Because if games werent hyped we wouldnt make any money as Gaming journalist perhaps?
Nice topic GFuller!!
And therein lies the problem - game journalism is mostly limited to following the hype and act as a mere extension of the industry. Articles like this as well as the rest of the columns are, imho, a good step towards countering the 'traditional' status of gaming journalism, although they need to follow the arguments a bit deeper. Like this article, for example, opened a good topic of discussion but I felt it could've said quite a lot more, and after a solid introduction it sort of suddenly fell quiet.
It's OK to point fingers and all, you know. Like what Cryptic did with the Lifetime membership of Champions: offer betas for a game (Star Trek) surely to make an impact on the gaming community (sections of which might not necessarily be geeky) and make a profit based on the new idea that beta test is basically "play the game early" and no longer a real test. I know of a lot of people who bought the lifetime sub to Champs just because of the Star Trek thing, and not because of the game per se. Beta, turned into a noun and no longer an adjective of 'test', has become a marketing aspect, but the problem with it is that it seems that no one has told the developers of games themselves yet, and they continue to treat it as test, tweaking things and changing the gameplay oftentimes considerably to the detriment of those silly people who were just in to try the game out for free, who, usually, complain to no end in forums like these. What they need to do is create a sort of 'limited-time free trial' just after launch to appeal to all those people while at the same time being more careful about their tests.
Following that same example, people, including reviewers, therefore tend to fall into the trap and violently react to any wide change made to the game during beta test in the silliest manners possible; the Gamespy review of Champions was riddled with stuff only those 'I'm playing the game early' people would be concerned over, like the launch day patch that made mobs harder. Instead of giving a decent overview of the game, its aims, the design choices, the possible meaning it might all have in your life ('will I become addicted to boredom and play 5 hours a day even when I don't like it, like WoW?'), the review was just kind of a short rant about a before that didn't even EXIST for players who bought the game when it launched and an after that is actually the more realistic standard measure for an evaluation.
It still sucked after launch day.
That's why so many people demanded their money back, and why MMORPG.com has it rated so much lower than it's competition. (7.3 vs. 8.5)
The game was simply launched to early period.
Champions is a perfect example of the OPs point of Beta Hype.
Besides this was not supposed to be a "Lets defend Champions" thread. It was supposed to be about how MMOs are currently marketed and how that is affecting the consumers.
Where is the part where the player also should learn to take some responsibility? Didn't see any of that, all I saw was blaming something else.
Say, did you happen to read the whole article? Like the part where he addressed this specifically?
Did you happen to read the whole thread where he was already corrected?
Every MMORPG is AWESOME, until it's released! I don't want a game so much as I want a WORLD! -- o·pin·ion noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
This is an excellent article. It covers and explains some from the investors and gaming companies. The developers work hard to create a game that is what it should be but ultimately it is the company and investors who truely make the decisiions.
On the other hand it is also pointed out why people rush for the beta test and what they should be doing. I for one have beta tested a few games in the past. First you have to keep in mind that it is beta testing and thus there are going to be bugs and unfinished content. The developer needs to know what is working and what the players are liking and not liking in order to improve. I have many times heard in forums and within a game being beta tested how the game sucks due to bugs, incomplete content , etc. Or this sucks and that sucks blah blah blah. Hello it is beta testing and if you are testing a game in beta you should be reporting issues you find whatever they are so the dev's can be looking at and fixing what needs to be fixed. People that beta test and bash a game from the get go do serious harm and it is unfairly done because it is beta not the finished product.
I do agree with the author there are many games out there that push those expectations up with too much info in order to plan ahead for the sales. However, this can also be very crushing if in the end the flood of expectations aren't met for whatever reasons. Gamers don't like to be lead on. I also agree if the investors and big wigs played and were gamers things might be a bit different.
The truth is gamers want to know but at the same time if you tell them too much and don't deliver you have lost them. So it is a catch 22 and should be approached carefully.
This site is also a contributor to the hype AND relies on hype - it feeds on and is fed by hype.
The gaming sites and magazines hold a tremendous amount of responsibility--as they are the direct conduit from the game companies to the gamers.
Gaming sites and magazines make money by telling the public about the hype coming from the gaming companies so it's hard to imagine these sites and magazines setting forth a set of standards and expectations for information from the gaming companies that does much to ensure accountability and accuracy, and to quell the premature explosion of information.
And until then, this issue will assuredly be left unchecked.
Agreed, however....
keep in mind the decision to release game information rests on the managers and marketing directors of game companies. Not with us.
Yes it is our job to report it, but not our decision to release it.
If a game company came to us and asked them to help with their marketing plan....of course we would set some standards...
that would mean they would actually have to listen to us....which they do...in Bizzaro world.
Quote: Expectations for nearly every new release are simply too high.
I dont think that is the only Problem. Imho the problem is, there isn't realy something new. I am playing MMOs since Meridian 59 and i remember the jump to Anarchy Online as it came out, it was simply amacing, all the new posibillitys, you could have pets, all the possibiltys of pinping and so on . Nowadays its just the grafic that is a bit better.
I dont realy want to know how many times WoW has been cloned yet. Its allways the same. The only interesting news i heard about since SWG, is that you can fight flying in Aion. But that is still nothing that blows me off of my Chair.
If i shall speek for me, i wished they would implement more posibilities: (more) houses and crafting like in SWG, the charachter customacation and the varity of items like in AO (maybe also some dieferent vehicles if SciFi), the possibility to create own Spells like in Ryzom, and so on. What right now is Online is imho all rubbish. Sorry.
That's why so many people demanded their money back, and why MMORPG.com has it rated so much lower than it's competition. (7.3 vs. 8.5)
The game was simply launched to early period.
Champions is a perfect example of the OPs point of Beta Hype.
Besides this was not supposed to be a "Lets defend Champions" thread. It was supposed to be about how MMOs are currently marketed and how that is affecting the consumers.
The point was that the reviewer on that site used arguments that were not relevant to why the game sucked after launch. He or she (I don't recall) was using a previous experience that the public at large didn't have and couldn't compare by themselves. That's why I agree with MMORPG's review of the game, because it focuses on the actual content and problems of it, instead of building a narrative of tragedy around it to make an evaluation. The people who read MMORPG's review and get the game anyway know what they're going into in a way that is fair to them and to the game, which isn't the case with the other review.
It seems you missed my point entirely, so let me explain: the article could have used some examples, and the Champions release was the first one that came to my mind. The problem with generalizations, "MMOs do that", is that it's a safe place for the writer and for the companies - he's not compromising and at the same time the individual companies are freed from most responsibility. I believe that if the writer took a bunch of examples and pointed them out, the article would be a lot more effective, and people that don't know about the workings of the industry in that sense could become aware of what they're buying into when publishers offer them beta keys, and the publishers themselves could then face the consequences a lot more consciously and maturely than what they're currently doing (remember that interview with one of WAR's designers in which he, in a fit of anger after all the complaints and whines about the game's release, said something like "LET THEIR CREDIT CARDS SPEAK!"? That's just handling the situation in a completely unprofessional manner, thanks to them over-hyping and over-promoting their Beta as a game preview...).
So I'm just saying that if the article would be more confrontational, I think it would be a lot more effective than what it currently is.
I've done alot of beta testing, in fact I love to beta test. And no it's not just to see the game first. Finding bugs for me is just fun. In fact I've beta tested some titles and then not played them. Some because they failed to listen to the beta testers and fix or tweak some things in the game. Some others I decided not to play just because the player communities that came to fruition on launch weren't my cup of tea.
The game companies are pushed by their investors to hype up the games way in advance this is most definately the wrong approach as some games are found to be so buggy during testing that either the investors pull the plug, or tell the developers to shop elsewhere for monetary backing. Often times the development cycle is far enough along that no other company will even venture to touch it. I believe the Gods and Heroes MMO had this problem.
Some games are so buggy in fact that they push a release ahead of time and then the investors pull the plug leaving the game as an utter failure unless another company picks that game up. Most notable of this is Vanguard. Since SOE's purchase of Vanguard there have been notable improvements and the player base that had dwindled to almost nil is slowly but surely increasing in number.
MMOs unlike other game genres have a harder time meeting player expectations upon release. They are often unfairly compared to the progenitors of the genre UO, EverQuest, WoW.
As a beta tester it behooves us to make sure that the games we test stand or fail on their own merits. Yes, using some of the things that the other game companies do right is smart, but we shouldn't unfairly compare something a game does differently and say it's wrong.
That being said most games shouldn't be heavily marketed until the last wave or two of closed beta testers have had a crack at it.
Most people don't like SOE but one thing they do right is they allow a select player base of their current titles to beta all of their projected new releases, and any additional add-ons to their game. They are very smart in how they select their player base for these tests as well, they always at least attempt to make sure that the high end raider, questor, tradeskiller, and solo player have their hands in the testing stages so that when release day comes they aren't back tracking and adding in content that doesn't really match the feel of the rest of the world because a portion of their player base is upset. There are alot of potential game producers, developers, and investors that could learn alot from their methodology.
Also, game companies should share info amongst eachother as to who they consider are valuable beta testers which would allow for more bugs being found and fixes being done more quickly, consequently allowing for an earlier release.
I don't see hype as a big problem really. It's just a way to get people interested, but when you start telling people about things that don't actually end up in the game you are jumping the gun and people lose respect for your game and your company.
The biggest problem with games today is releasing a beta when you really don't have the game fundamentals nailed down and in a very good playable state. Why do you want to show people a game that is full of terribly frustrating bugs when you don't even have your combat system nailed down and balanced and no real fun factor to speak of in quests or group content like raiding and pvp? It makes little business sense to show a product to the consumer before the product is in a state that a consumer would consider worthy of there time and money. It is suicide!
No one likes to be ripped off and they go out of their way to make sure everyone they can tell hears about how you gave them the shaft and pushed a game out the door that was obviously not ready and not fun.
I think a lot of it has to do with under estimating the cost and amount of time that a dev team requires to make a fun game because no one sets out to make a crappy game. The dev team needs proper support in their endeavor to make a great game and that means allowing them time to work things out properly before you lock them into a hard release date. Video games are a type of art and you at least have to make art pleasing before people consider paying money for it and hanging it up for their guests to enjoy. If it's boring and ugly art you are not going to make any money off it.
The devs should play their game, they should play the hell out of it and they should balance and kill bugs and focus test (devs can do a lot of bug testing and balancing without us and they should do what they can to spare us testing something that has obvious bugs and balance issues) and then when they have it in a fun stable state bring in the community, but don't go to beta before it is at least fun; and certainly never release a crappy retail version that makes you feel like you just payed for a beta version.
sijmisterWorld of Warcraft CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 47
We'd probably see better games if companies cut their marketing and PR departments down in size and put the money they save from that in development. The thing about MMOs is that you can't hype a game, pull the wool over everyone's eyes with that hype and expect box sales to cover the costs and run away with everyone's money.
You need a system that will provide a consistently enjoyable experience for your players or you are out of luck.
I totally agree with this article. Even if it's find for a developer to gain public before the game is finished by creating this hype, 100% of time ends up with dissapointment from this public.
In other article, the motto was: " allow the game to grow".
Players to need to be patienc. Pick a project and stick with it, help the devolepers giving feedback and wait some months before talking crap about a game, since nowdays no company is delivering a 100% polished game with perfect gameplay and no bugs.
A good example of too much hype and an open beta used as a marketing play to sell Fileplanet accounts: Champions Online
Take a look at the current status of both of those games. Which one of this is currently playable and fun and which one is a mess that is constantly getting patched and retcons given out to compensate for the sweeping changes?
I've said it before... but the last MMORPG-like games I bought were Tabula Rasa and Hellgate: London. Tested both in beta... and both felt like beta garbage on "final release"... that they wanted and expected people to pay for. Hell even Hellgate: London had a kickass LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP option! I know a guy who bought that deal, and I laughed at the thought of remembering him when I found out the game was going to be canceled just ONE YEAR later... and the same damned thing happened to Tabula Rasa too.
Both had SUPER DUPER ULTRA SNAZZY EPIC trailers to them too to help both of those games lash together a massive hype golem. Seriously, go check out the trailers of Tabula Rasa, and the Mini Story of Hellgate:London, right now. They even got Mila Jovovich to do the voice for the main chick in Tabula Rasa. They even did NUDE PICS of the main characters for release in PLAYBOY for fucks sake. But nothing could save them from the biggest problem, themselves.
Early on, there were no major "expectations" because it was a pioneering field, most of us "(M)MORPG vets" have a lot of game time under our belts and have seen what works and what doesn't... and even despite all our collective differences... Casual/Hardcore, PvE Carebears/PvP Elitists, Persistant Sandbox/Quest driven Themeparks, the BIGGEST thing we're getting sick of are the games are not fully functional or not doing what they "promised" on release, and being fed bullshit ideas that "If you pay us enough in the next coming months, we promise to please you... maybe" bribery pertaining to new games.
Megacorps are going to run what we love about MMO idealism into the goddamned ground like a catapulted condensed ball of flaming shit, just because they all want cash cows like WoW, and they want them as FAST as possible! Because let's face it, executives have expensive taste, and they have a lot of shit they want to buy.
If people want to act like they have some sense... do the genre a favor. STOP... FUCKING... PRE ORDERING. Every one of you know MMO's are fubard the first 30 days+ anyways, and every one of you know that "beta is not a representative of final release".. just ask those who are butthurt about Champions Online. Everyone knows that a CG trailer is not representative of actual game footage, and even if it is you have no idea what your 55 bucks is going to buy you in the end, and you don't know until 3 months later after they sorted some of the gamestopping bugs and fixed some balancing and exploits do you really know what is in store for the long run.
Vote with your dollar (currency) and get execs off of developers backs to make cash cows.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
That's why so many people demanded their money back, and why MMORPG.com has it rated so much lower than it's competition. (7.3 vs. 8.5)
The game was simply launched to early period.
Champions is a perfect example of the OPs point of Beta Hype.
Besides this was not supposed to be a "Lets defend Champions" thread. It was supposed to be about how MMOs are currently marketed and how that is affecting the consumers.
The point was that the reviewer on that site used arguments that were not relevant to why the game sucked after launch. He or she (I don't recall) was using a previous experience that the public at large didn't have and couldn't compare by themselves. That's why I agree with MMORPG's review of the game, because it focuses on the actual content and problems of it, instead of building a narrative of tragedy around it to make an evaluation. The people who read MMORPG's review and get the game anyway know what they're going into in a way that is fair to them and to the game, which isn't the case with the other review.
It seems you missed my point entirely, so let me explain: the article could have used some examples, and the Champions release was the first one that came to my mind. The problem with generalizations, "MMOs do that", is that it's a safe place for the writer and for the companies - he's not compromising and at the same time the individual companies are freed from most responsibility. I believe that if the writer took a bunch of examples and pointed them out, the article would be a lot more effective, and people that don't know about the workings of the industry in that sense could become aware of what they're buying into when publishers offer them beta keys, and the publishers themselves could then face the consequences a lot more consciously and maturely than what they're currently doing (remember that interview with one of WAR's designers in which he, in a fit of anger after all the complaints and whines about the game's release, said something like "LET THEIR CREDIT CARDS SPEAK!"? That's just handling the situation in a completely unprofessional manner, thanks to them over-hyping and over-promoting their Beta as a game preview...).
So I'm just saying that if the article would be more confrontational, I think it would be a lot more effective than what it currently is.
Your right I misinterpreted you completely.
My apologies.
In fact I agree with you 100%.
Garret couldnt have used too many specific examples though for fear of pissing of the publishers that make him privy to inside info about launches that other sites like this might get if he started trashing specific games. After all the marketing departments of these games are what feed industry news sites like this.
I totally agree with you though guess I just read your original post the wrong way. Im still a little feisty over the CO launch fiasco.
Particulary the part about marketing people who isn't gamers themselves.
He didn't mention the fact that overmarketting your next game years before it releases also can hurt the sales of your current game ("Wgy would I start playing Warquest now when Warquest 2 will be so much better once it releases"?).
And the way the use betatests now really upsets me, it seems like an empty marketing trick where many companies doesn't even want feedback.
If people want to act like they have some sense... do the genre a favor. STOP... FUCKING... PRE ORDERING. Every one of you know MMO's are fubard the first 30 days+ anyways, and every one of you know that "beta is not a representative of final release".. just ask those who are butthurt about Champions Online. Everyone knows that a CG trailer is not representative of actual game footage, and even if it is you have no idea what your 55 bucks is going to buy you in the end, and you don't know until 3 months later after they sorted some of the gamestopping bugs and fixed some balancing and exploits do you really know what is in store for the long run.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
In one sense you can’t blame PR, they are just doing there job. If the MMO company decides to set up the PR department side too early, then the people employed in marketing need to justify their existence. They do that by putting out any sort of crap to create a buzz, a buzz which then hits the developers in the face. So it is down to company executives, they initiate the PR staff selection, they know the issues it can cause.
I was surprised about the references to managing expectations and marketing. The two don’t really go together, ME is a tool mostly used by managers with employees or say community liaison staff with the community of a MMO. But marketing wants to put expectation through the roof, that is what they are paid to do. The best way they can do this is to promise a MMO heaven without giving out specifics. Unfortunately what happens is that specifics start to be mentioned, which then bind developers to ideas that are still in a early stage of evolution. So ME and PR do not mix, they are like oil and water.
Yes pre ordering is a joke, come on players wake up and wait till launch at least before you buy. Sorting out the beta's is easy, just review every beta player after their first week. Have they put in two decent tickets? If not there beta account is rescinded.
To be frank, you cant un-make this development anymore. Its a one-way street. Or rather, it would take so much time, and a lot of failing MMOs, messy betas and remarkably wise and selfless business decisions for the good of the industry to undo the damage done already, before people change their now-confirmed views. Which nobody will do. The best way to fix it is to go ahead, take the current situation, and build on it. As an example, screw the whole "alpha, beta, open beta, closed beta, internal beta, pre-alpha" terminology, at least for your marketing purposes. Have the current style of "beta" as a free demo, which it already is, and put a lengthy ALPHA before it, where people can join in small numbers to selectively test certain features..... you know, like a beta used to be. By re-inventing the alpha as a process open to the playerbase, you can set the rules, and test your unfinished, buggy product, without losing the hype of the beta. Also, about marketing and hype, the problem is that very likely the interest of those putting money on the table are not long-term. They MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer, as anyone with a bit of experience in finance can tell you and probably quickly explain, a big launch, fat payday, and then get the hell out before the ship starts sinking. The shorter the wait for the pay-off, the better. Those who profit from longevity are the company itself (which is just a vehicle to get more money for most investors) and the people working there. However, reality today demands that its virtually unavoidable to lose a lot of control over your game if you want to make a big MMORPG, simply because you need so much external funding, which comes from people with different aims. There have been people who got rich on Age of Conan, who got rich on WAR, and who got out in time. They would do the same thing again with the next game they can jump on, most likely. These games are not failures, financially speaking, for those who got out in time.
+1 to that.
A company that manages MMO's should have a clearly defined "hype" plan for it BEFORE it starts to attract investors. The investors do not care about the company as it is, and do not care if the MMO fails, as long as it sells more then X number of copies.
By redesigning the Alpha/Beta terminology one can actually manage the hype and only release small sneakpeaks in the Alpha rather then the whole game which would contribute to the hype but not overhype it. Then, shortly before release one could test the servers load by an en-masse open Beta demo on a nearly finished product. This way the final release wouldbe tested under maximum strain.
SF
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
I definitely believe that marketing agency's are going to put people on the front lines for video games that have little to no experience with video games at all. This is because there are so few people with Internet based marketing skills so what inevitably happens is you get someone who has broadcast media experience just spilling out press release after press release via forums and website interviews.
Internet fans are ravenous and your job as a marketing professional is to generate hype not define each class. The way I see it right now most games have a stream of information about them prior to release. This is very bad. What the Internet consumer needs to truly build HYPE is the ability to speculate and generate considerable conversations on the subject.
Information about a future product needs to be released not in a constant flow or even a trickle but a slow yet steady drip.
As much as I have a loathing for the corporate types over at Funcom you really have to admit their Secret World campaign is awesome.
Nicely written article. I think part of the problem is that too many PR/Marketing Departments (and frankly Company Execs) don't understand basic business rules, nor the basic realities of product design.
The reality of product design (and this goes for most products...not just MMO's) is that is IMPOSSIBLE to design a product that appeals to everyone. That is because people are different and have wildy different and often contradictory perspectives of what makes a product appealing. The broader the category of people you try to reach with your product, the more difficult said product is to design. Smart designers and smart companies recognize this reality and try to pick target audiences for thier products that are broad enough that the product will be profitable to sell but narrow enough that the product can actualy be designed well given the available resources. That is a very difficult tight-rope to walk...and many companies fail right there. Either picking a market that is too small to be profitable given the resources put into the project....or more often trying to design to an audiance that is so broad and widely divergent that the design cannot possibly be made to work well.
However, even when designers/companies pick the scope right for the product...things can still go awry when Marketing/PR departments get involved. Many marketers see it as thier mission to try to sell the product to "as many customers as possible". This is what they see as thier goal....and their metric for success is the simple number of bodies they have managed to cram through the door. Many executives also fall for this lure as well. Unfortunately this actualy can be counter-productive to the LONG TERM health and financial success of the company/product. It's a pretty standard axiom in business that repeat business is FAR CHEAPER to acquire the new business. Companies obviously need a certain amount of new business to be successfull.... but many companies can go bankrupt by having TOO MUCH new business. That is because new business can be so expensive to acquire that the profit margin on it does not cover the overhead to serve it.
Too many marketers and frankly executive fail to realize this basic reality. They don't see the forest for the trees. The most effecient use of marketing is to gain as much of the TARGET AUDIENCE (i.e. the people who's needs the product is designed to meet well) as possible....and NO ONE ELSE. Unfortunately too many marketers (and executives) don't understand that important distinction and try to present the product AS IF IT WOULD APPEAL TO EVERYONE (including people who's tastes are contradictory to it's design). This results in wasted resources (too many one time sales), damage to the product/companies brand (in disatisified customers/bad reviews) and the companies future ability to do business (since a company can always release different products designed to meet different target audiences in future....but if that target audience was ALREADY jilted by the purchase of a previous product....they aren't likely to try a new one).
This is the real danger of the hype machine....not talking up the things the product is designed to meet well....but talking up the things it ISN'T.
Nicely written article. I think part of the problem is that too many PR/Marketing Departments (and frankly Company Execs) don't understand basic business rules, nor the basic realities of product design. The reality of product design (and this goes for most products...not just MMO's) is that is IMPOSSIBLE to design a product that appeals to everyone. That is because people are different and have wildy different and often contradictory perspectives of what makes a product appealing. The broader the category of people you try to reach with your product, the more difficult said product is to design. Smart designers and smart companies recognize this reality and try to pick target audiences for thier products that are broad enough that the product will be profitable to sell but narrow enough that the product can actualy be designed well given the available resources. That is a very difficult tight-rope to walk...and many companies fail right there. Either picking a market that is too small to be profitable given the resources put into the project....or more often trying to design to an audiance that is so broad and widely divergent that the design cannot possibly be made to work well. However, even when designers/companies pick the scope right for the product...things can still go awry when Marketing/PR departments get involved. Many marketers see it as thier mission to try to sell the product to "as many customers as possible". This is what they see as thier goal....and their metric for success is the simple number of bodies they have managed to cram through the door. Many executives also fall for this lure as well. Unfortunately this actualy can be counter-productive to the LONG TERM health and financial success of the company/product. It's a pretty standard axiom in business that repeat business is FAR CHEAPER to acquire the new business. Companies obviously need a certain amount of new business to be successfull.... but many companies can go bankrupt by having TOO MUCH new business. That is because new business can be so expensive to acquire that the profit margin on it does not cover the overhead to serve it. Too many marketers and frankly executive fail to realize this basic reality. They don't see the forest for the trees. The most effecient use of marketing is to gain as much of the TARGET AUDIENCE (i.e. the people who's needs the product is designed to meet well) as possible....and NO ONE ELSE. Unfortunately too many marketers (and executives) don't understand that important distinction and try to present the product AS IF IT WOULD APPEAL TO EVERYONE (including people who's tastes are contradictory to it's design). This results in wasted resources (too many one time sales), damage to the product/companies brand (in disatisified customers/bad reviews) and the companies future ability to do business (since a company can always release different products designed to meet different target audiences in future....but if that target audience was ALREADY jilted by the purchase of a previous product....they aren't likely to try a new one). This is the real danger of the hype machine....not talking up the things the product is designed to meet well....but talking up the things it ISN'T.
Comments
And therein lies the problem - game journalism is mostly limited to following the hype and act as a mere extension of the industry. Articles like this as well as the rest of the columns are, imho, a good step towards countering the 'traditional' status of gaming journalism, although they need to follow the arguments a bit deeper. Like this article, for example, opened a good topic of discussion but I felt it could've said quite a lot more, and after a solid introduction it sort of suddenly fell quiet.
It's OK to point fingers and all, you know. Like what Cryptic did with the Lifetime membership of Champions: offer betas for a game (Star Trek) surely to make an impact on the gaming community (sections of which might not necessarily be geeky) and make a profit based on the new idea that beta test is basically "play the game early" and no longer a real test. I know of a lot of people who bought the lifetime sub to Champs just because of the Star Trek thing, and not because of the game per se. Beta, turned into a noun and no longer an adjective of 'test', has become a marketing aspect, but the problem with it is that it seems that no one has told the developers of games themselves yet, and they continue to treat it as test, tweaking things and changing the gameplay oftentimes considerably to the detriment of those silly people who were just in to try the game out for free, who, usually, complain to no end in forums like these. What they need to do is create a sort of 'limited-time free trial' just after launch to appeal to all those people while at the same time being more careful about their tests.
Following that same example, people, including reviewers, therefore tend to fall into the trap and violently react to any wide change made to the game during beta test in the silliest manners possible; the Gamespy review of Champions was riddled with stuff only those 'I'm playing the game early' people would be concerned over, like the launch day patch that made mobs harder. Instead of giving a decent overview of the game, its aims, the design choices, the possible meaning it might all have in your life ('will I become addicted to boredom and play 5 hours a day even when I don't like it, like WoW?'), the review was just kind of a short rant about a before that didn't even EXIST for players who bought the game when it launched and an after that is actually the more realistic standard measure for an evaluation.
It still sucked after launch day.
That's why so many people demanded their money back, and why MMORPG.com has it rated so much lower than it's competition. (7.3 vs. 8.5)
The game was simply launched to early period.
Champions is a perfect example of the OPs point of Beta Hype.
Besides this was not supposed to be a "Lets defend Champions" thread. It was supposed to be about how MMOs are currently marketed and how that is affecting the consumers.
Say, did you happen to read the whole article? Like the part where he addressed this specifically?
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Say, did you happen to read the whole article? Like the part where he addressed this specifically?
Did you happen to read the whole thread where he was already corrected?
Every MMORPG is AWESOME, until it's released!
I don't want a game so much as I want a WORLD!
--
o·pin·ion noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
I agree! Thanks for the post!
This is an excellent article. It covers and explains some from the investors and gaming companies. The developers work hard to create a game that is what it should be but ultimately it is the company and investors who truely make the decisiions.
On the other hand it is also pointed out why people rush for the beta test and what they should be doing. I for one have beta tested a few games in the past. First you have to keep in mind that it is beta testing and thus there are going to be bugs and unfinished content. The developer needs to know what is working and what the players are liking and not liking in order to improve. I have many times heard in forums and within a game being beta tested how the game sucks due to bugs, incomplete content , etc. Or this sucks and that sucks blah blah blah. Hello it is beta testing and if you are testing a game in beta you should be reporting issues you find whatever they are so the dev's can be looking at and fixing what needs to be fixed. People that beta test and bash a game from the get go do serious harm and it is unfairly done because it is beta not the finished product.
I do agree with the author there are many games out there that push those expectations up with too much info in order to plan ahead for the sales. However, this can also be very crushing if in the end the flood of expectations aren't met for whatever reasons. Gamers don't like to be lead on. I also agree if the investors and big wigs played and were gamers things might be a bit different.
The truth is gamers want to know but at the same time if you tell them too much and don't deliver you have lost them. So it is a catch 22 and should be approached carefully.
Excellent article. Cheers to the author.
Gikku
The gaming sites and magazines hold a tremendous amount of responsibility--as they are the direct conduit from the game companies to the gamers.
Gaming sites and magazines make money by telling the public about the hype coming from the gaming companies so it's hard to imagine these sites and magazines setting forth a set of standards and expectations for information from the gaming companies that does much to ensure accountability and accuracy, and to quell the premature explosion of information.
And until then, this issue will assuredly be left unchecked.
Agreed, however....
keep in mind the decision to release game information rests on the managers and marketing directors of game companies. Not with us.
Yes it is our job to report it, but not our decision to release it.
If a game company came to us and asked them to help with their marketing plan....of course we would set some standards...
that would mean they would actually have to listen to us....which they do...in Bizzaro world.
Oh and sorry...
KRAIDEN IN THE HOUSE!!!
Quote: Expectations for nearly every new release are simply too high.
I dont think that is the only Problem. Imho the problem is, there isn't realy something new. I am playing MMOs since Meridian 59 and i remember the jump to Anarchy Online as it came out, it was simply amacing, all the new posibillitys, you could have pets, all the possibiltys of pinping and so on . Nowadays its just the grafic that is a bit better.
I dont realy want to know how many times WoW has been cloned yet. Its allways the same. The only interesting news i heard about since SWG, is that you can fight flying in Aion. But that is still nothing that blows me off of my Chair.
If i shall speek for me, i wished they would implement more posibilities: (more) houses and crafting like in SWG, the charachter customacation and the varity of items like in AO (maybe also some dieferent vehicles if SciFi), the possibility to create own Spells like in Ryzom, and so on. What right now is Online is imho all rubbish. Sorry.
My Opinion.
It still sucked after launch day.
That's why so many people demanded their money back, and why MMORPG.com has it rated so much lower than it's competition. (7.3 vs. 8.5)
The game was simply launched to early period.
Champions is a perfect example of the OPs point of Beta Hype.
Besides this was not supposed to be a "Lets defend Champions" thread. It was supposed to be about how MMOs are currently marketed and how that is affecting the consumers.
The point was that the reviewer on that site used arguments that were not relevant to why the game sucked after launch. He or she (I don't recall) was using a previous experience that the public at large didn't have and couldn't compare by themselves. That's why I agree with MMORPG's review of the game, because it focuses on the actual content and problems of it, instead of building a narrative of tragedy around it to make an evaluation. The people who read MMORPG's review and get the game anyway know what they're going into in a way that is fair to them and to the game, which isn't the case with the other review.
It seems you missed my point entirely, so let me explain: the article could have used some examples, and the Champions release was the first one that came to my mind. The problem with generalizations, "MMOs do that", is that it's a safe place for the writer and for the companies - he's not compromising and at the same time the individual companies are freed from most responsibility. I believe that if the writer took a bunch of examples and pointed them out, the article would be a lot more effective, and people that don't know about the workings of the industry in that sense could become aware of what they're buying into when publishers offer them beta keys, and the publishers themselves could then face the consequences a lot more consciously and maturely than what they're currently doing (remember that interview with one of WAR's designers in which he, in a fit of anger after all the complaints and whines about the game's release, said something like "LET THEIR CREDIT CARDS SPEAK!"? That's just handling the situation in a completely unprofessional manner, thanks to them over-hyping and over-promoting their Beta as a game preview...).
So I'm just saying that if the article would be more confrontational, I think it would be a lot more effective than what it currently is.
Great topic and article! Too much hype, too much pressure for ROI.
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com
One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
I've done alot of beta testing, in fact I love to beta test. And no it's not just to see the game first. Finding bugs for me is just fun. In fact I've beta tested some titles and then not played them. Some because they failed to listen to the beta testers and fix or tweak some things in the game. Some others I decided not to play just because the player communities that came to fruition on launch weren't my cup of tea.
The game companies are pushed by their investors to hype up the games way in advance this is most definately the wrong approach as some games are found to be so buggy during testing that either the investors pull the plug, or tell the developers to shop elsewhere for monetary backing. Often times the development cycle is far enough along that no other company will even venture to touch it. I believe the Gods and Heroes MMO had this problem.
Some games are so buggy in fact that they push a release ahead of time and then the investors pull the plug leaving the game as an utter failure unless another company picks that game up. Most notable of this is Vanguard. Since SOE's purchase of Vanguard there have been notable improvements and the player base that had dwindled to almost nil is slowly but surely increasing in number.
MMOs unlike other game genres have a harder time meeting player expectations upon release. They are often unfairly compared to the progenitors of the genre UO, EverQuest, WoW.
As a beta tester it behooves us to make sure that the games we test stand or fail on their own merits. Yes, using some of the things that the other game companies do right is smart, but we shouldn't unfairly compare something a game does differently and say it's wrong.
That being said most games shouldn't be heavily marketed until the last wave or two of closed beta testers have had a crack at it.
Most people don't like SOE but one thing they do right is they allow a select player base of their current titles to beta all of their projected new releases, and any additional add-ons to their game. They are very smart in how they select their player base for these tests as well, they always at least attempt to make sure that the high end raider, questor, tradeskiller, and solo player have their hands in the testing stages so that when release day comes they aren't back tracking and adding in content that doesn't really match the feel of the rest of the world because a portion of their player base is upset. There are alot of potential game producers, developers, and investors that could learn alot from their methodology.
Also, game companies should share info amongst eachother as to who they consider are valuable beta testers which would allow for more bugs being found and fixes being done more quickly, consequently allowing for an earlier release.
Ashreal D'Synn - Shadowlover & Death's handmaiden
I don't see hype as a big problem really. It's just a way to get people interested, but when you start telling people about things that don't actually end up in the game you are jumping the gun and people lose respect for your game and your company.
The biggest problem with games today is releasing a beta when you really don't have the game fundamentals nailed down and in a very good playable state. Why do you want to show people a game that is full of terribly frustrating bugs when you don't even have your combat system nailed down and balanced and no real fun factor to speak of in quests or group content like raiding and pvp? It makes little business sense to show a product to the consumer before the product is in a state that a consumer would consider worthy of there time and money. It is suicide!
No one likes to be ripped off and they go out of their way to make sure everyone they can tell hears about how you gave them the shaft and pushed a game out the door that was obviously not ready and not fun.
I think a lot of it has to do with under estimating the cost and amount of time that a dev team requires to make a fun game because no one sets out to make a crappy game. The dev team needs proper support in their endeavor to make a great game and that means allowing them time to work things out properly before you lock them into a hard release date. Video games are a type of art and you at least have to make art pleasing before people consider paying money for it and hanging it up for their guests to enjoy. If it's boring and ugly art you are not going to make any money off it.
The devs should play their game, they should play the hell out of it and they should balance and kill bugs and focus test (devs can do a lot of bug testing and balancing without us and they should do what they can to spare us testing something that has obvious bugs and balance issues) and then when they have it in a fun stable state bring in the community, but don't go to beta before it is at least fun; and certainly never release a crappy retail version that makes you feel like you just payed for a beta version.
We'd probably see better games if companies cut their marketing and PR departments down in size and put the money they save from that in development. The thing about MMOs is that you can't hype a game, pull the wool over everyone's eyes with that hype and expect box sales to cover the costs and run away with everyone's money.
You need a system that will provide a consistently enjoyable experience for your players or you are out of luck.
I totally agree with this article. Even if it's find for a developer to gain public before the game is finished by creating this hype, 100% of time ends up with dissapointment from this public.
In other article, the motto was: " allow the game to grow".
Players to need to be patienc. Pick a project and stick with it, help the devolepers giving feedback and wait some months before talking crap about a game, since nowdays no company is delivering a 100% polished game with perfect gameplay and no bugs.
A good example of little to no hype: Fallen Earth
A good example of too much hype and an open beta used as a marketing play to sell Fileplanet accounts: Champions Online
Take a look at the current status of both of those games. Which one of this is currently playable and fun and which one is a mess that is constantly getting patched and retcons given out to compensate for the sweeping changes?
Well spoken.
I've said it before... but the last MMORPG-like games I bought were Tabula Rasa and Hellgate: London. Tested both in beta... and both felt like beta garbage on "final release"... that they wanted and expected people to pay for. Hell even Hellgate: London had a kickass LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP option! I know a guy who bought that deal, and I laughed at the thought of remembering him when I found out the game was going to be canceled just ONE YEAR later... and the same damned thing happened to Tabula Rasa too.
Both had SUPER DUPER ULTRA SNAZZY EPIC trailers to them too to help both of those games lash together a massive hype golem. Seriously, go check out the trailers of Tabula Rasa, and the Mini Story of Hellgate:London, right now. They even got Mila Jovovich to do the voice for the main chick in Tabula Rasa. They even did NUDE PICS of the main characters for release in PLAYBOY for fucks sake. But nothing could save them from the biggest problem, themselves.
Early on, there were no major "expectations" because it was a pioneering field, most of us "(M)MORPG vets" have a lot of game time under our belts and have seen what works and what doesn't... and even despite all our collective differences... Casual/Hardcore, PvE Carebears/PvP Elitists, Persistant Sandbox/Quest driven Themeparks, the BIGGEST thing we're getting sick of are the games are not fully functional or not doing what they "promised" on release, and being fed bullshit ideas that "If you pay us enough in the next coming months, we promise to please you... maybe" bribery pertaining to new games.
Megacorps are going to run what we love about MMO idealism into the goddamned ground like a catapulted condensed ball of flaming shit, just because they all want cash cows like WoW, and they want them as FAST as possible! Because let's face it, executives have expensive taste, and they have a lot of shit they want to buy.
If people want to act like they have some sense... do the genre a favor. STOP... FUCKING... PRE ORDERING. Every one of you know MMO's are fubard the first 30 days+ anyways, and every one of you know that "beta is not a representative of final release".. just ask those who are butthurt about Champions Online. Everyone knows that a CG trailer is not representative of actual game footage, and even if it is you have no idea what your 55 bucks is going to buy you in the end, and you don't know until 3 months later after they sorted some of the gamestopping bugs and fixed some balancing and exploits do you really know what is in store for the long run.
Vote with your dollar (currency) and get execs off of developers backs to make cash cows.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
It still sucked after launch day.
That's why so many people demanded their money back, and why MMORPG.com has it rated so much lower than it's competition. (7.3 vs. 8.5)
The game was simply launched to early period.
Champions is a perfect example of the OPs point of Beta Hype.
Besides this was not supposed to be a "Lets defend Champions" thread. It was supposed to be about how MMOs are currently marketed and how that is affecting the consumers.
The point was that the reviewer on that site used arguments that were not relevant to why the game sucked after launch. He or she (I don't recall) was using a previous experience that the public at large didn't have and couldn't compare by themselves. That's why I agree with MMORPG's review of the game, because it focuses on the actual content and problems of it, instead of building a narrative of tragedy around it to make an evaluation. The people who read MMORPG's review and get the game anyway know what they're going into in a way that is fair to them and to the game, which isn't the case with the other review.
It seems you missed my point entirely, so let me explain: the article could have used some examples, and the Champions release was the first one that came to my mind. The problem with generalizations, "MMOs do that", is that it's a safe place for the writer and for the companies - he's not compromising and at the same time the individual companies are freed from most responsibility. I believe that if the writer took a bunch of examples and pointed them out, the article would be a lot more effective, and people that don't know about the workings of the industry in that sense could become aware of what they're buying into when publishers offer them beta keys, and the publishers themselves could then face the consequences a lot more consciously and maturely than what they're currently doing (remember that interview with one of WAR's designers in which he, in a fit of anger after all the complaints and whines about the game's release, said something like "LET THEIR CREDIT CARDS SPEAK!"? That's just handling the situation in a completely unprofessional manner, thanks to them over-hyping and over-promoting their Beta as a game preview...).
So I'm just saying that if the article would be more confrontational, I think it would be a lot more effective than what it currently is.
Your right I misinterpreted you completely.
My apologies.
In fact I agree with you 100%.
Garret couldnt have used too many specific examples though for fear of pissing of the publishers that make him privy to inside info about launches that other sites like this might get if he started trashing specific games. After all the marketing departments of these games are what feed industry news sites like this.
I totally agree with you though guess I just read your original post the wrong way. Im still a little feisty over the CO launch fiasco.
sorry dood
Well written.
Particulary the part about marketing people who isn't gamers themselves.
He didn't mention the fact that overmarketting your next game years before it releases also can hurt the sales of your current game ("Wgy would I start playing Warquest now when Warquest 2 will be so much better once it releases"?).
And the way the use betatests now really upsets me, it seems like an empty marketing trick where many companies doesn't even want feedback.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
In one sense you can’t blame PR, they are just doing there job. If the MMO company decides to set up the PR department side too early, then the people employed in marketing need to justify their existence. They do that by putting out any sort of crap to create a buzz, a buzz which then hits the developers in the face. So it is down to company executives, they initiate the PR staff selection, they know the issues it can cause.
I was surprised about the references to managing expectations and marketing. The two don’t really go together, ME is a tool mostly used by managers with employees or say community liaison staff with the community of a MMO. But marketing wants to put expectation through the roof, that is what they are paid to do. The best way they can do this is to promise a MMO heaven without giving out specifics. Unfortunately what happens is that specifics start to be mentioned, which then bind developers to ideas that are still in a early stage of evolution. So ME and PR do not mix, they are like oil and water.
Yes pre ordering is a joke, come on players wake up and wait till launch at least before you buy. Sorting out the beta's is easy, just review every beta player after their first week. Have they put in two decent tickets? If not there beta account is rescinded.
Oh can I have a "Kill the Hype" hat please!
Amen.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
+1 to that.
A company that manages MMO's should have a clearly defined "hype" plan for it BEFORE it starts to attract investors. The investors do not care about the company as it is, and do not care if the MMO fails, as long as it sells more then X number of copies.
By redesigning the Alpha/Beta terminology one can actually manage the hype and only release small sneakpeaks in the Alpha rather then the whole game which would contribute to the hype but not overhype it. Then, shortly before release one could test the servers load by an en-masse open Beta demo on a nearly finished product. This way the final release wouldbe tested under maximum strain.
SF
I definitely believe that marketing agency's are going to put people on the front lines for video games that have little to no experience with video games at all. This is because there are so few people with Internet based marketing skills so what inevitably happens is you get someone who has broadcast media experience just spilling out press release after press release via forums and website interviews.
Internet fans are ravenous and your job as a marketing professional is to generate hype not define each class. The way I see it right now most games have a stream of information about them prior to release. This is very bad. What the Internet consumer needs to truly build HYPE is the ability to speculate and generate considerable conversations on the subject.
Information about a future product needs to be released not in a constant flow or even a trickle but a slow yet steady drip.
As much as I have a loathing for the corporate types over at Funcom you really have to admit their Secret World campaign is awesome.
Nicely written article. I think part of the problem is that too many PR/Marketing Departments (and frankly Company Execs) don't understand basic business rules, nor the basic realities of product design.
The reality of product design (and this goes for most products...not just MMO's) is that is IMPOSSIBLE to design a product that appeals to everyone. That is because people are different and have wildy different and often contradictory perspectives of what makes a product appealing. The broader the category of people you try to reach with your product, the more difficult said product is to design. Smart designers and smart companies recognize this reality and try to pick target audiences for thier products that are broad enough that the product will be profitable to sell but narrow enough that the product can actualy be designed well given the available resources. That is a very difficult tight-rope to walk...and many companies fail right there. Either picking a market that is too small to be profitable given the resources put into the project....or more often trying to design to an audiance that is so broad and widely divergent that the design cannot possibly be made to work well.
However, even when designers/companies pick the scope right for the product...things can still go awry when Marketing/PR departments get involved. Many marketers see it as thier mission to try to sell the product to "as many customers as possible". This is what they see as thier goal....and their metric for success is the simple number of bodies they have managed to cram through the door. Many executives also fall for this lure as well. Unfortunately this actualy can be counter-productive to the LONG TERM health and financial success of the company/product. It's a pretty standard axiom in business that repeat business is FAR CHEAPER to acquire the new business. Companies obviously need a certain amount of new business to be successfull.... but many companies can go bankrupt by having TOO MUCH new business. That is because new business can be so expensive to acquire that the profit margin on it does not cover the overhead to serve it.
Too many marketers and frankly executive fail to realize this basic reality. They don't see the forest for the trees. The most effecient use of marketing is to gain as much of the TARGET AUDIENCE (i.e. the people who's needs the product is designed to meet well) as possible....and NO ONE ELSE. Unfortunately too many marketers (and executives) don't understand that important distinction and try to present the product AS IF IT WOULD APPEAL TO EVERYONE (including people who's tastes are contradictory to it's design). This results in wasted resources (too many one time sales), damage to the product/companies brand (in disatisified customers/bad reviews) and the companies future ability to do business (since a company can always release different products designed to meet different target audiences in future....but if that target audience was ALREADY jilted by the purchase of a previous product....they aren't likely to try a new one).
This is the real danger of the hype machine....not talking up the things the product is designed to meet well....but talking up the things it ISN'T.
VERY VERY TRUE!