Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Wachter: The Failed Game
Stradden
Managing EditorMember CommonPosts: 6,696
MMORPG.com columnist Victor Wachter writes this look at failed games in our industry, why it happens and whether or not games can return from the brink of disaster.
Recent layoffs at Funcom and Mythic should tell us that MMOs aren't in a healthy place right now. Compared to five or six years ago, there are relatively few new games in development claiming to be the next big thing. That's mainly because the big thing happened (we're talking about WoW here, naturally), and who's going to try and claim they can kill it? Leading up to WoW's release and ever since, the MMO landscape has been littered with failed releases and half-successes.
If you were a fan of Asheron's Call 2, The Sims Online, Dungeon Runners, The Matrix Online, Tabula Rasa, then you know the pain of seeing your game shut down. Even if your game is still in operation, if it failed to hit the critical mass that a publisher requires to call it a success, it will probably have a direct impact on your play experience in the form of minimal live development and customer service. Successful games are few and far between, with people choosing aging but reliable games over newer offerings.
;)
Read The Failed Game.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Comments
Good article. :')
Playing: World Of Warcraft
Resting From: Nothing
Retired: EQ2, CoH, Tabula Rasa, SWG, Warhammer, AoC
Waiting For: SWTOR, APB
Love(d): Tabula Rasa, SWG, World Of Warcraft, Age of Conan
Nice article. You have made some very good points.
It is always easier to determine why something failed in hindsite. However, even that does not always tell you what could have been done that would make it succeed. I would expect to see a very high rate of failure for games in the next 2 years, because the market is becoming much more competitive.
Right now it is a consumers market, and the consumer is a very fickle creature. They will flitter off at a moments notice, and companies must provide reasons for them to stay around and spend thier hard earned money. The problem is that game development is a multiyear project, and developers did not forsee this, so the games themselves will not draw in and keep the consumers. This leaves service as the way to keep your customer. Good companies will see this, and react quickly... not so good companies will do business as usual, and not understand when thier customers go elsewhere.
Good column. It places the blame for failure exactly where it needs to be placed. I've never been able to comprehend why so many smart people (developers) continue to do the same, stupid things.
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." - Winston Churchill
Very, very good article.
I think you hit the nail on the head perfectly with this statement:
"We made the mistake of introducing a mechanic that changed our game, rather than enhancing what was already special about it..."
That could be said of a number of MMOs. Loyal players of DAoC were turned away when Trials of Atlantis was released, changing the very gameplay that they'd come to love in the first place. Many Anarchy Online players were put off by the release of Shadowlands, as it added content that changed the core of the game itself in aways that many players didn't like. SWG... nothing more needs to be said there about how SOE completely screwed up on that one.
And there are a number of other examples to be sure.
Now, I can understand if it happens to a few MMOs earlier on... DAoC and AO, for example, might have become the unwilling "sacrificial lambs" in order for that lesson to be learned: Don't screw with the game that earned you the following you have in the first place. In other words: Don't fix it if it isn't broken.
FC eventually returned to the PvP core of their MMO (as I understand it) with Lost Eden... but it was too little too late for many who had already moved on; and it seemed to piss off many who remained.
Yet, it seems many developers didn't learn this lesson. They didn't pay enough attention to what their existing players loved about the game in order to decide what the best way would be to expand on it without killing what the players loved in the first place. I sometimes wonder if other developers keep themselves in a bubble and don't bother to ever see what's going on around them among their contemporaries.
Or, maybe it all comes down to the ever-reviled "suits" high in their corporate towers who don't understand gamers, don't understand gamers... and don't want to. They only understand numbers and $$$.
In any case... that's a very key thing that I wish more developers would pick up on. Identify what the strength is of your game... and then improve and build on it. When your players clearly love PvP based more on skill than on gear stats... then you build on that foundation. You don't say "Okay, they love skill-centric PvP, so let's add a whole bunch of PvE content in for very stat-centric gear"... that's just plain stupid and the inevitable outcry over such a move should be well expected by now.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
You had mentioned:
"I'd love to see another stab at an MMOFPS (which SOE has made mentions of, yay!) or even a new sandbox style fantasy game like Ultima Online back in the day."
and I would like to mention that something like that hit the market this year and avoided many of the large AAA release errors. Fallen Earth is an MMORPG with a twitch combat system. If you're a firearm specialist, the game can feel very much like playing an FPS. Character advancement is achieved through a skill point system and the economy is heavily influenced by the players. It's a bit of a sandbox experience because the game is really what you make of it.
I'd say that the only drawback to the title is its setting. That kind of "Mad Max' world is a bit of a niche genre without a lot of public appeal.
What I think was most impressive was that the game was released with so little hype and was stable when it went live. Several developers/publishers violate common professional etiquette by arriving to the market with a bad first impression. They panic and rush a launch to cut their losses when a game is behind schedule for release.
The individuals making these decisions apparently failed economics. They're choosing a minimized short-term loss over a long term game. Even if it takes 2 years of solid subscriptions for a game to pull itself out of the red, those 2 years of debt are far more favorable to the additional years of profit and growth obtained from a solid title.
To make a long story short, I think the easiest road to success for any game is to have a successful launch. Deliver on all your advertised features on day 1. Have the hardware ready to deal with the rush of players and do not shove out huge game changing patches within the first week. The first 30 days of play will make or break the subscription base.
"Lord of the Rings Online launched in April of 2007 and as far as I am concerned, it was the last successful triple-A MMORPG launched (I think Free Realms is a good game too, but it's kind of playing a different ballgame). That means that we're coming up on three years before another MMO succeeds and we're placing a lot of hope in Star Wars: The Old Republic and DC Universe Online to bring us back to a place where we can feel good about a major game release. But I'm also hoping that past failures don't scare developers from innovating. I'd love to see another stab at an MMOFPS (which SOE has made mentions of, yay!) or even a new sandbox style fantasy game like Ultima Online back in the day."
I wouldn't put too much hope in those two titles. SOE has it's reputation which will forever (or at least until they let Smedley go) hamper any MMO they put forward. Add to that CO's launch and it looks to me like the "super hero" novelty has come and gone. If it was to succeed again it'd have to be done by a company that doesn't have the baggage that SOE and Cryptic have now. As for TOR...I really don't see it being the hit you hope it will. I think it'll be alot like Dragon Age: Origins, and there will be thoughts that while it is a good storied game, it's not something I'd want to pay monthly for. I'm loving DA:O right now, but there's no way I'd pay monthly for it, good story and all.
As for the second point (in orange) I don't see how it could scare them from innovating. They haven't been innovating, they've been chasing the dragon of WoW dollars and it is fairly easy to say those companies have already stopped innovating. The big name companies haven't put out MMOFPS' and Sandbox games. Only the small, severely underfunded indy companies have, and many have to resort to launching the game prematurely as you mention. Adventurine did it, Icarus the same and now Star vault is blatantly saying "Hey guys, we need you to buy our game so we can finish it".
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
They needed a cash infusion to pay salaries that they should have planned for but didn't, so they launched their broken game. One has to ask how they spent the previous five to seven years if a few months would have made such a difference.
such a valid point! good read.
"These days, companies tend to take a short-sighted view of the MMO subscription lifespan, and if a game isn't a hit right out the door, they are quick to slash the live development team to a skeleton and they begin considering the right time to sunset the service. But the problems that result in an MMO's closure usually have their roots early in the inception of the project."
If this is the case, why are betas treated so casually then? Instead they should be a critical crossroad for the development (i.e. make or break), yet very little is done with them in terms of improving the game mechanics (i.e. just bug fixes).
"In these cases, developers bemoan their release dates and wish for three to six months to really polish it off. To translate, they failed at project planning to identify risks and issues early and spent all of their venture capital before the game was done. They needed a cash infusion to pay salaries that they should have planned for but didn't, so they launched their broken game. One has to ask how they spent the previous five to seven years if a few months would have made such a difference."
What I'd like to know is how is the funding dished out between the publisher and developer? Is it spoon fed, bit by bit, or it is a lump sum payment up front for the entire project? If it's spoon fed, the developer probably just doesn't think about the money because it seems endless, which is a bad thing. If they were paid a lump sum, they'd see their funds dwindling and maybe be more frugal with it. All said and done, no matter which approach is taken, it is pretty much a given that last minute fixes are always needed. If this is the case, the developer should be putting some of their funds aside for this. I mean what's more important to you, being extravagant with your operation costs or creating a successful product or service?
"Those companies that show a commitment to ensuring a consistently smooth experience will sustain their customers and their revenue. Those that never focus past the monthly sales figures will learn what natural selection is all about."
Couldn't agree more. It's one reason why I think community relation positions should be hired when the game is announced and still in it's planning stages. Community Managers have the ability to tune into the desires of the community around the game and determine if the gamer's core expectations are matching the developer's core vision of the game. If it's not and the developers want to stick to their unique approach, serious communications with the community needs to determine if this alternate approach is going to be viable and accepted, or if it's too radical and won't float. Obviously the developer doesn't want to give away their ideas, yet at the same time they need to be sure their ideas will be accepted. If you don't want to announce this publicly then get the Community Manager to select key individuals from the community who seem to be well spoken within it. Let them alpha test your ideas and provide valuable feedback on your development. All said and done, you need your community involvement in one form or another.
MMOs might seem like a good place for money right now but it sure isn't a good place for a quality exprience and a rapidly improving product if Age of Conan is any measure of the industry.
Several Key Areas of Failure are evident in their implementation.
-Overmarketing ( Selling features which don't exist and never will)
-Underdeveloping ( Releasing a product without major components functional and without a plan to rapidly implement those features at a pace more rapid than the majority of your consumers are going to exprience their unfunctionality.
-Failure to innovate ( Break the mold in non-essential areas, and get the tentacles of development into areas where gamers are looking for fresh and new ideas, or areas which can clearly use improvement.
-Failure to Provide the Basic ( Functionality, Lagfree or lowlag, stable performance on box specs, interesting gameplay, functional and fair mechanics in class vs class abilities, functional grouping and clan/guild resources, create the drive for both competition and cooperation, without it you are running a single player MMO, and people don't stick around without compelling reasons to make friends or kill enemies.
Age of Conan failed in so many ways and yet there are those who still consider it a successful failure, or a success, well clearly it is neither, a successful failure would mean that the launch crowd who came and left would at least be interested in a free trial of the game and approve of the improvements, however that is not the case. A success would mean that the game never lost the majority of players who had played in the first place. Neither are true. Today 96% of players who have played AOC have moved on. Populations are imploding on mutiple servers and they are working hard to cut expenses and try to keep the company alive until they release the next expansion, probably missing some functionality, key components and with a lack of innovation just like Age of Conan and Anarchy Online.
Some developers and Funcom is no different, simply don't have the stones or the brains to develop a complete product.
Hehe, this is pretty much it in a nutshell. Be as clear and concise about what you are offering and follow through in delivering what you're communicating. The closer the two match, the happier people will be because they are expecting what you are communicating (marketing).
HEY FOUL!!!!!
PS was the best game i ever played for 60 days roll on PS2 if it can add more to its utility belt and become much more of a MMO it can be EPIC.
Hehe, this is pretty much it in a nutshell. Be as clear and concise about what you are offering and follow through in delivering what you're communicating. The closer the two match, the happier people will be because they are expecting what you are communicating (marketing).
Agreed. To ad to that, I put the blame for most MMO failures squarely on the marketing departments shoulders. When a game fails in this market, it's due to many factors, generally stemming from marketing, going all the way back to the games concepting stage.
I'm using Star Trek Online as my current example (and I do believe it will fail due to this) since it has such a clear and defined demographic. Marketing people don't seem to understand who the games are for. They'll pick a demographic like Trekkers soley based on the fact that there's so damn many of them (thereby thinking it'll be a gold mine), then completely ignore that demographics key requirements, instead, selling them a version of something else out there that has already achieved a quantifiable measure of success. Usually something a shareholder (not a member of the target market) can wrap their heads around (in this case, starship combat pew-pew, which is much easier to sell on a spreadsheet, than diplomacy, exploration etc that for probably most Trekkers, is at the heart of the IP).
Of course, this is what I feel is the biggest issue with certain MMO's lack of success today. There is of course, a multitude of other problems (such as the aforemention revamps by SOE etc) that drive customers away.
I want to mention that the measure of success has certainly changed since WoW as well. And what was considered hugely successful pre-WoW, is now considered a complete flop by the big-publishing houses now. This needs to change. There's so much pressure to make a game that achieves this insane level of success that the publishers aren't allowing their designers to take creative risks anymore. They put all their marbles in the baskets of the beancounters and the marketing departments, who can only predict success based on past data. I recall a dev from WoW stating they purposefully IGNORED the marketing people on various occasions. That gamble has paid off. WoW was in the right place, at the right time, developed by the right people, who had their eyes on the right prize, which was to make a GOOD GAME. It may not be for everyone, but it's a damn solid game.
In a nutshell. MMO's will never achieve "WoW-like success" again ,until some crazy rich bastard who doesn't at all mind losing $70(ish) million dollars decides he (or she) wants to fund something special, and not just commercially successful, despite what the data says all the kids are doing these days.
Great post Bob_Blawblaw.
I agree except you need to consider the wieght of a given IP in the mix when suits decide to make an MMO on a franchise. In a big way, that property hinders the conception of the MMO and expectation of returns reguardless of what "crap in box" is delivered. I think we are starting to get over "WOW envy" now but its still used to sell a concept to board members. There are just no management of expectations in this arena. To use your example: Star Trek is a big IP; MMO's can make a lot of money. Combine the concept and you make an easy sell to Paramount. Now what is going to make this MMO a break out hit to the MMO player as defined on what was pitched to Paramount? Do you focus on the Trekker/Trekkie? No, you focus on the MMO gamer demographics and loose the chance to make a unique Star Trek MMO experiance.
I have said this before: "If your not Star Trek, then why would you play a Star Trek MMO?"
Hey Vic,
Nice read and good thoughts. I thought you were right on the money with PlanetSide. Too bad we couldn't have pulled it off.
If you haven't already, you should take a look at Global Agenda. http://www.globalagendagame.com/ Could be fun, although I still haven't played it yet.
-Alex
Hehe, this is pretty much it in a nutshell. Be as clear and concise about what you are offering and follow through in delivering what you're communicating. The closer the two match, the happier people will be because they are expecting what you are communicating (marketing).
Add to that "don't pull the wool out over your pre order costomer's eyes"
That is what Burned Atari (Cryptic is better then that, i place the blame squarly at Atari)
If you offer a TIME LIMITED special subscription stick to your guns don't change it suddenly with "oops we meant quantity limited"
And don't nerf the game to hell on day one with the promise of "oh we were just being cautious, buffs are comming!"
I can't disagree with that at all JY. Which brings it back to marketing, as they're the ones who generally do the pitching, and use WoWs fantastic financials to entice stakeholders into investing (or licensing etc), while they themselves can't seem to actually comprehend what actually makes a game have longevity, which is I think, the clincher.
Marketing people can sell boxes. I have no doubt that ST:O will be a short term hit out of the gate. The IP itself is strong enough to accomplish that on it's own. But after the initial sell, then who do you focus on? Like you said, Trekkers? Or MMO players? Either way, it's gonna be a battle. Trekkers will see through anything that messes with their IP, and leave if it's not Star Trek enough, and MMO vets have seen all the standard MMO features every which way you can look at it and are tired of the standard cloned 'Tank, Healer, Damage Dealer, loot etc' (which ST:O appears to have albiet in a modified guise).
What I'm saying again is, blame the blundering idiots pitching these turds at investors using incomplete data, and data they don't understand.
Wow, awesome, well-developed article and some great responses of a similar caliber! Truly in the top 10 of all time articles I've seen here on MMORPG.com. Kudos to all! Now, for my points...
One thing that wasn't mentioned in the article (and I don't think was mentioned in comments, but if so, props to you!) is the pricing model. I still feel that if millions of people fork out the money for the game, there is room to drop the monthly subscription fee to something more moderate. I'm thinking $10/month is plenty in today's economy to produce a viable MMOG that might introduce some paid content upgrades once a year or so. With the exception of the subscription fees, I think CoX has the best model in this regard, adding some booster packs that aren't too expensive, but are fun and useful, for the most part.
I also agree that TOR could possibly be the next great online game for us RPGers, but like another commenter, I figure it will be very similar to Dragon Age: Origins, which I've already tired of after only 1.5 completions, and I don't think I'll bother with a third run. It IS an amazing game, and I was completely obsessed with it the first time through, so much that I probably have at least another completion's worth of time invested just in figuring out my starting class and race! For those that have played, they know that the particular origin one has plays a big part of the uniqueness of the game. Anyway, as I was saying, TOR WILL probably be an amazing experience, but if it follows a model like DA:O, it's going to be a lot more involved creating new content than a standard MMOG, and it will take longer (what with the voice acting, etc.). This could very well be the distinction that makes TOR stand out above the rest, if the content added is of the same high quality as the original game seems to be. It's also going to cut into profits more, as they will have to pay voice actors more often to contribute their talent to the expansions. However, if it is done well, I could easily see myself playing through every class simply to experience the unique path that each profession takes, and if there's a bit of branching, well then this takes on a level of uniqueness in play experience that NO MMOG has ever achieved. It will be groundbreaking, and if DA:O is any indicating, breathtaking. I, for one, can't wait to see how it turns out!
I'd also like to go back to the point about the oblivious subscriber, who rarely logs in but doesn't close down his or her subscription. To ensure this type of player is prevalent, there needs to be an indication that veteran rewards are part of the game from the outset. Again, price will play a factor, and if a company was innovative enough to work out a better rate on subscriptions, either by lowering the cost across the board, or by monitoring usage, and if it is below some set amount, an automatic deduction in the subscription fee is applied. Doing this demonstrates that the company values its subscribers, and will build loyalty, at least to a continuous subscription fee, right out of the gate.
I am with Mr. Wachter in that I place my hopes almost solely on DC Online and TOR to provide a new, high-end MMOG experience. While I have more faith in TOR than DC Online to accomplish this, I would love it if both were successful, as they'd keep me in MMOG heaven for quite awhile!
Great article and lots of good comments, a good read! Looking forward to TOR as well with great anticipation. I've also invested countless hours into DA:O, so feel it's going to be interesting to see how close the experience in TOR will be to that one. Might turn out for better or worse bringing that into an MMO setting.
I don't have the time to write anything properly, but just wanted to point out to the one who claimed that AO wasn't innovative is imho wrong. AO brought a new setting along with content-on-demand (missions) which was something new back in the day. Although the skill system was (I guess) influenced by UO, the IP distribution where all classes could invest in whatever they wanted and reset their skills every now and then to try out new stuff, was pretty much a new thing afaik.
Otherwise, a lot of good points regarding AoC and I agree with those.
Those companies that show a commitment to ensuring a consistently smooth experience will sustain their customers and their revenue. Those that never focus past the monthly sales figures will learn what natural selection is all about.
That pretty much says it all right there. Nice article, Victor.
Great article. But two of the main points that killed Asherons Call 2, were the ENDLESS stream of "issues". Hardly a week went by without them breaking something basic to the game(at one point they managed to break the combat system and the chat system both). The other being that it was NOT the game the Asherons Call 1 player base was expecting. If they had simply expanded on what made AC1 great, updated the graphics engine and content, I'm betting it would still be in operation today.
I can't say I'm surprised that you didn't touch on SWG's NGE, but by definition when one loses 2/3's of ones player base in a few weeks, it has to be regarded as failure. I know I'm still to this day rather annoyed by the subject...
Tabula Rasa is a fine example of what happens when one runs out of investment capital... I suspect NCsoft simply refused to provide further funding(launch or perish). You are exactly right to place the blame on the shoulders of the upper management. They should have planned for the required development time, and hence the funding. But given the games past history, it wasn't a surprise that they ran out. Its too bad as I rather enjoyed some aspects of the game. I ran a spy and a sniper to level cap. Some of the base defense dynamics against the Bane got WILD! Those are some of my best memories of the game.
I have to say... This article impressed me. It was mostly correct and had actual thought put into it. Not something I expect at mmoprg.com anymore.
I do have a bone to pick about the article in reference to Tabula Rasa. It didn't fail due to a lack of development or lack of funds. It failed due to poor management. It had a HUGE development purse, but wasted it on scrapping ideas and starting new ones.
I dont think we will ever see another UO or something that can compare. The genre isn't the same anymore.
Though I do have to say, as far as AAA titles, I dont see any MMOFPS soon. But less than AAA and you have Global Agenda headed to market.
I also believe that you hold developers way to accountable for the outcome of an MMO than they should be held. Especially for AAA titles or corporately backed MMOs. The reason is that developers are like artists and usually not part of the brass. They have to paint someone elses picture. Sure, they might have a vision, but that doesnt matter if the money doesnt see the same vision. You have investors to please, producers slotting schedules and marketing taking everything you say in your sleep and putting it on an ad all over the internet.
Blizzard is developing another MMO. And I expect it to be a smash hit without knowing a detail about it.
A very interesting read - from somebody who's actually seen the sausage being made.
Btw, are all the authors really as diabolical as their portraits make them look?. Taken together, they look like something out of Batmans' rogue gallery..
Some games it seems the plug is often pulled needlessly without giving the game a chance. Tabula Rasa for example had an expansion patch on the way before they pulled it and was regaining popularity slowly, yet it was pulled (ironically at the same time they began preparing for Aion release in the west).
Age of Conan is one that seems similar, its subscribers are slowly regaining and people often wonder if the game will be shelved. COnsider there is an expansion looming and they are making new patches and content, this is unlikly in the near future, however following the direction of games like Tabula Rasa, is this a guarrantee? No, not really.
Great article. Much wisdom there, I could tell.
I'd suggest that there is an MMOFPS still out there: World War II Online. Niche games can survive, but they have to be very careful, and as the article says enhance the play for the audience you have.
I would also add Fallen Earth as another MMOFPS, though it is really a hybrid FPS/RPG style interface.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Good points. But keep in mind that Turbine closed Asherons Call 2, not that long after selling us an expansion. So, simply because there is an expansion is no protection against closing. If the rest of Age of Conan had lived up to the first 20 levels of content, I've no doubt it would be more popular. But as it was, there was way too much disconnect. Also keep in mind that all three games that NCSoft has axed have been western. Since Aion is Asian, I doubt its going to have any problems, even if it doesn't do much better than Linage2 did in the west.