Drakon said:
Think about it like this. As a new gamer, [Completely new, not just new to MMORPGs] you're gonna want an easier learning curve. Imagine being the guy with a girl who hates games. If you can get her interested in this game, then it's a start. If she starts playing and she's hooked, you just got yourself a golden ticket--you now have something to bond over, Christmas and Birthdays just got a lot simpler, and she's not hounding over you because you want to go kill VanCleef instead of watching Legally Blonde.
I perfectly understand why tailoring a game to newbies leads to more players and more money. I'm not debating that. My problem with it is when what's fun about the game is sacrificed, the challenge.
When I had to walk everywhere in EQ, the world seemed massive. I couldn't believe the awesome zones I would travel through. Once they added portals, and even mounts to some extent, it felt like the world shrunk. Suddenly, a zone half-a-world away was only two minutes away. The magic was gone.
When I would lose experinece (and even levels), and I would have to run and get my corpse, or God-forbid, I died in a dungeon, or a raid zone, dying was a terrifying concept to me. I did everything I could to survive, even (a few times) sacrifice group- and raid-mates. However, once it reached the point where the only thing dying meant was a trip through ghost-world, the dying in the game lost all meaning. The fun was gone.
It's in ways like that that I feel newbie-fying games, particularly MMO's, is a terrible thing.
Do I undestand the reasoning from the perspective of the company? Sure. Does it impove my gaming experience, as a customer? Not a chance.
Drakon said:
As a developer, sure, you're making a lot of money off the 50k subscribers you have, but in order to progress, you need more people and more money. This is where newbies come in. If you're not getting any extra profit from newbies, then you're stagnant and not really making a whole lot of progress. And with a game like EQ, once you get your class, you're basically stuck with it, so if you want a Rogue to play instead of your Necromancer, you're back to being a newbie. And without that extra content, even oldbies will leave the game, leaving you without profit. And as we all know, if you're not making money off it, it's not a good idea to keep around.
Now what you're talking about is less about newbie-fying games, and more about the approaches designers take towards designing and upkeeping games, and, for the most part, is a matter of opinion.
What you're talking about in reference to classes is really primarily a debate about linear class progression versus tree progression. Personally, I prefer linear progression. I love starting two new characters and, right off the bat, being able to tell a fundamental difference. And as for being stuck with a class, I can normally tell within ten levels whether or not I'm going to like a class, and regardless of what game you're playing, the first ten levels are normally extremely quick.
On the other hand, I really dislike tree progression. Tree progression is something I felt helped to completely ruin EverQuest 2. By the time I hit level 20 with my Defender, I couldn't tell any difference at all from when I was level one. Each time I hit a split in the class tree, I couldn't tell a difference beyond what my character was actually called. I believe class trees take away from the uniqueness of classes.
Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying adding content is bad. Far from it, I love new content. How content was added, however, is extremely important. EverQuest did two things wrong, and it ended up completely ruining the game.
The first thing they did wrong was their overall approach to content: add, add, add. When improving a game, you can do two things: improve what is already there, and add new stuff. The first was a foreign concept to EverQuest designers. If you have five newbie zones, and one hundred newbies, the proportions are rather nice: 20 newbies per zone. But once you add ten more newbie zones, and the number of newbies isn't going up, you start to have a drop in zone population, and some zones are abandoned altogether. The same principle works for end-game zones.
The second thing EverQuest did wrong is add new things way, way too quickly. By the time guilds were beginning to take full advantage of end-game content, new content was being thrown their way. And normally, this new content usually had equipment that rendered all old equipment obsolete, so guilds
had no choice but to immigrate. Entire tiers of zones were being abandoned every few months.
But zones weren't the only things affected. Actual in-game features were beginning to be rendered obsolete, as well. One EQ expansion introduced something called Dungeons, which were dungeon-based, timed quests with a few different goals. A few expansions later, they did little more than waste time. EverQuest's downfall resulted from adding content instead of fixing content.