Didn't say it would be easy, but I think it will have to be done for "massively" to succeed. One reason for the rise of the indie PC game scene in the last five years is the fact that the small studios are innovating to compete, while big studios are not - they're iterating (e.g., Madden 27 or whatever). "Massively" has historically focused on the technical challenge of connecting everyone at once, but that has been done and is old hat. Now they need to give people reasons to connect, and to keep connecting. More than just nostalgia - it has to not only be good at the start, but also show improvement over time. Blizzard is the last man standing, I believe, because they have a history of embracing change in their games for balance and fun, but even they are not changing fast enough.
Additionally, I think we have also seen "Small Multiplayer Online Games" replace "Massively" MOGs in terms of market demand in this space. Minecraft - where people can run their own server, just with their friends. Terraria has the same. In a way, Project 1999 and EQEmu is embracing that trend - lots of other little servers in that list with not a lot of people in them; have to wonder if some are run by a group of friends. Microsoft is the only one monetizing this fully with Minecraft Worlds, but I could see this changing.
Near-term I can foresee more products that create provincial experiences - tantamount to a Dungeons & Dragons "campaign" with a player-group, where the computer / system is the DM. "You and your small group of friends have your own world now" rather than "You (and everyone else) are in our world now." Mitigates the reasons not to do massive (trolls and other anti-social behavior, competition for resources, etc.) while maximizes the benefits (playing with friends).
|