Do you play MMORPGs?

[CannibalBob]

Oh and I think they should change how far your $10 goes. Monthly is OK, since it's possible to play for 744 hours in a month, if it has 31 days. That's insane! I think the $10 you pay for should go for 100 hours of gameplay, or something. Like me, most people can't play computer games all day, every week, and I'd hate to have paid for a month of MMORPGs, and only get a few hours' worth of it!

[Aegis]

I have yet to see an MMO that actually persistantly changes, in that claims are made, and minor things may happen, but nothing ground breaking, from what I've seen. For the most part, I only see the basic shell of the MMO, and then the players left to do their own thing. Now... Why should I pay for that?

Until I see the money shelled out to MMO's actually account for something worthwhile, aside from server costs/maintanence and pay for almost no existant GM's, then MMO's are something I will avoid.

[Xandax]

Originally posted by Aegis
I have yet to see an MMO that actually persistantly changes, in that claims are made, and minor things may happen, but nothing ground breaking, from what I've seen. For the most part, I only see the basic shell of the MMO, and then the players left to do their own thing. Now... Why should I pay for that?
<snip>

Which with present technology is the same for all games in exsitance. All games provide you with the framework so to speak - and it is up to the player to do with it what he wants with it(mostly to complete the main story line of the game).

The difference with multiplayer games, and especially with MMOGs. is that you can interact and compeete or coorperate with real life people instead of some scripted NPCs sometimes explained as AI.

I still remember some of the grand battles we had when I played DAoC, where 300-500 real life people did battle with and against each others (realm vs. realm combat). That is one of the charmes of MMOGs, that I've yet to be seen recreated in any single player games (or most multiplayer games).

[Aegis]

Well, I agree. I do like that aspect of MMO's, but then, with no real sense of loss if you die, it doesn't appeal to me. So, I look to what my money is being spent on. As far as I know, and has been shown to me, that $10 USD I'd be spending a month only goes towards paying the MMO babysitters, and maintenence for what is generally poorly designed net coding.

[Xandax]

Running servers is an expesive buisness
Some games also have GMs involved in events and the likes - they need to be payed. Customer support needs to be payed and so on.

But the money also goes to the development of patches with alterations, additions etc, and continuesly attempting to balance the gameplay (although some "patches" are so large they are a new expansions )


And balancing of gameplay is something that is not as commen in most other genres

One recently released patch for DAoC gave players and guilds the options to own houses. Not something I were interested in - but many others were. Other patches (to come) will re-construct the Realm vs. Realm combat for the game - meaning an overhaul to all areas and other related facts. Abilities are added (or removed/altered if found overpowering etc).

Games migth not change framework per se, but there is a lot of alteration going on still.

As for loss when you die, EVE-Online has some heavy penalties in regards of death combined with an almost full PvP setting. Some skills will take a very long time to train in that game, and dying can make you loose skills. But no MMOG. can survive with a to harsh PvP setting - for instance with permadeath. Much in thoese games take a long time to acomblish and having it all taken away, for instance due to lag-deaths - is harsh.

But MMOGs are not for everyone - but the expense of paying around $10 per month is not staggering, when you look at the amount of play time you can get from the games, compared to many other games play time wich seems to be decreasing for "single player" games.

[CannibalBob]

Well, I don't see how you have to pay for patches for an MMORPG, while with other non-MMO games, patches are released without paying any monthly fee.

But additions and alterations, that's what Aegis is talking about, how his $10 USD should go toward the growth and changing of the online world, not just running a server. There are some games that still have some servers always running, although there is no monthly fee (ie. TRIBES always has online servers running, though there is no monthly fee. Same with Unreal series and Quake series.)

Just the thing I don't like about MMORPGs is that you can't actually WIN it, you don't seem to have a large common goal. I think it'd be great if the online world was broken up into different parts. One part is Quest X, then another is Quest Y, etc. Once you win one quest, you just go to the other world, with all your previous items, experience, etc. THEN your money can go towards getting new quests (new worlds), not just server maintenance and minor patches/alterations/tweaks.

Of course, the quests would have to be long in order to not have a bunch of people waiting for the next quest once they're done one. I think this would work quite well.

[Xandax]

Originally posted by CannibalBob
Well, I don't see how you have to pay for patches for an MMORPG, while with other non-MMO games, patches are released without paying any monthly fee.

But additions and alterations, that's what Aegis is talking about, how his $10 USD should go toward the growth and changing of the online world, not just running a server. There are some games that still have some servers always running, although there is no monthly fee (ie. TRIBES always has online servers running, though there is no monthly fee. Same with Unreal series and Quake series.)

Just the thing I don't like about MMORPGs is that you can't actually WIN it, you don't seem to have a large common goal. I think it'd be great if the online world was broken up into different parts. One part is Quest X, then another is Quest Y, etc. Once you win one quest, you just go to the other world, with all your previous items, experience, etc. THEN your money can go towards getting new quests (new worlds), not just server maintenance and minor patches/alterations/tweaks.

Of course, the quests would have to be long in order to not have a bunch of people waiting for the next quest once they're done one. I think this would work quite well.

Most patches that come to "normal" games are bugfixing, not for instance additions, alterations, balancing. Just because the term "patch" is used for both doesn't make them the same.

As for the sever cost - you have to remember that it is not a single server with bandwith that is used. Some MMOGs run sever clusters allowing for upwards to 10.000-20.000 players at the same time. Other games (like DAoC) have numerous servers, the European company that runs the french, german and english had upwards to 12-15 servers. (With other companies running in Italy, US and Asia amongst others)
As for comparing it to Unreal/Quake - you really can't. Unreal and similar games run small maps and can therefore run more maps on one sever - where as the play world in MMOGs are much bigger with players (and possible many players) in each area.
The thecnology and therefor the cost - can't be compared in such a manner.
Especially - when you then compare bandwith - where there is a big difference if 3500 players need to get information transmitted from 1 server compared to a few hundred.

But it is the primary (mis)conception around MMOG Pay2Play - that all you pay for is upkeep. (And the fact that Sierra, run Tribes server(s) - should show that all the MMOGs don't just charge money for upkeep)

The winning thing is where people are divided greatly between thoese that like MMOGs and thoese that don't.
It is correct - that you can't win on the long term in most MMOGs, but that is because it is a continues world. There are however many shorter term win situations, like getting ahold of a good weapon, reaching a specific level etc. It all comes down to the player, instead of some static defined. Therefore MMOGs are often much more "free" and many don't like this.
I don't play to win per se, I play to challenge myself and have fun doing it. Therefore MMOGs are a great genre for players like me, because I can get to define what goals I myself have and then accomplish them, and afterwards set some new if I need.

The whole 30 hour (or what other number) journey from start to end, just to beat the end boss and "win" - is more boring in my oppinion.

The suggestion you put out, actually is very much implemented in the MMOG genre. It is one of the way to get long quests in the game. You have to do quests to open up for other quests, and some of these can be terrible hard or very long and can only be completed with help from other players.

[HCL]

Since i was without internet for 3 years i wasn't able to play any mmorpg. Last month i finally got at home and so far i'm searching for a mmorpg that is free and its not the usual knights & wizards story. I got bored of them after about 30 rpg games of that kind.

[Ulfang]

Well I've been playing MMO's since Ultima Online and Everquest (so that would be very late 90's about 1999 I think) and have played probably 90% of the MMO's since but I don't tend to play them long. With the monthly fees you can't play too many and it's only worth it if you are dedicating a good amount of time to it seeing you are charged whether you play or not. I'm with Xandax on the argument over the monthly fees. Upkeeping servers is a costly business although I would say that some games charge too much... well most of them actually. I'm quite happy to pay £5 or £6/month but very few are that cheap.

Out of all the MMO's I've played only a couple have stood out and kept me interested. Lord of the Rings Online is my all time favourite and the only one I'll stick with till the end (seeing as i have a lifetime sub) but I also have time for WoW (being an old Warcraft fan I have a grudging respect for it despite its community) the only other MMO worth a mention in my opinion is Everquest II which remains a favourite even though I'm not subscribed at the moment. There are several other games that I've enjoyed but not enough to keep paying for more than a month or two.

As for free MMO's well there are lots out there although most of the free ones are Asian and I'm not really a fan of the graphics and don't really relate to slightly built characters carrying swords four times their size. Of the others there's always Guild Wars which has a retail price but no monthly fee and Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 which has a good online community and the perm worlds are free to play in. NWN is probably one of the few online games which offers real roleplaying.