From a development perspective, I can see why consoles might seem like the ideal vehicle for MMO. They have identical processing specs, very closed-source software and very specific channels for things like patching and updating. While that rigid structure is great for initially designing a game, I imagine it would make making substantial changes to a game much more difficult.
Successful MMO's are all about evolving according to the desires of their player base. Warcraft overtook Everquest because Blizzard was eager to please players and they consistently adapted the game to make each type of play (grouping, questing, soloing) more convenient. I realize that many old school MMO veterans feel like Blizzard is coddling its user base, and while they have a valid point, they aren't the primary demographic anymore. The mainstream is where the big money is, so MMO's have gone mainstream.
I'm not a programmer or game designer, so I can only speak from what I've observed, and it seems to me like consoles are growing more similar to computers with each new generation in terms of functionality and user-interface layouts. But for the time being, computers have a serious edge in terms of flexibility (both in terms of software development and customization within the user base) for several hardware generations to come.
@Sarcasmancer: Well, the thing about developing a game to be multi-platform is that you want to use libraries that are more broadly supported like OpenGL. It comes as a surprise to me that some developers fall into the trap of sticking with a Windows development environment which has easy access to DirectX libraries and then find out that DirectX isn't supported on other platforms (like the PS3).
The other issue of interest is how similar the Cell SPUs are to the original Emotion Engine in the sense that RAM is limited but bandwidth and processing power is available in huge quantities.
Granted, the PS2 is still around and is largely considered to be last generation's technology, but the fact doesn't change that the Cell SPUs are functionally similar to the Emotion Engine. The only real difference would be the fact that the Cell SPUs can be synchronized or used asynchronously. Other than that the development attitude really shouldn't be too different from developing for the PS2.
As an experienced MMO gamer, I can honestly say that in my opinion, MMOs just would not work on consoles. And believe me, I'm not a PC fanboy. I actually hate gaming on PCs (ironic, yes), but I know for a fact that it's by far the superior platform for MMOs. The amount of times I've needed to check quest info or raid guides online whilst playing the game. No problem, I can just Alt + Enter to enter windowed mode and quickly boot up Safari or Firefox. I can't do that on a console.
There are so many other problems. Let's put it this way, if MMOs did eventually migrate to the consoles, they'd be a lot different to what we consider a 'traditional' MMO these days.
@Iarwain: If your only real point against console MMO's is "I can't check the internet for answers as easy" then your point against is not really a point at all. If your so experienced, you would be able to look past that (And besides that, it's a point that MMO developers don't care at all about, or they would have areas that would pull the info directly from the net and keep it refresh).
But entertain me, what are the 'so many other problems' that stand in the why?
@Foxstar is in love with Kotaku's two Brians.: lack of control customization, fixed UI, limited controls, communication issues (no keyboard), probable subscription fee over xbox live. a few of these issues could be fixed with a mouse and keyboard on the console, but at that point, it might as well be on PC
Lack of control customization-FF11 has customizable controls.
Fixed UI is something that is a issue and isn't.
Limited controls-Macros. FF11 has them.
Commuication issues - Keyboards are $10 dollars and again FF11 makes it possible to play using largely only macros. Both systems have chatpads which function like keyboards anyway.
Subscription fee-Sony charges the developers anyway and any MMO will have servers run by the MMO makers so the only fee you will pay is the monthly membership fee. Live's yearly fee and the monthly fee i'll give you are a issue.
And you don't need a mouse and keyboard to play a MMO. You can do it on a controller.
@Iarwain: Umm... couldn't you just have the computer next to you with the browser loaded to Thottbot or Alakhazam all the time, instead of having to alt-tab out at all?
I've played FFXI exlusively with the controller... it's a tiny bit of a PITA, but that game is dumbed down enough to be playable with it. Other MMOs will have to be chopped down to 11 or so controller buttons, or cascading menus. Just means more time is spent telling what you want the game to do than actually playing. I still liked FFXI tho... driving across the world on a CHocobo laying down with my feet up was way better than sitting at the KB.
@Foxstar is in love with Kotaku's two Brians.: You COULD play FFXI solely with the controller, but I found the interface weak. You had to spend alot of time browsing thru cascading menus... lack of buttons really gets annoying after a while. It's just that there's too much to do in an MMO for the amount of buttons a controller has... too many skills, attacks, heals, etc.
I still loved FFXI tho, despite it's controller interface.
You can play FFXI with an Xbox LIVE Silver account (i.e. no Gold account required). You still have to pay the same monthly Sony fee as you would on the PC or any other platform, but there are no additional charges imposed by Microsoft. Also, as far as I know, there are no in-game differences between Gold and Silver accounts.
Whether this will always be the case remains to be seen, I suppose. FFXI is one of the few (if not only) games on Xbox 360 that allows online play without a Gold membership. It is also (I think) the only game that is allowed to require a hard drive. It is an exception in the 360 game library.
If console MMOs become mainstream, I'm sure Microsoft, Sony, or anyone else would try to interleave their own platform benefits, possibly charging for them in the process.
The Wii can run a MMO. The PS2 didn't have any issues.
And the man is right. PSO may not have been a 'true' MMO, but Everyquest Online Adventures is and FF11 sure was. People claiming he doesn't know what he's talking about need to go look at those games. Heck FF11 allows you to do something WoW still doesn't, that is have one toon and level out as many jobs as you want on that one character. Now of course if you level all 15 something jobs to 75, your bound to have storage issues but after so many years, SE has worked out a way around that too.
In fact, for MMO's to really even start to reach the numbers that could challenge WoW, you need a PC/console mixed MMO. The only downside is that after so many years the console may make it harder to add graphical improvements, meaning as new shiny stuff comes out, PC owners may get upset.
For all of it's mistakes (And they were largely done by SE simply not understanding the MMO market like they do now), FF11 was very, very groundbreaking and has one of the longest stories out of all of the FF games spanning a huge cast of characters. The only fault is that because the game was built more around the 'work together' model, this caused the game to be solo unfriendly, something WOW got very, very right when it came to leveling and story missions. It also led to a high level of competing in between rival guilds/Linkshells over limited loot and HNM's.
Still to discount that Turbine's Honcho is incorrect is highly shortsighted. A console only MMO would in fact have less to worry about when it comes to cheaters, depending how locked down it is.
@Fluorine: Well if they were reading Kotaku properly it would of shown up anyway.
Star's auto-promoting threads is gawkers problem. We've complained about it loads, if you wish you can email them (tips at kotaku dot com) and add your voice so stars only manually promote comments.
@deanbmmv: Bah! You lot are no fun. I can't even post a tongue-in-cheek comment here without people getting all defensive. Troll this, troll that, you are all way too serious about this hobby.
Ok, I'll put my serious pants on as well:
I don't enjoy MMOs, so I am not at all interested in seeing them on consoles. I think MMOs are more suited to PC as PC-gamers are more hardcore and more willing to invest hours upon hours of their lives into a virtual world. MMOs (unless tailored to appeal to the action-oriented mentality of the average console gamer) will not sell on home consoles.
^There. Now I can take my serious pants off. Miserable sods :P
@JayEdGahoover: Well don't word it like that.
Also you'll find many console gamers will plough hours into games as well so don't dismiss them.
But yes, if you don't want to be eaten alive then don't make comments that make you sound like an idiot :D
If you'd made that post your original point then you may of started a decent thread.
@deanbmmv: Eaten alive? On a forum? lol. I run with the overly-sensitive wolves, mate ;)
But you are right. From now on I will keep my serious pants on at all times when posting on Kotaku (although I will keep my idiot kilt close-by in case of emergencies).
Consoles could be a great platform for traditional MMOs, if it's the right kind of MMO. How well would a game like Aion or World of Warcraft work on a console? Probably not very well unless the game specifically required a keyboard and mouse or some kind of special setup to accomodate all of the skill buttons that are necessary, but something along the lines of Guild Wars (with a maximum of eight skills at a time) might work out great. I have never played FFXI so I have no idea how well that one worked as a cross-platform MMO, but it must have been good enough because they're making FFXIV for consoles. Also, I've spent a good chunk of time on White Knight Chronicles (which is technically not an MMO, but does have online play), and that sort of MMO-style gameplay system is great for a console - much like Guild Wars, you only get a handful of skills in combat but you can change them when not fighting.
I don't think that consoles are necessarily "superior" for the next generation of MMOs (traditional or otherwise). Some MMO types work well on just one one system, and some work well multi-platform, so we'll end up with both kinds. With the broader diversity of systems that MMOs are being developed for, the MMOs themselves will probably diversify. There's already a few examples of this happening, such as APB and The Agency. Of course, until they're released we have no way of knowing how much of an impact they'll have and if they'll survive or not - sometimes MMOs that break the mold don't last very long at all, such as Auto Assault. Then again, perhaps MMOs will diversify independent of console influence simply because the current formulas will grow stale.
There are pros and cons to console MMOs versus pc MMOs, but ultimately I think it's just a subjective thing. In theory, developers will make various styles of MMOs for various platforms and we can choose from a wider variety of MMOs to play. If there's something for everyone, then there will be no need for everyone to just agree on one platform and one MMO type.
The only real "downside" is the PS3 doesn't come with a USB mouse and keyboard...but that doesn't even count as a legitimate downside since you can buy them for cheap.
FFXI and the upcoming FFXIV are pretty much meant to be played with console controllers with keyboard in lap, BTW.
@SacGamer: Sorry Microsoft is never cheap....they will make you pay for an over priced keyboard or something that is sponsor by Micro$oft in order to use it with the game itself.
Sorry... but you have unrealistic expectations of microsoft and sony's generosity.
Console gamers will not tolerate an MMO subscription rate of 15 bucks a month. They'll handle 50 dollars a year, but not 15 bucks a month. Make the game free to play and it will fly off the shelves, charge 3 bucks a month and you'd get decent numbers, but nothing groundbreaking.
@Foxstar is in love with Kotaku's two Brians.: Or rather you do. Final Fantasy XI sold like 300K in America on the PS2 and 360. Phantasy Star sold 100K on the 360, and who knows how many of those players played the MMO part of the game. To put it in perspective Final Fantasy XII sold a little under 2 million, as did Final Fantasy X-2 and final fantasy X sold just under 3 million.
Ok, ok.... lets put some arguments in place. Gonna try not to rant here...
A console makes things easy. Everything is controlled by the manufacturer. If there is an IM client, there's not thirteen different networks to spread your friends out on, there is one and your friend is there or s/he isn't. If you're paying for service, you're paying for ALL service with ONE payment. If there's voice, everyone can hear it and everyone has the option to turn it off.
(please note that I don't own a PS3, nor have I ever used one. I am completely in the dark on how it's online functionality works. Please don't be hating, I just have no interest in anything on the PS3. Just my opinion, I am not saying the PS3 sucks, I just don't like it. I know it runs/ran linux, I like linux.)
A PC, there's nothing centralized. Every game that is online has it's own fee, every game has it's own chat network. Everything you'd use to communicate with friends -- xfire, aim, msn, yahoo -- there is no guarantee it will work with your game. Voice may work, everyone's graphical settings will be different.
Now... with a PC, there are advantages. Technology skyrockets on computers -- each day someone comes up with a better RAM, CPU, GPU configuration, someone else finds a way to take that Crysis one tick higher than before, get that many more pixels on their monitor. With consoles, you get a refresh every half a decade or more. There are also games you can play without having to pay anyone jack. Any PC can also double as a server, though the commercialization of PC games frowns upon this and often the legality of it is questionable, especially concerning privately developed servers that are not backed by the original creators, but look up private WoW servers, private Ragnarok, etc. It's there, it's thriving.
So, yeah, I can see how console gaming could be seen as superior to PC gaming as far as MMOs are concerned. I don't think it's a fact, though. There is just no "Platform" on which PC MMOs are developed and there is probably never going to be one that anyone can agree with.
Sorry, didn't mean to write an article in the comments.
Console MMO are doomed to fail, because the userbase is so small. You can't launch MMO too early in the console lifecycle, because the userbase is too small and if you launch too late, ppl have already moved to next-gen consoles.
It seems like he's saying the console space has what it needs to make MMO's and has more room for growth, so it would be MORE beneficial for a software company to make a good console MMO as there's less established competition to deal with and more room to carve a chunk of the market. Not that console is necessarily a better platform for making a BETTER MMO than what's on PC, just for making a better selling MMO. If that's the case, I can understand that.
I think the main problem with consoles + MMOS is going to be Sony and Microsoft. Sony has it's own MMO division, SOE, and Microsoft is STILL dragging feet on approving Champions Online for the X360. If CO is any indicator, its going to be hard to get your mmo approved for a console.
I don't expect any kind of console MMO explosion, at least until Sony and MS have launched their own and gotten playerbases on them.
@Tacticalspoon: This. More to the point, the problem is inherent to the model, in that in a PC model, Dev's don't owe much of anyone anything: There's a middleman in the console arrangement, and if there's mony to be made, he wants the bigger cut.
(Kind of ironic that it sounds a lot like how the illegal drug market works...)
I'm getting Final Fantasy XIV as long as it has viable soloing. Though I was disappointed with FFXI, I think SE has had plenty of time to fix many of the problems I had with it.
@AncientUnknown1: Same here, though I am hesistant with SE based on their many interviews of the past concerning problems with FFXI. They always seemed to be a little full of themselves and never open to actual criticism. You take Blizzard on the other hand, whom constantly responds to many players gripes and questions.
I'm not saying they need to be like Blizzard, but it makes me kinda scared to walk into FFXIV, hoping everything about FFXI is fixed.
@AncientUnknown1: It is confirmed to have viable soloing, and has been for some time now. We also know more about the combat system, and it sounds AMAZING. It sounds a lot like the FF13 battle system.
@SacGamer: I think the more pressing details concerning soloing haven't been made public yet. I'm talking the extent of solo experience play to level your character up. I know they have new solo "instanced" content, and they have expressed a view about solo experience play, but until something like TGS we won't know exactly how much will come through. It's tough to beat WoW in that you can solo your way to max level pretty easily. While I understand FFXI was far more reliant on party xp and 14 will probably carry a lot of that over, I'm hesitant to see what SE's idea of "solo content" exactly is.
@Pitchswitch: It will be "fully soloable" in their words. They've also used the words "similar to WoW". Not sure why it needs to be more clear than that.
But then again, I trust Square-Enix to deliver an amazing game because they're an amazing company.
@SacGamer: It needs to be more clear because of their track record concerning these things. In other words, while the hard truth might be that yes, through instanced content you can "fully solo" up to max level, exactly how laborous is this task compared to the normal way of grouping. If playing solo gives you a rate of xp say, 20% of playing in a party (per hour), that's pretty terrible, and would suggest that they only put it in to say they have it in.
This was the point I was trying to derive in my first response to this. I am aware of the existence of such a thing, but the ease of it through implementation causes my initial hesitation, as SE hasn't always had the best view of things outside their own initial scope in the past.
Wow about a console MMO that doesn't have the same old stale point-and-click gameplay of PC MMOs? Phantasy Star Online and Monster Hunter would make great MMOs.
09/20/09
Successful MMO's are all about evolving according to the desires of their player base. Warcraft overtook Everquest because Blizzard was eager to please players and they consistently adapted the game to make each type of play (grouping, questing, soloing) more convenient. I realize that many old school MMO veterans feel like Blizzard is coddling its user base, and while they have a valid point, they aren't the primary demographic anymore. The mainstream is where the big money is, so MMO's have gone mainstream.
I'm not a programmer or game designer, so I can only speak from what I've observed, and it seems to me like consoles are growing more similar to computers with each new generation in terms of functionality and user-interface layouts. But for the time being, computers have a serious edge in terms of flexibility (both in terms of software development and customization within the user base) for several hardware generations to come.
09/20/09
The other issue of interest is how similar the Cell SPUs are to the original Emotion Engine in the sense that RAM is limited but bandwidth and processing power is available in huge quantities.
[arstechnica.com]
Granted, the PS2 is still around and is largely considered to be last generation's technology, but the fact doesn't change that the Cell SPUs are functionally similar to the Emotion Engine. The only real difference would be the fact that the Cell SPUs can be synchronized or used asynchronously. Other than that the development attitude really shouldn't be too different from developing for the PS2.
At least that's how I see it.
09/22/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
There are so many other problems. Let's put it this way, if MMOs did eventually migrate to the consoles, they'd be a lot different to what we consider a 'traditional' MMO these days.
09/20/09
But entertain me, what are the 'so many other problems' that stand in the why?
09/20/09
09/20/09
Lack of control customization-FF11 has customizable controls.
Fixed UI is something that is a issue and isn't.
Limited controls-Macros. FF11 has them.
Commuication issues - Keyboards are $10 dollars and again FF11 makes it possible to play using largely only macros. Both systems have chatpads which function like keyboards anyway.
Subscription fee-Sony charges the developers anyway and any MMO will have servers run by the MMO makers so the only fee you will pay is the monthly membership fee. Live's yearly fee and the monthly fee i'll give you are a issue.
And you don't need a mouse and keyboard to play a MMO. You can do it on a controller.
09/20/09
I've played FFXI exlusively with the controller... it's a tiny bit of a PITA, but that game is dumbed down enough to be playable with it. Other MMOs will have to be chopped down to 11 or so controller buttons, or cascading menus. Just means more time is spent telling what you want the game to do than actually playing. I still liked FFXI tho... driving across the world on a CHocobo laying down with my feet up was way better than sitting at the KB.
09/20/09
I still loved FFXI tho, despite it's controller interface.
09/20/09
You can play FFXI with an Xbox LIVE Silver account (i.e. no Gold account required). You still have to pay the same monthly Sony fee as you would on the PC or any other platform, but there are no additional charges imposed by Microsoft. Also, as far as I know, there are no in-game differences between Gold and Silver accounts.
Whether this will always be the case remains to be seen, I suppose. FFXI is one of the few (if not only) games on Xbox 360 that allows online play without a Gold membership. It is also (I think) the only game that is allowed to require a hard drive. It is an exception in the 360 game library.
If console MMOs become mainstream, I'm sure Microsoft, Sony, or anyone else would try to interleave their own platform benefits, possibly charging for them in the process.
09/20/09
And the man is right. PSO may not have been a 'true' MMO, but Everyquest Online Adventures is and FF11 sure was. People claiming he doesn't know what he's talking about need to go look at those games. Heck FF11 allows you to do something WoW still doesn't, that is have one toon and level out as many jobs as you want on that one character. Now of course if you level all 15 something jobs to 75, your bound to have storage issues but after so many years, SE has worked out a way around that too.
In fact, for MMO's to really even start to reach the numbers that could challenge WoW, you need a PC/console mixed MMO. The only downside is that after so many years the console may make it harder to add graphical improvements, meaning as new shiny stuff comes out, PC owners may get upset.
For all of it's mistakes (And they were largely done by SE simply not understanding the MMO market like they do now), FF11 was very, very groundbreaking and has one of the longest stories out of all of the FF games spanning a huge cast of characters. The only fault is that because the game was built more around the 'work together' model, this caused the game to be solo unfriendly, something WOW got very, very right when it came to leveling and story missions. It also led to a high level of competing in between rival guilds/Linkshells over limited loot and HNM's.
Still to discount that Turbine's Honcho is incorrect is highly shortsighted. A console only MMO would in fact have less to worry about when it comes to cheaters, depending how locked down it is.
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
Star's auto-promoting threads is gawkers problem. We've complained about it loads, if you wish you can email them (tips at kotaku dot com) and add your voice so stars only manually promote comments.
09/21/09
Ok, I'll put my serious pants on as well:
I don't enjoy MMOs, so I am not at all interested in seeing them on consoles. I think MMOs are more suited to PC as PC-gamers are more hardcore and more willing to invest hours upon hours of their lives into a virtual world. MMOs (unless tailored to appeal to the action-oriented mentality of the average console gamer) will not sell on home consoles.
^There. Now I can take my serious pants off. Miserable sods :P
09/21/09
Also you'll find many console gamers will plough hours into games as well so don't dismiss them.
But yes, if you don't want to be eaten alive then don't make comments that make you sound like an idiot :D
If you'd made that post your original point then you may of started a decent thread.
09/21/09
But you are right. From now on I will keep my serious pants on at all times when posting on Kotaku (although I will keep my idiot kilt close-by in case of emergencies).
09/19/09
I don't think that consoles are necessarily "superior" for the next generation of MMOs (traditional or otherwise). Some MMO types work well on just one one system, and some work well multi-platform, so we'll end up with both kinds. With the broader diversity of systems that MMOs are being developed for, the MMOs themselves will probably diversify. There's already a few examples of this happening, such as APB and The Agency. Of course, until they're released we have no way of knowing how much of an impact they'll have and if they'll survive or not - sometimes MMOs that break the mold don't last very long at all, such as Auto Assault. Then again, perhaps MMOs will diversify independent of console influence simply because the current formulas will grow stale.
There are pros and cons to console MMOs versus pc MMOs, but ultimately I think it's just a subjective thing. In theory, developers will make various styles of MMOs for various platforms and we can choose from a wider variety of MMOs to play. If there's something for everyone, then there will be no need for everyone to just agree on one platform and one MMO type.
09/19/09
The only real "downside" is the PS3 doesn't come with a USB mouse and keyboard...but that doesn't even count as a legitimate downside since you can buy them for cheap.
FFXI and the upcoming FFXIV are pretty much meant to be played with console controllers with keyboard in lap, BTW.
09/20/09
Sorry... but you have unrealistic expectations of microsoft and sony's generosity.
09/20/09
@Vonhert: I'm sorry. I've been able to use a wide range of $10 keyboards with my 360 and PS3 for years.
Oh and this.
09/20/09
09/19/09
No?
Well then, case closed.
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/19/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/19/09
A console makes things easy. Everything is controlled by the manufacturer. If there is an IM client, there's not thirteen different networks to spread your friends out on, there is one and your friend is there or s/he isn't. If you're paying for service, you're paying for ALL service with ONE payment. If there's voice, everyone can hear it and everyone has the option to turn it off.
(please note that I don't own a PS3, nor have I ever used one. I am completely in the dark on how it's online functionality works. Please don't be hating, I just have no interest in anything on the PS3. Just my opinion, I am not saying the PS3 sucks, I just don't like it. I know it runs/ran linux, I like linux.)
A PC, there's nothing centralized. Every game that is online has it's own fee, every game has it's own chat network. Everything you'd use to communicate with friends -- xfire, aim, msn, yahoo -- there is no guarantee it will work with your game. Voice may work, everyone's graphical settings will be different.
Now... with a PC, there are advantages. Technology skyrockets on computers -- each day someone comes up with a better RAM, CPU, GPU configuration, someone else finds a way to take that Crysis one tick higher than before, get that many more pixels on their monitor. With consoles, you get a refresh every half a decade or more. There are also games you can play without having to pay anyone jack. Any PC can also double as a server, though the commercialization of PC games frowns upon this and often the legality of it is questionable, especially concerning privately developed servers that are not backed by the original creators, but look up private WoW servers, private Ragnarok, etc. It's there, it's thriving.
So, yeah, I can see how console gaming could be seen as superior to PC gaming as far as MMOs are concerned. I don't think it's a fact, though. There is just no "Platform" on which PC MMOs are developed and there is probably never going to be one that anyone can agree with.
Sorry, didn't mean to write an article in the comments.
09/19/09
09/20/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
I don't expect any kind of console MMO explosion, at least until Sony and MS have launched their own and gotten playerbases on them.
09/19/09
(Kind of ironic that it sounds a lot like how the illegal drug market works...)
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/20/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
I'm not saying they need to be like Blizzard, but it makes me kinda scared to walk into FFXIV, hoping everything about FFXI is fixed.
09/19/09
[www.eorzeapedia.com]
09/20/09
09/20/09
But then again, I trust Square-Enix to deliver an amazing game because they're an amazing company.
09/20/09
This was the point I was trying to derive in my first response to this. I am aware of the existence of such a thing, but the ease of it through implementation causes my initial hesitation, as SE hasn't always had the best view of things outside their own initial scope in the past.
09/19/09
09/19/09
Not sure why everyone assumes it has to play like WoW.
No reason at all (and it'll happen) that someone can't figure out a new style of MMO that works out on the consoles just fine.
APB seems like one that'll work just fine.
Will you get WoW? No, but if you want WoW, then play WoW...