MMOGs Only For the Hardcore? 236
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."
The problem is in what people are looking for... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Let's be honest. (Score:3, Insightful)
oh no! Not a dollar an hour! (Score:5, Insightful)
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......
Not Really (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:site slow (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:oh no! Not a dollar an hour! (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't played Freelancer or CounterstrikeWC3 (for eg; these are persistent state games that aren't pay-to-play MMOGs) for months, but I can still go back and find a couple of populated local servers to play on, which I do from time to time.
If they were $15 a month each, I, and probably most other people, would have cancelled our accounts and never played again once the games were over their popularity peaks, thus basically killing the game forever. Servers for non-MMOGs are usually either downloadable for free, or by mere purchase of a full copy of the game, so ISPs generally do it for free (at least to their own customers). Consequentially the player base stays around longer.
This is especially important for games that aren't taking the world by storm (warcraft), and those of us that don't like in especially populous countries. Here in Australia with only a 20 million population, and the nearby New Zealand with around 4 million (AFAIK), multiplayer games, especially the less popular ones, quickly lose their player bases, and we're fucked. Everywhere else with players is too far away (lag).
And where's the retro action for MMOGs? Once the profit is gone, the servers close. And the publishers will sue your arse into the next dimension if you try to clone the server (bnetd, EQ [slashdot.org]).
$15 a month for access to a single all-encompassing MMOG host, with access to any game I want to play for no extra cost, would be acceptable (although that will lead to monopoly pricing anyway).
But per-game fees? Fuck off. Never have, never will.
Of course, it helps that I don't give a rats flying ring about the "fastasy" genre (wizards and shit), and/or the level-up keep-em-paying treadmill, which it seems most MMOGs are.
Re:Nonsense. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Still can be pretty hardcore (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Mod -1 clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re:Casual and hardcore cannot be mixed... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The problem is in what people are looking for.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Jipped"? Watch your language, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
You need new glasses, apparently (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:"Jipped"? Watch your language, please. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.