What would it take to revolutionize the MMO genre?

[Verkula]

Does anyone really wants to revolutionize it or its just the usual WoW hate, with its desperate ideas to beat it?
There are enough genres around for everyone to enjoy, you dont have to change everything just because you hate what millions of other people love.

That said of course there are ways to change it and make it better, i just wonder how many are actually insterested in it or its just what i said above.

 

[crazyrabbits]

I say, the death of WoW may give the genre a much needed shaking. If WoW shuts down, there will suddenly be some ten million MMO addicts looking for a new timesink.

If I had a product that was still consistently drawing 10 million-plus subscribers, you can bet dollars to donuts I'd do everything to ensure that game stays alive for decades to come.

Why would Blizzard shut down a product that is enjoying consistent financial success? And, no, "because everyone tries to copy them and they're played out" is not an answer.

GW2 showed you can have a different model and still enjoy a similar level of success, free of the trappings of a monthly subscription. Just because WoW is still the big kid on the block, doesn't mean they need to shutdown because some people think they're old news. If it's working for them, let them continue enjoying it for as long as they want.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Close down every current MMO mindwhip everyone of what they were like and then start over from scratch... what, you wanted a minimally evasive change? ugh... I dunno.

I think less focus on RPGs and trying to be WoW is a good start. RPGs are inherently full of grind since content is expensive and grind is cheap for developers. A different type of game would involve grind that people don't notice, for example some FPS type game where the whole game is extremely repetitive but people love it, like most multiplayer.

 

[WanderingFool]

I would say make a MMO like DayZ. Not a hardcore, zombie survival game, but a game that has no real focus for the player. The player enters the world, and they can go off and do almoast anything they want (within reason of the game mechanics, of course.) I think that would make a rather great MMO.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Basically the way to revolutionise/liberate MMOs would be to get rid of the need to play with other people.

So instead of an MMO, you suggest they just make an O?

There are three successful types of MMO. WoW, Eve and Guild Wars. Three different business models. The first two have subscriptions and microtransactions, the last microtransactions only. Eve is the only unsharded MMO I know of (at least only one of any actual size). Eve has real time skill advancement, while WoW issues all subscribers with a carrot which is affixed 2/5' in front of their heads.

The trouble is that content is finite, as are gameplay mechanics. Anything you do will need to follow one of the aforementioned models and have mechanics and content that player are happy to a) spend money on and b) do so for a long time. WoW achieves this with the aforementioned carrot, rewarding max level players with a single token of some sort for all their hours of gameplay. Combine 40 such tokens, after a playtime of say 80-120 hours over the course of a month, the player gets some new shoes, Blizzard get $15 and the process starts again (for gloves this time).

Eve achieves it by making things dynamic. Players can affect the world and derive personal and guild-wide benefits for achieving their aims. The dynamism keeps things fresh and immediate, as is the need to log in to make money, replace ships, ammo, etc.

SWTOR came closest by adding RPG back into the MMORPG genre and I think it was done well. Secret World recently tried to incorporate puzzles and mental challenges alongside gunplay magic, perhaps less successfully. I don't know what other "revolution" we can expect, but if you stick it onto a lacklustre game, it won't matter.

 

[Najos]

Basically the way to revolutionise/liberate MMOs would be to get rid of the need to play with other people.

So...the way to revolutionize a massively multiplayer online game is to...take out the multiplayer part? What's the point of playing MMOs if not to play with others?

Edit: We'll probably see something like Darkfall, Mortal Online, or oldschool Ultima Online show up in the near future, but with a budget and talent behind it to actually make a functioning game. Still, we need faster internet connections first.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

MMO's are touchy. They are made up mostly of three things, mercurial fanbases, mechanics and support. The first you can't predict (I doubt Blizz really thought Warcraft would be as successful when they first made Orcs and Humans). The second doesn't have to be flawless in execution, but engaging nonetheless. Third is the support and development team, they must be hard-working, creative people who are dedicated to making the game better not just appeasing the fanbase.
WoW wasn't the first successful MMO, Ultima Online was. UO was followed by Lineage and then Everquest (the first 3d MMO). All three of those are still around, though less populated and quite different than before. Why they were succesful? Good support, engaging updates. UO had the first realm event, Everquest followed it with the awe inspiring secret "Sleeper" event triggered by players. EQ also introduced the raid and party system. Plane of Fear still gives me nightmares, not cuz of the gameplay but coordinating loose groups of folk to get the mobs downed.
In the end, revolutionizing MMO's may not happen because publishers just aren't willing to take the risks on new IPs or they mismanage the funds and get closed down before the game is released.
I think MMOs need to die out and be reborn sometime in the future if we want to see a real change.

 

[Guffe]

A good Pokémon MMO
That would revolutionize the genre!!!

 

[Jdb]

World of Warcraft's size.
Dragon's Dogma's combat.
Runescape's quest, skill, and mini game system.

Bam. Now you just need a studio with the millions needed to make such a project.

 

[Starik20X6]

I want to see an MMO take up a credit model rather than a subscription model.

Now, I see that from a financial perspective for the developers it's a moronic idea; with a subscription the player pays the same amount if they play for four minutes or four weeks. But the problem for me, and I don't know how many other people, is I don't want to be tied down by payments. Sometimes I don't have the time to play a game, or I don't feel like playing it, or I'm short on cash and can't afford it. With a subscription MMO, every second I'm not playing it is essentially wasted money, and I don't like that.

For the player, a credit model would be fantastic. You'd only be paying for what you use. Low on cash? Play the game less and save money. That stress of "I've paid for it so I've gotta use it" is gone. Don't have time to play? You're not out of pocket.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Pretty sure Guild Wars 2 revolutionized the genre somewhat. The combat is dynamic and proactive/reaction based, stagnant quests don't really exist, etc.
There is a crazy (optional) gear grind for those who love grinding their ass off, but also quickly-satisfying stuff like dungeon modes or PvP for those who can't play for more than an hour or two at a time.
The exploration aspect (jumping puzzles) is the icing on the cake.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Change in genre.

MMORTS, anyone? I've always imagined the idea of a giant MMORTS at some point, seeing how the FPS portion is more than filled up. This also requires building the game so that one can go it alone if they so wish.

this more or less.

and its already started, the rise of action MMOs like GW2, DCUO, Vindictus and C9 are a step in this direction, and while i have no interest in an MMORTS it would be a very welcome change, assuming they could find away to balance the thing right...