The Future of MMORPGs

Fargo writes: "How often do you get the creators of EverQuest, Asheron's Call, World of Warcraft, Dark Age of Camelot, Star Wars Galaxies, Anarchy Online, and others in the same room together? It happened at the recent Game Developers Conference in San Jose. GameSpy pulled together notes from three days' worth of talks and drew some common conclusions that point toward where the genre is going in the future. A good read if you're interested in where Virtual Worlds are headed."

Comments

I have seen the future of MMORPG's

[haystor]

And here it is:

Progress Quest

Its not too addictive and it doesn't use up too much time.

Re:I have seen the future of MMORPG's

[bonk]

It is NOT funny! Progress is a serious and worthy goal!

Go back to playing your puny Everquest and Ultima Online, I will be laughing at your camps and bread making while I make PROGRESS!

http://progressquest.com/hi.php?name=CheesePleas e

MMORPG's are going

[sllort]

Where text muds went 10 years ago. All the problems of grief players, player killing, user grouping, experience sharing, and dynamic landscape generation were solved in text based MUDS like this one years ago. Watching the graphical corporate players re-learn these painful lessons (with the added humor factor of corporate arrogance, pride, and a PR department) has had all the humor value of watching a blind baby learn to walk.

If you find that kind of thing funny.

Roleplaying - the TRUE Draw

[Ieshan]

Sure, people do "play for the spreadsheet, filling in points", etc, but the real draw of a good game is it's roleplaying value - at least for me.

I've been playing a Text MUD for quite a long time - Dragonrealms (http://www.play.net/dr) - and it's evolved into quite a large player base where anyone can make a mark on the community by roleplaying a character correctly.

Hundreds of addicts, or just hundreds of satisfied people? Not sure, but the Roleplaying Genre needs to focus more on roleplaying, least we end up instead with the "experience-game-in-which-players-gain-levels genre".

Re:Roleplaying - the TRUE Draw

[Anthracks]

While happen to enjoy games for the same reason you seem to, I don't think the "mass market" segment--the ones who are making the game profitable and thus the ones who the game will be designed for--are motived by roleplaying. Have you actually logged into Asheron's Call or Ultima Online? The worlds are absolutely dominted by "31337 d00dz" who are at the maximum level with more or less the same skillset and equipment, precisely because they DO care mostly about filling in the spreadsheet to maximize their combat effectiveness. I would love it for roleplaying and exploration to play a primary role (no pun intended) in these games, but at the moment I don't see how that is possible. Any game that tries it will either get swamped by d00dz or simply go bankrupt.

Re:Roleplaying - the TRUE Draw

[bughunter]

Wow - is Dragonrealms still alive?

I was heavily addicted to Gemstone III when they introduced Dragonrealms, and so I spent a couple weeks over there.

I really liked the game, and miss the combat system dearly, and was able to design and attire a character any way I wanted, from tough to spooky to sexy (or any combination of the above). But they seemed to replace Gemstone's "kill-rest-kill-rest" experience with endless "practice-practice-practice" experience. It got tedious sitting there trying to learn how to commune with my powerstone or wand or whatever. I practiced for hours every night and got very little out of it. The game was only a few weeks old, then... back in 1996 or thereabout. Perhaps it's changed since.

But I will have to say that MUDs (and PBEMs) have offered the only real computer roleplaying experiences I've had yet. The addictiveness is twofold - there's the anonymous (or pseudonymous) socialization that IRC has, and then there's the challenge/reward feedback of gaining expereience to level-up that most RPGs have.

The interplay with other humans is essential to roleplaying. You can't roleplay with a computer program... at least not until we achieve true AI. Sure, you can make gameplay choices "in character" but that's not truly roleplaying. MUDs and MMORPGs will be the only way to truly roleplay on a computer for a long time.

I'm looking forward to Neverwinter Nights, and hoping intensely that the developers will eventually support the folks who are trying to put together persistent worlds. That's the next step -- homegrown persistent worlds with a rich graphical interface.

Re:Roleplaying - the TRUE Draw

[Kingfox]

Hey Bungle, get an account!

Seriously though, you're right. Read LOTR. Isn't that an amazing and beautiful world? Watch the movie. Isn't that amazing? But which is more vivid and personal? And is the average gamer's computer really capable of pushing out the graphics, sound, and AI required to depict that?

The fact that online text-based RPGs are still attracting new players in this day and age is a testament to the dying medium. There's a really great thesis written up about the medium I read here.

Ultima Online/Everquest Engines?

[MonkeyBot]

I've been playing UO on and off for about 5 years now. I tried EverQuest for a while, and although I could see how one could get into it, I still liked UO better.
However, both companies still have an advantage over all the newcomers--they have a game engine that they have been tweaking for a long, long time. I think that when the new generation of these MMORPGs come out and drag players away from UO/Everquest, Origin and whoever makes Everquest (I forget) will wise up and start selling an engine to the next generation of MMORPG makers so that they can implement a (hopefully) more debugged game more rapidly. It just seems logical; when your itellectual property stops making money in one arena, move to another...
...but that's just my 2 cents, and that's about all it's worth.

The most important thing developers must note:

[NeMon'ess]

More games are coming out, but the gaming populace doesn't seem to be joining in. The existing market is fragmenting. Perhaps there is a substantial number of gamers who are waiting for one particular game to arrive before they join online. I have my own complaint. I chose Asheron's Call and played for three months after watching friends try out Everquest. All four of us quit EQ and AC, the other three tried both first. For us, the fundamental hook of eternal leveling simply is not enough to make us play. This incessant cycle of endless battles for weak rewards do not make these games fun for us. Two of my friends play Diablo II still, so I think they if anyone should have the will power to fight hordes for hours at a time.

What seems to be lacking for me is a real sense of accomplishment. Leveling up is not fun in and of itself. The quests I do must actually matter to the game world. The game should change because of what I do. I should have other options besides fighting to earn credits. The classic game of Pirates! comes to mind. I want to be a trader sometimes, also a politician if I desire. Not just a patron, but I want government, and generals, military commands and so on. Neocron has some of these ideas.

Unfortunately what I want is like ten games in one. But that's exactly what every company must strive for. Releasing the hack and slash game, followed by the trading game, followed by the political game, followed by the military/bounty/mercenary/thief-type game. Last but not least, if the world has horses or cars, there needs to be a racing game, not just on tracks, but street races. All of this must be available together and integrated.

I know I ask the near-impossible, but if the game makers want me to devote my real life to their virtual world for years to come, shouldn't their world be at least as interesting as reality?

prophesizing on the Matrix(ala Gibson, not Keanu)

[Transient0]

This article is excellent, and I particularly enjoyed the intelligent focus on copyright and intellectual property issues as MMOGs slide towards greater and greater online content. Admittedly, I haven't played an MMOG since the Tradewars days, but the idea still fascinates me. The most thrilling idea surrounding this topic as far as I am concerned however, is that of inter-game compatability. It seems only a short matter of time before, at first multiple games by the same company, but eventually games by competing companies, support the transfer of characters and wealth between game worlds.

From that point I can imagine very easily that the drive towards standards and cross-compatability would result in the creation of a standardized "meta-game" in which characters could interact devoid of any rules or constructions aside from user created content and the "laws of physics" of the virtual world. Some users, of course, would become massive creators of original content in effect turning their corners of the meta-game into games in their own right(whether free or requiring an admission fee). Of course the commercial games would still exist and could be easily entered at any time from the meta-game, but the meta-game itself would provide the perfect level for many types of interactions and for encouraging a seamless gaming experience.

There is only one small step left from there to envision this meta-game expanding to include near-infinite non-game content and eventually replacing what is now WWW-space with an avatar driven virtual world such as that envisioned in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.

Of course, everything i have just said is speculation and supposition, but my real point is that what is going on in the world of MMOGs may be something that warrants attention even from those who aren't gamers themselves. People may one day talk about EverQuest the way people to day talk about an old DoD project called ARPANet...

This is the Virtual Reality we heard about.

[Binky The Oracle]

When I first stepped into Everquest, it was magical. This was the first online game I had tried and it was simply amazing that there was an actual person on the other end of that halfling.

While the magic and novelty is largely gone, I can't help but think that these MMORPGs are destined for the business world. Five years ago all I heard about was the coming virtual reality - meetings in cyberspace... working from home with an avatar in a virtual meeting room.

Well, I've been playing in one of those for the last year or so. With some minor tweaks and feature enhancements, this technology is ripe for virtual/avatar-based meeting spaces. Instead of logging in to the goblin city, I'll enter a building. My conference is going to be in the third door on the left (the door will be pulsing softly and there will be arrows pointing the way from reception).

I'll enter the room and the people I'm going to meet with will be there also. I can look at the "screen" and see the presentation, whisper to the person next to me... or the person at the other end of the table for that matter, raise my hand, whatever. I might even be able to have my macro script take control and nod appropriately so I can nip off to the mall and do some shopping while it records the presentation for me.

Yes, this is years down the road, especially for it to become an accepted business practice... but it will start with someone convincing their boss that the next staff meeting should be held in the North Freeport tavern or the Inn of Rivervale. Once it does happen, it will do more to eliminate the need for employees to be in the same place as their employers...

And that will be pretty cool.

Just one thing....

[The_dev0]

The only reason I don't play any of the better MMORPG's about is a reason I think alot of people will agree with. If I just paid $50 or more for a game, thats it. I have a real problem with ongoing payment (mostly because I dont own a credit card)toward a game I already own! I understand it costs money to keep the servers up and other stuff, but hey, make the game slightly more expensive on initial purchase and eliminate the ongoing payment. I won't pay to play on principle. I would maybe consider it if the game cost had a ceiling, ie: you buy the game, pay to play for 12 months, then it becomes free. When a mate showed me Asheron's Call and explained how it worked, the only thing I could hear were the cash registers going off in my head.

So let me get this straight, you pay $50 for the game, then $12.95 every month? And how long have you been playing now? *ching ching*

Re:Just one thing....

[alriddoch]

There are more problems with the payment plan you propose than I can immediatly explain, but I will have a go.

Firstly, these games cost more than single player games to develop. Much more. Costs relating to the current generation, and the next generation in development are between 5 and 10 times as expensive as a typical single player game. If all they got was the initial purchase price, it would not be economically viable at all.

When it comes down to it, $12.95 per month is really not that much. When you compare it with the cost versus playtime of most games out there, then its very good value. The playtime of games is shorter than it used to be, and it looks like its going to get shorter still. I am not a hardcore gamer by any means, and I played the last two games I bought in less the a week each. I imagine that a teenager with fast reflexes and plenty of free time would have been able to finish them in a day.

The current payment model covers the costs quite nicely. A burst of revenue early on to cover a proportion of the development costs, and the costs of setting up the servers, followed by a steady, if gradually declining revenue stream to cover the costs of updates, new content and operational costs. If anything the proportion of the cost covered by subscription is going to rise rather than fall, and the idea of a company letting you play for free after your initial subscription period is a pipe dream.

Re:Just one thing....

[The_dev0]

Good call, friend. I'm sure that there are a lot of people at home playing a quiet game of Baldurs Gate 2 or Diablo 2 as we speak. I myself have been playing the Baldurs series since release and have never played it online (I do LAN with friends, though). Even the Quake3 idea of 'bots' inhabiting the game world is better than nothing, and it would justify the price of some of these games that are basically unplayable unless you are logged on to the game server. It would also give newbies a chance to get their shit in one sock (so to speak) before jumping on-line and getting vaporised.

It's the Economy Stupid

[jheinen]

The central focus of all MMORPGs is the economy, and so far all of them have weak or artificial economies. The rewards of playing stem from the game economy and in order to be truly compelling the economy has to be robust and realistic. Take EQ for example. The economy is really driven by two things - experience (which can't be traded) and equipment, all of which exist in essentially unlimited quantities. Spend enough time and you can get everything the world has to offer.

What is needed is an economy that motivates people to cooperate and simultaneously drives conflict. Think RTS combined with RPG. There should be certain resources that are finite in availablity, but necessary for progress. To get the resources you need you can either find them, buy them, or steal them. To help this along there should be factions or groups to which you can belong and from which you derive certain benefits that help you get the resources you need. This sets up a natural conflict between competing groups vieing for the same limited pool of resources. You are effectively forced to ally with others in order to achieve your aims, since it is easier to defend your resources when you group together. In order to get some resources, it might be necessary to pool resources, for example to get enough cash to purchase a piece of equipment that enhances resource production. You would essentially be investing in an enterprise and expecting a return on that investment. The game could even support a stock trading system in which you could invest in various enterprises based on your interests and desires.

Once you have an economy figured out, everything else comes together. You don't need to provide monsters or quests, since the dynamic of the game creates them all on its own. You get people working with or against each other, which is what it should be about anyway. Other humans are going to be far more interesting and challenging opponents or allies than any AI creature.

Re:It's the Economy Stupid

[Kingfox]

The MOO I am an administrator on, CyberSphere, had an economy re-vamp three or so years ago. A player had figured out an exploit to get endless money, so we shut the entire economy down and re-did it as a zero sum economy.

What you said about new players quitting at any point and changing the economy is a good point. We've set a limited number of 'credits' (the currency most of the people use), that slowly increases. People arriving draws money from the welfare fund, which is repleneshed by the various corporations, which gain and lose money on the stock market and through other actions. Players start on the streets with next to nothing, and most of the rich ones have created their wealth through finding a niche and exploiting it instead of through mere coded actions. Instead of performing coded automated tasks for a paltry sum, they create a role where they can milk dozens of people doing the automated tasks to gather even more resources. Muggings, implanting cyberwear, selling drugs.... a variety of characters have fulfilled a variety of self-built roles, creating interaction and conflict through economic means, and avoiding having to introduce too many artificial conflicts as you warn against.

The only problem I've found is increasing the size of the drain. It's easy to pump money into the player economy. Creating jobs, missions, quests... it's easy to come up with a dozen detailed coded systems to provide money. It's taking the money back out that's a problem. We have rent, and disadvantages for living in cardboard boxes or such. Large apartments which hold a variety of gear or garages that store vehicles cost money. Vehicle armor needs re-building, computers break or have one-shot programs, and medicine decays. But short of staging large administrator-run raids on player hoards, I've found it hard to think of realistic ways to increase the size of the drain when a bottleneck occurs in the player economy. Once a player has 'won', they have no motivation not to sit on their hoard. And in a zero-sum economy, this stagnates the game. Many of our players have a mature attitude about it. They play and scheme and plot until they've 'won', and then stage their own defeat, allowing their gear and money to be taken by a pack of young blood. But certain people just want to sit on their stagnant throne for literally years. And I have yet to figure out how to encourage them off without being too heavy-handed.

These kind of conflicts could not occur in a MMORPG. The game I refer to has only a few hundred players, usually twenty to forty people on at a given time. With a dozen or so active administrators, we can offer small plots, large game-wide campaigns, and custom-coded groups and events. The zero-sum economy forces a good amount of player on player action. But these things, like true democracy and communism, don't scale well to a massive populace.