MMO's, is people expect them to be as polished and have as much content as Warcraft, which is simply not possible. They've had 10 years to refine and improve their systems, and add a ridiculous amount of content. If you were to compare it to Warcraft at launch, the current batch of new MMO's would look amazing, but that's not something that happens. Blizzard also happily take any of the good idea's that other new MMO's come up with, and integrate them into their world. It's got pretty much everything, including one this most MMO's don't have...a fantastic IP with a long history. The World of Warcraft is brilliantly realised, and is a big draw for a lot of people who grew up playing the strategy games.

There are plenty of MMO's that still turn a tidy profit though. Eve Online has had consistent subscriber numbers for over 10 years now, as it caters to a specific market. Lord of the Rings has been going for bloody ages. Planetside 2 and other a few F2P games also have great numbers, and won't be failing any time soon.

The MMO market has changed, but it's not dead.

ShaShaBear

I thought TERA was going to be a major hit, pre-paid for that and everything. Was great for the first 10 levels and then I was really disappointed.

The new WoW expansion will come out this Winter and everyone will flock back :pac:

BeerWolf

Thing about MMOs right now - developers let a lot of people play the Beta of it, those players get bored of it soon after release and just stop playing it entirely...

i.e. - Free gaming for the months of beta, then come release they move on.

Venom

Nody pretty much summed up what to do and not to do with modern MMO. Sadly focusing on the hardcore players is a mistake to many dev teams continue to make at the expense of the casual player, who will always make up the majority of a games customer base.

Letting loads of players into beta's could well be part of the problem but seeing as alot of the time this is part of pre-order deals, the publishers only have themselves to blame.

froog

i think the themepark mmorpg is dead. if a really good immersive sandbox comes along it will breathe life into it again. archeage is promising. also the repopulation.

UCDVet

I'd completely disagree.

There are more MMO games now than there ever have been. And the games themselves are great. Heck, there are even lots and lots of great *free* MMOs.

The population of WoW was pretty irrelevant, IMHO. I haven't played in years, but when I did, you could only play on one server at a time. And even then, only with people near your level. Even though Rift had far fewer total customers, I encountered a lot more people in the game that I could interact with in a meaningful way.

WoW reminds me of Doom. Doom wasn't the first FPS, and lots of FPS games came out after it that were better - but DOOM was what everyone knew of and what everyone played. After doom, FPS's didn't die, they were better than ever.

Every now and then an amazing game comes along and takes the spotlight for a good while...and then the players move on to the next thing.

Magill

UCDVet wrote: »

I'd completely disagree.

There are more MMO games now than there ever have been. And the games themselves are great. Heck, there are even lots and lots of great *free* MMOs.

The population of WoW was pretty irrelevant, IMHO. I haven't played in years, but when I did, you could only play on one server at a time. And even then, only with people near your level. Even though Rift had far fewer total customers, I encountered a lot more people in the game that I could interact with in a meaningful way.

WoW reminds me of Doom. Doom wasn't the first FPS, and lots of FPS games came out after it that were better - but DOOM was what everyone knew of and what everyone played. After doom, FPS's didn't die, they were better than ever.

Every now and then an amazing game comes along and takes the spotlight for a good while...and then the players move on to the next thing.

I would say WoW is more akin to Counterstrike, not the first... pretty much always the best.

Venom

Magill wrote: »

I would say WoW is more akin to Counterstrike, not the first... pretty much always the best.

This ^.

WoW got it so right at launch, it was child's play for Blizzard to build on that success and just go from strength to strength. Sadly I can't see there ever being a success like it again, due to publishers forcing dev teams to launch way to early and kill any chance of a games success before it ever goes live. EA had two goldmines on it hands with Warhammer Online and SWTOR and completely screwed the pooch.

Calhoun

The big problem is expectation, the first mmo I played had at most 10-20K active subs across 4 servers. Wow bucked the trend and was a main stream success but it doesn't mean that this is how the market should be.

I think the market is fine people need to just 1. Stop looking for a wow replacement, be it content or the concept of a large scale mmo and 2. Not think an mmo is going to die with smaller subs.

MagicIRL

It's a combination of things.

Any MMO looking to launch needs to really think about server population and faction balance on it. Wildstar and SWTOR, for example, launched with too many servers for it's target market. As soon as subs die off, the populations drop and the game becomes dead. WoW has the same problem today, but looking at the top realms, they'll be going until the end of the game, and Blizzard are currently merging servers on a weekly basis to boost populations.

Give people an engaging leveling experience with polished end-game content to begin and you'll thrive. Launching a game before it's ready will get cash in the door but it'll die a death way too soon.

Kiith

MagicIRL wrote: »

Any MMO looking to launch needs to really think about server population and faction balance on it. Wildstar and SWTOR, for example, launched with too many servers for it's target market. As soon as subs die off, the populations drop and the game becomes dead.

That's the thing though...Wildstar didn't have too many servers. It had too few, and no one was able to login to join their friends at launch. They opened more after it was clear that 1 PvP server wasn't enough (which it clearly wasn't). But now as soon as the subs die, most servers are totally dead (i'm guessing)

More MMO's need to use megaservers like Elder Scrolls, or allow people from different servers to play with their friends like in Guild Wars 2.

Dcully

MMOs will never die, the community will just fragment more.

nesf

WoW was/is a freak. There will always be freaks in these kinds of genres due to the nature of loads of subscribers mean even bigger loads of subscribers for a while at least. The thing is though they will always be exceptions not the norm, again by the nature of the game (time consuming) and the "pick one and stick with it" nature of the genre (sunk-time issues).

If you hold up WoW's subscription numbers as a yardstick then yes, there haven't been any successes in MMOs for many, many years. If you just mean a living, profiitable game though then games like EvE and LOTRO (since it went F2P) would beg to differ.

julan

There will be something new that will overtake WoW success, let's just wait for it

MagicIRL

julan wrote: »

There will be something new that will overtake WoW success, let's just wait for it

I feel it will be whatever MMO Blizzard think of next, and really, I reckon it'll be WoW 2.0 or something similar.


The problem for other developers is that WoW currently does so many things right. Competetive PvP, Amateur PvP, Raid content, Levelling, Dungeons, Lore, Variety of characters/classes, content patches, mounts and collectables, expansions etc.

For a new MMO to come in and simply replicate this would be ana chievement, but to drag players away from WoW it'll have to do it all extrordinarily well and I can't see any MMO doing that given the development times publishers seem to be placing on the dev teams.


When WoW launched it was a shadow of it's current self. No MMO will survive today if they don't launch near-perfect so that everyone is entertained from the get-go.

Noxin

julan wrote: »

There will be something new that will overtake WoW success, let's just wait for it

Varik

Personally looking forward to Everquest next, but other than that I'm just playing through the stories in old republic.

Mmo went through what is having with jobs now, they's big money and everyone wants some. But since Mmo have long developments we're still getting them at a greater level than the market can support.

Its not dead at all, i think its just evolving. Never got into WOW at all. It just didnt interest me. I hate fantasy which a shame as the MMO genre is top heavy with fantasy.

I am interested in Kingdom Come Deliverance, simply because there is no Magic Sh|te int the game.

R0ot

There are so many success story MMO's there just are very few in my opinion that stay the long haul. I've played WoW (albeit for 7 days), Eve Online, WoT, Star Wars Galaxies, DayZ (can be considered an mmo imo!), RFO etc etc. All were fun only 4 of which (and DayZ is still young) are still alive and kicking.

Star Citizen is my next big commitment and from the amount of pre-made funding it's gotten it'll either succeed and keep going or fail spectacularly!

Calhoun

Is star citizen an MMO?

MagicIRL

Calhoun wrote: »

Is star citizen an MMO?

Sure it's not even a game at this point!

R0ot

Calhoun wrote: »

Is star citizen an MMO?

MMO, space sim, flight sim, fps, player economy sandbox.

Calhoun

R0ot wrote: »

MMO, space sim, flight sim, fps, player economy sandbox.

I googled it afterwards, i had initially thought it was a single player game but as you point out its that and more.

Seems pretty cool if it is a success.

R0ot

Calhoun wrote: »

I googled it afterwards, i had initially thought it was a single player game but as you point out its that and more.

Seems pretty cool if it is a success.

if is going to be the keyword here for sure. fingers crossed though!

nesf

Calhoun wrote: »

I googled it afterwards, i had initially thought it was a single player game but as you point out its that and more.

Seems pretty cool if it is a success.

It looks very ambitious but not tightly focused, so either great success or massive failure here with little chance of a middle ground perhaps?

Potatoeman

nesf wrote: »

It looks very ambitious but not tightly focused, so either great success or massive failure here with little chance of a middle ground perhaps?

Elite will be out first and Im hearing very good things. SC is getting some flak for all the expensive ship packs.

Calhoun

nesf wrote: »

It looks very ambitious but not tightly focused, so either great success or massive failure here with little chance of a middle ground perhaps?

A single player mission game , with server hosting abilities, and an mmo, it's like trying to solve world hunger.

Seems very ambitious .

Nody

Calhoun wrote: »

A single player mission game , with server hosting abilities, and an mmo, it's like trying to solve world hunger.

Seems very ambitious .

It's a recipe for failure the reasons are very simple:

1) Hype
2) Constant selling of cash planes (which "commit" players to the game)
3) Due to the above the funding is silly big but with huge commitments on what's going/should be in it

I hope they pull through but seeing other games having gone down that route (for example Mech Warrior Online) I'm not going to touch it with a barge pole until the final release.

nesf

Potatoeman wrote: »

Elite will be out first and Im hearing very good things. SC is getting some flak for all the expensive ship packs.

Elite seems much more focused. Which means a simpler game but also one easier to do right.

Potatoeman

Calhoun wrote: »

A single player mission game , with server hosting abilities, and an mmo, it's like trying to solve world hunger.

Seems very ambitious .

You can play in the universe and only see NPC's or friends. I guess it uses the same maps but you can play on online multiplayer, online single player or online friends only. Well thats what they were initially promising.

Potatoeman

nesf wrote: »

Elite seems much more focused. Which means a simpler game but also one easier to do right.

Well it's coming out first and it seems you have to grind to get ships rather than buying a pack (where I assume it would be far harder to grind). I'm looking into Elite myself as the ship packs seem to be pretty expensive. I'll avoid beta until they release and then it's just 35 bucks too.

thegrayson

Guild Wars ?

witless1

Bit late to the thread but something a lot of people don't really consider when discussing MMO games and the success of WoW is quiet simply the timing. WoW launched and became mainstream at a point where gaming PCs became much more affordable and where most houses started moving onto semi decent broadband. Speaking from my perspective and that of mates who got into WoW within its infancy most of us got our first real gaming PC around that time. Sure one or two of the lads had a somewhat decent pc prior to that but around 2001-2004 gaming hardware became a lot cheaper and opened up genuine online play for people. That fact is often ignored when talking about the success of WoW. Had it launched 5 years previous would it still be around today?

The future of MMO gaming is one which needs to take advantage of the fact the vast majority of gamers have mobile devices and social media presence. It's a new generation of connectivity. It needs to dip into that potential and be innovative. Gamers are no longer platform exclusive and the MMO generation are now mid 20s and beyond. It's a different time commitment now and the longevity of the console generation means a typical gamer will have multiple platforms available to them for several years. That's why casual players are the majority it's a combination of choice and being time limited. A future MMO that allowed you progress your character or world experience on your smartphone while in work or college or on the couch will ensure it gets most of your gaming attention even when you can't commit. WoW dipped into this with the AH app but barely scratched the surface. Get aspects of your game on devices and platforms I interact with daily without making it a necessity (time sink) or a means to get ahead of someone else and you now have a game I want to log into in 8 hours time after work and dinner.

Kiith

witless1 wrote: »

The future of MMO gaming is one which needs to take advantage of the fact the vast majority of gamers have mobile devices and social media presence.

If this is the future of MMO's, than i hope someone takes it out back and blows its brains out with a shotgun.

nesf

Kiith wrote: »

If this is the future of MMO's, than i hope someone takes it out back and blows its brains out with a shotgun.

World of Warcraft: Rise of the Candy Crushers.

witless1

If you are mapping MMO success to the various waves of technology I think it's inevitable that some form, be it minor, of interaction on a handheld device is going to emerge. If they can't charge you subscription fees they sure as hell want to get you on click through / mobile adverts.

Sad reality is our generation of gamers have moved through serious technology iterations and advances. Cheaper gaming is where the next wave of innovation is at. What we class as games Vs what gamers in 5 years class could be poles apart. Interesting to see where this all goes either way.

nesf

witless1 wrote: »

If you are mapping MMO success to the various waves of technology I think it's inevitable that some form, be it minor, of interaction on a handheld device is going to emerge. If they can't charge you subscription fees they sure as hell want to get you on click through / mobile adverts.

Why the need for mobile adverts etc? The microtransaction F2P model of a host of PC based MMOs seems to work perfectly fine right now.

witless1

nesf wrote: »

Why the need for mobile adverts etc? The microtransaction F2P model of a host of PC based MMOs seems to work perfectly fine right now.

Micro transaction is another name for pay to win which the community obviously has issues with. Mobile ads are worth just as much to a company and appear leas invasive or necessary.

Just to be clear I'm not saying MMO games are destined for mobile media just a portion of it or an interaction on a non console / PC basis is just inevitable. How they make that interaction work or how that model makes money is still unknown. What is known though is technology saturation makes mobile a viable interactive medium and there is way too much competition in the gaming market. In the next 3 months I will be playing destiny, fifa, wow, eve, assassins creed and halo anniversary at a guess. Few gamers are monogamous and games companies realise that and want your attention. That means making you interact with them in non gaming interactions. Look at the battlefield app they had from the last game as an example.

nesf

witless1 wrote: »

Micro transaction is another name for pay to win which the community obviously has issues with. Mobile ads are worth just as much to a company and appear leas invasive or necessary.

To the first, that's just a fallacy. Pay to reduce grind is not pay to win or anything close to it and this makes up the majority of microtransactions because they're the easiest ones to sell. It sucks if you've neither time or money but it's not pay to win, I've played games that were genuinely pay to win and without putting cash in you never get the biggest, best stuff and they're nothing similar. To the second, mobile ads aren't worth anything close to the same, the biggest mobile games are microtransaction based for a reason, e.g. Clash of Clans, Candy Crush Saga etc, in-app purchases are the norm amongst the really big players revenue wise .

Venom

witless1 wrote: »

Bit late to the thread but something a lot of people don't really consider when discussing MMO games and the success of WoW is quiet simply the timing. WoW launched and became mainstream at a point where gaming PCs became much more affordable and where most houses started moving onto semi decent broadband. Speaking from my perspective and that of mates who got into WoW within its infancy most of us got our first real gaming PC around that time. Sure one or two of the lads had a somewhat decent pc prior to that but around 2001-2004 gaming hardware became a lot cheaper and opened up genuine online play for people. That fact is often ignored when talking about the success of WoW. Had it launched 5 years previous would it still be around today?

The future of MMO gaming is one which needs to take advantage of the fact the vast majority of gamers have mobile devices and social media presence. It's a new generation of connectivity. It needs to dip into that potential and be innovative. Gamers are no longer platform exclusive and the MMO generation are now mid 20s and beyond. It's a different time commitment now and the longevity of the console generation means a typical gamer will have multiple platforms available to them for several years. That's why casual players are the majority it's a combination of choice and being time limited. A future MMO that allowed you progress your character or world experience on your smartphone while in work or college or on the couch will ensure it gets most of your gaming attention even when you can't commit. WoW dipped into this with the AH app but barely scratched the surface. Get aspects of your game on devices and platforms I interact with daily without making it a necessity (time sink) or a means to get ahead of someone else and you now have a game I want to log into in 8 hours time after work and dinner.

Neverwinter has a website open to any web browser, that allows you to level up crafting and companions along with giving access to the auction house all from outside of the game. While really cool features the game is not the huge success you claim will happen due to having such features.

Also, comparing MMO's to single player games is just silly as one take weeks to get to the end game while the latter is 6-8 hours play at most these days. MMO's are the domain of the PC and no matter how powerful consoles get, there interface is just not suited to such a game style.

nesf

Venom wrote: »

Neverwinter has a website open to any web browser, that allows you to level up crafting and companions along with giving access to the auction house all from outside of the game. While really cool features the game is not the huge success you claim will happen due to having such features.

I knew people who made a lot of use out of WoW Mobile Armory on their phones. They were a bit addicted to auction house trading though. For everyone else it was more for needing to chat in-game to people when you're away from home, i.e. "I'm stuck in work, I'll be late for the raid" or whatever.