I think that as long as there is a profit gained while maintaining and updating the MMO then it is a success. WOW is like Wal-Mart. I don't see any company popping up and matching the profit and volume of Wal-Mart but that doesn't mean that your store has failed. If you find your niche where enough people like your product to sustain it then there is no need for your comparative value in relation to any of the much larger competition. WOW also has a natural advantage as its really dug in. Getting in at the right time and setting up gave it the edge where the issue isn't is a new MMO good but if is the new MMO able to draw people away from WOW.
If subscription fee income > operating costs then game is success!
No, it's no that simple.
If they can barely earn a little more than the costs, then it's a horrible investment. If I ran such a company, I'd fear bankrupsy every day. I would not consider that a success.
I would argue this: if you see your profits diminish to 0, pull the cord. Up until that point, if your income is greater than your overall expenses, then its a success. So many games these days (including MMOs) just don't ever turn a profit. I wouldn't hope for big $$$, just a profit.
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
To be financially successful, it's whatever number is necessary for them to break even and then make a profit, but for me, the true indication of success is a game that can retain at least 90% of it's peak subscription numbers or even grow beyond that.
A game that can at least retain that many of it's target audience, let alone the fringes, is a real winner in my book. Take EverQuest for example. We know from SOE that EQ had more than 2 million people try their game and yet even at it's peak, it never retained more than 450,000 subscriptions. That is less than a 50% retention rate and in my book, those are dismal results. In business terms, that is horrifying to lose so many potential customers. The game does make money, but you have to be very disappointed to lose all of that potential revenue, massive revenue at that.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
About 100 K / 150 K. If you can't make your budget around this number, don't make a MMO. Theres NO more people to fill your server. Not now... maybe If WoW collapse AND sudenlly everyone want to play MMO's, but thats like Nintendo collapsing and at the same time, everybody wanting to play the type of casual game that nintendo create... It don't make sense. So try 150K.
I believe the majority of MMORPG developers are too greedy compare to others. First you have to buy the game box at full price (at least during the release) then pay monthly subscription which in many cases way too expensive. Too expensive due to lack of updates, lack of game fixes or new contents. And in many cases the game failed to deliver the earlier hype/promises.
I will explain this below:
A simple market research will show the demographic of MMORPG players. My guess is it is probably normally distributed with the majority being casual (few hours a day), while the hardcore player will be far lower compare to the casual. Casual player provides "extra" population that is needed.
Now how can the majority of these players, agree to pay full price for a boxed game and monthly subscription fee at around $15+ for just a few hours (sometimes less) a day. Now some may argue $15 a month is nothing. But when there is so many other alternative that is free (i.e. other games which require no subscription fee) and in many cases provide better entertainment, one would easily question this $15 a month expenditure. Now compound this if the player want to try 2-3 different MMORPGs...
I can guess by now, the majority of gamers here, have been burned by over hype or promise of a new MMORPG. Then the developer started to promise fixes and updates which never happened. I sure did several times.
This is why several MMORPGs hit such a high number during the release then a few months later, it has only 10-20% subscription left. But this trend won't continue for ever. Gamers get the message sooner or later. Some already did.
What happen next has became the routine for many MMORPGs out there. The cycle of lack of population, which eventually kill the game.
Something drastic has to be done to MMORPG genre. Don't be too greedy, there is a lot of different ways to make money. Reduce the price of the game box to entice more player joining the game during release, reduce or change the subscription fee methodology to accomodate casual players, find a way to make more cash from "extra" contents or items and etc.
Keep the basic game as accessible as possible. But sell this extra contents to generate more revenue. This way you can keep the population and the subscription, even it will take longer to get the investment back.
Hello, fellows! I'm new in MMORPG.com forums, but I have some experience in MMORPG. I totally agree with Gooo on the classes of MMO players, and his understanding of them. But there is certain things about the F2P MMOs I would like to say:
- The key to the success on a F2P MMO is normally the array of itens offered to the players, and the prizes of those itens;
- A F2P MMO must be as interesting as a P2P MMO, because the player only starts to pay something on a F2P MMO after some months of gaming (the hardcore gamers are an exception, but they are a minority).
- In resume, I believe that the numbers of subscribers is not the only method to determine a MMO success or failure, and the overhypes that seems so common only helps a good MMO title to be treated as a failure, for us players and the development companies.
Well, that's what I wish to say. Forgive me if my english have some mistakes, I'm a brazilian member and my english is not 100%. Farewell folks!
Thanks Teiman and Bigorns. Although I actually joined way back in 2004, but never make single post!
The investment to play an MMO is quite high. As I mentioned before you have to pay for the boxes and monthly fees. If you get a game you like that is fine however you won't know until you play it for a while. And if your subscription is expired you can't play the game at all. To play again you have to fork another dollars.
Not to mention, in most cases you can't even sell the game second hand. With console games for example, if you don't like the game, you can sell it second hand to at least get some of your money back or trade with another game. The same goes with normal PC games.
With MMO game, once you bought it that's it.
Also I like to switch game every now and then. Sometimes I play my PS3, another time I play my FPS (Battlefield and DODS) and others. Not to mention other things beside gaming. Having to pay for a subcription, make playing the game to be an obligation.
I think in all fairness, when you bought the game box, the "core game" should be free, forever. They can charge for extra contents/items/expansions or whatever. Keeping the core game free, will allow casual players to stick to game much longer. Providing the needed "extra" population for the server.
Now the "core game" could be certain area in the game, certain level, weapons or whatever. Take for example, the core game allow you to play the game in continent A, participate in PvP, housing, auction and etc, however to get to continent B you have to pay extra or pay a subscription. After a while, a new continent C is released. Everyone now can enjoy continent A and B, but to go to C, they have to pay extra. Hence the core game now is expanded to include A and B.
This way, a player has always have access to the game, even somehow limited. This keep the interest on the game last longer. And increase the likelihood the player will upgrade to the extra content once a while and generating extra revenues.
The funny thing is, EVE has less players 5 years in than WAR is boasting after only a few months. Can we seriously look at CCP and their work on EVE as a great success story and on WAR as a failure given that the numbers don’t support this interpretation?
The big difference is that the initial cost of making a MMOG has skyrocketed. I would love to see a lot more niche games in development where the devs openly stated goals of 100-300k subscriptions. Unfortunately, the cost to make a modern MMOG is so high that no investor will become involved with a project unless the devs lie through their teeth and claim that their game has the potential for millions of subs.
I have no doubts that in the MMO market, I would rather have 100 niche games than 5 please-everyone games. It makes it hard choose, but the more niche games there are the more likely each of us is to find their perfect world to share with others that found the same thing. I'll take diversity over homogeniety any day.
I think this thinking goes back to playing NWN1 for much of the time others were cutting their teeth on Everquest. I played on a Nordock server where, at most, their would be 25 people playing. Out of maybe 50+ regulars there was usually only about a dozen on at any given time. So pretty much all servers like this were run as hobbies, all I played on had some kind of rubberbanding lag going on if only a bit, they could be utterly brutal for new players ... yet this is the most fun I have ever had in a game like this. I actually hated NWN1 with a passion, yet the multiplayer communities have made it into one of my fondest-remembered experiences. I even have fond memories of the Time Stop server bug (if some random mage or mob cast the spell Time Stop anywhere in the world - it would literally stop time for the entire server requiring an admin reset. lol, good times)
Playing LOTRO for some time now, I also dispensed with the anxiety over server population long ago. I realized I actually liked the fact there were relatively few players. Perhaps it is because I am an explorer at heart and enjoy seeing a random human in the wilderness after spending an hour wandering alone. I feel more connected to them and more likely to interact than if I am wading through dozens of other players.
I think reducing the "massive" in MMOs by a bit would go a long way to creating more community within the games. I don't prefer the normal method of splitting up a game into numerous shards or servers really works for me (and therefore I would guess some others as well). It is a good idea in theory and in practice, but without player mobility it creates the "everyone I know and want to play with is on different servers" phenomenon. But player mobility is potentially a huge burden on a virtual economy.
Personally, I would like to see a game made and marketed as an extension of the spirit of NWN1 or NWN2 - the MMORPG Construction Kit, if you will. NWN2 has some interesting communities, but doesn't have the overall population going for it to promote the diversity it needs.
While there never may be an MMORPG Construction Kit, I think I can see some perspective from the whole WoW 800-lbs gorilla phenomenon finally settling in. Probably from the various fiascos and near-fiascos of last year. I think the industry people and fans are realizing you don't have to be the Exalted One to make a good living for your business and have a load of fun gaming.
That is why I voted for the last option - if you are making money, then you are indeed successful. And if that idea is held firmly then I would think developers can publishers can focus on the artistic, technical and innovative aspects of their games as the goal for success, not a subscription arms-race based on the reliablilty of models or formulas.
Originally posted by fortuente Personally, I would like to see a game made and marketed as an extension of the spirit of NWN1 or NWN2 - the MMORPG Construction Kit, if you will. NWN2 has some interesting communities, but doesn't have the overall population going for it to promote the diversity it needs. While there never may be an MMORPG Construction Kit, I think I can see some perspective from the whole WoW 800-lbs gorilla phenomenon finally settling in. Probably from the various fiascos and near-fiascos of last year. I think the industry people and fans are realizing you don't have to be the Exalted One to make a good living for your business and have a load of fun gaming. That is why I voted for the last option - if you are making money, then you are indeed successful. And if that idea is held firmly then I would think developers can publishers can focus on the artistic, technical and innovative aspects of their games as the goal for success, not a subscription arms-race based on the reliablilty of models or formulas.
Did you try D&D Online recently? We're having a boom of new population now, at least on EU servers (but I heard on US too). The game has changed much, so I really encourage to try it now.
Of course, the game is not for everyone, it's not spoon feeding like in WoW, not "kill 10 bears" ehm... "quests", and it's much harder and more demanding than general WoW clone. I played much of the games on the market, including returning to WoW for WotLK, but DDO for me is simply the best. Many former WoW players play in DDO now, most say that they were looking for something different and found it.
DDO is also heavily instanced, so former WoW players may feel "weird" at first, but that's just a matter of changing from the style of most popular/copied MMO ever - which is World of Warcraft. As I explained on DDO forums, for me DDO is much more MMO AND RPG than any other around. Surely not only a multiplayer game. Such opinion came only because of Blizzard who created their "only true standard" by making WoW very popular and successful marketing-wise. It's sad many reviewers fell into a trap there, forgetting (or not knowing) that before WoW there were many MUDs and Ultima Online as real precursor of the whole genre - and it's nothing like Blizzard's game.
These are only my 2 cents, but I really welcome everybody to try DDO now. Especially players who left in beta or soon after - the game is like new now.
Personally, I would like to see a game made and marketed as an extension of the spirit of NWN1 or NWN2 - the MMORPG Construction Kit, if you will. NWN2 has some interesting communities, but doesn't have the overall population going for it to promote the diversity it needs.
While there never may be an MMORPG Construction Kit, I think I can see some perspective from the whole WoW 800-lbs gorilla phenomenon finally settling in. Probably from the various fiascos and near-fiascos of last year. I think the industry people and fans are realizing you don't have to be the Exalted One to make a good living for your business and have a load of fun gaming.
That is why I voted for the last option - if you are making money, then you are indeed successful. And if that idea is held firmly then I would think developers can publishers can focus on the artistic, technical and innovative aspects of their games as the goal for success, not a subscription arms-race based on the reliablilty of models or formulas.
Did you try D&D Online recently? We're having a boom of new population now, at least on EU servers (but I heard on US too). The game has changed much, so I really encourage to try it now.
Of course, the game is not for everyone, it's not spoon feeding like in WoW, not "kill 10 bears" ehm... "quests", and it's much harder and more demanding than general WoW clone. I played much of the games on the market, including returning to WoW for WotLK, but DDO for me is simply the best. Many former WoW players play in DDO now, most say that they were looking for something different and found it.
DDO is also heavily instanced, so former WoW players may feel "weird" at first, but that's just a matter of changing from the style of most popular/copied MMO ever - which is World of Warcraft. As I explained on DDO forums, for me DDO is much more MMO AND RPG than any other around. Surely not only a multiplayer game. Such opinion came only because of Blizzard who created their "only true standard" by making WoW very popular and successful marketing-wise. It's sad many reviewers fell into a trap there, forgetting (or not knowing) that before WoW there were many MUDs and Ultima Online as real precursor of the whole genre - and it's nothing like Blizzard's game.
These are only my 2 cents, but I really welcome everybody to try DDO now. Especially players who left in beta or soon after - the game is like new now.
Cheers!
I have played DDO recently and it is one of those games I try to support when and how I can. It is an example of what I am talking about. Even with a boom of players, I wager it still has a really low population relative to how expectations of players and investors alike have been set by WoW. But even if "small" the community is vibrant, as far as I know the game makes Turbine some money, and they have focused a lot on improving it overall for their community. It is a perfect niche game.
Maybe I'm wrong but didn't EverQuest have like 430,000 subscribers in it's heyday? By today's standards that might be considered low but they were the King of the Hill at the time.
I think its down to whichever company is running a MMO to decide if its a success
Eve may have less subs to War, but all of those subs are on 1 shard so the world the players are in is busier than Wars and even WoWs plethora of servers - Eve proves niche MMO games can be a success/profitable
As far as the player is concerned, a success or failure is more a personal thing with some saying X game is a failure while others say its a success even without that game closing down
IMO games which close down prove the game is a failure, if it doesnt its a success - People are still having fun in games like AO and SWG despite them having 12 years online time between them, sure there are arguemtns about the level of success for profits and (past) potential subscriber numbers those games could of retained or gained but they are still online, poeple are still playing them and I cant see how they are doing anything but making profit unless SOE / FC are crazy (i know some would argue they are) and dont have any basic business sense
Once you remove Wow from the equation - which needs to be done as all that game does is skew results for any kind of MMO comaprison - how many P2P western MMOs ever had multi millions of players playing them?
Do number of subs deside if a game is successfull or not ? No
Do number of subs control the future of a MMO? Yes....
Would CCP be here today if ppl had not played their game ? Did they start their game with millions put into adds to advetise something that wasn't even in the game at start ?
Should a company like Funcom even to be allowed to call their game successfull when they havn't even delivered into the game what they promised on the box ?
Should Warhammer be considered successfull with their main and (many would say) ONLY focus (RVR) badly broken cause of all sorts of server and lag problems ?
You ask me ? The answer is kinda obvious isn't it?
How much did CCP put into starting EVE and make it a profitable company that is able to offer FREE expansions ?
How much did Funcom and Mythic spend on AOC and WAR to get it up and running ? And would they survife with EVE subs ?
Do you have to think about it ? I dont have to.
ANY developer can make a disission on how they want to manage their game - INCLUDING how it should be released. WAR and AOC were ONLY released based on GREED - Quick money that the developers knew all along would never hold up- Cause yes.. the devs knew about the bugs of the game... they knew but did not care if they sold those bugs to 100000s of ppl...
Games like WAR and AOC are HUGE failures cause they NEVER intented to build their game up on the players. Cause if that was the case then they would have started small and build up from there. Instead they started big and have huge maintainance bills now on half empty or empty servers. And with all kind of problems that is ONLY there based on GREED.
Lets make one thing clear. Greed just killed the ENTIRE world economy in the past few months. Fake assests and worthless stocks that made ppl billions - until the truth came out. And then the collapse - So... where is the diffrence when it comes to games ?
There is none.
WAR and AOC failed not because of player hype... it failed cause the company hyped up a product they could not deliver on. And if those ppl are all of a sudden claiming their game is a HUGE hit and success with 70-80% of ppl that bought the game quitting within 6 months... Then shouldn't those developers be put to jail for conning ppl?
Or is this the success stories of the future MMOs ? I surely hope not. And I hope you all agree with me there.
ANY developer can make a disission on how they want to manage their game - INCLUDING how it should be released. WAR and AOC were ONLY released based on GREED - Quick money that the developers knew all along would never hold up- Cause yes.. the devs knew about the bugs of the game... they knew but did not care if they sold those bugs to 100000s of ppl...
This is my argument as well. Game like EVE proved (somehow) that they can offer quality gaming by subscription alone. And even release a free expansion.
Now I don't know how much precisely the cost of making MMOs, like WAR, AOC or TR, but if someone tell me that paying full price for the game box, do not cover the development cost and at least a year free subscription, I would call the bluff anytime. The exception is probably TR here, since the greed is simply unimaginable.
Also the issue with bugs. It is like asking, buy this broken game and pay us monthly to fix it. If you don't, you won't be able to play it at all. And your $50 or whatever investment, will become worthless overnight. Now try to explain this to console gamers or normal PC gamers. This is what the MMO devs have been shoving down the throat to MMO gamers.
Originally posted by Gooo Also the issue with bugs. It is like asking, buy this broken game and pay us monthly to fix it. If you don't, you won't be able to play it at all. And your $50 or whatever investment, will become worthless overnight. Now try to explain this to console gamers or normal PC gamers. This is what the MMO devs have been shoving down the throat to MMO gamers.
This is a great point. MMOs have created certain acceptance of bugs that no other games would accept.. NEVER ! I mean... One of the first quests you did after lvl 20 (out of Torture) in AOC was to look for a missing boy. And oh my.. was he missing... He was INSIDE the hill (Under the earth scenery) and had been there for 6 WEEKS PRIOR to release with litterally 1000 reports telling them about it. Still - it stayed hidden inside the hill for ANOTHER 4 WEEKS after release! So well hidden that I and 800K other ppl were UNABLE to do the quest. And you wonder why the NDA only refered to the 1-20 content open beta ?
This is one of many examples. But still both devs AND the fanboys are allowed to say... MMO are always evolving...
Oh really...
This bug factor simply has to stop. If companies can not release games in acceptable state then they simply have to admit they dont have the ability to create these kinda games that are so "complicated" compared to other generes...
I mean... how complicated was it to fix the missing boy quest ? Well... it was a minor issue considering the ENTIRE DX10 code was missing. And still is !!
Usually I assume when a person brands an mmo like aoc or war a failure they are meaning short for failure to live up to expectations more than failing to make money, it seems most games don't need more than 200k or so subs to actually turn a profit and if that's the case obviously these games will go on. But you raise a good point about how high the bar is raised for some mmos.
I often get the feeling that where AOC is concerned alot of the problems they have with the expectations is self inflicted when your lead dev does interviews with comments that could atleast be viewed as a jab at a highly successful product you had best deliver. WAR I think may have suffered from the communities sense that it would be this "wow killer" and releasing so close to the disastrous AOC and not delivering on the fun didn't help much either.
So long as I can find a decent guild to play with any population size is ok to me as a matter of fact I would probably rather a smaller mmo to something the size of wow as certain issues arise out of playing a game with such a large population.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
IMO, it depends on what they are aiming at. If, like WAR, they are aiming at WOW then they better at least have a million subs to be considered a success. However, if its a small company I think 25K-100K would be considered a success.
Just like any investment. If you spend $1000 dollars and make $1000 dollars you're very happy that you doubled your money. Even if it was only a thousand dollars. If you spend $100,000, and only make a thousand dollars its not really a success. You made the same amount of money, but the first one cost you much less resources.
I think what hurts certain MMOs is when they have to answer to someone else with unrealistic expectations. I certainly believe this is the case with WAR.
In 1990 EQ launched and by Xmas had 100,000 subscribers at $10 each a month. That's a million bucks a month. It was considered highly profitable. It got to 400,000 eventually but dwindled there after.
However it is still going today, 10 years after it's launch. GRATS EQ!!!! If it wasn't making money why would it still be going AND releasing expansions? Especially in today's cost cutting economy?
WAR has 300,000 subscribers less than 6 months after launch and is doing well from what I'm hearing. It just doesn't have 5 million like it's parent company wanted which is totally unrealistic. First of all the WoW numbers aren't true subcriber numbers in the way most games count. Are there 11 Million WoW players worldwide? Sure. But they aren't all paying the same price of $14.99 like we are here in the US.
Not to mention Blizzard marketed in China which was a smart business move. (I will leave politics out of this.)
If I make a MMO and I net 100K subs a month, I get 18M a year. If I sustain an avg of 100K a month for 4 years which I think you have to plan your cycle around, I would make 72M. Plus 3 to 4 M on game sales.
If I average 200K....then it's 144M....Can you tell me you will spend that much in game development costs plus sustainment in 4 years? If you do then you failed.
100 employees at 50K a year is 5M a year. Times 4 and that's 20M. There is no way you're paying more than 100 people 50K a year. I cannot imagine a payroll for a small game over 10M a year.
Basically if you make 100K a month in subs and plan right you will be profitable.
Plenty of people own businesses where they make 50K a year in salary and are lucky to make 5 cents on the dollar in profit.
Comments
I think that as long as there is a profit gained while maintaining and updating the MMO then it is a success. WOW is like Wal-Mart. I don't see any company popping up and matching the profit and volume of Wal-Mart but that doesn't mean that your store has failed. If you find your niche where enough people like your product to sustain it then there is no need for your comparative value in relation to any of the much larger competition. WOW also has a natural advantage as its really dug in. Getting in at the right time and setting up gave it the edge where the issue isn't is a new MMO good but if is the new MMO able to draw people away from WOW.
No, it's no that simple.
If they can barely earn a little more than the costs, then it's a horrible investment. If I ran such a company, I'd fear bankrupsy every day. I would not consider that a success.
I would argue this: if you see your profits diminish to 0, pull the cord. Up until that point, if your income is greater than your overall expenses, then its a success. So many games these days (including MMOs) just don't ever turn a profit. I wouldn't hope for big $$$, just a profit.
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
Around 100k should be enough.
To be financially successful, it's whatever number is necessary for them to break even and then make a profit, but for me, the true indication of success is a game that can retain at least 90% of it's peak subscription numbers or even grow beyond that.
A game that can at least retain that many of it's target audience, let alone the fringes, is a real winner in my book. Take EverQuest for example. We know from SOE that EQ had more than 2 million people try their game and yet even at it's peak, it never retained more than 450,000 subscriptions. That is less than a 50% retention rate and in my book, those are dismal results. In business terms, that is horrifying to lose so many potential customers. The game does make money, but you have to be very disappointed to lose all of that potential revenue, massive revenue at that.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
About 100 K / 150 K. If you can't make your budget around this number, don't make a MMO. Theres NO more people to fill your server. Not now... maybe If WoW collapse AND sudenlly everyone want to play MMO's, but thats like Nintendo collapsing and at the same time, everybody wanting to play the type of casual game that nintendo create... It don't make sense. So try 150K.
I believe the majority of MMORPG developers are too greedy compare to others. First you have to buy the game box at full price (at least during the release) then pay monthly subscription which in many cases way too expensive. Too expensive due to lack of updates, lack of game fixes or new contents. And in many cases the game failed to deliver the earlier hype/promises.
I will explain this below:
A simple market research will show the demographic of MMORPG players. My guess is it is probably normally distributed with the majority being casual (few hours a day), while the hardcore player will be far lower compare to the casual. Casual player provides "extra" population that is needed.
Now how can the majority of these players, agree to pay full price for a boxed game and monthly subscription fee at around $15+ for just a few hours (sometimes less) a day. Now some may argue $15 a month is nothing. But when there is so many other alternative that is free (i.e. other games which require no subscription fee) and in many cases provide better entertainment, one would easily question this $15 a month expenditure. Now compound this if the player want to try 2-3 different MMORPGs...
I can guess by now, the majority of gamers here, have been burned by over hype or promise of a new MMORPG. Then the developer started to promise fixes and updates which never happened. I sure did several times.
This is why several MMORPGs hit such a high number during the release then a few months later, it has only 10-20% subscription left. But this trend won't continue for ever. Gamers get the message sooner or later. Some already did.
What happen next has became the routine for many MMORPGs out there. The cycle of lack of population, which eventually kill the game.
Something drastic has to be done to MMORPG genre. Don't be too greedy, there is a lot of different ways to make money. Reduce the price of the game box to entice more player joining the game during release, reduce or change the subscription fee methodology to accomodate casual players, find a way to make more cash from "extra" contents or items and etc.
Keep the basic game as accessible as possible. But sell this extra contents to generate more revenue. This way you can keep the population and the subscription, even it will take longer to get the investment back.
Hello, fellows! I'm new in MMORPG.com forums, but I have some experience in MMORPG. I totally agree with Gooo on the classes of MMO players, and his understanding of them. But there is certain things about the F2P MMOs I would like to say:
- The key to the success on a F2P MMO is normally the array of itens offered to the players, and the prizes of those itens;
- A F2P MMO must be as interesting as a P2P MMO, because the player only starts to pay something on a F2P MMO after some months of gaming (the hardcore gamers are an exception, but they are a minority).
- In resume, I believe that the numbers of subscribers is not the only method to determine a MMO success or failure, and the overhypes that seems so common only helps a good MMO title to be treated as a failure, for us players and the development companies.
Well, that's what I wish to say. Forgive me if my english have some mistakes, I'm a brazilian member and my english is not 100%. Farewell folks!
Gooo and Bigorns, wellcome to www.MMORPG.com :-)
Thanks Teiman and Bigorns. Although I actually joined way back in 2004, but never make single post!
The investment to play an MMO is quite high. As I mentioned before you have to pay for the boxes and monthly fees. If you get a game you like that is fine however you won't know until you play it for a while. And if your subscription is expired you can't play the game at all. To play again you have to fork another dollars.
Not to mention, in most cases you can't even sell the game second hand. With console games for example, if you don't like the game, you can sell it second hand to at least get some of your money back or trade with another game. The same goes with normal PC games.
With MMO game, once you bought it that's it.
Also I like to switch game every now and then. Sometimes I play my PS3, another time I play my FPS (Battlefield and DODS) and others. Not to mention other things beside gaming. Having to pay for a subcription, make playing the game to be an obligation.
I think in all fairness, when you bought the game box, the "core game" should be free, forever. They can charge for extra contents/items/expansions or whatever. Keeping the core game free, will allow casual players to stick to game much longer. Providing the needed "extra" population for the server.
Now the "core game" could be certain area in the game, certain level, weapons or whatever. Take for example, the core game allow you to play the game in continent A, participate in PvP, housing, auction and etc, however to get to continent B you have to pay extra or pay a subscription. After a while, a new continent C is released. Everyone now can enjoy continent A and B, but to go to C, they have to pay extra. Hence the core game now is expanded to include A and B.
This way, a player has always have access to the game, even somehow limited. This keep the interest on the game last longer. And increase the likelihood the player will upgrade to the extra content once a while and generating extra revenues.
Just my 2 cents....
The funny thing is, EVE has less players 5 years in than WAR is boasting after only a few months. Can we seriously look at CCP and their work on EVE as a great success story and on WAR as a failure given that the numbers don’t support this interpretation?
The big difference is that the initial cost of making a MMOG has skyrocketed. I would love to see a lot more niche games in development where the devs openly stated goals of 100-300k subscriptions. Unfortunately, the cost to make a modern MMOG is so high that no investor will become involved with a project unless the devs lie through their teeth and claim that their game has the potential for millions of subs.
I have no doubts that in the MMO market, I would rather have 100 niche games than 5 please-everyone games. It makes it hard choose, but the more niche games there are the more likely each of us is to find their perfect world to share with others that found the same thing. I'll take diversity over homogeniety any day.
I think this thinking goes back to playing NWN1 for much of the time others were cutting their teeth on Everquest. I played on a Nordock server where, at most, their would be 25 people playing. Out of maybe 50+ regulars there was usually only about a dozen on at any given time. So pretty much all servers like this were run as hobbies, all I played on had some kind of rubberbanding lag going on if only a bit, they could be utterly brutal for new players ... yet this is the most fun I have ever had in a game like this. I actually hated NWN1 with a passion, yet the multiplayer communities have made it into one of my fondest-remembered experiences. I even have fond memories of the Time Stop server bug (if some random mage or mob cast the spell Time Stop anywhere in the world - it would literally stop time for the entire server requiring an admin reset. lol, good times)
Playing LOTRO for some time now, I also dispensed with the anxiety over server population long ago. I realized I actually liked the fact there were relatively few players. Perhaps it is because I am an explorer at heart and enjoy seeing a random human in the wilderness after spending an hour wandering alone. I feel more connected to them and more likely to interact than if I am wading through dozens of other players.
I think reducing the "massive" in MMOs by a bit would go a long way to creating more community within the games. I don't prefer the normal method of splitting up a game into numerous shards or servers really works for me (and therefore I would guess some others as well). It is a good idea in theory and in practice, but without player mobility it creates the "everyone I know and want to play with is on different servers" phenomenon. But player mobility is potentially a huge burden on a virtual economy.
Personally, I would like to see a game made and marketed as an extension of the spirit of NWN1 or NWN2 - the MMORPG Construction Kit, if you will. NWN2 has some interesting communities, but doesn't have the overall population going for it to promote the diversity it needs.
While there never may be an MMORPG Construction Kit, I think I can see some perspective from the whole WoW 800-lbs gorilla phenomenon finally settling in. Probably from the various fiascos and near-fiascos of last year. I think the industry people and fans are realizing you don't have to be the Exalted One to make a good living for your business and have a load of fun gaming.
That is why I voted for the last option - if you are making money, then you are indeed successful. And if that idea is held firmly then I would think developers can publishers can focus on the artistic, technical and innovative aspects of their games as the goal for success, not a subscription arms-race based on the reliablilty of models or formulas.
Of course, the game is not for everyone, it's not spoon feeding like in WoW, not "kill 10 bears" ehm... "quests", and it's much harder and more demanding than general WoW clone. I played much of the games on the market, including returning to WoW for WotLK, but DDO for me is simply the best. Many former WoW players play in DDO now, most say that they were looking for something different and found it.
DDO is also heavily instanced, so former WoW players may feel "weird" at first, but that's just a matter of changing from the style of most popular/copied MMO ever - which is World of Warcraft. As I explained on DDO forums, for me DDO is much more MMO AND RPG than any other around. Surely not only a multiplayer game. Such opinion came only because of Blizzard who created their "only true standard" by making WoW very popular and successful marketing-wise. It's sad many reviewers fell into a trap there, forgetting (or not knowing) that before WoW there were many MUDs and Ultima Online as real precursor of the whole genre - and it's nothing like Blizzard's game.
These are only my 2 cents, but I really welcome everybody to try DDO now. Especially players who left in beta or soon after - the game is like new now.
Cheers!
Polish Sword Coast Legends Portal http://www.swordcoast.pl/
SwordCoast.pl Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SwordCoastPL/
SwordCoast.pl Twitter: https://twitter.com/SwordCoastPL
Polish Neverwinter Portal http://www.neverwinter.com.pl/
Polish D&D Online Portal http://www.ddopl.com
DDOpl Twitter: http://twitter.com/DDOpl
Great DDO PodCast by Jerry & co. http://www.ddocast.com
Of course, the game is not for everyone, it's not spoon feeding like in WoW, not "kill 10 bears" ehm... "quests", and it's much harder and more demanding than general WoW clone. I played much of the games on the market, including returning to WoW for WotLK, but DDO for me is simply the best. Many former WoW players play in DDO now, most say that they were looking for something different and found it.
DDO is also heavily instanced, so former WoW players may feel "weird" at first, but that's just a matter of changing from the style of most popular/copied MMO ever - which is World of Warcraft. As I explained on DDO forums, for me DDO is much more MMO AND RPG than any other around. Surely not only a multiplayer game. Such opinion came only because of Blizzard who created their "only true standard" by making WoW very popular and successful marketing-wise. It's sad many reviewers fell into a trap there, forgetting (or not knowing) that before WoW there were many MUDs and Ultima Online as real precursor of the whole genre - and it's nothing like Blizzard's game.
These are only my 2 cents, but I really welcome everybody to try DDO now. Especially players who left in beta or soon after - the game is like new now.
Cheers!
I have played DDO recently and it is one of those games I try to support when and how I can. It is an example of what I am talking about. Even with a boom of players, I wager it still has a really low population relative to how expectations of players and investors alike have been set by WoW. But even if "small" the community is vibrant, as far as I know the game makes Turbine some money, and they have focused a lot on improving it overall for their community. It is a perfect niche game.
Maybe I'm wrong but didn't EverQuest have like 430,000 subscribers in it's heyday? By today's standards that might be considered low but they were the King of the Hill at the time.
Ref: www.beststuff.com/fromthewire/everquest-experiences-a-record-number-of-simultaneous-players.html
As a side-note, I'd prefer to play with 430K quality players than 12 million children with A.D.D. any day of the week.
I think its down to whichever company is running a MMO to decide if its a success
Eve may have less subs to War, but all of those subs are on 1 shard so the world the players are in is busier than Wars and even WoWs plethora of servers - Eve proves niche MMO games can be a success/profitable
As far as the player is concerned, a success or failure is more a personal thing with some saying X game is a failure while others say its a success even without that game closing down
IMO games which close down prove the game is a failure, if it doesnt its a success - People are still having fun in games like AO and SWG despite them having 12 years online time between them, sure there are arguemtns about the level of success for profits and (past) potential subscriber numbers those games could of retained or gained but they are still online, poeple are still playing them and I cant see how they are doing anything but making profit unless SOE / FC are crazy (i know some would argue they are) and dont have any basic business sense
Once you remove Wow from the equation - which needs to be done as all that game does is skew results for any kind of MMO comaprison - how many P2P western MMOs ever had multi millions of players playing them?
Do number of subs deside if a game is successfull or not ? No
Do number of subs control the future of a MMO? Yes....
Would CCP be here today if ppl had not played their game ? Did they start their game with millions put into adds to advetise something that wasn't even in the game at start ?
Should a company like Funcom even to be allowed to call their game successfull when they havn't even delivered into the game what they promised on the box ?
Should Warhammer be considered successfull with their main and (many would say) ONLY focus (RVR) badly broken cause of all sorts of server and lag problems ?
You ask me ? The answer is kinda obvious isn't it?
How much did CCP put into starting EVE and make it a profitable company that is able to offer FREE expansions ?
How much did Funcom and Mythic spend on AOC and WAR to get it up and running ? And would they survife with EVE subs ?
Do you have to think about it ? I dont have to.
ANY developer can make a disission on how they want to manage their game - INCLUDING how it should be released. WAR and AOC were ONLY released based on GREED - Quick money that the developers knew all along would never hold up- Cause yes.. the devs knew about the bugs of the game... they knew but did not care if they sold those bugs to 100000s of ppl...
Games like WAR and AOC are HUGE failures cause they NEVER intented to build their game up on the players. Cause if that was the case then they would have started small and build up from there. Instead they started big and have huge maintainance bills now on half empty or empty servers. And with all kind of problems that is ONLY there based on GREED.
Lets make one thing clear. Greed just killed the ENTIRE world economy in the past few months. Fake assests and worthless stocks that made ppl billions - until the truth came out. And then the collapse - So... where is the diffrence when it comes to games ?
There is none.
WAR and AOC failed not because of player hype... it failed cause the company hyped up a product they could not deliver on. And if those ppl are all of a sudden claiming their game is a HUGE hit and success with 70-80% of ppl that bought the game quitting within 6 months... Then shouldn't those developers be put to jail for conning ppl?
Or is this the success stories of the future MMOs ? I surely hope not. And I hope you all agree with me there.
This is my argument as well. Game like EVE proved (somehow) that they can offer quality gaming by subscription alone. And even release a free expansion.
Now I don't know how much precisely the cost of making MMOs, like WAR, AOC or TR, but if someone tell me that paying full price for the game box, do not cover the development cost and at least a year free subscription, I would call the bluff anytime. The exception is probably TR here, since the greed is simply unimaginable.
Also the issue with bugs. It is like asking, buy this broken game and pay us monthly to fix it. If you don't, you won't be able to play it at all. And your $50 or whatever investment, will become worthless overnight. Now try to explain this to console gamers or normal PC gamers. This is what the MMO devs have been shoving down the throat to MMO gamers.
This is a great point. MMOs have created certain acceptance of bugs that no other games would accept.. NEVER ! I mean... One of the first quests you did after lvl 20 (out of Torture) in AOC was to look for a missing boy. And oh my.. was he missing... He was INSIDE the hill (Under the earth scenery) and had been there for 6 WEEKS PRIOR to release with litterally 1000 reports telling them about it. Still - it stayed hidden inside the hill for ANOTHER 4 WEEKS after release! So well hidden that I and 800K other ppl were UNABLE to do the quest. And you wonder why the NDA only refered to the 1-20 content open beta ?
This is one of many examples. But still both devs AND the fanboys are allowed to say... MMO are always evolving...
Oh really...
This bug factor simply has to stop. If companies can not release games in acceptable state then they simply have to admit they dont have the ability to create these kinda games that are so "complicated" compared to other generes...
I mean... how complicated was it to fix the missing boy quest ? Well... it was a minor issue considering the ENTIRE DX10 code was missing. And still is !!
Usually I assume when a person brands an mmo like aoc or war a failure they are meaning short for failure to live up to expectations more than failing to make money, it seems most games don't need more than 200k or so subs to actually turn a profit and if that's the case obviously these games will go on. But you raise a good point about how high the bar is raised for some mmos.
I often get the feeling that where AOC is concerned alot of the problems they have with the expectations is self inflicted when your lead dev does interviews with comments that could atleast be viewed as a jab at a highly successful product you had best deliver. WAR I think may have suffered from the communities sense that it would be this "wow killer" and releasing so close to the disastrous AOC and not delivering on the fun didn't help much either.
So long as I can find a decent guild to play with any population size is ok to me as a matter of fact I would probably rather a smaller mmo to something the size of wow as certain issues arise out of playing a game with such a large population.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
IMO, it depends on what they are aiming at. If, like WAR, they are aiming at WOW then they better at least have a million subs to be considered a success. However, if its a small company I think 25K-100K would be considered a success.
Just like any investment. If you spend $1000 dollars and make $1000 dollars you're very happy that you doubled your money. Even if it was only a thousand dollars. If you spend $100,000, and only make a thousand dollars its not really a success. You made the same amount of money, but the first one cost you much less resources.
I think what hurts certain MMOs is when they have to answer to someone else with unrealistic expectations. I certainly believe this is the case with WAR.
In 1990 EQ launched and by Xmas had 100,000 subscribers at $10 each a month. That's a million bucks a month. It was considered highly profitable. It got to 400,000 eventually but dwindled there after.
However it is still going today, 10 years after it's launch. GRATS EQ!!!! If it wasn't making money why would it still be going AND releasing expansions? Especially in today's cost cutting economy?
WAR has 300,000 subscribers less than 6 months after launch and is doing well from what I'm hearing. It just doesn't have 5 million like it's parent company wanted which is totally unrealistic. First of all the WoW numbers aren't true subcriber numbers in the way most games count. Are there 11 Million WoW players worldwide? Sure. But they aren't all paying the same price of $14.99 like we are here in the US.
Not to mention Blizzard marketed in China which was a smart business move. (I will leave politics out of this.)
If I make a MMO and I net 100K subs a month, I get 18M a year. If I sustain an avg of 100K a month for 4 years which I think you have to plan your cycle around, I would make 72M. Plus 3 to 4 M on game sales.
If I average 200K....then it's 144M....Can you tell me you will spend that much in game development costs plus sustainment in 4 years? If you do then you failed.
100 employees at 50K a year is 5M a year. Times 4 and that's 20M. There is no way you're paying more than 100 people 50K a year. I cannot imagine a payroll for a small game over 10M a year.
Basically if you make 100K a month in subs and plan right you will be profitable.
Plenty of people own businesses where they make 50K a year in salary and are lucky to make 5 cents on the dollar in profit.