Slashdot Mirror
MMOGs Only For the Hardcore?
Gamepro has an editorial up asking the question are Massive Games only for the hardcore? From the article: "Part of it has to do with the conventional pricing model. With a game demanding $15 a month, you can't afford to just casually log in a few hours on the weekend without feeling jipped. So the casual gamer's MMO has to be a game entertaining enough to pull people away from their usual games (let's face it, most MMOs are boring), and rewarding enough in a 1-2 hour timeframe so it doesn't require you to neglect your daily routines."
It seems difficult, possibly even impossible, to create a game where advancement does not depend upon a particular path. Put simply, it's nearly impossible to create a game where you can advance as quickily by soloing as by grouping. In World of Warcraft, you can almost do this for the first 1/3 of your levels. Almost. Eventually it becomes impossible, and you're left with the same problems other MMORPGs have--you either have to be able to devote the same amount of time to the game as your friends, or you have to constantly find new groups. New groups can be fun, but I generally prefer to play with people I know or just solo. Of course, this means soloing, but then if I wanted to solo, why would I play a MMORPG?
The sad reason is that there just aren't that many good RPG-esque games out there. I'd love to play a single-player version of WoW, particularly with an added over-arching quest.
By ignoring Puzzle Pirates, Planetside and the rest of the casual gaming market, he's gerrymandered the online market to support the argument of his article. Bleh.
schild
editor, f13.net
With a game demanding $15 a month, you can't afford to just casually log in a few hours on the weekend without feeling jipped.
Was is this taken as gospel, that cost is still an issue?? I hear people say that all the time, but even if you only play 3 hours a week, that means you are paying a little over a dollar an hour, where is the big deal? i used to go to arcades and spend ALOT more then a buck an hour.
Lord people whine.....in fact, let me now rant about people whining......
I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
I'd say it is to the contrary, really: most MMO'ers I know play it because it is only $15/month. After the initial purchase/download, if the game can keep their attention, they are pleased as punch because otherwise they would spend at least that much buying one game every few months.
With an MMOG, they can keep their same game going from month-to-month, without fear of starting over from scratch, for only a pittance compared to buying a new game every few weeks. And since MMOGs are tiered to release new content the higher a character's level is, and release brand new content for everyone on a regular basis, that one "golden game" can keep thousands of people for months.
Most men are not thought unwise until they speak.
Spot on. And is this a bad thing? Is this even unusual in gaming?
Where are the articles lamenting, "Is Chess only for the hardcore?" Or, "Is bridge only for the hardcore?"
Those examples lack the monthly charge that raises the barrier for entry to most MMOGs, but in terms of gameplay and competitiveness, the casual player just can't hang with the serious gamer. Some people enjoy some games on a casual level. Some people devote more time to some games.
I'm sure some where out there is a chess club with $15 monthly due, and it only attracts players for whom that chess playing experience is worth $15. Likewise for any MMOG with a similar fee.
Will you people please quit perpetuating the myth that you must GROUP to do anything in an MMORPG?
Interaction can include many things besides getting together with four other strangers to kill gnolls. I like the feel of a big marketplace in Ironforge or Ogrimmar. I occasionally toss a helpful nuke or heal to a younger player getting his ass handed to him by a "bat or rat". I like to play the auction house. I like the fact that if I have the time or inclination I can go help others in need, or just have a chat. There are plenty of ways to interact with the world without having to resort to pick up or guild groups.
I have a 60 hunter on the alliance side in a guild with people I enjoy and I have a 55 shaman on the horde side that I play simply for the solitude. Never once have I felt that I was playing a single player game on either character. Look at it this way, you want a cheeseburger from McDonalds, does that mean you have to go gather 4 random people to accomplish that task? Are you interacting with others in an environment (i.e. the kid taking your money, other's in the restaurant, etc.)? Then why do you people want to insist that soloing is for some freakin' hermit in a cave playing Gran Turismo 4.
So please lose the "but MMORPG means massive MULTIPLAYER" bunk because it doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does.
The actual shame in the whole MMORPG industry is that hardcore is defined by 40-80 person raids where leaders bark explicit orders and automatons press buttons at predetermined times.
"There are two million people playing World Of Warcraft - and with Guild Wars fighting WoW for the top place in the PC games chart - I'd say that the appeal of the MMO can be pretty damn non-hardcore"
To start with the nitpicking: even if they were only from the USA, 2 million players would mean less than 1% of the population. If you throw in Europe, some Asian players, Australia, the rest of America, etc, we're suddenly talking less than 1 per thousand.
So there still is plenty of room for attracting more casual players.
But in the end you provide the perfect example of why the author is right, after all. Think about it: WoW has some 5 times more players than EQ at its peak. What does WoW do differently? Catters a lot better to the non-hardcore folks, _and_ tries to reduce the difference between folks playing 16 hours a day and those playing 4 hours on weekends only.
With the XP bonus for being _offline_, it becomes a lot less of a race to squeeze in 1 extra hour a day or fall behind. If I play 6 hours a day, and you can play only 5 hours a day, chances are you won't fall as far behind as you would in some other games.
This is the exact opposite of what other games try to do. Most MMOs seem to be in a mentality that they must invent more devices to force/coax you to stay online more.
E.g., since you mention City Of Heroes, consider taskforces where if you quit before all 10 missions are over, the whole team might be screwed. Try doing the Cave Of Transcendence mission for example when one player has quit the team. You're screwed: you can't activate possibly activate all 8 obelisks at the same time, with less than 8 players.
E.g., consider COH's timed missions being _real_ time instead of game time. If you just got a mission with a 2 hour countdown, you can't quit, go to work for 8 hours, and come back to it. You do it _now_, work be damned, or find out you've failed the mission when you come back.
Fail too many of those, and you won't be able to buy some Single Origin enhancers from that contact. (Well, after level 35 it doesn't matter any more, since you can buy all SO from the shop NPCs. But if you want a Fly SO or an Endurance Regen SO at level 22, better do a lot of missions for the right NPC.)
Now I'm not saying COH is bad or anything. (Hey, it's my current addiction again. Damn right I won't say it's bad;) But I _am_ saying that its design goes even above and beyond the level grind to coax you to stay online more.
Blizzard takes the opposite approach: hey, if you can't stay online all day, it's cool with us. Here, we'll even give you _some_ xp bonus for the time you couldn't be on. Just so you won't fall too far behind and be unable to group with your friends.
So far, that seems to pay off for Blizzard. A _lot_ of people seem to be more comfortable with Blizzard's idea than with the traditional pressure to spend more and more time.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The Oxford English Dictionary seems to have a different opinion of the origin of "gypped". It says that "gyp" comes from "gippo" meaning "scullion", the French word "jupeau", and was a 19th Century term for a college servant at Cambridge or Durham universities.
It's also possible that the current meaning derives from "gyp" meaning "pain or severe discomfort", which is another 19th Century word perhaps derived from "gee-up".
They don't even mention the possibility that it has anything to do with Gypsies, nor is it flagged as offensive.
So, your opinion is about as clueless as the people who get all huffy about words like "squaw", "niggardly" or "blackboard".
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
" The problem with MMOGs is that casual players cannot compete with those who dedicate a significant portion of every day to playing."
Okay...
The problem with Golf is that casual players cannot compete with those who dedicate a significant portion of every day to playing.
The problem with Tennis is that casual players cannot compete with those who dedicate a significant portion of every day to playing.
The problem with Racketball is that casual players cannot compete with those who dedicate a significant portion of every day to playing.
This does not seem to be a new problem.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Most people don't like partying with hunters because too many hunters are really bad at partying. They only know how to solo and end up doing things that wipe the party, when they could have gotten a different class and perhaps done the dungeon a little slower, but safer and with less chance of bad pet pulls. As a mage, I hate hunters because they seem to not know when to aggro and when to aggro. I'll just get finished casting polymorph on an extra and then the pet always seems to want to attack it instead of what we're already attacking. Don't get me wrong, you may be a very skilled hunter, but there are just too many hunters who aren't.
This site purports to support freedom of speech and expression. Racism is one such freedom that everyone has a right to, though it may be one of the more unsavory freedoms.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Please pick up the courtesy cluephone: I quoted from the two definitions in the Oxford Concise OED. Go back and read what I wrote. Paragraph 1, paragraph 2. Two paragraphs, two definitions, two possible derivations.
Yes, multiple dictionaries "agree on the term" in that they agree on its definition. They don't, however, say that it has anything to do with Gypsies. I wasn't arguing that the term meant something else; I was pointing out that your claimed etymology was bogus.
UrbanDictionary takes content anyone posts, so it doesn't prove anything. I could post that "cretin" was insulting to the island of Crete and UrbanDictionary would list that information.
If you want to come up with a citation to support your assertion that gypped has something to do with Gypsies, you'll need to find one in a reputable dictionary. So far you haven't posted any, whereas I've posted the etymological info from the Concise OED, which flatly contradicts you. So, you're the one who needs to research before flaming--and learn to read before replying, too.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Strangely enough, in a senior-level anthropology class in college entitled "Ethnocide and Genocide," I did a long research paper on anti-gypsy prejudice.
Every single source that I pulled from the library went on and on about how other people saw gypsies as untrustworthy and thievish, and that view wasn't necessarily fair.
Every single one of these sources also ended this discussion with the conclusion that this stereotype was extraordinarily accurate as well.
Not flaming or trolling, just put a lot of work in on that and was rather surprised to see the "enlightened" anthropological sources treat an ethnic group this way.