New Content or Rinse and Repeat?
Over the weekend I finally finished the Blood and Wine DLC for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. By which I mean I’ve completed the main story (and achieved the “best” of three possible outcomes) and all (allegedly) of the secondary quests. It’s hard to tell with this game; it may well still have surprises to spring within its open world. However pedantry aside, to all intents and purposes I’ve played through the game. This got me thinking about the thorny issue of game content because The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and all its DLC contains a lot. Playable content is a subject that frequently comes up when discussing games because there is no standard quantity. Furthermore the nature of content itself varies. Some is meant to be unique where other is specifically designed to be repeated. Whatever a developers approach to this issue, a game’s content is certainly a key selling point.
Over the weekend I finally finished the Blood and Wine DLC for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. By which I mean I’ve completed the main story (and achieved the “best” of three possible outcomes) and all (allegedly) of the secondary quests. It’s hard to tell with this game; it may well still have surprises to spring within its open world. However pedantry aside, to all intents and purposes I’ve played through the game. This got me thinking about the thorny issue of game content because The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and all its DLC contains a lot. Playable content is a subject that frequently comes up when discussing games because there is no standard quantity. Furthermore the nature of content itself varies. Some is meant to be unique where other is specifically designed to be repeated. Whatever a developers approach to this issue, a game’s content is certainly a key selling point.
Both the RPG and MMO genres are very much dependent on the volume of content that they contain. New releases need to ensure that the player has a viable amount of content to work through. It’s the same with expansions and DLC. Players want to feel they are getting “value for money” although that can prove a somewhat nebulous term to quantify. However creating quality new content for both these genres, is both expensive and time consuming. It requires input from writers, programmers and a plethora of other creative artists. Furthermore regardless how much is produced, players always seems to burn through it too quickly. Consumption and demand simply cannot be met.
One solution to this conundrum is to encourage players to replay old content. This is common in the MMO genre and is also applicable to RPGs. With a game such as The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, due to the multiple story outcomes, there is a sufficient incentive to play again. Some MMOs will offer you a degree of new content if you play through old content with a new class or faction. SWTOR does this well, offering a bespoke central regardless of what character you choose to play. Guild Wars 2 also provides a similar degree of variety. Star Trek Online also does this to a degree, offering unique stories to each faction for the first third of the game. After that the remainder of content available is standardised. However Cryptic have cunningly devised ways to encourage players to repeat content. Last year saw the Delta Recruitment event and the current expansion, Agents of Yesterday, provides further incentives. Enhanced XP, bonus Dilithium, improved loot drops and account wide unlocks can encourage even the most reticent of STO players to do it all again.
Sadly there are many examples of games that are far from generous with their content. Star Wars Battlefront for example launched with a woefully poor amount of maps and game modes. Subsequent DLC has addressed this to a degree but that didn’t benefit those playing on day one of the game’s launch. Also many of the ageing MMOs suffer from a lack of new content. A declining player base means less revenue which inevitably means less frequent new content. LOTRO is a prime example of this. Since the game moved from paid expansions to free updates, most new content has just been variations on existing themes. It keeps the faithful quiet but does not bring new players to the game. Guild Wars 2 has also suffered from lack of regular new content. Last year’s expansion was aimed squarely at those players at level cap and the new content was far from universally well received. Beyond that the base game endured without any significant update for several years.
As a player, a simple solution to this problem is to not be an early adopter. Starting an MMO a year or so after launch often ensures a fair amount of content will be available. Once the game of the year edition of an RPG is released, twelve months after the initial launch, players often find the game bundled with all DLC and a lot of bug fixes. I tackled Skyrim in 2013, eighteen months after it’s release and as a result got over three hundred hours of enjoyment out of the game. However the issue of repeating content is a more difficult matter. Some players simply don’t like to play through material they’re already familiar with. It’s a position I have a degree of sympathy with as it’s not something I always enjoy. Certainly there is no incentive when it comes to older MMOs unless the games developers make it so. At present replaying through Rift, or Age of Conan: Unchained will not be significantly different experience to how it was five years ago.
Conversely music, books, films and TV can all be revisited at a later date after their original consumption, to varying degrees of success. This may be due to the respective depths of these mediums and the fact that content of these genres can be multi-layered and nuanced. Each visit can potentially yield something new or a broader meaning. The fact that we change with age and experience may also aid this process. Games may not necessarily follow suite. Gaming mechanics do not always offers such varied outcomes and unfortunately many games still suffer from poor narratives, especially the RPG and MMO genres. Overall I think that for the immediate future there is no long term solution to this problem. Content availability is still going to be a sticking point for both developers and gamers. Perhaps the future lies with games that side step this issue. Procedurally generated content is one option as is simply relying on non-narrative driven genres. Perhaps Pokémon GO and Overwatch ultimately offer greater longevity, due to their non-narrative nature. The content in these cases is the unique experience of actually playing the game. If that is the case we may need to rethink exactly what the definition of content is.
Star Trek Online: Agents of Yesterday
The third free expansion for Star Trek Online, Agents of Yesterday, went live today and there was much merriment and rejoicing among TOS fans. Cryptic have done a fine job in capturing the essence of the sixties shows. The new faction has a starter zone set in the 23rd century which features several stories that link to specific episodes from the classic era. There are Gorn in Gornkinis, neural parasites and Rumulans in knitwear. The game aesthetic is spot on and features a wealth of sound effects that are lore appropriate. Mind you, if you spend too much time on Taurus II revelling in your tricorder readings, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a Folsom Point.
The third free expansion for Star Trek Online, Agents of Yesterday, went live today and there was much merriment and rejoicing among TOS fans. Cryptic have done a fine job in capturing the essence of the sixties shows. The new faction has a starter zone set in the 23rd century which features several stories that link to specific episodes from the classic era. There are Gorn in Gornkinis, neural parasites and Rumulans in knitwear. The game aesthetic is spot on and features a wealth of sound effects that are lore appropriate. Mind you, if you spend too much time on Taurus II revelling in your tricorder readings, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a Folsom Point.
The game writers then cleverly linked the old with the new via Temporal Agent Daniels who featured in Star Trek: Enterprise. Through this plot device your newly created character is brought forward in time to the 25th century of the prime Star Trek universe. However the latest expansion has even managed to find a way to include the alternative timeline from the recent Trek movies. There’s also a ton of new gear, a new skills specification and rep faction. Plus there’s a wealth of new ships including the Kelvin Timeline Heavy Command Cruiser [T6] (the JJ-verse Enterprise) and Intel Dreadnought Cruiser [T6], also known as the Vengeance-class. If that wasn’t enough to get excited about Cryptic have once again secured voice acting from the actors associated with the various shows both canonical and non-canonical, including Walter Koenig, Chris Doohan and Vic Mignogna.
If you’re looking for a new MMO to play and like the Star Trek IP, or if you’re a former player who’s drifted away, then now is an ideal time to return to the game. Regardless of some of Star Trek Online's faults, namely a somewhat clunky game engine and a lack of polish here and there, the game has constantly improved over the last five years. The stories are incredibly lore friendly and creative, space combat is immense fun and the much lambasted ground combat is not half as bad as it’s claimed. As for that tedious mantra that’s regularly trotted out about the lack of exploration, all I can say is try watching a lot of the TV shows both old and new. Exploration usually means flirting with a green chick, flying chest kicks, ripping t-shirts and blowing shit up.
Like many MMOs, STO has lots of game mechanics and systems that don’t immediately become apparent. However there is a wealth of information available online, via Reddit and Gamepedia. Plus if you join a fleet you’ll find lots of like minded players happy to share their knowledge. STO also benefits from not having to rely upon all the default sword and sorcery tropes you find in most other games of the MMO genre. At present, five years into its lifecycle, STO has a healthy player base and plenty of new content. It’s a game you can spend money on if you see fit, or play quite happily as a F2P player. It’s also has managed to keep me continuously occupied for the last year. Agents of Yesterday has just added to that and done so with a degree of panache. Not many MMOs can boast such a claim.
Update: I was fortunate once again when it came to opening a few lock boxes (okay another 20) and managed to secure a Vengeance class Dreadnought Cruiser. It really is a beast of a ship, although it handles like a sonofabitch, so it may be time to swap to the Pilot Specialisation to improve its mobility. I also ran both the new Special Task Force missions that have been added to the game, one of which "Days of Doom" is based in the TOS era and features the iconic Doomsday machine. It even includes music cues by Sol Kaplan from the original show.
MMOs - Look to the Future, Not the Past
My local High Street has numerous restaurants of all varieties. A few years ago one such establishment changed ownership and re-opened serving traditional Italian cuisine. It was family run and subsequently had a great atmosphere with a very personal touch. The food was excellent and the chef endeavoured to do things differently, rather than slavishly churn out the usual UK interpretation of Italian cuisine. Naturally this had an impact on prices but I was happy to accommodate this because I felt I was getting a superior product and experience. Sadly L’Angelo’s closed because it couldn’t compete with the chain restaurants that subsequently opened up. Quality and ambience fell victim to corporate market domination.
My local High Street has numerous restaurants of all varieties. A few years ago one such establishment changed ownership and re-opened serving traditional Italian cuisine. It was family run and subsequently had a great atmosphere with a very personal touch. The food was excellent and the chef endeavoured to do things differently, rather than slavishly churn out the usual UK interpretation of Italian cuisine. Naturally this had an impact on prices but I was happy to accommodate this because I felt I was getting a superior product and experience. Sadly L’Angelo’s closed because it couldn’t compete with the chain restaurants that subsequently opened up. Quality and ambience fell victim to corporate market domination.
I read a post today over at Wolfshead Online regarding the decline of the traditional MMO. It covers a lot of familiar ground and does so well. It is an article driven by emotion and a personal ideology. Furthermore I’m sure a lot of gamers will share a similar world view and I am not going to argue that such an outlook is totally wrong. However the author’s arguments are based upon the notion of games being more than just products and that they should aspire to be more than just mediums of entertainment. He argues that virtual worlds should live up to their name and offer some sort of meaningful social contract with the player. It’s a nice concept. Sadly it is highly unlikely to happen within the current free market system.
There are many noble ideas and concepts that are impractical in reality; unilateral disarmament, non-selective education and universal state pensions. Gaming is no longer the preserve of a select few but a mainstream industry. It is no longer solely driven by concepts of art or creating the best game that you can. Those days are gone, the same way the movie industry has moved on from the seventies and the concept of the auteur director. It’s all about brands, franchises and maximum monetisation. A good game is a secondary consideration. It’s a sad reality and I am not necessarily endorsing it. However it is a reality that I accept and as a result I have changed my relationship with the MMO genre.
I think most entertainment industries go through a period where creativity and artistic aspiration briefly reigns. Our perceptions of such industries are also contextual so many gamers opinions are shaped by when they started gaming and the era they experienced. Although I am aware of this bias, I try not to be governed by it. I prefer not to let my heart over rule my head and philosophically always try to look forward rather than back. Yes there are deficiencies in the MMO genre but there is also scope for positive change. Those changes will simply happen within a smaller market. It’s true that many of us feel we haven’t gotten what we wanted but such is life. Do we not have to eventually reconcile ourselves to this concept? So although it’s prudent to consider what “may have been” with regard to this genre, it’s not ultimately beneficial to dwell on it excessively.
I started this post with an anecdote to illustrate a point so I’ll close with one. I use to drink in a pub in Bromley in the middle eighties that showcased a lot of live music. There were several ex- musicians and individuals that at one time had worked within the music industry. A common refrain from many of them was that the music of the time was “not as good” as it used to be. Yet the eighties are now considered to be a decade with a rich and diverse music history. Regardless of one’s stance all things change. It’s something else we have to come to terms with I life. I don’t see any benefits in being the gaming equivalent of the old Muso, habitually looking back or pondering “what if” scenarios. If we all adopted such a stance nothing would ever change, for good or ill. Sometimes it's good to draw a line under something and move on.
*Stats via SuperData
Getting What You Want in MMOs
MMOs are all about the proverbial carrot on a stick. The carrot can take on many guises and not everyone is pursuing the same goal. However most players at some point have set their sight on something in particular and doggedly gone about pursuing it. The tale I am about to tell is regarding Star Trek Online, although I’m sure readers may well find parallels with other MMOs that they may play. Essentially this is about when you just decide that you want something in a game. It may be relevant to your overall gameplay and offer a significant enhancement. It may also be just a cosmetic item that has taken your fancy. Either way you’ve decided that you must have this specific thing and that you are going to get it, come hell or high water.
MMOs are all about the proverbial carrot on a stick. The carrot can take on many guises and not everyone is pursuing the same goal. However most players at some point have set their sight on something in particular and doggedly gone about pursuing it. The tale I am about to tell is regarding Star Trek Online, although I’m sure readers may well find parallels with other MMOs that they may play. Essentially this is about when you just decide that you want something in a game. It may be relevant to your overall gameplay and offer a significant enhancement. It may also be just a cosmetic item that has taken your fancy. Either way you’ve decided that you must have this specific thing and that you are going to get it, come hell or high water.
If there is a spectrum of players in STO, I guess I’m somewhere in the middle. I have three characters at level cap and have a fairly well kitted out primary Federation alt. I’m not really interested in pursuing top tier status with a ship outputting 50K plus DPS because it means too much work. However I’m not a casual player content with just getting by via just in-game drops. So I have bought ships from the in-game store and equipped them with reputation and fleet items. Also I like to customise the look of my vessel and my crew; personalising your MMO experience is a major part of its selling point.
Last year after perusing the STO wiki, I discovered the Wells Temporal Science Vessel and for no particular reason it became the object of my affection. I don’t even play a Science class, preferring the pew-pew approach of a Tactical Captain. Yet this didn’t matter, as the Wells Temporal Science Vessel is a fine looking ship. That’s pretty much what it boiled down to. I decided I wanted something shiny. Furthermore this ship is not available for purchase in the in-game store. It can only be obtained via a Temporal Lockbox. In STO lockboxes are opened by keys that can be purchased or exchanged for in-game currency. It should also be noted that the chance of getting the aforementioned vessel from a lockbox is 0.41% or thereabouts.
To cut a long story short, after a several months of stockpiling my Zen stipend and also converting Dilithium into more Zen, I opened thirty one Temporal lockboxes. Let it suffice to say that apart from some indifferent duty officers, a smattering of Lobi crystals and some minor boost tokens I did not secure the ship I was looking for. Had I purchased the lockbox keys with cash I would have spent about $30 or so, which gave me pause for thought. Naturally my lack of success increased my desire for the ship in question and I considered the possibility of spending real money on purchasing a further batch of keys. However another option came to mind and after a quick Google search I decided upon an alternative plan.
Lockboxes give Lobi crystals when opened. This can be anything between four and fifty. The crystals can then be exchanged via a vendor for gear and ships. One such ship is the Mobius Temporal Destroyer, a Mirror Universe variant of the Wells Temporal Science Vessel. It has a tactical build so is actually more suitable for my type of game play (which is not sophisticated). Through spurious logic I quickly made this ship my new objection of obsession. However it costs 800 Lobi crystals and I have only 166. The random nature of lockboxes meant I could potential spend a fortune on keys before I had sufficient currency. So I opted to buy the ship for $28 from an online vendor instead. That works out at about £15 which I thought was a fair price.
Now buying from such sources always comes with an element of risk. These sort of online traders that primarily deal in gold are far from legitimate. However I saw the risk as being no more than that of buying a bunch of lockbox keys and not getting lucky, so I bought the ship via PayPal. It was delivered to me in-game about half a day later (due to the time differences between the UK and China). Let it suffice to say that I now have the ship I desired and not only is it a fine looking vessel but it performs well. Being a Tier 5 ship from a lockbox, I was entitled to a free Tier 5U upgrade and I now have all the ship’s mastery skills unlocked. I have also managed to increase my DPS output to 11K which is not too shameful.
In writing this account it is curious to reflect upon the way we latch on to certain items or pursue specific goals in MMOs. I’m sure someone, somewhere has written a study about such behaviour. This recent situation with the ship has put me in mind of when I was determined to get the skeleton horse in LOTRO when the Haunted Burrow event went live for the first time. I also obsessed for hours regarding the Charzooka in Guild Wars 2. I’m still not exactly sure what drives these needs and desires to get what we allegedly want. Bragging rights is one answer or may be the satisfaction of earning something after a long grind. I simply got what I wanted by spending money so perhaps that makes we feel that I’ve gamed the system. Either way, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if I find myself doing this gain in the future, either in STO or some other MMOs.
Note:
Both the Wells Temporal Science Vessel and the Mobius Temporal Destroyer, being unbound items can be exchanged or sold on the in-game auction house. Their respective prices are 400 million and 175 million Energy Credits, which for those who do not play STO, is a lot.
The Evolving Definition of MMORPG
A post over at Massively Overpowered postulated the question is an MMORPG still an MMORPG without gear progression? As you can imagine a broad debate ensued and at present there are over two hundred comments on the matter. I’m not going to debate the specifics of this particular question but would rather consider the following notion. That the term MMORPG is not immutable and has indeed evolved beyond its traditional definition. Furthermore unless some gamers embrace the concept of adaptive gaming semantics then they will continue to find themselves at odds with the prevailing ideas that are currently driving game developers.
A post over at Massively Overpowered postulated the question is an MMORPG still an MMORPG without gear progression? As you can imagine a broad debate ensued and at present there are over two hundred comments on the matter. I’m not going to debate the specifics of this particular question but would rather consider the following notion. That the term MMORPG is not immutable and has indeed evolved beyond its traditional definition. Furthermore unless some gamers embrace the concept of adaptive gaming semantics then they will continue to find themselves at odds with the prevailing ideas that are currently driving game developers.
Back in the heyday of Ultima Online the term Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game had a very specific meaning that reflected the game mechanics and social requirements of the genre. For better or for worse that definition is no longer applicable. Today the MMORPG is a far broader church where players can pursue common goals collectively or on their own depending on their personal choice. Gear grinds, endgame raiding and mechanics such as the Holy Trinity are no longer essential to the genre. The formula for an MMORPG is now far more flexible, like the recipe for Chicken Tikka Masala or General Tso’s Chicken.
Yet many gamers have their personal perspective of the MMO shaped by their point of entry in to the genre. As a result a form of gaming first contact takes places that creates a rather entrenched mindset and a resistance to change. However games are first and foremost a business and market forces are there primary driving factor. Developers therefore will pursue whatever they consider to be financially viable options. Thus change is inevitable as well as desire able. Do we simply want a market saturated with identical products?
Change can be upsetting at times, especially if you feel it is to your personal detriment. Yet to resist it is ultimately futile. New players and revenue streams outweigh any loss from those who are unhappy. Gamers who want things to remain the same will eventually exile themselves from the very genre they enjoy. Is that a superior choice to trying something different, adapting and accepting change? I have an elderly relation who still obstinately refers to Zimbabwe as Rhodesia, due to some archaic world view that is now obsolete. All they really do by maintaining this stance is isolate themselves from others and look foolish. One could argue that those who stick rigidly to their own definition of the MMORPG are doing the same.
Have MMOs Made Me Antisocial?
I started playing my first MMO in late 2008. Until then it was the one genre that I had never tried. I initially considered buying World of Warcraft but when I found out there was a virtual version of Middle-Earth I chose to purchase The Lord of the Rings Online instead. Right from the outset I was hooked. My working pattern and domestic arrangements afforded me plenty of time to invest into this game and I did so willingly.
I started playing my first MMO in late 2008. Until then it was the one genre that I had never tried. I initially considered buying World of Warcraft but when I found out there was a virtual version of Middle-Earth I chose to purchase The Lord of the Rings Online instead. Right from the outset I was hooked. My working pattern and domestic arrangements afforded me plenty of time to invest into this game and I did so willingly.
I can remember one particular evening when I grouped up with two other players who were all attempting the same quest as me. We chatted and got on well together. After successfully clearing our quests we decided to meet up again the following night. Needless to say we continued to group together for the next year or so. At this time the majority of LOTRO’s content required people to play collaboratively. It was not an alien concept but a simple fact of life. The prevailing philosophy of the time was that MMO were all about grouping. The key to advancement was teamwork.
At the time I found that most people were friendly and approachable, so levelling through the game was very much a shared experience. Joining a kinship only enhanced this further. It was also nice to log on to the game, say “hi” to people in kin chat and shoot the breeze. Between November 2008 and December 2009 was one of the most pleasant times I’ve spent gaming. There was always something to do and someone to help. I didn’t see LOTRO as a time sink but as a positive leisure activity.
After the release of Siege of Mirkwood in December 2009, something started to change for me. This was not only due to the LOTRO expansion becoming more solo friendly but also because I started to play other MMOs. In early 2010 I managed to progress through Star Trek Online without the need to belong to a guild. Grouping was done automatically and I noticed for the first time that there was no necessity to play collaboratively in a traditional sense. The chat channel was mainly a platform for flame wars with hardcore fans debating the finer points of the franchise. So I played on my own, ignoring others players and was happy to do so.
And so the rot set in. When LOTRO went free to play in October 2010, it embarked on a radical redevelopment of material. Pursuing the free market and the casual player meant ensuring that content was accessible in easy bite size chunks. Turbine then set about making all prior zones soloable over the next 18 months. From my perspective, people continued to play but unless it involved endgame raiding, grouping became less and less common. Even the kinship I was in became more solo orientated. The common link was the group chat and we still ran instances but most of the time everyone seemed to be doing their own thing.
The benefits of solo orientated gameplay are the same nowadays as they were five years ago. There’s no time wasted organising a group, ensuring that everyone is adequately equipped and briefed; nor is there any dependency on other people’s performance. You simply do what you want, when you want. As a result, expectations increase and tolerance decreases. But there are also some negative side effects. Because you do not need anyone else, it can impact upon your level of your involvement within your guild. There may be a decline in communication. There may also be a decrease in the willingness to help out. Requests are no longer be greeted by multiple volunteers. Everyone is too busy doing their own thing. Altruism is an inconvenience.
The automated grouping of players via dynamic content that we see in Guild Wars 2 and Rift, is easy and seamless. It is also devoid of any meaningful social interaction. Players can pursue their own individual goals and simply tap into the benefits of group participation, as and when they want. When done they can go about their business, without saying a word. It is a curious paradox that sees a server full of people, playing a social game, alone.
Now this situation does not affect everyone, nor am I stating that it is the default position of all players. RP servers or guild based around hardcore raiding, fly in the face of this social decline. I am sure both such parties would strongly argue that they still maintain very high levels of social interaction. Yet I don’t think they represent the majority of the MMO population. Such strong team based dynamics only serve specific niche groups. I also believe that the F2P business model has also contributed to general social decline, with the percentage increase of "problematic" players that join the community. That has a big impact upon how we all interact with each other.
When this issue of social decline is raised, it often provokes emotive and judgemental responses. The gaming genre is steeped in nostalgia. Rightly or wrongly, such perspectives seldom have any impact upon business decisions. Game developers want to keep players engaged and using their products. Should customers be denied access to content and the opportunity to advance due to subjective notions of social interaction? Well the logical answer is no. However this move towards a player base that is following its own personal path, is not without flaws. We often see in-game an increasing amount of people who seem ill equipped to interact socially with others, just as we do in real life. Tolerance, consideration, and patience are abstract concepts to some. Social commentators often talk about the decline in the sense of community in the real world. Do also MMOs reflect this?
I personally have contributed to this shift in MMO culture, especially so with LOTRO. I do tend to focus a lot more on my own gaming needs nowadays, rather than with others in my kin. I argue that I've played my part and done my share in the past. However I think the reality is that I no longer have a dependency on others, so the notion of community spirit is diminished. I’m not saying that this is a good thing and I do have pangs of guilt occasionally and endeavour to be helpful. Ultimately, all kins have givers and takers. I've just moved my position between the two ends of the spectrum in recent years, as have many others.
This beggars the question, was the social heyday of MMO's really ever driven by altruism or purely by necessity? Is this decline in the social aspect of the genre inevitable, or can it be stemmed? I cannot answer these questions and only the future will tell. I do on occasions bump into people in-game who are very civil and helpful. LOTRO does to a degree still seems to be a good example of this, although its crown has slipped in recent years. Yet because group content has been watered down within many games or relegated to an afterthought with many new products, the incentive to communicate and collaborate is greatly reduced.
Whether this all stems from developers just chasing a buck or whether this is a wider reflection of contemporary human nature, I'll let you decide. I do think that MMOs and even the internet itself have lost their capacity to impress. Simply being surrounded by other people online no longer gets the “wow” reaction it did a decade ago. We’re also sadly accepting of the fact that social platforms tend be a race to the bottom these days. It is assumed by default that all online communities will have a percentage of assholes. And then there is the ascendancy of the cult of the individual and “me” culture; these to have impacted upon the concept of social gaming.
For me my personal MMO journey has been a question of time and place. I wanted to be social when I started playing this genre and had the resources to do so. If a new MMO was released tomorrow that had old school grouping mechanics and time requirements, I know for a fact I would not play it. It would be incompatible with my current lifestyle and mindset. Perhaps age is also a factor in this conundrum; the idealism of youth versus the pragmatism of old age.
So is there a conclusion to this discussion? I’m not sure there’s a definitive one. Overall it seems a little unrealistic to blame the developers solely for the decline in social gaming. I think if we’re honest we have to concede that we actively contributed to this situation ourselves. When the move towards solo play started did we complain and lobby as much as we could have? Perhaps the golden age of collaborative play is just a myth. We grouped because we had no choice. Can the situation change? Yes but only if we make it financially viable to do so.