The ever not-changing MMO genre

A second post based on a game I’ve never played or even know much about. You’re welcome.

The reaction to Glitch closing has been interesting, and very telling about the MMO genre and the average/casual/whatever fan. If I had to combine everything into a single comment or two I’ve seen it would go something like this: “I played it a little, loved the concept, could never really get into it, so sad that it’s closing”. Or “Never played this, but so sad that a really unique MMO is closing. This will only encourage more generic MMO games. :sadface:”

Again, most people lie to themselves about games. Or are just delusional in general. “I hate trash reality TV” as reality TV continues to get crazy ratings because you watch it. “I hate stupid movies” as Skyfall debuts at #1 (spoiler: Skyfall blows). “I hate pop music” as pop music continues to be… pop-ular. Hipsters being ‘different’ with Apple products. Occupy whatever using $500 phones to document their ‘struggle’ on Google-owned Youtube. I could go on. For a while.

Glitch is just another small local restaurant that you pretend you love supporting while passing it to go to McDonalds.

Not that any of this is new of course. Nor will it every change.

What should change is the expectation that there is this group of MMO players who just want a non-PvP EVE, or that would love to play Darkfall on a PvE server. Or that you need Trammel in UO to make it work. Oh wait, that already happened and we know the result.

This group does not exist. Glitch might be proof. ATitD being so tiny is proof. EVE being the second-biggest sub MMO ten years after release and still being called niche is proof of the perception. Former bloggers believing an MMO that succeeded for three years and will continue to succeed (very likely at a higher level) being in trouble while something like SW:TOR is cashing out one last time is proof.

How many times is some dev studio, large or small, going to run head-first into the brick wall before it becomes an accepted fact that head-into-wall is a bad idea? You can’t build a complex MMO for casuals and expect them not to be casuals. You build Farmville because Farmville is what casuals understand. You can’t build something that is a one-time meal and roll out with a business plan around players feasting for months.

The players, for the most part, won’t change. Isn’t it time most devs do?

50 Responses to The ever not-changing MMO genre

  1. Jenks says:

    I play EQ on a server that hasn’t been updated since 2002. I enjoyed UO and still play EVE on and off, but if there is one game I long for, it’s a PVE sandbox.

    Glitch was an extremely hipstery browser based turd. The idea that it failed and that means no one wants a PVE sandbox MMO is retarded.

    • SynCaine says:

      I’m hoping the post does not come across as me arguing against a PvE sandbox, considering I have a tab at the top of this blog arguing for one.

      My argument is that when someone does aim for a PvE sandbox, it has to be aimed correctly, and the correct aim is not casuals or WoW players saying they want ‘something different’.

      ATitD is successful (still online and updating) not because it appeals to that crowd, but because it understands it WON’T appeal to them. The same goes for Darkfall, EVE, Rift, or other successful MMOs.

      TLDR: Know your audience, basically.

      • bhagpuss says:

        Glitch was a creepy, horrible game. I played it, briefly, and I wish I never had. I still can’t get the deeply repulsive idea of “milking butterflies” out of my mind. Jenks is spot on.

        The answer to this is the same answer you yourself have given in the past – just make the damn games good enough and know your audience. PvP, theme park, sandbox, pve, hardcore, casual – all of that is irrelevant. Make a good game and know who you are making it for – the rest will follow.

    • Halycon says:

      Ryzom, fantasy sandbox, been around for 8 years now. It has PVP but it’s completely consensual and most people don’t take part other than the one off honor duel. The problem is, it sucks. It’s gone through 3 different publishers, who knows how many developers and they all banged their head against the same wall. “This is such a good idea, an almost completely PVE sandbox!”.

      The only reason it’s still alive is because some genius GNU’d the whole client some years back and it’s the only fleshed out MMO I can think of that plays natively on Linux. It’s the only game in town so it still gets subscribers. I subscribe and i don’t even play the game, just for the slim hope that someone will see there is money to be made on my platform of choice. “I pay for this and I hate it, imagine what I’d pay if you put something good here!”. But even that’s getting old.

      What a lot of people don’t take into account with Eve, even if they don’t take part in it, is how much PVP drives the game. If you only play the market you need PVP to destroy all that gear so you can sell them more gear. Eve’s market system, Eve’s crafting system, all of its interesting non-combat bits; they all hang on PVP happening to drive them in some way. Otherwise you’re just crafting stuff and building a huge warehouse full of things you can never sell. A sandbox without PVP does not work. You either need some sort of way to cycle all the gear out as quickly as players can make it, which is fast, or you need attractions and rides to give them to play.

      • kalex716 says:

        A good sandbox game is an ecosystem in and of itself.

        You need Producers, Consumers, and Degraders.

        It fails to work if you try it any other way, and we get hung way too much up on this PVE vs PVP thing, and its damaging the ultimate goals.

        The goal is to provide various niches that players in the box can fall into, and have those niches interact meaningfully with the others to create a system that basically plays off itself in order to be successful.

        Player versus the Environment, and Players versus other Players have to be contextually the same damn thing on occasion! And yes, this means if you get caught outside your niche, or happend to be the slowest gazelle on a particular day, you have to be someone elses meal (or “fun”), but don’t worry, if the system is built properly everybody experiences this in a wide variety of ways.

  2. adammtlxm says:

    Well, I can’t really argue with you. I played Glitch briefly but it just didn’t hold my attention for various reasons. Although I did like a lot of the concepts, overall it just didn’t suck me in. I’m sad it’s closing because I feel bad for the creators/developers losing their jobs and seeing all their hard work get flushed away.

    And, yes, the MMO genre is obviously broken. Or, at least, the standard business model is.

  3. Did you ever play Realm of the Mad God? I would be interested to hear your opinion on that game.

  4. Shiolle says:

    So, are you saying you are now convinced that ‘PvE sandbox design’ you were writing about a while ago won’t work?

    Also, there is no ‘casual’ in your ‘hardcore’.

  5. Liore says:

    “What should change is the expectation that there is this group of MMO players who just want a non-PvP EVE … This group does not exist. Glitch might be proof.”

    I disagree. There are many factors that contributed to Glitch’s demise — the rapid rise of casual mobile games, the death of Flash, a lack of aggressive awareness marketing, poor capitalizing on a watery playerbase — and few if any of them are attributable to the lack of PvP in the sandbox.

    You’ve taken your premise that PvE sandbox is bad and shoehorned the closing of Glitch into it whether it fits or not. Glitch’s main demographic may not have been YOUR demographic (older women, mostly), but I’m glad that companies are out there trying to appeal to something other than the hyper-aggressive dude gamer.

  6. Azuriel says:

    What a myopic argument. There is no contradiction or delusion to the feeling that, while you may never have played/didn’t enjoy playing Glitch (etc), the market is still better served with greater diversity and competition.

    • Rammstein says:

      What a myopic Azuriel style argument. Here’s how to do it:

      Come up with an obvious argument that no one could disagree with, like “the market is still better served with greater diversity and competition”. Even though no one has ever argued against that fact, state it as if the person you’re replying to did argue against it. Preface it with an insult. Neglect to include any kind of supporting argument, after all, you picked an argument that is flatly obvious, and any support you provide will just make it more obvious that no one ever promulgated the statement you’re arguing against.

      That’s it, how to be as much of a myopic debater as Azuriel, in 2 easy steps.

      • Xyloxan says:

        Well said, Rammstein.

      • Azuriel says:

        Oh, hey, another Rammstein-style intellectual masturbation post.

        I was responding to Syncaine’s argument that:

        Again, most people lie to themselves about games. Or are just delusional in general. [...] Glitch is just another small local restaurant that you pretend you love supporting while passing it to go to McDonalds.

        In other words, I am arguing that people don’t have to be lying or delusional in order to feel genuine empathy for the closure of a MMO they never played/never supported. Glitch wasn’t for me, but I would rather it have existed and failed than to not have existed at all – the people that played it got something they wouldn’t have received otherwise, and maybe it will lead to better game design down the road.

        • Rammstein says:

          Your newest comment starts off with an insult. “intellectual masturbation” Check.

          You then say something phrased to be logically true but not really say anything. “I am arguing that people don’t have to be lying or delusional in order to feel genuine empathy for the closure of a MMO they never played/never supported. ” Check.

          You neglect to support your argument, but it doesn’t matter, because you didn’t say anything that wasn’t either an insult or something designed to be obviously true but irrelevant. Check.

          Yep, you’re really Azuriel.

          Did you quote anything from Syncaine, or anyone, else, that contradicts the statement “the market is still better served with greater diversity and competition.” No, because without diversity and competition, you don’t even have a market. You’re arguing against a contradiction.

          Do you understand how ridiculous that is? If you read “how to convince people” tracts, they’ll play up saying very obvious things, with great emphasis, and then people will think “well, that makes sense, but I don’t understand what the point is…it must be over my head”. You take this dishonest rhetorical technique a step further. You’re not just saying something obvious, like “the sky is blue”; by arguing against a contradiction, you’re actually just saying “the sky is the sky”. Thanks for the tip, buster!

          “I am arguing that people don’t have to be lying or delusional in order to feel genuine empathy for the closure of a MMO they never played/never supported.”

          What? Lying and/or delusional is the opposite of genuine, so your claim boils down to “I, the great azuriel, think that you don’t have to lie, to not lie”. Great observation! You really don’t!! you really showed that contradiction who’s boss!!!

          I’m trying to figure out what your accusation of my style as “intellectual masturbation” means. The best interpretation seems to be that you’re claiming you don’t exist, so arguing against you is like masturbation. Disgusting, and yes, yet another self-contradictory claim.

        • Azuriel says:

          Did you quote anything from Syncaine, or anyone, else, that contradicts the statement “the market is still better served with greater diversity and competition.” No, because without diversity and competition, you don’t even have a market. You’re arguing against a contradiction.

          You dropped the “greater” qualifier, which is actually pretty important to the point at hand: a market can exist with greater diversity or lesser diversity. Syncaine, or at least this Syncaine, likely would not agree that the MMO genre is better served by games like SWTOR or Glitch existing at all, except perhaps as examples of failure/bad game design.

          I do not share in this belief. As I said before, I’m glad Glitch existed even though it ultimately failed. The more games that exist, the better IMO.

          In any case, the statement you keep quoting is an explanation for how someone could “support” Glitch and feel sad over its closure without lying or being delusional; I consider supporting the principal behind these endeavors as actual support, even though no money changed hands. One can imagine telling that local restaurant or business owner to not bother, that it’s pointless, or reveling in its failure as being actually unsupportive, by way of contrast.

          I’m trying to figure out what your accusation of my style as “intellectual masturbation” means.

          Basically this. I mean, do you actually care about the subject of the post at all, or are you more interested in a meta-analysis of my attempt to communicate my own, or… what?

        • Rammstein says:

          You still haven’t provided any of the quotes I asked for.

          I didn’t “drop” the greater qualifier, I made a argument at an extremum as an attempt to reach some kind of specificity, the kind you continually shy away from by refusing to provide said quotes. Sorry that this went over your head. (To be explicit and bring it down to your level: The negation of the argument you made, is that the market is better served by less diversity and competition, which means the market is best served by zero diversity and competition, which contradicts it being a market at all. This is a straightforward logical deduction from the negation of your argument. It seems a bit naive but this stems directly from the fact that your original argument was phrased naively, therefore the negation is likewise naive) You rephrase the argument in a way worth responding to substantively in this next quote, which therefore receives a substantive response (although not a response which contains any arguments that couldnt’ be cut-and-pasted out of recent blogposts on this blog, which is funny because it seems like you’re a regular reader here):

          “As I said before, I’m glad Glitch existed even though it ultimately failed. The more games that exist, the better IMO.”

          Quickly failing leads to games similar to that one being less likely to be made in the future. The same is true for SWTOR. This simple, and often made argument, is why the statement that greater diversity is generally better in the marketplace, doesn’t conflict with someone saying that a game which is a horrible failure and leads to less long-term diversity in the marketplace, shouldn’t have been made. Also games which are mindless copying jobs succeeding wouldn’t lead to greater long-term diversity, as that would lead to more copying. It’s really a complicated subject, which you’re massively oversimplifying as usual.

          “I mean, do you actually care about the subject of the post at all, or are you more interested in a meta-analysis of my attempt to communicate my own, or… what?”

          1. I play MMO’s, real mmos, not fake ones like SW:TOR. Currently 100% of my gaming time is spent playing EVE, I don’t play single player games or faux MMOs. Not that this is inherently a good thing, but it does make your accusation seem a bit ironic, if you’re a mainly single-player gamer these days– which is what an exhaustively researched (by which I mean 30 seconds skimming your blog) analysis leads me to believe.

          2. When it comes down to it, when I have a comment to make to the author of this blog, it’s a substantive comment. You make comments that follow the mold I already outlined, an insult followed by a cheap rhetorical trick. If you don’t want me or others taking this hostile tone towards you, then you’d be better served to avoid initiating that hostile tone in the first place.

          Not going to repeat myself any further here, feel free to respond if you like and I’ll respond on your blog next time I read it…i.e. never.

        • Azuriel says:

          This simple, and often made argument, is why the statement that greater diversity is generally better in the marketplace, doesn’t conflict with someone saying that a game which is a horrible failure and leads to less long-term diversity in the marketplace, shouldn’t have been made.

          While it is possible that a game quickly failing reduces the chances of a better-made follow-up, I do not find that line of reasoning personally compelling. Glitch not being made could simply lead to no game like Glitch existing, ever – a particularly bad outcome to the thousands of players who were (and still are at the moment) perfectly satisfied playing that game.

          The future harm of a failed game is theoretical, whereas the people for whom this game satisfied are actual. And I am not even sure whether a designer who believes they could make a Glitch 2.0 (etc) work would be stopped by the failure of the first one anyway. Hope (and cashing in on IPs) springs eternal.

          Also games which are mindless copying jobs succeeding wouldn’t lead to greater long-term diversity, as that would lead to more copying.

          That depends. If these copy jobs succeeding means the market itself is growing rather than cannibalizing itself, that invites more investment from other game companies which then have an incentive to differentiate themselves. Nevermind how competition between the copies can lead to improved game experiences for the players who enjoy those games. For example, while it might be debatable as to whether GW2 qualifies as a copy-job, it certainly appears to be leading other PvE themeparks (or at least audience expectations) to certain design tweaks that can fundamentally change the game dynamic, e.g. non-competition for resource nodes, no mob tagging, etc.

          In any case, thank you for the argument critique and follow-up.

        • Rammstein says:

          alright, one more reply because this is actually going somewhere, maybe.

          “Glitch not being made could simply lead to no game like Glitch existing, ever – a particularly bad outcome to the thousands of players who were (and still are at the moment) perfectly satisfied playing that game.

          The future harm of a failed game is theoretical, whereas the people for whom this game satisfied are actual.”

          The current impact of a failed game is not just theoretical. You had development time and development money spent on a game that failed. That’s real. To ignore this is to assume that a different and possible game wouldn’t have been created using this money and/or man-hours, had glitch not been created. Assuming that this chance is 0% seems naive, as development money and man-hours aren’t infinite, using them up does have an impact. Similarly. assuming this chance is 100% would be similarly naive, as theoretically those man-hours and money could have been diverted to areas other than making games. Still, however, when looking at the games industry as a whole, it’s clear that many times, when a company is allocating their finite resources, the choice to develop one game means that another game concept doesn’t get developed. Therefore, a choice to develop a game which fails has some probability of directly causing a game which wouldn’t have failed to not have been made, thus reducing the diversity of the gaming marketplace. (Note: despite the fact that I’ve now made 3 trillion posts about whether there are contradictions involved in your feelings about anthropomorphical benefits to the market in being more diverse, I admit that I don’t care about the market as an anthropomorphized entity. However, since all these arguments can be mapped over nearly unaltered to things that I do care about, I still feel connected to these arguments)

          ‘”That depends. ”

          Yes.

          “to certain design tweaks that can fundamentally change the game dynamic, e.g. non-competition for resource nodes, no mob tagging, etc.”

          God, what?! I forgot about those. See, I’m an MMO gamer. The above design tweaks fall into the category called “ways in which MMORPGs can be made into weird single-player games that you play next to other single players”. So, when I look at the diversity and competition in the MMO market, and I see games that literally and concretely lead the current market of games being made ostensibly for the MMO market, in the direction of being games that I no longer consider to be MMOs at all, then the diversity and competition that ‘I’ perceive in the MMO market goes to zero. Then some third party makes the reasonable sounding reply “but it’s not about you, the market speaks, individual players listen”. Then I say “but these games are failing and their developers are going bankrupt”. Then you say “but the future harm of a failed game is theoretical” And then I leave in disgust. Do you see how this situation is a ridiculous one for players of ‘niche’ MMOs? If we say that these games aren’t even MMO’s anymore, then we’re told our opinion doesn’t matter because we’re playing “small” games. If we then point out that these small games are actually more profitable, then we’re told it’s not about the numbers, it’s about the experience that the players have. Right, the experience that isn’t MMO-like anymore, because “shut up niche-player!”. Endless cycle, and the game companies continue to make failed pseudo-MMOs financed by profits from console sports and FPS’s, and you continue to spend most of your playtime playing those single-player games while coming to MMO blogs to question whether the topic of MMOs is relevant to me, or if I’m just here to rain on your parade.

      • Bernard says:

        Out of interest, did you major in Philosophy at Uni?

    • Gant says:

      Funny coming from someone who’s blog has become one long list of MMO negativity. Re-read what Syncaine said.

  7. Powdrdsnake says:

    Wait, how does Skyfall blow? Substantiate your arguments sir!

    • SynCaine says:

      Don’t think I could without spoiling a lot of things, but lets just say if you want to kill someone and seem to have a lot of resources, walking up to them with a pistol would not rank high on my list.

      Plus it was not an all-out action movie like Expendables, while not a ‘smart’ movie like The Departed or the earlier Bourne. Stuck in an awkward unentertaining middle spot.

      (Also blows was too harsh. It was meh. Not terrible, but not something I’d watch again)

      • bhagpuss says:

        Not that I care one iota about the James Bond franchise, which to me has always been an embarrassing middle-aged man’s wish-fulfillment fantasy (and I say that as a middle-aged man) but I work with someone who’s a huge fan and he *hated* Skyfall. He sees about two movies a week all year and he said it was one of the very worst movies he’d ever seen.

        It seems to have been far more popular among people who didn’t previously like Bond, so perhaps I should go see it.

        • tithian says:

          If you didn’t like the previous more-recent films, you’ll enjoy Skyfall. It is the first Bond movie since the 80s, that has a vibe similar to the films from the Sean Connery era. Mendes does an excellent job here.

          Action wise it was pretty good (Expendables was an abomination, btw, even the action was the most cliched thing ever), the villain was interesting (to say the least, good job from Javier Bardem) and Judy Dench was the best “Bond girl” to date.

          Recommended.

          Wait, is this thread about MMOs?

    • Aerynne says:

      I liked Skyfall. Not the best Bond film ever, but in my top 5.

      The Unaffilated Critic (a great film blog) has a good review here:

      http://unaffiliatedcritic.com/2012/11/skyfall-2012movie-review/

  8. carson63000 says:

    My reaction to Glitch was to recall that I signed up hoping for a beta invite ages ago, never got one, and never actually heard that it had gotten out of beta and become publicly playable. Until I heard it was shutting down.

    I saw blog posts about it from some people I follow, every now and then, but assumed that it was still beta talk.

  9. “What should change is the expectation that there is this group of MMO players who just want a non-PvP EVE”

    Has this theory really been tested yet?

  10. Gerry Quinn says:

    I had a similar experience to carson63000, except I never signed up, and nothing jolted my attention until recently. As it turns out, though, they were in beta at the end. It seems they launched, then two months later they “unlaunched” and went back to beta. And then never came out again.

    Maybe they had decided to run a publicity campaign once they had started properly, and ended up never running it at all. Or they hoped for free publicity from people looking for the new thing, but their game was too meh to get it. For sure, whatever was or was not right with the game, somebody fumbled badly on the awareness front.

  11. Stormwaltz says:

    Your thesis, unfortunately, is not expressed well. Your initial post described Glitch, then said only “what does that tell you about not including PvP?” This essay says first “What should change is the expectation that there is this group of MMO players who just want a non-PvP EVE, or that would love to play Darkfall on a PvE server,” and only at the end mentions casual players.

    You mention lack of PvP several times, but only point at the true culprit – chasing fickle casuals – once at the very end. As someone who read your PvE sandbox series with great interest, I was frankly baffled by what seemed to be an about-face.

    • SynCaine says:

      The two posts are not directly related like that. The first is a comment on just removing PvP from EVE. EVE itself, not a game sorta-like EVE. Again, I doubt Glitch was actually that, but that was the quote.

      This post you have correct, the non-existent casual sandbox fan that you can build a game around. I’ll make a post Monday explaining it a bit more (I sometimes write a post assuming the reader has read every one of my posts since 2007. Fear of repetition and all that)

  12. Sisca says:

    “What should change is the expectation that there is this group of MMO players who just want a non-PvP EVE, or that would love to play Darkfall on a PvE server.”

    How does the failure of Glitch prove that point?

    Honestly, I’d never really heard of Glitch until it closed but going back and looking at some screenshots I don’t see a non-PVP EVE I see a strange looking world with cutsey graphics. I for one would love a non-PVP EVE. That is a space operaesq game with a deep crafting/trading component and the opportunity for some fun space combat. I don’t want to have to spend my time while I’m plying the trade lanes looking over my shoulder and being worried about being jumped by the latest Goonsquad.

    All that being said, I know that the market for that type of game is going to be small. What devs really need to do is to take a lesson from CCP and build a quality game for a small audience and then allow that game to grow over time. You’re not going to get a million players at launch, hell you may not get a million 5 years in, but you can have a steady and loyal fanbase if you treat them right.

    • SynCaine says:

      “I don’t want to have to spend my time while I’m plying the trade lanes looking over my shoulder and being worried about being jumped by the latest Goonsquad.”

      But you do, if you still want the crafting/trading part to be something more than the WoW AH. Now maybe you can replace Goons with NPC AI, like I suggest in my PvE sandbox, and after they gank you they don’t taunt you in local chat (much), but you still need that piece to make it work.

      That’s actually close to the point I’m making here though. You can’t remove the one part of a sandbox you don’t like, and pretend the other parts aren’t going to get effected.

      • bhagpuss says:

        I think you just put your finger on the nub of the problem. The part of PvP that is off-putting to the potential PvE sandbox audience isn’t having their characters ganked, it’s having them ganked and especially taunted by other players.

        The risk, the danger absolutely has to be there but it must come from AI not someone that can become a focus for self-recrimination. The audience for MMOs is damaged people. PVE players have different damage to PVP players. Cater for the relevant damage.

        • Debir says:

          Now let’s push that thought a little.

          Either the NPCs represent an ever-present threat, or they don’t. If they do, then ever so often the game arbitrarily destroys your stuff. If not, then long-term they may as well not be there.

          In contrast, everything that happens in EVE happens for a reason. The world adapts. You adapt. You might not like getting blown up and taunted, but you can take comfort that this happened because someone else took a personal interest in you, not because you drew the short straw in some RNG.

          Directly or indirectly, almost everything you do in Eve beyond matters to someone other than you.

  13. xXJayeDuBXx says:

    I’m sad that people are losing their jobs, but I am not sad that Glitch is closing down.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I actually spent a good amount of time playing Glitch. It was fairly fun, and I was a major contributor on several road openings. These were major community events where everyone pitched in resources to open up new territory.

    I stopped playing because that was the only endgame. After you had seen a dozen you had seen them all. I knew several other hardcore glitchers that farmed shit all day erery day in order to donate it to the gods and get on the donation leaderboards. I did not consider that a worthwhile endgame activity.

    Glitch had many many interesting things going for it, but ultimately suffered from a lack of content or purpose.

    • Dril says:

      So it was a sandbox where you could only keep a single foot in the sand?

      Exactly why “Darkfall without PvE” or “a safe EVE server” will never work ;)

  15. Halycon says:

    What I want to see isn’t Eve without the PVP. But Eve with the Themepark Attractions. That’s the game I want to play. I want my Eve, but there is something to be said about being able to kickback and just take a ride every now and again for a change of pace. And Incursions aren’t it. I don’t want to warp to the same 4 incursion rooms over and over again and complete each one in 10 minutes or less. I want a hand crafted adventure. Something with a narrative to follow that takes 45min-2hours to complete. Separate quests to complete inside them that expands the story and fleshes it out beyond what you’d get in the dungeon alone. The whole picture. That’s the game I want. With all the griefing, scamming, and wonderful things that go on inside Eve on top of. I even want to be able to be griefed and scammed and other things while in my dungeon.

    Kick back, veg out, and chat on teamspeak with a few friends while being told a story.

    What I don’t want though, and what Eve without all that could do away with, is loot. I don’t want to haul all the stupid loot out to sell on the market. I want resource points which can be turned into The Powers That Be for resources to build more stuff to feed the sandbox. And possibly a couple really high end low drop rate “Officer” items in the really dangerous dungeons placed in the more lawless areas of the game.

    That’s what I want. I want the best of both worlds. That is the game I’ll leave Eve for. One game that fills both of my appetites.

  16. Anonymous says:

    It’s not the devs, it’s the Bobby Kotticks. While the 90s were a period of innovation and creativity, the ballooning costs of development in the naughties called for decision-making on the investor/owner level, far above the devs.

    Needless to say, the Bobbies wouldn’t know the first thing about games, but nevertheless felt qualified to interfere with design. They spawned an underclass of similarly thinking producers who do their best to stifle innovation daily.

    Will this decade be any different? Maybe. Crowd-funding might help bring back creativity. Otherwise gamers will have to drink the same Kool-Aid moviegoers drink for another ten years.

    • Halycon says:

      I think 10 years is an over reach. There are a lot of different reasons I think that, but it mostly comes down to diminishing returns graphically. While at the same time intersecting advances in software and hardware are making getting “Good Enough” results faster, easier, and cheaper than ever.

      Some of the more high end indie developers are getting eyepopping results on shoestring budgets. And I think that trend is going to just become more pronounced.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Play kc

  18. Anonymous says:

    There is pvp buy you can technically play without it as long as you are not attacked. Chances are slim that you won’t be but in general it is a very good mmo. Give it a try and if you don’t like it then just don’t play anymore. There is 3D dungeoning. It is very enjoyable!

  19. Anonymous says:

    DF UW LAUNCHES TOMORROW!!!

    oh wait…

  20. Siobhann says:

    Glitch died largely because Butterfield made a bad bet on Flash, not because there was anything wrong with it as an MMO. Tiny Speck never got the memory-leaky Flash platform stable enough to support the large numbers of players the Freemium business model would have required so the game never really came out of re-beta to try and find a playerbase. When Flash pulled out of the Android store, Tiny Speck also lost any hope of entry into the mobile/tablet market.

    It’s a damn shame. I subscribed and played a lot. Glitch had a very special brand of quirky humor and gameplay, a well thought-out crafting system, good music, and gorgeous graphics by a bunch of talented artists.

  21. Max says:

    I quit GW2 after 3 month. And I expected it to last much longer because of sPvP and WvWvW. And that make me think harder about pvp as long term attraction. – It aint easy to make it so. I am saying this is as life long pvp’er who pvp’ed hard in everything from CS beta to, AC:DT to LoL. I been playing some of the games at competitive level too

    Most people dont like pvp, it is a niche for the hardcores of the hardcores and its a pretty small niche. PvP community is hostile ,results driven and play hard -> burn out fast cliques.

    Largest pvp community is also the most toxic one (league of legends). PvP is poison for most of the customers.

    Good pvp is hard to make and even if you succeed in doing so it far from guarantee that it will get you customers. Irony is that one of the most successful pvp games (EvE) has horrid pvp.And GW2 sPvP fizzled out even before it begun

    So its no wonder in mainstream opinion pvp is a bad place to stake your bets on. Its a gamble with a very bad odds

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 167 other followers

%d bloggers like this: