Online Video Game Industry.

[Deleted54170User]

I think online video game companies are turning the Online gaming industry into eArcade Caves.

[Mudran]

It could be like that in a good way - if it would be like episodic sandbox. but I guess they don't want it to be original content, more like repeat the same over and over. On the other hand there are companies which make creating alts in big MMOs painful, but alts are the way of repeating the game over and over, so sometimes it looks to me like the biggest problem of online games is that it could be done in a good way, but they have to be very make it as painful as possible for players, like redemption through suffering. Also all kinds of very negative behavior I saw in gaming industry was in online games and those studios turned even their singleplayer games into lower quality with a lot of painful repeating. Like SWTOR is for me the best RPG MMO - those class quests are without match - all other MMOs said that it would be too expensive to make even more of NPCs for some unknown reason, even those which are not voiced, so it wouldn't be that much expensive, but this MMO for me personally have even higher quality than singleplayer games, only it looks very ugly and it has some other issues :( But the next Bioware games were DAI and Mass Effect Andromeda - the more MMO like games than any Bioware games before and those devs were not even able to see the difference... and they couldn't understand what was the problem of some players.

 

I have my dreamworld of monetizing, where I would pay for features I want to be added and skip those I don't want. Right now it is always like - we don't make this game for you so shut up. But if it would be: variability you could choose from, maybe even like a servis - you would ask for some feature, like you can ask when you buy a flat, and it would be added for you to buy it, if there would be enough of players willing to buy it, but if you wouldn't want it in the game, you wouldn't buy it and it wouldn't bother you. Or something like that.

[Deleted54170User]

I've most of the games you mention. I see MMO portions of the games as a capture the flag team game. Similarly the capture the castles along with their small villages where they grow food, mine for ore, collect mud made into mortar for binding stone and lumber for repairing the castle walls.

 

If the devs don't improve, add stories, and provide more challenges for all levels when we reach God Mode only the staffers who are roaming the game keeping illegal activity from emerging in game can best us in a duel because they have Ultimate TGM settings on their servers and are better than we are. Not that they would challenge any of the players to a duel, but they would be indestructible.

 

Paying for a monthly membership is near to buying a single game over and over once every 6 months.

 

Would you pay to play if the only thing you could do was gather points, get intangible trophies, craft useless items for ranks in crafting, and never meet any of your local friends or make new friends while you do?

[HadToRegister]

I think the online video game industry has mutated into a lazy cash grab by corporations who want to put as little effort and resources as possible into their products, while maximizing the income, and milking the most cash out of them.

 

EA is claiming that people don't want single player games anymore, but they're lying, they just don't want to invest big bucks into a one-time only, single player game that nets them a certain amount of sales and eventually dries up, because that doesn't make them a large enough profit, they would instead, like to make an online game, make unlockable content through lootboxes and other methods, where the user base buys the game, then keeps pouring money into the game, while the game developer doesn't have to invest much time and resources into the game, the revenue is instead, never-ending and is generated CONSTANTLY, rather than by one-time sales of Single Player games.

In other words, EA is lying by saying that people don't want single player games anymore, they are lying in order to artificially create a demand for online games, because that's where their interests are all invested for the future.

[Mudran]

I'm OK with singleplayer games only around 15-20 hours from small studios. It requires a lot of concentration, because it is stacked with actions, emotions and decisions, so I play it when I can dedicate my time for it. But sometimes I prefer MMO or some easy action game when I don't want to concentrate, only to chill out. So I guess both have their place. I think EA is making mistake by removing them because I think variability is important - like with food - so if they want to have that Origin - I'm not sure who will use it if they will not have enough of their games to choose from - players will go somewhere else when they will want to play some game style which EA doesn't have, so they will not pay monthly. But maybe those sport games fans are enough.

 

I think every time someone tried to make RPG bigger, I don't know when it worked well. Maybe those issues with 2 Bioware games were because of that new engine and because they fell in love with the visual upgrades of that engine and romantic book writing, who knows. But they used the same formula like all the other new RPG games - except Witcher 3, which was very expensive, and smaller mainly European games.

 

I recently bought DLCs for DAI finally, so I tried to play the game again. It felt so static. So I tried to play just portion of it from time to time and I couldn't play it even when I didn't want to play anything complicated, maybe it wasn't the right time for it, but maybe it is because the replayability is not good for those static zones.

But even Ubisoft with their really big open worlds, where they try so hard to make it interesting, with quests and so on, some players felt similar feeling.

 

So making a game which will last for long time - how you can do it - is it even possible? Or is it really just because of mods and everchanging game with mods and the possibility to customize it? Because even with different decisions - it doesn't guarantee I will replay the game. And it feels like a bit of waste. Sometimes I wonder - if they would implement more of characters to choose from, maybe I would replay the game, but I cannot remember any game lately, except Bioware, where it was possible? Like even small game 15-20 hours, with different outcomes and faces matching those different classes - they never do it.

So I have to play MMOs because 1. I can play different faces and races, 2. because the world is big, and empty, but it doesn't feel empty for some unknown reason (maybe really because of players - they can be that non static component. but the mastery of it was in LOTRO, where it wasn't 1 big combat zone, but a place, where those NPCs really could live) 3. because I can play different classes/civilian occupations. No singleplayer game do it anymore.

As so many times said - So many studios copied Ubisoft formula with exploring and camps for action, but why they never copied Bethesda formula with different races/classes - and not just cosmetic, but really quests and different RPG paths to choose from (not just moral)?

 

But as I said - MMOs have their own problems - that they don't try to be custom. Because players will gladly repeat some parts of the game they like - but only those parts. So if it would be possible to choose that and pay for it, maybe it would be better.

 

EDIT - it is really long post - I don't think anyone will read it anyway - I wouldn't :)

Edited July 15, 2018 by Mudran

[HadToRegister]

I'm assuming that DAI is Dragon Age: Inquisition?

I got bored of playing that because it got to be so repetitive and mindless.
I played Dragon Age the original because it had a story, I played Dragon Age 2, but the over-the-top Angsty JRPG sidekicks and the obvious and lazy Copy-n-paste "dungeons" were too much.

Same with Mass Effect, such huge changes pre and post EA buyout.
You went from a ton of skillls to choose from, to a handful in ME2, to barely any in ME3.

It made me realize that EA basically wanted ALL of the games they publish to have the same interface, and same style of gameplay across all games.

[Mudran]

I felt more or less the same. But I have heard that those devs didn't understand it. So it is a bit confusing for me - how the players experience can be so different from creative experience?

 

I started to imagine how Dragon age Inquisition would looks like online - how Pagafyr said - with players around. If instead of being the head I would be one of those ordinary members gathering inside of that castle and I would see the game from that perspective. Other players would be other agents of Inquisition and your class would determine the part of your gameplay - as a soldier under leadership of Cullen, with quests requiring defending, attacking fortress and so on, or if I would choose a scout gameplay - I would be part of Liliana's Crows with a big questline about her leadership and the same with mages - I would love to play such game.

Actually that is SWTOR class quests about - not a main quest,but more of side views of the same world.

I think maybe that was the reason why I didn't mind empty NY in Division 1 - that contrast of being alone outside of safehouses,but meeting with others inside - maybe that was the reason why I really liked that half online game.

 

Also about that subscription - I tend to dislike it because or 1.it is used to lock you out of the game, or 2. it is used as a tool for grind, where without it you feel limited. So that is why I prefer sandbox pieces of game customizing what you like - like do you want to add an intro with a class quest - go, buy it, or do you want crafting? Buy it. Or do you want series of RPG quests - like a cook or waitress in a local pub? You could buy it. But still with some general currency you could get for finishing some previous gameblock or buying a whole pack and then customizing what you want.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Mudran

[Deleted54170User]

You both clearly have carved up a game or two to have gained pieces of plots you devised which could effectively be put together for a new game.

 

I played for one sole reason. I am a crafty person. I thought the new genre was a great place to meet people with business minds. I got the to meet people with business minds correct. I had time on my hands to craft and thought, maybe I can make a mod others will like and become friends as I study their lessons for beginners.

 

The competition was 99% teen age children whose parents had a business online.

 

To the point. Do you think MMO's will be successful like casino's online and attract legal age players?

 

Or do you think friends would rather meet face to face, share their stories over dinners paid for by members of the MMO's, and then go see the Raging Adrenaline movie their parents knew was at the theater and didn't want their adult children catching them there, before dusk, so they forbade them to go out unless it was just the $100.00 gold plate dinner that lasted until 9:00 PM so their parents could be home heating up the sheets before their children showed up at the theater?

[Mudran]

There is any point? :) And I was thinking I think too much, but you Pagafyr, you are way over my head - now it is official!

 

But avoiding answering your question so I wouldn't feel like thinking about something, which wasn't even meant to be solved, but still wanting to discuss - what is the point of playing anything online? it is 1. competition, 2. interaction with others 3. living world which never ends. And what is reality? 1. broken pay or cheat to win pvp, 2. text chat would do the trick too, 3. world which never meet your needs because the substance of given media - other players, are always reason for boycotting anything you want, and devs never doing what players want and I don't even know why, then complaining about players leaving their MMO and proclaiming MMO genre doesn't work.

And solution? online casino with re**** clicking on buttons together, saying how was clicking better? it does work somehow, no daubt about it - but there is one small question - what was the original purpose of all of that? And all the other problems still existing - is that really solution? or just decadency of all of that?

[Mudran]

I think I got the metaphor now - the gamblers are children, the golden plate dinner is the winning and you are observing them?

Still I cannot say what was the point - if that MMO will be successful - who are mature players? players who don't gamble?

because I don't understand people who give XX amount money and get 1 winning price and a lot of nothing - it doesn't seems to me like winning at all. And then they go and enforce that into every other MMO - it looks to me more like poluting and boycotting what others wants rather than anything else. Because if you don't gamble and what you want is locked in gambling - what else it is than poluting your game?

And mature players for me are players who can pay for what they want - so I said before - if it could be more like some sandbox, where you can build up your MMO experience - would that be enough of very expensive servers? I don't know.

And I don't play Facebook/mobile games, so cannot say anything else about it - I got sick from that - I was playing those games too much, then I got sick, so I had to stop, now only when I look at such games I feel sick :p