Interesting...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/10/technol … ?hpt=hp_t2

I don't play MMOs, but it sounds like a lot of players are just getting bored with them, and with their high costs. I consider this "good news", so maybe companies will actually produce high-quality non-online games. However, if I had to guess, I think companies are going to aim for the Diablo 3 model -not an MMO, but with various MMO features, requirements, and fees.

Anyone here play any MMOs and/or can give feedback?

I could write an essay on this but I'm going to just note a few simple points.  I've been playing WoW since launch with no major lapses in subscription or activity so I think I can speak with some confidence.

- The MMO subscription model is fine.  15$ a month is trivial and just about anyone can afford that, even in today's economy.  As a gross generalization, if you can't afford the subscription fees, you probably shouldn't be playing video games (any) to begin with. 

- The MMO market is over saturated with games.  WoW's launch in 2005 and subsequent success with an online game and subscription model created a ton of opportunity for companies to get in on that market.  There are some good games, there are some bad games, but by and large the majority of games don't make it with a subscription model past 2 years, the notable exception being WoW simply because the model is by and large dictated by Blizzard.  They have the upper hand in just about everything, from strategically releasing content patches or expansions when major competitors put out new games to assimilating some of the innovations and evolutions that other games have realized into WoW.  I think an apt analogy would be something like "Blizzard is to Apple as [other MMO Company] is to [Apple rival]".  Apple innovates, tons of companys imitate and innovate on top of that, and when the market becomes completely saturated with products, Apple reinnovates.  Blizzard by and large does the same thing, although their innovations to date have been relatively small.

- The MMO market is over saturated with players who probably shouldn't be playing MMOs (read: casual).  A lot of game companies, Blizzard included, have changed their games dramatically to try and capitalize on as many people as they possibly can, which means satisfying their paying customers.  When a large majority of your paying customers are casual players who have no intention of committing, this becomes a problem because the majority of your paying customers will end up not being paying customers as soon as a new game comes out, or as soon as they're bored, or as soon as they're no longer able to continue playing.  This is bad for a game that is built around progressing, building, socially succeeding. If I could come up with an analogy for console gamers who might not understand this, it would be something akin to the gamers who try to platinum the games they buy versus the players who just pick up a game and play it until the next new game comes out that they buy.  The players who try to platinum games (or simply master games) are few and far between compared to the casual players who just pick up a game to enjoy it.  Is [insert random game company here] going to put out a game that only a handful of the people who buy it can fully enjoy?  Probably not.  This is fine for console games and the lot, because by and large it doesn't revolve around a community of players socially playing the game together and progressing towards a finite goal.  It's bad for MMOs because a massive influx of people who aren't really going to be around in [insert some amount of time] aren't healthy for the game.  It's easy to pickup Modern Warfare 3 and just join an online game, play and be done in 30 minutes.   MMOs really aren't built that way, though, although they are trying to make it somewhat easier to casually play.

*** EDIT: I realized I used "by and large" way too many times in this post but I'm too tired to care right now ***

Thanks jb, that's interesting. So if I take it correctly, the main points are

1)there are too many MMOs
2)they are catering to casual players, whereas MMOs are truly designed as huge time sinks for the hardcore.

MMOs in general are RPGs, are they not? I thougth RPGs are huge time sinks anyway, but perhaps a typical RPG (40-100 hours) is "short" compared to MMOs such as Warcraft? Well, it wouldn't surprise me if many of these MMOs are dying out. Again, since I don't play MMOs it's not a biggie to me. I would rather have off-line RPGs anyway such as Dark Souls, The Witcher, Morrowind... if only I could make the time for them

By the way, I understand Warcraft is getting another update soon. Something about Pandas? Seems strange to me. Are they getting desperate?

Too many MMOs and breaking the getting away from the original context of MMOs are sort of one and the same, I guess.  Too many MMOs fragments the market and a fragmented market doesn't really help the situation I described.

Not to say that MMOs can't move towards a more casual playerbase, I think the issue is that companies are holding on to both models and it makes for a very poor experience for both sides of the spectrum.  There needs to be a new innovation in MMO gaming, whether it's technology based or gameplay based, but without it the market will continue to be unstable and unhealthy.  "Massively Multiplayer" is sort of a misnomer at this point.  I think Guild Wars 2 will actually be very successful and they don't have a subscription model, but they're more like a single player MMO that you can choose to play with other people.

I have been playing Realm of the Mad God, the only MMO I ever played, but it looks like its glory days may be behind it. As soon as it became apparent the developers were making some money they got bought out by a bigger company, Kabam, and they look like they are trying to cash in on the market rather than cater to the hardcore base. The game is easy to pick up and play, easy for the casual gamer, but it has true depth in a steep difficulty curve that keeps players around, but the steep end of the curve is quite neglected. Anyway, that seems like the eternal problem, those who truly appreciate the game and get the full experience out of it are the minority, and in essence, not paying for it, when compared to the much greater mass of casual gamers who may never access 'endgame content.' For the devs to remain solvent they have to cater to the casual gamer, often at the risk of losing the more dedicated players.

Anyway, this particular game may be a unique case, as it is free to play, but they make their money on cosmetic enhancements and some basic account upgrades, but you don't need to pay to play at all if you don't want, and you can still access everything, which is pretty cool. But another thing is that the new dev team in place is totally fresh, none of the originals are around any more, and I just think maybe the magic is gone. This may or may not relate to what the OP was talking about, but it kind of bums me out, and it fits in the topic (sorta), so...

Yeah, "gross" is definetly the term for said generalization. And I mean that in the most negative way possible.

So you're telling me if you can't afford 15$ a month, or 15$ a month is a somehow a struggle for you, that video game subscription fees are a good use of your money?  I don't think so.  If you're struggling to make ends meet, video games (and any other form of entertainment) should be the first things you budget out.  Pay your bills first, then worry about having fun.