Monetization. It has gotten a lot more predatory over the years by the companies making the games. Loot boxes, cash shops, F2P didn't exist in older games.
It used to be all you had to worry about was 3rd party gold sellers & leveling services. Now, gold selling is sanctioned by the game studios themselves (Kronos, cash shop currency, etc). And leveling is made easier through cash shop purchases (exp potions, etc) or even some game companies sell instant max level characters.
Yeah monetization is a big one and has fed back into development such that games are built around it *much* to their detriment.
Also audience (market share) grabbing. A lot of games attempt to 'appeal' to as many player types as possible and end up bland and boring as a result. Unfortunately, they can be successful, so others attempt to repeat that 'success'. What you end up with is the game industry equivalent of every restaurant being clones of MacDonalds. Thanks the gods actual restaurants mostly don't work on that basis.
'Live service' plans that end up being an excuse for incomplete products followed by a lack of new content and being canned early due to the model failing even when the game has nearly gotten to a good state (the state it should have been in at release, had it not been using the live service model).
To be fair, this is not unique to the gaming industry and all stems from the way most companies behave these days. They are interested in a clever business plan and short-term gains more than the actual product and the customers.
I have hope for VR and Pantheon, because they are avoiding all three of these issues, it seems, by intentionally targeting a niche audience (though hoping for broader success because of a good product and community importance) and by having a subscription model and no cash shops.
There are so many places I could go with this question. Solo focus vs. Group focus, on-rails design vs. open world or player agency, a focus on "endgame" instead of a compelling journey, greedy cash shop tactics, gameplay based on rote patterns, content where only the bosses are challenging.... Honestly, I don't even know where to begin.
Maybe I'll just sum it up by saying that they seem to almost always end up being designed to be games that people play and finish and move on from, instead of worlds designed to provide long-term engagement and social bonds for their players.
I think the difference between us old gamers and new gamers today is the grind, or the journey. Older gamers like me loved grinding exp, AA's, camps for gear, and quest mobs. I loved knowing that the Impskin gloves dropped off a mob that my group was camping and that there was a possibility of getting them, however rare the spawn or the drop was, the fact that knowing the next spawn could be the one kept things very interesting. Even solo camping, one more spawn cycle before dinner, one more spawn cycle before bed, then before you know it 3am was here and you were saying one more cycle! I never really seemed to worry too much about maxing EXP too fast. I knew that by camping items and grouping for exp to get those items I would eventually get the levels needed.
I think today's generation of MMO players want it right now, and want it to be easier and faster. And I am guilty of this as my life has evolved since I played EQ. I now have a wife and kids and I don't get to play as much. But that doesn't mean I want things to be easy either. When things are easy to obtain you don't cherish them as much. You don't feel as invested in your character because everything was easy to get.
I know looking back at my experiences in MMOs with Vanguard and EQ I cherished characters and gear in both games due to how hard it was to obtain most of them. Spent a lot of time grinding with guild mates and random pick up groups to get the gear so I felt more obligated to log in and play I guess.
In Vanguard crafting was such a pain, at first it was as hard and grindy to finish as adventuring was. It was also very repetitive doing work orders over and over. But it was so much fun crafting new items and using your tradeskill for something useful in game, it wasn't just clicking a button on a bag with a few items in it and hoping the dice treat ya right.
In a nuthsell it's a number of things that have changed, but I guess in looking back through this post one thing sticks out, the harder it is to accomplish the better I felt about it in the long run. Sure I hated the grind sometimes and sure it was a pain to make people help you camp an item you couldn't do on your own but getting that end result and sharing it with those that helped you along the journey was an amazing experience. One I wouldn't trade for all the mmo's that have been made since
In older games, the struggle was real. Technology was a major limiting factor, and there weren't as many options for games. So you just dealt with the struggles. You learned to appreciate it, and you loved complaining about it afterwards in a humble-brag sort of way. Everyone struggled, and everyone earned their way.
In newer games, it's big business. A game isn't simply $(X) anymore. You pay full price for an incomplete game, and then pay even more money for the DLC's that should have been in at launch. Then you pay in the cash shop (at first just for cosmetics, but later for pay-to-win goodies). You eventually become disenfrachised with the developer, besmerch their name, and find something new to start this vicious cycle all over again.
disposalist said:Yeah monetization is a big one and has fed back into development such that games are built around it *much* to their detriment.
Also audience (market share) grabbing. A lot of games attempt to 'appeal' to as many player types as possible and end up bland and boring as a result. Unfortunately, they can be successful, so others attempt to repeat that 'success'. What you end up with is the game industry equivalent of every restaurant being clones of MacDonalds. Thanks the gods actual restaurants mostly don't work on that basis.
'Live service' plans that end up being an excuse for incomplete products followed by a lack of new content and being canned early due to the model failing even when the game has nearly gotten to a good state (the state it should have been in at release, had it not been using the live service model).
To be fair, this is not unique to the gaming industry and all stems from the way most companies behave these days. They are interested in a clever business plan and short-term gains more than the actual product and the customers.
I have hope for VR and Pantheon, because they are avoiding all three of these issues, it seems, by intentionally targeting a niche audience (though hoping for broader success because of a good product and community importance) and by having a subscription model and no cash shops.
This is the same thing. No matter what way you look at this, it's audience grabbing as you have defined it. Now, this isn't to say that targeting a niche audience is bad, but audience grabbing goes both ways. A niche audience is a sub-group of people within a franchise that aren't being serviced by the mainstream. Targeting a niche audience means that you have a fixed customer base. So you have to hope that the niche audience is big enough to actually make a decent amount of money off of to continue to serve that nice audience. If for whatever reason it's not and the person that originally targeted the niche audience starts to try to include in any way other groups from the mainstream, that's audience grabbing. They are doing it to make more money in order to keep supplying to the niche that they targeted that isn't giving them enough money to actually continue to serve them the way they want, with the quality that they want. If they were to just stick to the niche, then either they would have to start sacrificing quality or even cut their losses and target mainstream in order to keep business afloat.
Moloka said:I think the difference between us old gamers and new gamers today is the grind, or the journey. Older gamers like me loved grinding exp, AA's, camps for gear, and quest mobs. I loved knowing that the Impskin gloves dropped off a mob that my group was camping and that there was a possibility of getting them, however rare the spawn or the drop was, the fact that knowing the next spawn could be the one kept things very interesting. Even solo camping, one more spawn cycle before dinner, one more spawn cycle before bed, then before you know it 3am was here and you were saying one more cycle! I never really seemed to worry too much about maxing EXP too fast. I knew that by camping items and grouping for exp to get those items I would eventually get the levels needed.
I think today's generation of MMO players want it right now, and want it to be easier and faster. And I am guilty of this as my life has evolved since I played EQ. I now have a wife and kids and I don't get to play as much. But that doesn't mean I want things to be easy either. When things are easy to obtain you don't cherish them as much. You don't feel as invested in your character because everything was easy to get.
...
This here also sounds like loot boxes, which everyone can agree no one wants; the only difference is that you aren't spending money to get them, you are spending time. The whole 'just one more cycle' is the same as 'just one more pull', 'just one more hand', 'just one more spin of the wheel'. All this is, is gambling with a different currency. Lootboxes have a loot table with percentages of how often things will be handed out when you open it. Mobs with a known rare drop also have a loot table with percentages of how common things will spawn on death. From the most common, to the very rare, they both have that table and continue to draw a person in. Though with lootboxes, you are spending money and opening them in a hope of getting that 0.1% chance to get Gloves of Power +4; where as you are killing the same mob over and over again in the hopes of getting that same 0.1% chance to get Gloves of Power +4. One is time and one is money, there is no difference. It's gambling, and honestly, neither should be in the game. Sure, you can word both differently to make it seem like it's not the same thing, but it is at its core.
It's not that younger generations want things faster or easier, it's that they grew up in a time where lootboxes and cash shops are flooding the market. They want to just be able to go and get what they are after in between classes, friends, social lives, and for a lot these days, work, and their cell phone bill. Some are trying to avoid any kind of addictive predatory lootbox type of things, because maybe they have already been there and done that. Some don't even want to get involved because they KNOW both are either a waste of time or a waste of money and just can't be bothered. On top of that, they are paying for the game sub (or in some their parents are) and these parents might be older gamers; and realize what this is and are demanding that it not be like that and that they are paying for it. In any event, both wasting time on a mob for a small percent chance of an item and wasting money on a loot box for the same percentage and item is the same thing, gambling; and no one wants to do that. A game should not have you addicted to it in order to keep a person there. Both are predatory in my eyes.
As for the topic, I think the difference between older games and newer games, is that newer games have learned from what older games got wrong. Sure, there are some things that I wish to stay from older games, such as no cash shop and having everything available at launch; but things like luring people in with things like, no death penalty until level 10, and gambling with mobs and loot are things that should never be there. If you have to rely on that to keep people playing your game, then your admitting your game doesn't have enough content or a vast enough world to keep people there outside of these things. Older games did what they could with the tech they had, but now that we have better tech, you should move on from things like that. Older games were hard in the sense that, it was limited by what a game could do, now you don't have to have that, but still make it feel like there is challenge. I like the idea of going into a world and doing more than just camp a spot all day or spend hours looking for a group, or wasting my time on one thing, only to have it pushed back because of either a death or group member leaving. It doesn't fly anymore because we have better tech and other ways of doing things. I agree that grouping should be a thing, but to be forced into a group like in the past, isn't going to work today, as no one really has that time. Unless you are retired or something, but on average, it isn't going to work. Peopel these days just don't have the time, times have changed and life has changed, and people realize that games are just that, games. Something that you play for a bit ot relax and have fun with, and not real life or to be used in place of an actual social life. They don't have time for that anymore, unfortunately.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - What separates the older games from the new and what do you like or dislike about how games have evolved over the years? #MMORPG#CommunityMatters
What separates old games from new? Developers actually funding the creation with their own money or money from a publisher...someone who can crack that whip and keep them on a schedule. Frankly, the move to crowd funding is such a terrible approach. Games languish in 'early access', or worse, for years with no finished product on any realistic horizon becuase a too small team took on a too big and too complex project. Meanwhile the people who put in their money have no recourse, no influence, no 'whip' to crack. They just get told to deal with it. Bring back publishers I say.
OCastitatisLilium said:As for the topic, I think the difference between older games and newer games, is that newer games have learned from what older games got wrong. Sure, there are some things that I wish to stay from older games, such as no cash shop and having everything available at launch; but things like luring people in with things like, no death penalty until level 10, and gambling with mobs and loot are things that should never be there. If you have to rely on that to keep people playing your game, then your admitting your game doesn't have enough content or a vast enough world to keep people there outside of these things. Older games did what they could with the tech they had, but now that we have better tech, you should move on from things like that. Older games were hard in the sense that, it was limited by what a game could do, now you don't have to have that, but still make it feel like there is challenge. I like the idea of going into a world and doing more than just camp a spot all day or spend hours looking for a group, or wasting my time on one thing, only to have it pushed back because of either a death or group member leaving. It doesn't fly anymore because we have better tech and other ways of doing things. I agree that grouping should be a thing, but to be forced into a group like in the past, isn't going to work today, as no one really has that time. Unless you are retired or something, but on average, it isn't going to work. Peopel these days just don't have the time, times have changed and life has changed, and people realize that games are just that, games. Something that you play for a bit ot relax and have fun with, and not real life or to be used in place of an actual social life. They don't have time for that anymore, unfortunately.
Did you read anything about what game you pledged too? Sigh..... Im not retired or something. I work 50-60 hours a week. Have 3 kids and beautiful wife. We find all the time in world to do what we enjoy. I got in 30+ hours of gaming last week. Also got in a Saturday Hike with the family for 6 hours. Still make dinner and tucked the kids in each night. Read to my kids each night. We played board games and even took one night to ride our dirt bikes in at the dirt park near by.
Not sure why you think people dont have time. YOU MAKE TIME for what you enjoy.
P.S. I dont sleep much. I get 5-6 hours a night. Which for me is plenty
OCastitatisLilium said:As for the topic, I think the difference between older games and newer games, is that newer games have learned from what older games got wrong. Sure, there are some things that I wish to stay from older games, such as no cash shop and having everything available at launch; but things like luring people in with things like, no death penalty until level 10, and gambling with mobs and loot are things that should never be there. If you have to rely on that to keep people playing your game, then your admitting your game doesn't have enough content or a vast enough world to keep people there outside of these things. Older games did what they could with the tech they had, but now that we have better tech, you should move on from things like that. Older games were hard in the sense that, it was limited by what a game could do, now you don't have to have that, but still make it feel like there is challenge. I like the idea of going into a world and doing more than just camp a spot all day or spend hours looking for a group, or wasting my time on one thing, only to have it pushed back because of either a death or group member leaving. It doesn't fly anymore because we have better tech and other ways of doing things. I agree that grouping should be a thing, but to be forced into a group like in the past, isn't going to work today, as no one really has that time. Unless you are retired or something, but on average, it isn't going to work. Peopel these days just don't have the time, times have changed and life has changed, and people realize that games are just that, games. Something that you play for a bit ot relax and have fun with, and not real life or to be used in place of an actual social life. They don't have time for that anymore, unfortunately.
I get where you're coming from but I also think you may have a misconception as to what a group focused game really means. It is a misconception that a lot of people seem to have because everyone's perception is colored by their past experiences. Just because Pantheon is being built with an open world and a group focus does not mean that everything is going to be camp checks and long grinds as people were used to in EQ. What it does means is that when the game presents a challenge, you will want to bring friends for that challenge. That's all.
As far as time requirements or how we approach the game's content, that's an entirely different subject and it really depends on how the content is built. We will all have a better idea of what that will be like in Alpha, but I think the goal the team is working towards is to have a world that you can actively explore (with friends), and not simply a series of camps that you choose between for grinding experience or getting loot drops. The team has a stated goal that on average, players should be able to make progress and accomplish something meaningful within the bounds of 2- to 3-hour play sessions. That alone should tell you that they're sensitive to the time constraints that many adults have to deal with.
OCastitatisLilium said:disposalist said:Yeah monetization is a big one and has fed back into development such that games are built around it *much* to their detriment.
Also audience (market share) grabbing. A lot of games attempt to 'appeal' to as many player types as possible and end up bland and boring as a result. Unfortunately, they can be successful, so others attempt to repeat that 'success'. What you end up with is the game industry equivalent of every restaurant being clones of MacDonalds. Thanks the gods actual restaurants mostly don't work on that basis.
'Live service' plans that end up being an excuse for incomplete products followed by a lack of new content and being canned early due to the model failing even when the game has nearly gotten to a good state (the state it should have been in at release, had it not been using the live service model).
To be fair, this is not unique to the gaming industry and all stems from the way most companies behave these days. They are interested in a clever business plan and short-term gains more than the actual product and the customers.
I have hope for VR and Pantheon, because they are avoiding all three of these issues, it seems, by intentionally targeting a niche audience (though hoping for broader success because of a good product and community importance) and by having a subscription model and no cash shops.
This is the same thing. No matter what way you look at this, it's audience grabbing as you have defined it...
VR do not have to cater to the lowest common denominator to grow their player base at all.
I'm taking about VR staying true to their vision but players outside the intended niche, who are used to more 'mainstream' games, finding that Pantheon does, actually, appeal to them.
PLayers who have gotten used to the the modern MMORPGs and forgotten how much better it was, or who have never really experienced a challenging, group-oriented, open-world MMORPG before.
Older games had a sense of fear. Dying was a bad thing. The newer games hold your hand and remove this. Also...much more politics in chat now....that didnt happen in classic eq
I play these games to escape reality. I could do without the political arguements blasted across shout . I hope pantheon has a quick way the block / ignore such behavior
Vandraad said:What separates old games from new? Developers actually funding the creation with their own money or money from a publisher...someone who can crack that whip and keep them on a schedule. Frankly, the move to crowd funding is such a terrible approach. Games languish in 'early access', or worse, for years with no finished product on any realistic horizon becuase a too small team took on a too big and too complex project. Meanwhile the people who put in their money have no recourse, no influence, no 'whip' to crack. They just get told to deal with it. Bring back publishers I say.
But then you'd have games done in 3 years instead of 10. How would.. oh, nm.
*ahem*
My personal response? Older games took 3 years to develop, from scratch, with no tools, including having to make the tools. The new? Not so much.
This is such a broad topic, but the biggest difference for me between old vs new is that a small team, sometimes even one person can develop and publish a game without the need for traditional routes or funding.
Programs such as Photoshop, 3ds Max, Maya are now subscription based, with a ton of free or really cheap options, such as, blender,Gimp, Manga Studio, visual studio and even game engines like unreal,unity crytek are all at the reach of small studios.
It’s the modern day equivalent of a garage band, thousands will take a stab at the dream, but only a few will go on to be rock stars.
bryanleo9 said: Older games had a sense of fear. Dying was a bad thing. The newer games hold your hand and remove this. Also...much more politics in chat now....that didnt happen in classic eq
Exactly
#communitymatters #makenightmatteragain #factionsmatter #riskvsreward #deathpenalty #HardRaiding #respectyourguild #HellLevels #worldsnotgames #sticktoyourvision #restoreMMORPG
Older games were made to be entire and logical in their own limits, goals and such. They weren't designed to please the player, appeal or catter to behaviours or an age range. Developpers, designers, made things to be the best for the game they wanted and not to attract, catter or manipulate the player into having dependancies or a regular feeling of micro pleasure cycles. That was all before psychological studies, listening to the masses or to the loudest playerbase to please and flirt with them, that made games far less enjoyable for players on the long run, but more profitable on the short run.
OCastitatisLilium said:
It's not that younger generations want things faster or easier, it's that they grew up in a time where lootboxes and cash shops are flooding the market. They want to just be able to go and get what they are after in between classes, friends, social lives, and for a lot these days, work, and their cell phone bill.
Actually, “instant gratification” is a thing and is growing in younger generations, due to many things such as how instantly available things are on your phone. There are plenty of studies and even a good TED talk on it. It’s not even necessarily always a bad thing… but it is a thing. So actually yes, younger generations generally want things faster and easier.
OCastitatisLilium said:Peopel these days just don't have the time, times have changed and life has changed, and people realize that games are just that, games. Something that you play for a bit ot relax and have fun with, and not real life or to be used in place of an actual social life. They don't have time for that anymore, unfortunately.
What a load of malarkey. That is an awfully large brush you’re painting with there. There has always been a crowd of people that thought of games as a little relaxation tool, and people who thought of them as more. I think there are even more hardcore gamers now than there used to be due to the market size and media such as Twitch. It is becoming much more accepted in many circles to spend your entire day playing games. Hell, you can even potentially make millions of dollars doing it. I think more hours are spent now by people WATCHING others play games then there used to be people actually playing games.
In the modern world where a growing majority of communication happens digitally, Twitch and YouTube gaming is huge, and everyone has their face buried in their phone everywhere you go… I think what you’re suggesting is almost laughable.
Also, back when EQ was in its prime people still had jobs, friends, families, and lives…. these things are not new to today’s generation of gamer. There always was and always will be the loner extreme gamer but most of us have always managed juggling real life and games.
vjek said:Vandraad said:What separates old games from new? Developers actually funding the creation with their own money or money from a publisher...someone who can crack that whip and keep them on a schedule. Frankly, the move to crowd funding is such a terrible approach. Games languish in 'early access', or worse, for years with no finished product on any realistic horizon becuase a too small team took on a too big and too complex project. Meanwhile the people who put in their money have no recourse, no influence, no 'whip' to crack. They just get told to deal with it. Bring back publishers I say.
But then you'd have games done in 3 years instead of 10. How would.. oh, nm.
*ahem*
My personal response? Older games took 3 years to develop, from scratch, with no tools, including having to make the tools. The new? Not so much.
There are still plenty of publishers. Not every game and MMO is a crowd funded, early access game. The problem is most publishers lost their soul and do not worry about game quality anymore. The only thing they worry about is stock prices and shareholder happiness. Why make a good game when you can throw out some piece of garbage that generates a ton of revenue through cash shops and loot boxes? The whole idea behind crowd funding was to bring the art and passion back into the games without being beholden to the shareholder. It has not worked out that way and early access is deplorable, but it isn’t like you slap a publisher onto a game and suddenly it is good. We need the publishers of olde that had financial backing but a strong core in gaming and a value system devoted to the love of the game... *cough* VR *cough (I hope).
Wellspring said:Monetization. It has gotten a lot more predatory over the years by the companies making the games. Loot boxes, cash shops, F2P didn't exist in older games.
It used to be all you had to worry about was 3rd party gold sellers & leveling services. Now, gold selling is sanctioned by the game studios themselves (Kronos, cash shop currency, etc). And leveling is made easier through cash shop purchases (exp potions, etc) or even some game companies sell instant max level characters.
Also old games had quality content and gameplay value. They didnt give you a second job called "daily" treadmill. Equipments where actually meaning full when you find, hunt, grind, etc now its a bunch of skittle running around. Overly sexualied characters. Colorful zeizure inducing effects. Everything shift toward Asian style garabage (except for pantheon). Exploration is meaningless, mounts have no value lthey give them out like candy and out of lore.
Theres many more but i think the community will address it
OCastitatisLilium said:
1: As for the topic, I think the difference between older games and newer games, is that newer games have learned from what older games got wrong. Sure, there are some things that I wish to stay from older games, such as no cash shop and having everything available at launch; but things like luring people in with things like, no death penalty until level 10, and gambling with mobs and loot are things that should never be there. If you have to rely on that to keep people playing your game, then your admitting your game doesn't have enough content or a vast enough world to keep people there outside of these things.
2: Older games did what they could with the tech they had, but now that we have better tech, you should move on from things like that. Older games were hard in the sense that, it was limited by what a game could do, now you don't have to have that, but still make it feel like there is challenge. I like the idea of going into a world and doing more than just camp a spot all day or spend hours looking for a group, or wasting my time on one thing, only to have it pushed back because of either a death or group member leaving. It doesn't fly anymore because we have better tech and other ways of doing things. I agree that grouping should be a thing, but to be forced into a group like in the past, isn't going to work today, as no one really has that time. Unless you are retired or something, but on average, it isn't going to work. Peopel these days just don't have the time, times have changed and life has changed, and people realize that games are just that, games. Something that you play for a bit ot relax and have fun with, and not real life or to be used in place of an actual social life. They don't have time for that anymore, unfortunately.
1: That why Final Fantasy 11 still alive and well 18 years later and today just release a new content. the developer say the content is plan for 2 years whatever that means.
1A: WoW is still alive even thos it watered down
2: The "time arugement"
Everyone can make time, that's how moblie game became popluar and infected the mmo genre with is business model garbage
That why we have current mmo that dont last long, everything is given to you or made easy. hence why you're in Pantheon forum like the rest of us.
Cant rush to max level in patheon it gonna take awhile.
sentimental attachment is missing in modern day games.
developer and player engagement is a something i like with the current state of gaming.
cash shop games such as battle royale, card games, mobas, auto-chess, etc > subscription mmos and single player for time investment returns and risks is a major dislike.
alot of modern games are like cheap two dollar hookers, swipe right if ya like. they look pretty and all, but jody has no personality even if she's got the curves of a ferrari(cough cough army). it's a sign of the changing times and audience.
i'm pretty old fashion so one mmo is all the time i want to invest in. it's gotta be a suzie type of game(oorah). that's bit vague, but suzie is a game with personality through thick and thin, good times and bad times, in sickness and in health. damn sounds like a marriage vow O.o we all know looks don't last.
i think it's fine to have supplemental cash shop that is aesthetics only. i don't mind buying suzie a pair of nice shoes from time to time. it's not just up to the devs(creation of tempting cash shop items that would tie into gameplay and could churn out money from whales), but the players to be responsible with their consumption.
here's my personal take coming from black desert online: it's an upfront one time cost for the game, sometimes they have specials that make it free.
there's a choice for a 'monthly sub', but bonuses from the 'value pack' can be bought with in game currency and provide a significant advantage over a complete f2p player(not a fan of).
there are 'pay for shorter time investment risks' (indirect impact to gameplay which i'm indifferent about).
now what most people don't know is the struggle between the devs and publisher that is occuring with the game.
the publisher at one point was pushing lots of p2w things into the cash shop, however, in recent days the devs are pushing for complete control over the game and attempting to remove alot of these impact on gameplay cash shop items, which i do not fancy.
i bring this up because alot of games are using a f2p model with cash shop. at some point the shadow of wow and ff14(probably not because of dev morals) will join the ranks of f2p with cash shop because the model is sustainable in this day and age as far as cost/profit value.(I REPEAT NOT JUST FOR MMOS BUT GAMES IN GENERAL)
what should be noted about the successful cash shop games is that gameplay keeps players around and the cash shop acts as a pledge of loyality to help maintain and keep the game running. monetization is inevitable.
what keeps me engage to bdo is the combat gameplay at it's core. there are glaring flaws with the game. it's mostly solo content outside of pvp, but there are huge talks of major group content in the works. devs must be in tune with their player base to grow their games. FF14 is a great example of this and i feel a big contributing factor to its ongoing success as an mmo.
-edited several times. trying to keep post compact and clear >.<
Lots of good points in this thread, although I think that as some have said we are here because we want the old values and Not the modern MMORPG.
@OCastitatisLilium is so confusing, clearly not an oldschool player, more likely a cellphone generation. Sounds to me that the reason you think people don't have time to play a *real* game is because they spend their life on FB/Insta/Twitter/tap tap tap games with casino noises and should not have to devote more than a cursory play session to an MMORPG. I truely hope that Pantheon shows you the light man.
Gambling with mobs == loot boxes seriously? Loot boxes you click a button and get your pull of the handle just like a phone app game. Camping difficult named is different process of knowing the camp, finding the camp free, getting to the camp, surviving the named so no one steals the camp, having people that are willing to stick it out (As a team), and so much more. That is Only in response to the attack on camping and not even the other ways of playing lol. Again obviously you've never been in a game with real challenge where you could wipe on a named mob in a normal dungeon. I just....
Cash shops, dungeon finder, hamster wheel gear cycles, and everything else are all about the instant gratification crowd that has ruined the genre and Pantheon needs to avoid this at all costs. It is THE point of the game is to bring back the socialization and importance of accomplishments.
Yes yes to everyone saying Fear and tension, open world off the rails, learn from your mistakes and have those mistakes hurt enough to learn from. No catering, no pandering, no dailies, no hand holding.
Thanks :)
Older games followed tried and true methods and functionality based on MUDs. They didn't try to reinvent the wheel or get wrapped up in feature creep trying to be the new biggest, bestest thing. There is an old formula out there for MMOs that works. The interesting thing is that the formula hasn't been used in so long, that it'll be new again when someone does simply copy what the old games did. Unfortunately, Pantheon seems to have fallen into the same trap that all the recent modern MMOs have....trying to be something new and unique with massive feature creep.
A couple things.
First off there were just fewer games. EQ worked with it's punishing system partially because you had no other MMO's to switch to for some time. It was suffer through or don't play. If the grind got boring you didn't have a new game coming out everyday to try out. Games are much easier to get now. I can hop on Steam right now and pick up almost any game and in 20-45 minutes be ready to play. I don't need to take a trip to the store and hope it's in stock. I can also play literally thousands of games under $10. I may only get a few hours or maybe a weekend out of it, but the value is still pretty high. Bottom line the market is saturated.
I don't mind monitazation of games, and I know I'm in the minority here. Games haven't really gone up in retail cost in 25 years but the cost to make them has. I understand from a business perspective that micro transactions are a way of life. I know people who hate them, but refuse to pay more than $50 for a game. You can't have it both ways. That being said... if I buy your game it better have all the content and if it has a sub you sure as hell better not have microtransactions or they better be very limited.
Older games tended to promote a sense of unknowing and adventure there was generally very limited guidance and the destination was left up to the player to decide. I remember the NPCs in Everquest and having to /hail them to see if they potentially had any quests that could be accepted and then relay specific keywords or phrases back to them to begin these quests. There were no markers to indicate an NPC might offer a quest so this was a form of exploration in of its self.
Modern games, on the other hand, typically try to facilitate the experience they want/expect players to have by guiding them in the direction the developers intend them to go. There are quest markers to indicate if a specific NPC offers a quest, exploration is typically guided by map markers (quest, event, points of intrest...etc), and the mystery and rewards for exploration are typically watered down.
One area that has drastically evolved in modern MMOs is the general gameplay mechanics that are utilized by the player base and the NPC AI systems. Mechanics in modern MMOs are a lot more challenging than older MMOs and in a lot of cases, this is a good thing. However, there have been some cases where mechanics have been absolutely painful to deal with, and instead of adding fun to an encounter, they were basically like tedious chores that had to be managed which is the furthest thing from fun. Mechanics should act as enhancers to the gameplay experience and not become painful oppressive chores that have to be micromanaged. Honestly, I believe that fun can be found in simple but challenging content and not every encounter needs to throw mechanic after mechanic at the players to be fun and engaging. I think the biggest thing that game developers need to relearn is that people play games to have fun and escape the stresses of life for a little while and experiencing mechanics that act like mandatory upkeep chores or tedious win conditions is the exact opposite of escaping stress.