| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
| Ekim's Gamer View: Putting a Price on MMORPG Player |
|
I know you were wondering about where it was, but here is Ekim's next edition to his series Gamer Views. This time it takes a look on how many players an MMORPG actually needs to be a success.<blockquote><em>So, how many players does an MMORPG publisher needs to think that it’s worth extending the life of a game? That’s got to be tricky… With some MMORPGs out there averaging over 500,000 subscribed players at any given time, you have to wonder where this lowly 30,000 ranks in, and it must be far down the list. So, in this regard, if any one of us were in EA’s shoes, would we allow the game to continue breathing, allowing the few players that are still loyal to happily go about their daily virtual lives? Do you risk losing money to keep them happy?</em></blockquote>Read all about it, right <a href="http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=564">here</a>. |
Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:46 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
Its all true. New competors keep entering the market until the market is so fractured that profits are impossible, and then the weaker companies are forced out. Once profits return, the cycle starts again. MMRPGS are no different, and companies cant care about player's emtions, because it would limit their abilty to make good money wise choices. What to do, what to do...While I'm not starting any new MMRPGs for a long time. If I feel the urge I'll open up EQ or DOAC accounts. I like investing time in my characters and online commuties in these games, however, knowing that companies cant afford to keep going just make me happy, i'll invest these engeries elsewhere. I am afraid that Star Wars: Galaxies will be the breaking point for many of lesser MMRPGs; due to its appeal to both the casual non-RPG player, and RPGers alike. I personaly wasnt interested in Earth and Beyond, didnt it just come out in Nov? Seems like a rather short life for a game most like priced over $30 U.S. dollars...sad for those who realy enjoy it (I hope there is a sinlge player mode for them).
LB |
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:54 pm |
|
|
KAS
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 22
|
This was an impressive piece Ekim, and you've made a lot of great points here. While I haven't posted anything here in quite some time, the article was enough to inspire the next post <grin>.
Looking at the current games which are considering the leaders in the genre, Everquest & Dark Age of Camelot (Lineage excluded since I'm talking about the American market here), you'll notice that the games at the foundation are almost completely indentical. While they host different graphical engines and the fact that Everquest had 11 million dollars more to invest in their original offering, the foundation of the games are identical. Build a single character (play one at a time) up in levels by killing monsters and get powerful items and build wealth using any of the few methods available. While the actual foundation systems are dated and aging, the games both sport addictive gameplay elements. While a single player version of either game would be considered a monstrosity and a joke, it's just a lot more fun to build characters in a virtual world with other players.
Now, look at the number of accounts each of these games have active during their peak hours. That is a lot of money coming in for one freeze frame instant in time, and more than enough to consider any game a success. Look a little deeper though, and ask the players, "How much time have you invested in this game total would you say?" The average gamer lost count a long time back but they know it's been a real long time. They've climbed the level ladder, often multiple times with different characters or on different servers and they've tested areas of the game they couldn't in the past. They've lived the expansions one by one and they've watched the game evolved, they've spent a great deal of time doing all of this.
Still not clear? These players have been part of the pioneering of the first generation foundation of mmogs, they didn't expect anything walking in that they wouldn't have picking up a copy of any crpg. Then they were blown away, by the magic of the living breathing worlds, the sheer size and amount of world content and the concepts of playing within a virtual world with their friends and enemies, and experiencing everything new that mmogs brought to the table. Sure, there are huge bumps in mmogs, but for most players, they didn't even show up on the radar as they came to love their selected worlds and everything that was connected.
So when a player is told, "(New mmog name here) is releasing next month, are you going? It's supposed to have (unimportant update, ie graphics, player mounts, advanced fishing, here) in it!", you're likely going to get a response of either, "No way, I'm not doing the leveling thing again, I'll never play another mmog because I've already dumped so much time into (mmog of choice here)" or "I may check it out, but I'm not sure I'd want to switch, it would have to be REAL good."
Players are attached to their worlds for one, their friends, their belongings, <their secondary lives>. More importantly though, is this next point...
If you've ever played a mmog, you come to know the foundation of the game systems. You come to know how things work within the worlds and you become very accustomed to elements that make their way into every current and near future mmog. Aggro radius, character 'jobs', raids, end game content, pulling, etc etc etc. The biggest of which would likely be though... the leveling treadmill.
So why is it no one is willing to move over to Asheron's Call 2? Why is Shadowbane the worst three year wait anyone could have invested?
While these games promise additions to the current formula for mmog success that has made the leaders the successes they are today, they don't understand that the players of the current have all nearly reached a burn out point under the current mmog banner. Once you start testing other mmogs after your first, you start seeing how much is simply cut and pasted from one game to the next. Level my character, kill endless monsters, get items, get money... hmmmmm, didn't I do this already for two years?
While Shadowbane offers a game for 'hardcore pvpers' and AC 2 tried to get away with a world which was ready to enter the alpha 1 test phase, both of these games cut and paste a lot of the things the leaders did back when they first released. The same formulas, the same level up or else mentality. The formula was a formula for success three or four years ago, but it's a formula for disaster now. No one wants to play the same game with slightly different back up lore and graphics engines.
Even Dark Age of Camelot was guilty, this was Everquest lite when it released, and the realm versus realm, while one of the greatest ideas in the history of the genre, was one of the most poorly implemented in the history of the mmog.
Finally, another major issue developers have to wake up and realize is that being the developer of a hugely successful mmog is beginning to be as tough to achieve as becoming a top end recording artist is. You have to have a lot of resources, and you need to deliver a product that a) people haven't seen before, or b) is so incredibly fresh that everyone wants to keep you around for the energy you bring.
You don't jsut cut and paste the elements of the old mmogs into your product and add a few of your personalized bells and whistles and call it a mmog, you can't, you <will> fail. You need fresh ideas, but not so radical that you jeopardize your product. Without a hook, chances are you're just going to waste your bait.
The cut and paste deal will be very apprarent in the next two years as many budget money sniffing low end companies throw out their offerings only to crash and burn as more and more players develop the skills to identify how much this genre relies on imitation in the current age of mmogs.
So, how does this all tie together? Games may be assessed as failures <beacause> they didn't have enough subscribers, but the real reason games are failing is because there just isn't enough to new mmogs.
Look at the current world of Everquest, it's <huge> now, five expansions is a ton of content. This game is still the best offered in the American market and very few games can even dent the player base. The game is growing older though, and it shows within the different game worlds. Everyone knows how to do most of the things players from the old days used to puzzle over for days or even weeks. The players are so keen to the game foundation mechanics they can often solve the developer's expansion puzzles in a matter of weeks. The economies are beginning to saturate to the lowest level and items which were godlike two years ago are sold to newbies for a few hundred pp.
The formula you use at the base of your game is the true key to success in mmogs. While taking some of what has worked in the past is a good practice for familiarization, you need to be able to offer the players the type of experience that makes them step back and say "How do I do this?" again. Not the "How do I pull?" feeling, the "Whoa, how do I advance?" type of feeling.
Once game developers begin to realize that the old formula won't last forever, the next era in mmogs will truyl begin to take shape. Too much of a good thing is never good.
KAS |
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:00 pm |
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
What happens when a sequel is released? Remember how that Ultima sequel got canceled because someone realised they would be taking customers from their existing Ultima game. SOE didn't cancel Everquest 2 or SWG so where do you think they will find players? I'll give you a hint consisting of two letters: EQ
So, will they just close it down one day? I don't think so, but as the release day comes closer I think they will stop releasing expansions. However if that fails don't be surprised if they close it down anyway. |
|
Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:42 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I'm not an expert MMORPG player but I can make a few newbie observations, having played some AC2, Neocron and ATitD (not a big sample, I realise).
I was quite struck by how simplistic the quest structures were in AC2 and Neocron - they may have "big" and "living" worlds in these games but these two boil down to simple monster and item hunts and some repetitive crafting options. Many SP CRPGs have much more depth in character creation and development, quest structure, NPCs and story. Since so many people enjoy playing them the social aspect must supercede these other issues.
So if the social aspect is paramount, why do they do duch an average job of providing social tools? I would have thought a new generation game like AC2 would have much more advanced chat features with menus to access emoticons and common phrases, filter and group other players and so on.
ATitD had a mentor system, which new MMORPG's should expand on to make it easier for new players to find people to group with. I would have liked to meet some older players I would feel more comfortable playing with - surely there should be a better way than talking to every 14 year old I meet in the hope of finding some common interests?
As KAS stated, there are a number of ties holding players to existing games. When a title truly innovates the social interaction aspects or offers more depth than killing monsters it will stand a chance of winning a large audience. |
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003 1:03 am |
|
|
Guest
|
History shows that new MMORPGs attract additional players, ie while some existing players will transfer from other games (not necessarily in place of that game or permanently) new players will come into the genre on the back of the publicity about the new game. Verant/SoE expected the EQ playerbase to be reduced each time a new game was launched - DAoC, AO, AC2 etc - whereas their numbers continued to climb. I would guess that there are at least double the number of players in MMORPGs today compared with 4 years ago.
This won't continue for ever, what I suspect will happen is that there will be a market for quite a few games catering for niche markets, and this is what Brad McQuaid (formerly head of Verant and the originator of EQ) suggested would be both likely and desirable (because it enables a developer to avoid the pitfall of trying to offer all things to all players). If EQ ends up with half its present playerbase after EQ2 and SWG are established then that won't bother Sony as they can merge servers, reduce bandwidth costs, transfer development and customer support staff to other products etc.. Most games will probably aspire to carry between 50,000 and 100,000 subscribers (strictly speaking accounts, as some may have multiple accounts), and that will enable ongoing viability.
What will determine how many players a game attracts AND retains? A combination of graphics, content, originality, emphasis on non-PvP as that is what 90% of players opt for when given the choice (check out the server populations on EQ and DAoC if you don't believe me), addictiveness, loyalty to one's characters and friends, and customer support levels. All that plus the one thing that has eluded most developers to date - a smooth launch or at least a quick fix of teething troubles, the lack of which nearly pulled down AO and may yet pull down AC2.
Interesting times ahead. Who isn't eagerly anticipating SWG and Horizons? They are the real competition in the foreseeable future, while others like World of Warcraft are still far enough off to count as "vapourware" for now. I truly believe that some competition will be good for the genre, and that the loss of the weakest players will generate a realisation amongst developers that players can't be taken for granted so that improved customer support both in and out of the game will become standard. At least MS and Turbine have started talking properly to the AC2 playerbase, unfortunately they don't have a lot to say and can't currently back it up with competent programming, but they do at least point the way for the future with paying customers expecting to be treated as such.
Meanwhile, how about a multi-player version of Morrowind? My guess is that it would make a big dent in the market  ! Come on Bethesda, you know it makes sense! |
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:00 am |
|
|
Loremaster
Village Leader
Joined: 31 Mar 2002
Posts: 88
Location: Hampshire, England |
Oops, thought I was logged in before submitting the last post. I never mean to be anonymous, I'm happy to stand up and be counted where my opinions are concerned !
Loremaster |
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:02 am |
|
|
Ammon777
Warrior for Heaven
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 2011
Location: United States |
"Who isn't eagerly anticipating SWG and Horizons?"
My mom! 
Seriously, Loremaster knows his stuff. I couldnt say it better myself. Bravo! |
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:09 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
I don't play MMORPG's for many of the reasons already outlined, the cost and time constraints. I enjoy SP games much more. However, no-one has mentioned the revolution that is NWN. I love playing online campaigns with friends. Many people are creating PW's for NWN campaigns as well and this is a much cheaper alternative to invest your time in. An online multiplayer MW would be interesting I agree. I think we'd want the whole world of Tamriel though. How about an online Gothic? Now that would be something!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:23 am |
|
|
Guest
|
It seems to me that any company releasing a new MMORPG should also include a Freelancer-style multiplayer component, so that the persistent world can continue, even if the MMO portion is shut down. |
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:26 am |
|
|
dagon
Village Dweller
Joined: 12 Jul 2001
Posts: 7
|
| my two cents... nothing new in the "new" mmorpgs |
|
I'm quite surprised you all have precise ideas for the reasons why the new mmorpgs aren't as successfull as "old" ones.
...but nobody talks about Ultima Online.
I played many mmorpgs : UO, EQ, AC, DAOC, SHADOWBANE...
(I won't talk about NWN as it's an awesome multiplayer game, it's not really a persistant world).
Seems UO has one of the biggest subscription number (about 500.000 I heard)... Many UO players are people who started with UO, tried many other MMORPGs and came back to UO.
But why  , with such outdated graphics (compared to AC2 !) people come back to UO ?
Two many reasons I think :
- UO is the only one which offers a "living" world. I never saw anyone going fishing, keeping sheeps to mow them, ...or: having friend coming to your house, you put the bottles on the table, and everybody is drinking & talking ... Other MMORPGs are far from offering such trivial activities which gives the feeling of being in a real world. I can be harsh here, but I feel other MMORPGs are just pumped up "leveled medieval doom-like". UO is lacking though the scenarized development of the game AC2 has... but it's the virtual world which makes him live so long...
- the view ! upside down view is cool for mmorpgs. You see the many people around you, you read the text on top of their head (ok, shadowbane allows this). IRC window is bad for mmorpgs....
anyway, I'm sure even Starwars Galaxy will have some real problems if they won't offer MUCH MORE than the current MMORPGs.
other points of view about the long success of UO ? |
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:57 am |
|
|
KAS
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 22
|
| Third Person versus First Person |
|
I don't have the numbers on the Ultima subscriber base, and I couldn't locate them in the few minutes I had before writing this post just prior to getting out the door. I'm not entirely sure that Ultima is the number one mmog subscriber wise anymore, but feel free to show the statistics to prove me wrong since the sources seem to become less easily available with each new mmog that enters the field.
I played Ultima for an extremely short time about two eyars ago, so my information on it isn't all that great. Although you can't argue the success this game had, or the fact it was one of the first truely major mmogs, I don't consider Ultima to be in the same league with Everquest or even Dark Age. Yes, in Ultima you could milk your cows and do all these mundane things that made the world more 'real', but although I've almost opposed the past decade's transition to thinking graphics make good games, it's almost true in this case. The game looks like it's from the Nintendo/Super Nintendo era, and even the best game will suffer if it's this horrible looking. The third person, words popping over people's heads view is, in my opinion, two of the worst possible elements you can shove into a game.
Lineage is the number one mmog, with more than 1 000 000 subscribers supposedly, but I'd never touch it as a mmog. In the world of mmogs, you have two general engine types, one running first person type games best, and another designed for third person perspectives. While those who enjoy the Diablo, isometric action/adventure style games may love third person and have no problem accepting this view for a virtual world, I have always been extremely partial to the belief that first person creates the highest level of immersion.
Imagine playing a shooter designed with third person as the main view. Shooter game worlds look great, and although there isn't a lot of punch or detail that allows the players to interact with the elements of the world, the feeling of being in the world is created much better.
Mmogs are the same type of beast in my opinion, they need to draw the player in, and third person just never created that effect for me.
Cutting this one short for now, since it's time to head out, but while others may feel Diablo is a certified role playing game and mmogs developed third person is enough to create that 'in the world' feeling, I've always felt perspective made or broke the mmog experience.
KAS |
|
Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:02 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Loremaster
What will determine how many players a game attracts AND retains? A combination of graphics, content, originality, emphasis on non-PvP as that is what 90% of players opt for when given the choice (check out the server populations on EQ and DAoC if you don't believe me), addictiveness, loyalty to one's characters and friends, and customer support levels. All that plus the one thing that has eluded most developers to date - a smooth launch or at least a quick fix of teething troubles, the lack of which nearly pulled down AO and may yet pull down AC2.
Good points from everyone all around! I just wanted to touch base with the above mention though.
Personally, I disagree. Actually the PvP only servers of both EQ and DAoC might be quite underpopulated, but I can tell you that the "coop" server for DAoC is almost as empty, if not more, than the PvP one... Can't say about EQ though, but I think that a healthy dosage of both PvP and PvE, when correctly implemented, is the right way to go. The "correctly implemented" part means that players should be free to choose if and when they will join the PvP game, and let them evolve without ever needing to.
Also, regarding smooth launches, I think we've been rather blessed with very successful launches since DAoC in fact. Earth and Beyond's launch was near perfect, AC2 had a few hiccups and some lag, but nothing as awful as the first days of AO or EQ! Apparently the latest one, Shadowbane, had a few problems too but they were bugs that had been carried straight from BETA from what I read.... I think the launch issues have pretty much been solved. Most developpers understood that they should have a stable environment for their players as soon as they launch.
The problem that this causes though is that more often than not new MMORPGs come out crippled.... What I mean is that to be stable developers might decide to keep a feature or two on the shelf so that it won't cause any major problems at launch, or to launch sooner than they would if they waited to properly test and fix these features. Now that is not so good.
@dagon
About UO, I think KAS pretty much answered that. If so many people stick with UO it's probably because that's the game they started with and they just can't bring themselves to start from scratch with another game. So they come back and stick to it. That's probably what Origin and EA realized too when they canceled UO2. They probably envisioned that most of their players would just feel daunted by a new game and starting from scratch that they ran the chance of coming out with a product that would attract new players but not older ones. Who knows?
Anyway, I doubt that UO is a model for graphics though. Isometric is not the way of the future for MMORPGs in a world that strives to immerse the player deeper and deeper into games. As KAS said, first person, or even third person point of view is where the immersion factor gives the most return. I don't think that we'll see very many isometric view MMORPGs except for very low budget ventures from independant developers.
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:12 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:35 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
