It matters. If people start leaving that induces more to leave. Snowball effect. If word gets out that people are leaving that makes it so much harder to get new people to try.
I've seen a few comments about GW2, to the effect of something like, since it's B2P, it doesn't need an endgame, it doesn't need retention, it doesn't need any of that, because they aren't invested in keeping players subscribing month after month. They can focus on just making the leveling experience fun, and that's enough.
..but, is a subscription really that much different than wanting people to buy xpacs? Or even to have a thriving game that will keep selling more and more boxes, due to its popularity? I mean, of course being B2P is a big difference in some ways, but in terms of retention?
Just seems to me that for a lot of players, once they leave an MMO, they move on, without really looking back. Even if there isn't a sub to worry about. So I'm just wondering if retention might really be just as important for GW2 as it is for any other MMO. They do still want a thriving game, that's going to sell expansions, and whatever else, right?
There are 2 ways games keep players playing.
Being addicting
being good.
"end game" is addicting...
A game can be addicting without being good. A game can be good without being addicting. It is probably harder to make a game both addicting and good at the same time (at least for the majority of the people playing the game, which is why nitch games can succeed). With this in mind, I would rather play a good game than an addicting game.
Some people would rather play an addicting game than a good game. These people probably think an addicting game IS a good game. I disagree.
Anyways, retention matters, but it isn't really about the number of people actively playing a game (unless your playerbase becomes small enough to make the game feel barren), it is about the number of people who will play the game when the next expansion is released.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
It's very important to ArenaNet that when an expansion launches, players who have played the previous game think, hey, that was fun, I should buy the expansion and go back to it. It's not important at all to them they keep you playing continuously. What this means is that if they have two months worth of content, they can let you play through it in two months and then quit. They don't have to spread the content out and make you do a bunch of stupid grinding to get access, so that it takes you a year to play through two months worth of content.
This.
Think of what the game cost to make as a loan and the running costs / marketing etc. as the interest; obviously you want to pay off the loan asap because only then do you start to accumulate a positive overall bank balance (i.e. profit)
In the case of GW1 (and presumably GW2) retention means buying more expansions. With no sub GW2 aims to sell boxes by the million; and then - assuming the quality is as per GW2 - xpacs by the million. Thereby paying off the cost of the game quicker.
Ages back SoE said that the average length of an EQ1 sub was 7 months - box + 6 months say ($90 equivalent say). People who bought GW1 also bought the expansions paid more than this. EQ1 had a few expansions as well of course !!!! but given the 7 mont average sub GW1 players spent about the same as an average EQ1 subscriber.
The difference, of course, is that GW1 sold well over 10 million copies.
So does retention matter yes and no; as people have said retention drives the community but it also drives extra xpacs = more money = more xpacs etc.
Guild wars 1 made no real effort to keep players beyond the storyline, yet the game itself was good enough for me to keep playing well beyond that. People don't rack up 1000 hours on counterstrike to grind out an epic set of armor, they play it because it's good.
If you aim to make a good game you'll keep players. But they definitely don't need to force millions of people to stay by enforcing grind. In fact, giving people a month or two of a really amazing experience will result in far more expansion sales than just dragging them through a grind fest.
Wow, I don't understand people who build their lives around a game. That is why you can't understand GW2, because it is meant to be a fun game that you play when you want, and stop when you don't, and start again when they release something interesting.
GW2 is not as concerned about retention. What they want is to produce a good, high quality game that you will have fun with for a time. When they release a new expansion, hopefully you will remember how much fun you had and buy it, and many other people too. If you like it a lot, you can stick around and play for FREE, and there WILL be many players who will do that.
They can do that because they are B2P, not charging you a monthly fee to force you to run on a treadmill. In this way it is very much like other non-mmo games franchises. Fun, choice, not making you into a rabid, slobbering idiot pixel collecting, dopamine junkie.
First and foremost this isn't an issue of revenue, this is an issue of what makes a good MMORPG, if there is no retention, this isn't it, it's really as simple as that. The revenue model is more or less moot in this discusion, because without retention there's no reason for any form of community, which is the main thing an MMO should focus on, as community can effect retention more than anything and retention effects a community more than anything. This is a problem TOR is seeing right now, people have no reason to form a community, it was the same with WAR, AOC, etc... It's also why FFA PVP games (that offer that and only that) fail at retention, the community is tainted in these systems.
You can offer all of the excuses you want about how Anet still profits, those excuses still won't excuse an MMORPG that offers no retention or reason to keep playing outside of PVP. (This is coming from someone who plays to PVP and only PVP). I might play GW2 forever simply to PVP. That will be possible for as long as their service exists. IF that's how the majority plays though, doesn't it show the "dynamic" world really wasn't all it was supposed to be? It is supposed to foster a community, but hold one? That's the big question...
I'm starting to feel that the sandboxers are right without deep crafting, player dependancy, city building, basically yes--SWG, UO etc.. (Maybe I'm biased I too loved SWG and DAOC) you're not going to have a reason for serious retention in this day and age..these games also need something to own/fight over. That's what the MMO player wants, not this artificial interpretation of society that themeparks offer. Think EVE on the ground...with high production value.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
First and foremost this isn't an issue of revenue, this is an issue of what makes a good MMORPG, if there is no retention, this isn't it, it's really as simple as that. The revenue model is more or less moot in this discusion, because without retention there's no reason for any form of community, which is the main thing an MMO should focus on, as community can effect retention more than anything and retention effects a community more than anything. This is a problem TOR is seeing right now, people have no reason to form a community, it was the same with WAR, AOC, etc... It's also why FFA PVP games (that offer that and only that) fail at retention, the community is tainted in these systems.
You can offer all of the excuses you want about how Anet still profits, those excuses still won't excuse an MMORPG that offers no retention or reason to keep playing outside of PVP. (This is coming from someone who plays to PVP and only PVP). I might play GW2 forever simply to PVP. That will be possible for as long as their service exists. IF that's how the majority plays though, doesn't it show the "dynamic" world really wasn't all it was supposed to be? It is supposed to foster a community, but hold one? That's the big question...
I'm starting to feel that the sandboxers are right without deep crafting, player dependancy, city building, basically yes--SWG, UO etc.. (Maybe I'm biased I too loved SWG and DAOC) you're not going to have a reason for serious retention in this day and age..these games also need something to own/fight over. That's what the MMO player wants, not this artificial interpretation of society that themeparks offer. Think EVE on the ground...with high production value.
I complete disagree with this. I think the main reason people are so focused on retention, is because games currently being produced rely on very large numbers to feel 'alive'. However, I don't think you need to have nearly as many numbers playing the same game or 'retention' as most people seem to think.
View it this way.. how many players are you really coming into contact with when you play an MMO? Maybe a few hundred? Sure, the game may have ~1million accounts, but take star wars for example. The population is so diffused, that it doesn't matter how 'populated' the servers are, even the high pop servers can be brutally sparce. Now look at a game like Eve, it only had ~300k players, and still managed to have a great community.
It's really about how effeciently a game integrates the population it has, rather than raw numbers. After all, it doesnt matter if your game has millions of subs, if they are spread out across 50-100 servers, and sharded to the point where it basically becomes a single player game. With GW2, they have built the game from the ground up, to bring players together, instead of including group content as additional content.
Because of this, GW2 doesn't really need to have that many players. Even with only a few people playing it pushes them towards the same goals & areas. Travelling is easy, and lvls aren't the same dividing factor that they are in other games. Retetion only really matters here in the absolute sense, as long as it manages to retain a certain amount of it's player base (even if that number is only a couple 100k), it will function just fine.
I complete disagree with this. I think the main reason people are so focused on retention, is because games currently being produced rely on very large numbers to feel 'alive'.
your main point is... contentious. honestly i think people are worried about it because if retention isn't an issue (which it kinda isn't because GW2 will be b2p), then what's to stop anet from pumping out some garbage? players have been burned so many times over the last decade that they're skittish. personally though, i see this as a nonissue. 1) they've undeniably taken their time on this one, and b) i think GW2 is a real labor of love, so all in all i think we're in for something good. and just look at GW1: it's been out for years, its sequel is coming out, but it's still got a strong player base, and it's still getting lots of love from anet.
I greatly expect GW2 will have a ton of DLC content
DLCs and expansions are 2 different things entirely. DLCs aren't the kind of thing that enhance retention in a game anyways, as it is usually smaller content packs, as opposed to the larger and more significant expansions.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
I complete disagree with this. I think the main reason people are so focused on retention, is because games currently being produced rely on very large numbers to feel 'alive'. However, I don't think you need to have nearly as many numbers playing the same game or 'retention' as most people seem to think.
View it this way.. how many players are you really coming into contact with when you play an MMO? Maybe a few hundred? Sure, the game may have ~1million accounts, but take star wars for example. The population is so diffused, that it doesn't matter how 'populated' the servers are, even the high pop servers can be brutally sparce. Now look at a game like Eve, it only had ~300k players, and still managed to have a great community.
It's really about how effeciently a game integrates the population it has, rather than raw numbers. After all, it doesnt matter if your game has millions of subs, if they are spread out across 50-100 servers, and sharded to the point where it basically becomes a single player game. With GW2, they have built the game from the ground up, to bring players together, instead of including group content as additional content.
Because of this, GW2 doesn't really need to have that many players. Even with only a few people playing it pushes them towards the same goals & areas. Travelling is easy, and lvls aren't the same dividing factor that they are in other games. Retetion only really matters here in the absolute sense, as long as it manages to retain a certain amount of it's player base (even if that number is only a couple 100k), it will function just fine.
My point really didn't say numbers matter. A community can be however large, it makes no difference; as long as the game fosters that community and gives them things to do. Retention in this sense means content that keeps you playing for a long time... longevity... I'm not approaching this from a financial angle, that's rather arbitrary really in reference to this topic as are player numbers in general.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think ArenaNet wants people to stay, and they're making a great game with tons of heart, new ideas, and great art that they hope people will enjoy playing. They don't want you to feel like you have to keep playing, so there is no sub fee.
Those that always rush to "end game" and want to raid the same few dungeons over and over will try to do so here, find this game doesn't cater to that, and leave.
Then there will be a large subset of players who simply enjoy the game because it's fun to play. These are the players that will stick around and keep playing after level 80 because they enjoy the game. Guild Wars 1 still has a good, active player base several years later and it isn't even innovating in the myriad ways GW2 is.
Even if someone does drop the game for awhile it's completely free and painless to simply fire it up and log back in. There are no account status or resubscription worries. And since the game has a fairly easy to reach power plateau, you could choose not log in for 6 months, and then come back to the game and jump back into the main action without having to go grind for gear upgrades for a month just to catch back up.
Retention most definitely matters. It's not even a question in my mind.
ANet wants to generate revenue from their cash shop. The only way this can possibly happen is if people are actually playing the game. Thus, retention matters.
Comments
It matters. If people start leaving that induces more to leave. Snowball effect. If word gets out that people are leaving that makes it so much harder to get new people to try.
There are 2 ways games keep players playing.
Being addicting
being good.
"end game" is addicting...
A game can be addicting without being good. A game can be good without being addicting. It is probably harder to make a game both addicting and good at the same time (at least for the majority of the people playing the game, which is why nitch games can succeed). With this in mind, I would rather play a good game than an addicting game.
Some people would rather play an addicting game than a good game. These people probably think an addicting game IS a good game. I disagree.
Anyways, retention matters, but it isn't really about the number of people actively playing a game (unless your playerbase becomes small enough to make the game feel barren), it is about the number of people who will play the game when the next expansion is released.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
This.
Think of what the game cost to make as a loan and the running costs / marketing etc. as the interest; obviously you want to pay off the loan asap because only then do you start to accumulate a positive overall bank balance (i.e. profit)
In the case of GW1 (and presumably GW2) retention means buying more expansions. With no sub GW2 aims to sell boxes by the million; and then - assuming the quality is as per GW2 - xpacs by the million. Thereby paying off the cost of the game quicker.
Ages back SoE said that the average length of an EQ1 sub was 7 months - box + 6 months say ($90 equivalent say). People who bought GW1 also bought the expansions paid more than this. EQ1 had a few expansions as well of course !!!! but given the 7 mont average sub GW1 players spent about the same as an average EQ1 subscriber.
The difference, of course, is that GW1 sold well over 10 million copies.
So does retention matter yes and no; as people have said retention drives the community but it also drives extra xpacs = more money = more xpacs etc.
Guild wars 1 made no real effort to keep players beyond the storyline, yet the game itself was good enough for me to keep playing well beyond that. People don't rack up 1000 hours on counterstrike to grind out an epic set of armor, they play it because it's good.
If you aim to make a good game you'll keep players. But they definitely don't need to force millions of people to stay by enforcing grind. In fact, giving people a month or two of a really amazing experience will result in far more expansion sales than just dragging them through a grind fest.
First and foremost this isn't an issue of revenue, this is an issue of what makes a good MMORPG, if there is no retention, this isn't it, it's really as simple as that. The revenue model is more or less moot in this discusion, because without retention there's no reason for any form of community, which is the main thing an MMO should focus on, as community can effect retention more than anything and retention effects a community more than anything. This is a problem TOR is seeing right now, people have no reason to form a community, it was the same with WAR, AOC, etc... It's also why FFA PVP games (that offer that and only that) fail at retention, the community is tainted in these systems.
You can offer all of the excuses you want about how Anet still profits, those excuses still won't excuse an MMORPG that offers no retention or reason to keep playing outside of PVP. (This is coming from someone who plays to PVP and only PVP). I might play GW2 forever simply to PVP. That will be possible for as long as their service exists. IF that's how the majority plays though, doesn't it show the "dynamic" world really wasn't all it was supposed to be? It is supposed to foster a community, but hold one? That's the big question...
I'm starting to feel that the sandboxers are right without deep crafting, player dependancy, city building, basically yes--SWG, UO etc.. (Maybe I'm biased I too loved SWG and DAOC) you're not going to have a reason for serious retention in this day and age..these games also need something to own/fight over. That's what the MMO player wants, not this artificial interpretation of society that themeparks offer. Think EVE on the ground...with high production value.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I complete disagree with this. I think the main reason people are so focused on retention, is because games currently being produced rely on very large numbers to feel 'alive'. However, I don't think you need to have nearly as many numbers playing the same game or 'retention' as most people seem to think.
View it this way.. how many players are you really coming into contact with when you play an MMO? Maybe a few hundred? Sure, the game may have ~1million accounts, but take star wars for example. The population is so diffused, that it doesn't matter how 'populated' the servers are, even the high pop servers can be brutally sparce. Now look at a game like Eve, it only had ~300k players, and still managed to have a great community.
It's really about how effeciently a game integrates the population it has, rather than raw numbers. After all, it doesnt matter if your game has millions of subs, if they are spread out across 50-100 servers, and sharded to the point where it basically becomes a single player game. With GW2, they have built the game from the ground up, to bring players together, instead of including group content as additional content.
Because of this, GW2 doesn't really need to have that many players. Even with only a few people playing it pushes them towards the same goals & areas. Travelling is easy, and lvls aren't the same dividing factor that they are in other games. Retetion only really matters here in the absolute sense, as long as it manages to retain a certain amount of it's player base (even if that number is only a couple 100k), it will function just fine.
EXPANSIONS!!!
or in modern terms DLC's !!
I greatly expect GW2 will have a ton of DLC content
your main point is... contentious. honestly i think people are worried about it because if retention isn't an issue (which it kinda isn't because GW2 will be b2p), then what's to stop anet from pumping out some garbage? players have been burned so many times over the last decade that they're skittish. personally though, i see this as a nonissue. 1) they've undeniably taken their time on this one, and b) i think GW2 is a real labor of love, so all in all i think we're in for something good. and just look at GW1: it's been out for years, its sequel is coming out, but it's still got a strong player base, and it's still getting lots of love from anet.
DLCs and expansions are 2 different things entirely. DLCs aren't the kind of thing that enhance retention in a game anyways, as it is usually smaller content packs, as opposed to the larger and more significant expansions.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
My point really didn't say numbers matter. A community can be however large, it makes no difference; as long as the game fosters that community and gives them things to do. Retention in this sense means content that keeps you playing for a long time... longevity... I'm not approaching this from a financial angle, that's rather arbitrary really in reference to this topic as are player numbers in general.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think ArenaNet wants people to stay, and they're making a great game with tons of heart, new ideas, and great art that they hope people will enjoy playing. They don't want you to feel like you have to keep playing, so there is no sub fee.
Those that always rush to "end game" and want to raid the same few dungeons over and over will try to do so here, find this game doesn't cater to that, and leave.
Then there will be a large subset of players who simply enjoy the game because it's fun to play. These are the players that will stick around and keep playing after level 80 because they enjoy the game. Guild Wars 1 still has a good, active player base several years later and it isn't even innovating in the myriad ways GW2 is.
Even if someone does drop the game for awhile it's completely free and painless to simply fire it up and log back in. There are no account status or resubscription worries. And since the game has a fairly easy to reach power plateau, you could choose not log in for 6 months, and then come back to the game and jump back into the main action without having to go grind for gear upgrades for a month just to catch back up.
Retention most definitely matters. It's not even a question in my mind.
ANet wants to generate revenue from their cash shop. The only way this can possibly happen is if people are actually playing the game. Thus, retention matters.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?