because they consider their consumers to be "idiots who will buy anything".
The issue is that this is true. People do just buy everything. No boycotts have truly worked in the past. A few might've influenced the boycotted game itself (usually just for a time), but none of them influenced the industry as a whole. The masses just cannot work together to raise their standards, because the masses' standards are below the fucking floor.
Um. I would not be expecting a Christopher Nolan film to be "standard" for movies.
I would be expecting a Christopher Nolan film to be a pinnacle that most movies cannot match.
I think this is the point Viajero is trying to make. Nolan's movies are usually <$200mil in price, but they always look better and get more love than stuff that Disney puts out (which quite often cost more).
The issue is that the absolute majority of people still go and watch all that Disney shlock, which tells execs that their strategy is working, so we're now getting the AI bullshit and the current strikes.
The same applies to the game's industry. We get the same shit in serialized shooters, the same broken shit in majority of new games (all the bugs and "we're sorry" announcements have become memes in the community). All because everything is controlled by execs who're only interested in profits, so they push devs to put out shitty stuff before it's ready.
Devs are scared of Baldur probably because they realize that execs won't understand how and why Baldur managed to come out a god damn month before planned release and is still loved, despite some bugs, while other games have had years-long delays yet were still shit on release. The execs will only see the players' feedback and say "make us the same huge and amazing game, but on half the budget and 1/3 the time". And devs would either have to suffer insane crunch (yet again) or lose their jobs because they can't keep up (also yet again).
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That's more likely to be a case of losing the pitch rather than something that would occur after the start of development. And... they probably wouldn't want to be funded by execs with such poor judgment anyways.
Most of my gamer friends are game 'ho'es. They will play pretty much any game or any MMO that releases.
I used to read at lease one novel per week when I was in high school - I was not expecting Tolkien or King to be the baseline for every novel.
Same is true when we were watching tons of movies - which is why we have a term for B movies.
That being said. I only play a few video games each year. And, yes, I probably would not play an RPG where I can't make a Dwarf who looks like me. But, that's more due to UE5 than it is to Baldur's Gate 3, specifically.
I don't think Baldur's Gate is going to stop gamers who play indie games from playing indie games.
Every production does not have to be on par with the pinnacle of the industry.
And that is as much true for the game industry as it is for the movie industry.
That's more likely to be a case of losing the pitch rather than something that would occur after the start of development. And... they probably wouldn't want to be funded by execs with such poor judgment anyways.
Do they ever have a choice? The entire industry is getting monopolized into just a few huge companies with relatively bad practices in each one of them. Smaller dev companies just get bought up, because they need the money to live and can't just pick and choose who's giving them money and what that money requires from them. Well, they can of course, but only if they can afford to work for a small indie company on a tiny living budget.
Most of my gamer friends are game 'ho'es. They will play pretty much any game or any MMO that releases.
I used to read at lease one novel per week when I was in high school - I was not expecting Tolkien or King to be the baseline for every novel.
Same is true when we were watching tons of movies - which is why we have a term for B movies.
Yes, and afaik majority of players are completely fine when indie games (B movies of the industry) have jank or bugs or stuff like that. But we currently have AAA companies with AAA games that are constantly shit and broken, on top of horrible monetization schemes and consumer abuse.
That's more likely to be a case of losing the pitch rather than something that would occur after the start of development. And... they probably wouldn't want to be funded by execs with such poor judgment anyways.
Do they ever have a choice? The entire industry is getting monopolized into just a few huge companies with relatively bad practices in each one of them. Smaller dev companies just get bought up, because they need the money to live and can't just pick and choose who's giving them money and what that money requires from them. Well, they can of course, but only if they can afford to work for a small indie company on a tiny living budget.
Most of my gamer friends are game 'ho'es. They will play pretty much any game or any MMO that releases.
I used to read at lease one novel per week when I was in high school - I was not expecting Tolkien or King to be the baseline for every novel.
Same is true when we were watching tons of movies - which is why we have a term for B movies.
Yes, and afaik majority of players are completely fine when indie games (B movies of the industry) have jank or bugs or stuff like that. But we currently have AAA companies with AAA games that are constantly shit and broken, on top of horrible monetization schemes and consumer abuse.
Why are old MMOs more loved and remembered than modern MMOs?
- Nostalgia or a build up of story before the MMORPG even launched.... Why is wow classic,tbc, and wotlk so loved? Because you had warcraft 1,2, and 3 prior TO WOW that came out! So you knew about the humans, orcs, and Arthas before you even stepped into WOW. There was an emotional connection so it created excitement to explore the world. Because of that excitement people go back wanting to feel that again.
Why have the new generations of MMO players dwindled so much?
- Time investment...people want to jump in and play without the need of investing hundreds of hours to be relevant.
- More gaming options. Let's be real when WOW, Runescape, EQ, Lineage, etc first hit the market gamers did not have the option to play online with their friends via console. Result was it was a new exciting experience to log onto a game, voice chat with other players, and explore a world. Not so special these days sadly. And now studios are looking to provide games that can be played across multiple platforms such as cell phones, consoles, and pc... end result is a stripped down game that can be played via phone.
Why doesn't it feel like you're playing an MMO anymore but a fast food MMO?
-Because the market has changed. Studios have learned that offering faster gameplay draws in more players. Again many gamers now are not looking to log in for hundreds of hours to be relevant or try finding a group. Why group finder, lobbies, etc became so commonplace. Players have 3 hours to game on a given evening and they got tired of spending two of those hours finding a group.
I want to add one more thing to players that say that AoC will lose $ if they dont:
allow addons
add instanced content
pve only servers
rp servers
voice acting
more solo storylines/systems
controller support (thus ruining the potential that the keyboard has for mapping, allowing for more skills to be accessible)
go to xbox, ps
If AoC aims was just to make money, they wouldn't make a video game. From the owner to the employees, the goal is to make a good video game. A good mmorpg. Some people make video games, others build commercial spaceships and others flip burgers.
How does that make sense? First of all it is a matter of time before it becomes a widely spread practice to use addons in the game. There is already instanced content. If you are required to be part of groups in order to be able to do any interesting content in the game, AoC will be left with barely any players.
AoC aims to make money by providing their target audience which mostly consists of men what they would consider an enjoyable game experience.
And then there is Steven's personal passion to create the world that he wants and sell his dream to his audience.
whats wrong with making a game for men? arent there games for women? movies for women, books for women, porn for women, toys for women?
also, you pretty much need a group to do any "interesting" content in most mmorpg and they arent empty <:
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Do they ever have a choice? The entire industry is getting monopolized into just a few huge companies with relatively bad practices in each one of them. Smaller dev companies just get bought up, because they need the money to live and can't just pick and choose who's giving them money and what that money requires from them. Well, they can of course, but only if they can afford to work for a small indie company on a tiny living budget.
Dev companies get bought out. Yes.
And there will be execs who want dev teams to finish their projects with less time and a lower budget than is ideal. This is true without any comparisons to BG3's quality.
Yes, and afaik majority of players are completely fine when indie games (B movies of the industry) have jank or bugs or stuff like that. But we currently have AAA companies with AAA games that are constantly shit and broken, on top of horrible monetization schemes and consumer abuse.
This is the problem.
Even with AAA games that are not self-funded... it frequently happens that the funders say... "Uh... you are well past the scheduled release date and well past the original budget... you need to release the game now."
Especially will happen more often now that updates can happen after release.
The first year I worked at Activision - when online patches were still quite new...
We in QA left work at 3:00 AM with 500+ bugs sent to the dev team. We got back to the office at 8:00 AM with 0 bugs. Over 300 of the bugs had been flagged by the dev team as Not A Bug or Will Not Fix.
The dev team convinced the QA lead to release the game that day with the promise of a first day patch that would kick in a couple weeks later when player were actually able (to use floppy disks) to install the game.
Same thing happens now - it's good enough to play - we can patch the bugs later.
Has nothing to do with BG3. I agree that BG3 is an anomaly. Most teams and most studios are not going to be able to accomplish what Larian did with BG3 - for a variety of reasons.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
AoC aims to make money by providing their target audience which mostly consists of men what they would consider an enjoyable game experience.
And then there is Steven's personal passion to create the world that he wants and sell his dream to his audience.
I don't understand why it matters whether the Ashes target audience mostly consists of men.
I'm quite certain Margaret will say that Ashes is designed for women as well as men.
There should be no surprise that Ashes aims to make money by providing its target audience what they would consider an enjoyable game. Don't all dev teams strive to do that?
Determining exactly who the target audience is might be a bit challenging. Determining exactly who isn't intended to be in the target audience might also be a bit challenging.
AoC aims to make money by providing their target audience which mostly consists of men what they would consider an enjoyable game experience.
And then there is Steven's personal passion to create the world that he wants and sell his dream to his audience.
I don't understand why it matter whether the Ashes target audience mostly consists of men.
I'm quite certain Margaret will say that Ashes is designed for women as well as men.
There should be no surprise that Ashes aims to make money by providing its target audience what they would consider an enjoyable game. Don't all dev teams strive to do that?
Determining exactly who the target audience is might be a bit challenging. Determining exactly who isn't intended to be in the target audience might also be a bit challenging.
Why are there big developers or large multi-billion dollar companies who do not want BG3 to be seen as the new RPG standard?
The underlying premise to this question is flawed. It sounds like you ate your first Oreo and think it’s new. Oreos aren’t new or old school, they are just fucking good.
BG3 is a Larian RPG, consistent with their other RPGs - they are just really good games.
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I disagree in a lot of ways with the OP, not in everyway. I do think there's probably some truth to players being the problem with their demands.
I think that when MMORPGs were being developed before it came from a passion. The novelty of playing in this world with other players was really interesting and new. Developers did not have any direction on what was going to work. It was a free-for-all with who had the most interesting ideas.
So the reason this was considered the golden age wasn't because of any specific thing. It was the lack of anything specific.
Asheron's Call,UO, EQ, Lineage, Anarchy Online. Were all substantially different games. Blizzard entered and they used mostly EQ (Which was the founder of raiding) as inspiration. Probably the first MMO to come out that really started using inspiration from other games. Everyone at that time told them they would fail and EQ2 was the big boy on the block. Until November 23rd 2004 and history was made.
So the big issue is everyone looks at WoW now. We have been playing the same game since 2004. It's been 20 years of guitar hero essentially. Innovation stopped. Blizzard got greedy and focused on Player retention rather then player enjoyment. Most Devs focused on the bottom line rather then the experience. They squeezed all the water from the towel and now it's just dry and crusty.
So for me it's not nostalgia that I am chasing. I am chasing an experience. I dont care how they do it just do it different. Just like WoW at the start, I don't need EVERYTHING to be different but it should at least feel like a new experience.
I think most players are too used to WoW and it's copy cats to the point they don't remember that things can be different and still work really well. I know that the social side of a MMORPG is by the far the best part. I am an introvert too but let's face it, we don't need anymore Lobbies.
1
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why are old MMOs more loved and remembered than modern MMOs? Nostalgia
Why have the new generations of MMO players dwindled so much?
The industry itself has exploded in number and types of games to play alone and with others.
Why doesn't it feel like you're playing an MMO anymore but a fast food MMO?
Everything has become like the rest because there has not been much evolutionary change away from the original models.
Listen to that Nostalgia podcast if you have 45 minutes. It is good.
I'll list some things that I miss in (most) modern MMORPGs and I look forward to experience in AoC:
1) A truly open world without instanced zones. I like being able to walk/fly/sail the world without having to go through loading screens. I like seeing other regions from the distance, the feel that it is a "real" connected world.
2) Less fast travels. Let us feel how big the world is.
3) Having to group up with other people. One of my favorite things about MMORPGs is meeting people along the way, to help and be helped. Makes no sense being able to solo dungeons and world bosses.
4) Specific roles for each class (in this case, archetype). Class identity should always be a thing, it makes you look for other people, it makes everyone feel important and being needed for groups.
5) The thrill of PvP. I miss being afraid of dying.
6) Challenging open world PvE.
7) No predatory store that locks the coolest looking things behind money.
8) Meaningful crafting system. What is the point in leveling craft if you can just easily drop better stuff?
Now some things that I worry about in AoC but I'm sure are being carefully thought.
1) The gap between the best equipment and the second best. I like the idea that the best gear in slot will be crafted and that few people will have the means access it. But that also makes me worry if that gap will be too big, to the point that gear alone will be way more meaningful than skill. Players with the second best gear should be able to stand a fair chance against players with the best stuff (IMO).
2) The level of penalty in the risk vs reward path. Penalty shouldn't be so light that it is meaningless nor should it be so high that it makes you too stressed in a game where you are supposed to be having fun. I hope they find a sweet spot.
That's it, those are the things I thought of now while writing this. I just bought my A2 access and am excited about stepping into Verra for the first time. See you all there
Why are old MMOs more loved and remembered than modern MMOs?...
There are too many factors to go on about for this topic imo, however, I think Novelty is a significant part of it. Couple that with how new the genre was, MMORPGs development process was largely uncharted waters, giving the developers the freedom to experiment on new concepts without having to stick to a predetermined formula for success....etc.
I want to add one more thing to players that say that AoC will lose $ if they dont:
allow addons
add instanced content
pve only servers
rp servers
voice acting
more solo storylines/systems
controller support (thus ruining the potential that the keyboard has for mapping, allowing for more skills to be accessible)
go to xbox, ps
If AoC aims was just to make money, they wouldn't make a video game. From the owner to the employees, the goal is to make a good video game. A good mmorpg. Some people make video games, others build commercial spaceships and others flip burgers.
How does that make sense? First of all it is a matter of time before it becomes a widely spread practice to use addons in the game. There is already instanced content. If you are required to be part of groups in order to be able to do any interesting content in the game, AoC will be left with barely any players.
AoC aims to make money by providing their target audience which mostly consists of men what they would consider an enjoyable game experience.
And then there is Steven's personal passion to create the world that he wants and sell his dream to his audience.
whats wrong with making a game for men? arent there games for women? movies for women, books for women, porn for women, toys for women?
also, you pretty much need a group to do any "interesting" content in most mmorpg and they arent empty <:
There are men that play games that are "made" for women. There are men that watch movies that are "made" for women. There are women that play games "made" for men. My point is there are always outliers and there is no such thing as a form of media "made" for men
I want to add one more thing to players that say that AoC will lose $ if they dont:
allow addons
add instanced content
pve only servers
rp servers
voice acting
more solo storylines/systems
controller support (thus ruining the potential that the keyboard has for mapping, allowing for more skills to be accessible)
go to xbox, ps
If AoC aims was just to make money, they wouldn't make a video game. From the owner to the employees, the goal is to make a good video game. A good mmorpg. Some people make video games, others build commercial spaceships and others flip burgers.
How does that make sense? First of all it is a matter of time before it becomes a widely spread practice to use addons in the game. There is already instanced content. If you are required to be part of groups in order to be able to do any interesting content in the game, AoC will be left with barely any players.
AoC aims to make money by providing their target audience which mostly consists of men what they would consider an enjoyable game experience.
And then there is Steven's personal passion to create the world that he wants and sell his dream to his audience.
whats wrong with making a game for men? arent there games for women? movies for women, books for women, porn for women, toys for women?
also, you pretty much need a group to do any "interesting" content in most mmorpg and they arent empty <:
There are men that play games that are "made" for women. There are men that watch movies that are "made" for women. There are women that play games "made" for men. My point is there are always outliers and there is no such thing as a form of media "made" for men
there is. there are things that men prefer, and there are things that women prefer. and thats fine, there is nothing wrong with that
There have been many good points made in this thread. I won't repeat most of them, but one thing does come to mind.
Many recent games are too easy.
Perhaps many consumers, I suspect they tend to be younger and newer to gaming, don't like to fail. They want to be elite, super strong, super cool and to impress people, and many game companies pander to this.
I started out in L2 right after it was released. Even early levels took a lot of work to achieve. The first-class quests (level 20) were darn tough the first time through. You could drop inventory and equipped gear when mobs killed you. It was a challenge.
There have been many good points made in this thread. I won't repeat most of them, but one thing does come to mind.
Many recent games are too easy.
Perhaps many consumers, I suspect they tend to be younger and newer to gaming, don't like to fail. They want to be elite, super strong, super cool and to impress people, and many game companies pander to this.
I started out in L2 right after it was released. Even early levels took a lot of work to achieve. The first-class quests (level 20) were darn tough the first time through. You could drop inventory and equipped gear when mobs killed you. It was a challenge.
Um. I would not be expecting a Christopher Nolan film to be "standard" for movies.
I would be expecting a Christopher Nolan film to be a pinnacle that most movies cannot match.
I think this is the point Viajero is trying to make. Nolan's movies are usually <$200mil in price, but they always look better and get more love than stuff that Disney puts out (which quite often cost more).
The issue is that the absolute majority of people still go and watch all that Disney shlock, which tells execs that their strategy is working, so we're now getting the AI bullshit and the current strikes.
The same applies to the game's industry. We get the same shit in serialized shooters, the same broken shit in majority of new games (all the bugs and "we're sorry" announcements have become memes in the community). All because everything is controlled by execs who're only interested in profits, so they push devs to put out shitty stuff before it's ready.
Devs are scared of Baldur probably because they realize that execs won't understand how and why Baldur managed to come out a god damn month before planned release and is still loved, despite some bugs, while other games have had years-long delays yet were still shit on release. The execs will only see the players' feedback and say "make us the same huge and amazing game, but on half the budget and 1/3 the time". And devs would either have to suffer insane crunch (yet again) or lose their jobs because they can't keep up (also yet again).
While true, companies care more about revenue than accolades.
If accolades bring in more revenue, great. If everyone is already going to see Disney movies, Disney doesn't need accolades.
You're right.
But that does not detract from the fact that a balance can be sought where a clear vision can drive the success of a project.
If companies want money, fine, then let them look for things that generate that money in a better way, but that does not mean that they go bankrupt themselves little by little with mediocre developments, broken launches or even lying and deceiving their public. .
The most successful companies in the world such as Coca Cola, McDonald's, Nike, etc. have a balance where the concern to demonstrate that they can improve whether in marketing, products, collaborations with entertainment stars, etc. is clearly evident.
In the film industry the best way to sell a movie is because of how good it is, because of the actors that are in it or because of how blockbuster it is.
If companies want money, fine, then let them look for things that generate that money in a better way, but that does not mean that they go bankrupt themselves little by little with mediocre developments, broken launches or even lying and deceiving their public. .
Imagine if the posters on this forum were around a table, and we were the shot callers for a new MMO. There are so many competing voices and opinions that we are not going to actually ever agree on what game to make. In order to ever get a product out, we would all need to make compromises - but since there are so many voices, we would have no real way of understanding if the compromises being made leave us with a coherent game or not.
Also keep in mind, a company owned by shareholders has people in charge that don't necessarily understand the business in question - their role is to represent the shareholders. Thus, in larger companies, the people calling the shots often have literally no interested or idea at all in relation to the product they are calling the shot on.
If you look at all the actual good games over the last few years, the companies in question have all had a company structure where the person making the final call on the product is a veteran of game design. The bulk of the games that were rubbish all had multiple people sharing that final call that had no background of game design.
The most successful companies in the world such as Coca Cola, McDonald's, Nike, etc. have a balance where the concern to demonstrate that they can improve whether in marketing, products, collaborations with entertainment stars, etc. is clearly evident.
The companies you have listed here have one thing in common.
Their core product doesn't change - and that is where they make the bulk of their money. As an example of this, in 2020 Coca Cola ended over 200 product lines (just of beverages), their revenue wasn't impacted, and most people just didn't even notice.
A major game development company doesn't have this luxuary - they need to be releasing at least one new core product every year.
All the issues people have with games are in relation to development of new products.
What is the best way to sell an MMORPG currently?
As far as I can see, the most popular actual MMO's over the last 10 years have been WoW, ESO and FFXIV.
Thus, the best way to sell an MMO is to be a part of an exiting brand/IP.
Totally agree, although I am in favor of adding a certain type of ADDONS, those that do not affect the gameplay or make everything easier but rather those that help you analyze certain things in the game such as your damage, your profits that you had, etc
We have that already. It's called an Excel spreadsheet.
<goes back to watching M*A*S*H* reruns.>
The girl watched the last of the creatures die and murmured a soft 'Thank you' to her rescuer.
The stranger's eyes lifted to the blood red cloud on the horizon.
I am an old gamer. I started with UO beta - I have loved MMOs ever since. There were a lot of good MMOs in the beginning, the devs in the varies companies wanted to make good games. At some point, there was so much money involved, that huge coorperations took over. They wanted money fast, that means shitty MMOs. Half baked shit... The newer generation has less MMO gamers, I think, that also impacts the marked. Honestly.... This is why so many old gamers are seeing Steven af MMO jesus, including me. For me, if Ashes is a shit game - which I am very sure it is not, then MMOs is a lost cause. Ashes and Steven needs to show the gaming industry, that MMOs needsd to be build solid and be fun, not a cash grab.
There is a ton riding onthis train Steven & Co! Dont fuck this up!
0
Options
ILLPeonUMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If I had to take a guess, I would say they were more memorable because of the time investment in them, The time you put in was a real accomplishment, and in games Like DAoC, hitting 50 wasn't even a big deal, that's when the real work started and you had to earn the right to make your character better buy getting realm ranks. Time invested in a game MEANT something back then.
Now a Day a game will make you level to 50, have you raid all the gear, then put out a expansion for 10 extra levels and tell you your gear is now worthless, rinse and repeat. This tactic really is the real problem.
Also the communities were far better in Old school, you would have far less ass hats, because it was all new. Compared to now when people have grown up with it and everyone is a internet Rambo. I don't believe we will ever see those days again, but I do believe Steven is trying to bring a element of Old School back and I do appreciate that.
As far as the community, Ashes has a pretty damn good one right now, and it's up to US to keep it that way. If someone is getting out of line they simply need to be ignored, don't feed the trolls. And feedback in the game is also crucial when alpha 2 starts, they need constructive criticism , and a solution to the problem you're presenting.
If we give proper feedback, and not biased feedback on our own personal preferences, this game cane be great for years, but they need ALL of you, even the viewers watching who don't have access will have valuable input.
TwitchTV Streamer: The Hidden Dagger Inn Saturday's 5:00 PM Cst
Comments
I think this is the point Viajero is trying to make. Nolan's movies are usually <$200mil in price, but they always look better and get more love than stuff that Disney puts out (which quite often cost more).
The issue is that the absolute majority of people still go and watch all that Disney shlock, which tells execs that their strategy is working, so we're now getting the AI bullshit and the current strikes.
The same applies to the game's industry. We get the same shit in serialized shooters, the same broken shit in majority of new games (all the bugs and "we're sorry" announcements have become memes in the community). All because everything is controlled by execs who're only interested in profits, so they push devs to put out shitty stuff before it's ready.
Devs are scared of Baldur probably because they realize that execs won't understand how and why Baldur managed to come out a god damn month before planned release and is still loved, despite some bugs, while other games have had years-long delays yet were still shit on release. The execs will only see the players' feedback and say "make us the same huge and amazing game, but on half the budget and 1/3 the time". And devs would either have to suffer insane crunch (yet again) or lose their jobs because they can't keep up (also yet again).
Most of my gamer friends are game 'ho'es. They will play pretty much any game or any MMO that releases.
I used to read at lease one novel per week when I was in high school - I was not expecting Tolkien or King to be the baseline for every novel.
Same is true when we were watching tons of movies - which is why we have a term for B movies.
That being said. I only play a few video games each year. And, yes, I probably would not play an RPG where I can't make a Dwarf who looks like me. But, that's more due to UE5 than it is to Baldur's Gate 3, specifically.
I don't think Baldur's Gate is going to stop gamers who play indie games from playing indie games.
Every production does not have to be on par with the pinnacle of the industry.
And that is as much true for the game industry as it is for the movie industry.
Yes, and afaik majority of players are completely fine when indie games (B movies of the industry) have jank or bugs or stuff like that. But we currently have AAA companies with AAA games that are constantly shit and broken, on top of horrible monetization schemes and consumer abuse.
This is the problem.
A fish rots from the head.
- Nostalgia or a build up of story before the MMORPG even launched.... Why is wow classic,tbc, and wotlk so loved? Because you had warcraft 1,2, and 3 prior TO WOW that came out! So you knew about the humans, orcs, and Arthas before you even stepped into WOW. There was an emotional connection so it created excitement to explore the world. Because of that excitement people go back wanting to feel that again.
Why have the new generations of MMO players dwindled so much?
- Time investment...people want to jump in and play without the need of investing hundreds of hours to be relevant.
- More gaming options. Let's be real when WOW, Runescape, EQ, Lineage, etc first hit the market gamers did not have the option to play online with their friends via console. Result was it was a new exciting experience to log onto a game, voice chat with other players, and explore a world. Not so special these days sadly. And now studios are looking to provide games that can be played across multiple platforms such as cell phones, consoles, and pc... end result is a stripped down game that can be played via phone.
Why doesn't it feel like you're playing an MMO anymore but a fast food MMO?
-Because the market has changed. Studios have learned that offering faster gameplay draws in more players. Again many gamers now are not looking to log in for hundreds of hours to be relevant or try finding a group. Why group finder, lobbies, etc became so commonplace. Players have 3 hours to game on a given evening and they got tired of spending two of those hours finding a group.
whats wrong with making a game for men? arent there games for women? movies for women, books for women, porn for women, toys for women?
also, you pretty much need a group to do any "interesting" content in most mmorpg and they arent empty <:
And there will be execs who want dev teams to finish their projects with less time and a lower budget than is ideal. This is true without any comparisons to BG3's quality.
Even with AAA games that are not self-funded... it frequently happens that the funders say... "Uh... you are well past the scheduled release date and well past the original budget... you need to release the game now."
Especially will happen more often now that updates can happen after release.
The first year I worked at Activision - when online patches were still quite new...
We in QA left work at 3:00 AM with 500+ bugs sent to the dev team. We got back to the office at 8:00 AM with 0 bugs. Over 300 of the bugs had been flagged by the dev team as Not A Bug or Will Not Fix.
The dev team convinced the QA lead to release the game that day with the promise of a first day patch that would kick in a couple weeks later when player were actually able (to use floppy disks) to install the game.
Same thing happens now - it's good enough to play - we can patch the bugs later.
Has nothing to do with BG3. I agree that BG3 is an anomaly. Most teams and most studios are not going to be able to accomplish what Larian did with BG3 - for a variety of reasons.
I'm quite certain Margaret will say that Ashes is designed for women as well as men.
There should be no surprise that Ashes aims to make money by providing its target audience what they would consider an enjoyable game. Don't all dev teams strive to do that?
Determining exactly who the target audience is might be a bit challenging. Determining exactly who isn't intended to be in the target audience might also be a bit challenging.
I sense some misandry
The underlying premise to this question is flawed. It sounds like you ate your first Oreo and think it’s new. Oreos aren’t new or old school, they are just fucking good.
BG3 is a Larian RPG, consistent with their other RPGs - they are just really good games.
I think that when MMORPGs were being developed before it came from a passion. The novelty of playing in this world with other players was really interesting and new. Developers did not have any direction on what was going to work. It was a free-for-all with who had the most interesting ideas.
So the reason this was considered the golden age wasn't because of any specific thing. It was the lack of anything specific.
Asheron's Call,UO, EQ, Lineage, Anarchy Online. Were all substantially different games. Blizzard entered and they used mostly EQ (Which was the founder of raiding) as inspiration. Probably the first MMO to come out that really started using inspiration from other games. Everyone at that time told them they would fail and EQ2 was the big boy on the block. Until November 23rd 2004 and history was made.
So the big issue is everyone looks at WoW now. We have been playing the same game since 2004. It's been 20 years of guitar hero essentially. Innovation stopped. Blizzard got greedy and focused on Player retention rather then player enjoyment. Most Devs focused on the bottom line rather then the experience. They squeezed all the water from the towel and now it's just dry and crusty.
So for me it's not nostalgia that I am chasing. I am chasing an experience. I dont care how they do it just do it different. Just like WoW at the start, I don't need EVERYTHING to be different but it should at least feel like a new experience.
I think most players are too used to WoW and it's copy cats to the point they don't remember that things can be different and still work really well. I know that the social side of a MMORPG is by the far the best part. I am an introvert too but let's face it, we don't need anymore Lobbies.
Nostalgia
Why have the new generations of MMO players dwindled so much?
The industry itself has exploded in number and types of games to play alone and with others.
Why doesn't it feel like you're playing an MMO anymore but a fast food MMO?
Everything has become like the rest because there has not been much evolutionary change away from the original models.
Listen to that Nostalgia podcast if you have 45 minutes. It is good.
1) A truly open world without instanced zones. I like being able to walk/fly/sail the world without having to go through loading screens. I like seeing other regions from the distance, the feel that it is a "real" connected world.
2) Less fast travels. Let us feel how big the world is.
3) Having to group up with other people. One of my favorite things about MMORPGs is meeting people along the way, to help and be helped. Makes no sense being able to solo dungeons and world bosses.
4) Specific roles for each class (in this case, archetype). Class identity should always be a thing, it makes you look for other people, it makes everyone feel important and being needed for groups.
5) The thrill of PvP. I miss being afraid of dying.
6) Challenging open world PvE.
7) No predatory store that locks the coolest looking things behind money.
8) Meaningful crafting system. What is the point in leveling craft if you can just easily drop better stuff?
Now some things that I worry about in AoC but I'm sure are being carefully thought.
1) The gap between the best equipment and the second best. I like the idea that the best gear in slot will be crafted and that few people will have the means access it. But that also makes me worry if that gap will be too big, to the point that gear alone will be way more meaningful than skill. Players with the second best gear should be able to stand a fair chance against players with the best stuff (IMO).
2) The level of penalty in the risk vs reward path. Penalty shouldn't be so light that it is meaningless nor should it be so high that it makes you too stressed in a game where you are supposed to be having fun. I hope they find a sweet spot.
That's it, those are the things I thought of now while writing this. I just bought my A2 access and am excited about stepping into Verra for the first time. See you all there
There are too many factors to go on about for this topic imo, however, I think Novelty is a significant part of it. Couple that with how new the genre was, MMORPGs development process was largely uncharted waters, giving the developers the freedom to experiment on new concepts without having to stick to a predetermined formula for success....etc.
Josh Strife hayes has a good video about this:
There are men that play games that are "made" for women. There are men that watch movies that are "made" for women. There are women that play games "made" for men. My point is there are always outliers and there is no such thing as a form of media "made" for men
there is. there are things that men prefer, and there are things that women prefer. and thats fine, there is nothing wrong with that
In this video Asmon talks about Steven
Many recent games are too easy.
Perhaps many consumers, I suspect they tend to be younger and newer to gaming, don't like to fail. They want to be elite, super strong, super cool and to impress people, and many game companies pander to this.
I started out in L2 right after it was released. Even early levels took a lot of work to achieve. The first-class quests (level 20) were darn tough the first time through. You could drop inventory and equipped gear when mobs killed you. It was a challenge.
I like challenges.
agreed, but people arent ready for that xDDD
Too much asmongold and his fan twitch comments for me X.X
If accolades bring in more revenue, great. If everyone is already going to see Disney movies, Disney doesn't need accolades.
You're right.
But that does not detract from the fact that a balance can be sought where a clear vision can drive the success of a project.
If companies want money, fine, then let them look for things that generate that money in a better way, but that does not mean that they go bankrupt themselves little by little with mediocre developments, broken launches or even lying and deceiving their public. .
The most successful companies in the world such as Coca Cola, McDonald's, Nike, etc. have a balance where the concern to demonstrate that they can improve whether in marketing, products, collaborations with entertainment stars, etc. is clearly evident.
In the film industry the best way to sell a movie is because of how good it is, because of the actors that are in it or because of how blockbuster it is.
What is the best way to sell an MMORPG currently?
Also keep in mind, a company owned by shareholders has people in charge that don't necessarily understand the business in question - their role is to represent the shareholders. Thus, in larger companies, the people calling the shots often have literally no interested or idea at all in relation to the product they are calling the shot on.
If you look at all the actual good games over the last few years, the companies in question have all had a company structure where the person making the final call on the product is a veteran of game design. The bulk of the games that were rubbish all had multiple people sharing that final call that had no background of game design. The companies you have listed here have one thing in common.
Their core product doesn't change - and that is where they make the bulk of their money. As an example of this, in 2020 Coca Cola ended over 200 product lines (just of beverages), their revenue wasn't impacted, and most people just didn't even notice.
A major game development company doesn't have this luxuary - they need to be releasing at least one new core product every year.
All the issues people have with games are in relation to development of new products.
As far as I can see, the most popular actual MMO's over the last 10 years have been WoW, ESO and FFXIV.
Thus, the best way to sell an MMO is to be a part of an exiting brand/IP.
We have that already. It's called an Excel spreadsheet.
<goes back to watching M*A*S*H* reruns.>
The stranger's eyes lifted to the blood red cloud on the horizon.
'We have to move. It's not safe here.'
There is a ton riding onthis train Steven & Co! Dont fuck this up!
Now a Day a game will make you level to 50, have you raid all the gear, then put out a expansion for 10 extra levels and tell you your gear is now worthless, rinse and repeat. This tactic really is the real problem.
Also the communities were far better in Old school, you would have far less ass hats, because it was all new. Compared to now when people have grown up with it and everyone is a internet Rambo. I don't believe we will ever see those days again, but I do believe Steven is trying to bring a element of Old School back and I do appreciate that.
As far as the community, Ashes has a pretty damn good one right now, and it's up to US to keep it that way. If someone is getting out of line they simply need to be ignored, don't feed the trolls. And feedback in the game is also crucial when alpha 2 starts, they need constructive criticism , and a solution to the problem you're presenting.
If we give proper feedback, and not biased feedback on our own personal preferences, this game cane be great for years, but they need ALL of you, even the viewers watching who don't have access will have valuable input.
https://www.youtube.com/@TheHiddenDaggerInn/featured