Why is everything going MMO?

[lokitexas]

It seems every game is taking that step. MMO is the new direction.

 

I remember when MMO meant Everquest and the likes. Then slowly ate up most RPG releases after that. The single player gameplay was on the decline because if it wasnt an MMO, it was not a huge deal anymore. This happened quite a bit with RPG titles, and the odd mix of a few FPS "style" games (WWIIonline, Planetside etc.).

 

Fast forward again, and it seems tons of titles are going this route. War of the Roses, looked awesome to me, until I read that it is an online game. Chivalry got my interest, and then realized same thing. Then on top of the latest RPG's (Rift, GW2, etc. etc.) other game genres usually not known to go that route are going down that path. War Thunder, World of Tanks, rumored the next IL2, Star Citizen, etc. etc.

 

What happened to the awesome offline modes of games and then the player made online? It always seemed to work great that way. Falcon BMS has such a great campaign, that spills over into online. OFF same thing. IL2 as well. Now it seems single player is an afterthought. A scaled down stepping stone in order to get you online.

 

Dont get me wrong, I am not a hater of online play, I just miss a solid offline mode. I am still very much for the theory that a solid offline makes a better online. Take RoF and Cliff of Dover for example. Horrible and very thin offline, and makes the online ho-hum.

 

In an age of XBox kiddies (no offense to anyone, I own one) it seems being able to jump into a quick, fast paced, shoot em up, to scream and yell, and smacktalk strangers is the new money making bandwagon.

 

Will this shift again? Will people realize a pause button is sometimes better than a server that can hold 500 people? Sometimes getting caught up offline in a campaign or story sometimes can be more fun and not just very short ramp to push you into getting online ASAP?

 

Just a random thought.

[159th_Viper]

Why?

 

Money talks!

 

Cause there are millions of dollars to be made and as long as people are willing to spend X amount per month for a subscription to Y then the question should rather be Why Not?

[lokitexas]

Why?

 

Money talks!

 

Cause there are millions of dollars to be made and as long as people are willing to spend X amount per month for a subscription to Y then the question should rather be Why Not?

 

Naw, subscritions model is old. It is now free to play with microtransactions for upgrades, more content etc.

 

I guess I am not really asking why (its the same thing for asking why ANOTHER CoD) I am just missing some good offline stuff.

[PeterP]

... and it also outsources parts of the contend development to the paying customer.

[joey45]

Lazy coders who can't code AI.....;)

[Wolfie]

Why not? Its great. You get to play against TONS of other players in a virtual world. This is why DCS needs to incorporate FPS and other vehicle sims into its WORLD. MMO is THE future of gaming / sims.

 

Probably, one day, ONE world made by one huge company will hold FPS / Racing / Simulation / etc. for a single timeline, like the 21'st century. Another company might make another World for the 17th century, etc.

 

Will be interesting to practice flying an A-10 in friendly territory while watching a racing event below. :P

[cichlidfan]

Why not? Its great. You get to play against TONS of other players....

 

...and pay lots of money to win.

[joey45]

I play F2P games to relax... I have not paid to gain an advantage... or pay to win.

[VincentLaw]

other game genres usually not known to go that route are going down that path. War Thunder, World of Tanks, rumored the next IL2, Star Citizen, etc. etc.

 

War Thunder is not an MMO and probably never will be. MMO is almost more of a marketing catch phrase these days and gets misused quite often. To be a true MMO, a game really needs a persistent world with a large number of players.

 

If War Thunder or World of Tanks is an MMO, then Battlefield 1942 was an MMO, but I don't remember anyone calling it that back in 2002. The primary focus of the game was online play, sure, but it had small maps with limited players in repetitive scenarios for a limited amount of time. This reminds me exactly of some of these newer so called MMOs.

 

I think the main problem is there is a false duality between single player and MMO, but you can have a quality single player game that also has a multiplayer mode available without going all out MMO. A game like Skyrim for example could really benefit from a coop mode that lets people invite a couple of friends into their game, but some people cry against any multiplayer at all because they don't want their favorite single player game to turn MMO, and all they can see is the slippery slope argument. (and as you can see elder scrolls goes directly from single player only to WOW copy so the slippery slope is precluded by the slippery cliff)

 

One big reason that you see so many MMOs these days is because companies look at games like WOW and see how successful and profitable it was, so they try to emulate that. The problem is that this just results in a boring batch of cookie cutter repeats that all have essentially the same game mechanics and splits the market up into pieces. With the increasing availability of free to play games these days, subscription based games are also becoming less profitable, which is why we are seeing the shift towards micro-transaction based games.

 

I think the main reason though is simply that the internet is more accessible and well developed than it used to be, but despite what some people may say, you will never see the end of single player gaming. Even if every AAA big name developer in the world decided to only make MMOs, there will still be indie devs making games like Kerbal Space Program.

 

The key thing to ask yourself before you buy into an MMO is this: Did they decide to make this into an MMO because they thought it was an essential aspect towards improving the quality of the gameplay experience, or did they make this into an MMO because they wanted a big juicy cash cow steak for dinner. (Microsoft Flight anyone?)

Edited October 19, 2012 by VincentLaw

[mmaruda]

Why not? Its great. You get to play against TONS of other players in a virtual world. This is why DCS needs to incorporate FPS and other vehicle sims into its WORLD. MMO is THE future of gaming / sims.

 

Short answer: NO!

Long answer: not everyone likes to play with other people. Some of us actually hate other people. Also, simulators require immersion to feel right, I cannot imagine that on a server where one guy keeps going for gun kills, a few others have a tank race around the airstrip and some goes team-killing with a Shilka, because he is bored.

 

Multiplayer yes, but MMO will mean the death of DCS.

If anyone has any doubts I strongly suggest to try out War Thunder and see just how "immersive" it is.

[cichlidfan]

MMO also removes all server control from the community.

[lokitexas]

Short answer: NO!

Long answer: not everyone likes to play with other people. Some of us actually hate other people. Also, simulators require immersion to feel right, I cannot imagine that on a server where one guy keeps going for gun kills, a few others have a tank race around the airstrip and some goes team-killing with a Shilka, because he is bored.

 

Multiplayer yes, but MMO will mean the death of DCS.

If anyone has any doubts I strongly suggest to try out War Thunder and see just how "immersive" it is.

 

This, I can agree with.

 

Even when I played MMORPG's I only played with my static group, and never, ever played with PuG's. To this day, I hate pick up groups, and even with DCS only fly with people I know. For the exact reasons above.