iRate:- MM-NO!
If I were to mention the ominous acronym ‘MMO’*, most will immediately recall the all conquering World of Warcraft (WoW). The most successful MMO of all time, at the last count WoW had over 12 million active players. Computer games are, for many, a form of escapism. They are a place where gamers can go to step away from the rigours and stresses of the everyday and witness some pure enjoyment within the fantastical.
“Well, MMOs like WoW fill this idiom, don’t they?” You may well ask. My dear friends, I would argue that they do not. I agree, they present a level of escapism: who can claim they aren’t escaping when they run around the lush fields of Azeroth as their chosen muscular Night Elf or ludicrously buxom human mage? However, escapism is a misnomer when the developers insist on emphasising human interaction within their game world.
In order to truly succeed in MMOs like WoW, you have to organise yourselves into groups to wade through dungeons and especially to defeat the larger enemies. However, the game world is plagued with exactly the same cretins and morons as the real world. In fact, games such as WoW seem to be havens for the feckless; a concentration of brainless knock-holes that ruin the experience for everyone with either petty squabbling, or moronic behaviour.
Despite their shortfalls, MMOs have become spectacularly popular. The financial viability of releasing your very own massively multiplayer game seems to have seduced almost every developer out there. MMOs are essentially a licence to print money. I mean, who wouldn’t love to have a game where players wilfully hand over wads of cash to continue playing?
The added benefit of the monthly fee is that players become more invested in the game world than they would otherwise. Players will think not only of their enjoyment when they think of moving on to other games, they will also consider how much time and money they have ploughed into the game. This is the primary reason for WoWs continued success: why would you leave when you’ve already spent so much time and money developing your ‘level capped’ creation?
I count 20 people on screen - that makes £160 a month just from these guys...
Perhaps the most harrowing fact about MMOs is the extent to which they are seeping across genres. Whilst RPGs have been traditionally the only successful MMOs to date, faster broadband has meant that other genres could soon be equally as aflicted. Anyone sharing my fear of having to pay for a game several times over with monthly subscription payments will feel the same chill down their spine when they hear a Call of Duty MMO has not only been planned, but is currently in the making.
I implore you, gamers of the world: don’t be seduced by the enticement of continually added content. Don’t ignore the fact that you will be paying many times more than the box price to play the game within it. And most of all, don’t ignore the fact that the game world will be littered with the same idiots you avoid in the real world. Say no to MMOs.
MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online – a video game capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players interacting simultaneously.
12 bucks/Month is okay for a decent MMO. 90 bucks for Mirrors Edge for PS3 however is not okay. Sure, by now I probably paid more than 300 bucks, but I don’t give a damn. With these 12 bucks per months I can play as much/less as I want. I don’t have to put up with ridiculous pseudo-multiplayer experiences like CoD:MW2′s oh so awesome disregard of dedicated servers. I have a few people I know in the game, the style of the game is just my thing, but I wish that more MMO-makers would try out something else than the typical Sword&Shield MMO with Elves and Dwarves. Right now, there are only two promising candidates coming up:
ST:O and SW: The Old Republic
About the article:
I can see why your site is called ‘newbreview’
Noob does not equal someone who doesn’t like the games that you like. It’s a valid word in some cases but is used way too much by gamers with a chip on their shoulder, which is why we parodied it in the name of our site and call out to gamers who aren’t afraid to admit that they don’t instinctively know everything about games and the industry. Nobody does.
Back to the topic at hand. There’s no way I’d pay a minimum of £7.50 a month on top of the price of a disc but that’s NOT because I don’t think there’s value there. There definitely can be for some people, in the same way that there is with an all you can eat buffet.
I play games for an experience that has a beginning, middle and end. The end has to be achievable and the road to get there, varied and fun. I wouldn’t keep paying to continue that same experience again and again. I’d rather gamble on buying outright and know that I own that game and feel no obligation to make the value by playing it more than I should. I’m not saying everyone does that, some people play because they enjoy it but I don’t think they should have to pay for the continued use of something they should have been able to buy outright and play as long as they like.
I do agree that some games are too short for the price you pay but in those cases, if they look fun enough for me to play, I’ll just wait for the price to come down. You can get Mirror’s Edge for £10 now and after that, you can trade it in to get a few quid back on it too! I don’t think £7 for 5-10 hours (depending on how many times you play it) is a bad deal.
And what’s this “pseudo-multiplayer” you’re referring to? Are you implying MW2 is NOT a mulitplayer? That makes no sense.
I hope you can have another look at the article and read the hyperboly between the lines.
MMOs are more addicting than crack, i know from experience. lol.
i used to play Guild Wars for sometimes 8 hours a day, it didn’t help that i was also unemployed and had nothing better to do apart from….oh yeah looking for a job.
I too have no real love for MMOs. I often find the worst thing about online gaming is other people. Take the morons that you find over xbox live on a friday night for instance. Recently I’ve had some great sessions of Bioshock 2 ruined by a few impatient idiots.
The idea of paying a subscription also irks me. I mean, imagine if you paid £3 for a pair of Mr T socks, and then had to pay Mr T £1 every time you wore them. Sure they’re fantastic socks, but before you know it those socks have cost you £300.
I happen to think that MMO’s such as WOW are good value for money for people who want a truly multilayer experience. The reason for the continued subscription cost is to pay for the server and the additional content. On consoles at the moment everyone is saying how good DLC is but is that not really just that same thing. You are paying over again for the stuff the distributors did not put on the original disc. Also multilayer on a console game is either PvP death matches, or so sorry excuse for Co-Op. Only an MMO can give proper Co-Op and true PvP. Any online multi-player game will have the annoying people on it, Hence still playing WOW and not MW4 cos I can choose who comes on Vent not X-Box Live
I disagree about the multiplayer co-op experience. Gears of war 2 has some iv the best co-op I have ever experienced, both story mode and multiplayer mode.Also splinter cell convictions co-op is utterly brilliant. I know that’s only two games that ive mentioned, but there are s ton of great co-op experiences to be had on the consoles. It isn’t a PC exclusive thing.
I personally will never be a PC gamer simply because there I’d too much hassle involved in playing even the most simple of games. Give me consoles any day.
Sorry about the spelling – I’m on the iPod, and the predictive text is a right arse hole.