But as to the utility of us having an objective benchmark. We could throw it in the face of all those that make posts about how they think this or that game is a failure and say; "see, its actually doing exactly what they set out to do, and so its a success" (or however we would end up judging success or failure).
That happens now even without an official benchmark and what happens is the poster argues that any data presented isn't right and the opinion they've formed from their observations of the game are more accurate and the next time they post about the game they're right back at the whole it failed nonsense.
No amount of real life will break through some peoples negative little fantasies.
I think you're right, there is actually plenty of performance indicators that can be taken into consideration. There COULD be objective benchmarks, but the problem is that they all revolve around data that the public will never have access to.
The data that you're looking for is probably within the strategic plan for the game. This includes things like what the target market is, what the market size is, what chunk of that market you think you can capture (smallest, mid, largest), how much revenue you plan on making (lowest, mid, highest), year-over-year growth expectations, etc., etc.
These are all, actually, really good performance indicators and can actually be boiled right down to a very simple rating system. The problem is that the information is varied. It's not like a graphics card. With Graphics cards we can have a common "yard stick" like ESO framerate. The problem is that, with games, something can be wildly successful with a small audience of dedicated players, and the company can view that game as a great success. If we used WoW as the yard stick, everything would be a failure in comparison. In order to create key performance indicators, you need to have an idea of what the expectations even are. And we'll simply never have that. So people generally use subjective material to support their claims.
Surely that basically comes down to a metacritic score.
I think people are using the terms success and failure in entirely the wrong context here. If a game fails it fails due to financial reasons, i.e. the game failed to recoup development costs, earn a profit or earn sufficient regular cashflow to cover operating costs (yes these are related to customer satisfaction in some cases).
A game does not fail because a performance indicator shows it got a medium on the likeability-of-the-last-ten-people-you-grouped-with chart.
No, not at all, when I was talking about performance indicators I was talking about internal performance indicators. That's why there's rarely publicly-available information that makes sense for a performance indicator.
I agree with you entirely, it has nothing to do with reviews. A game could score 1/10 and actually be a success in the mind of the developer. If it cost them 10K to make, then chances are they'll recover their costs, even with a horrible game. However, what are their expectations? Do they expect to make 20K? 50K? 100K? 1 Million? Whatever they decide on would ultimately be the greatest measure of success for that game, but it's an ever-changing target.
But it isn't. Funders, investors, shareholders expect a return, and when it is a risky proposition such as a game they will expect the return to be higher than the alternative safe investments they could have made.
In order to attract said investors there will be a detailed business plan which will show detailed programmes and projections of... well everything. There will be a payback period for the initial investment, this may anticipate 500k boxsales before it occurs or retaining 100k subscribers for a period of 6 months before it occurs. But whatever it says it will show a return on the investment of X amount after Y period of time so that it can be measured against alternative investments and to enable some basic financial planning.
This is why I said in an above post that I would imagine that SWTOR after its initial release was a failure, I would be surprised if it hit those targets, but since going F2P it appears to have become a success.
However, more important for the continued success of a game is that cashflow covers the operating costs, a situation that will be hugely exacerbated if there are outstanding loans/ debts etc from the initial development.
I'm pretty sure we're saying the exact same thing, so I'll go ahead and say you're right.
I think you're right, there is actually plenty of performance indicators that can be taken into consideration. There COULD be objective benchmarks, but the problem is that they all revolve around data that the public will never have access to.
The data that you're looking for is probably within the strategic plan for the game. This includes things like what the target market is, what the market size is, what chunk of that market you think you can capture (smallest, mid, largest), how much revenue you plan on making (lowest, mid, highest), year-over-year growth expectations, etc., etc.
These are all, actually, really good performance indicators and can actually be boiled right down to a very simple rating system. The problem is that the information is varied. It's not like a graphics card. With Graphics cards we can have a common "yard stick" like ESO framerate. The problem is that, with games, something can be wildly successful with a small audience of dedicated players, and the company can view that game as a great success. If we used WoW as the yard stick, everything would be a failure in comparison. In order to create key performance indicators, you need to have an idea of what the expectations even are. And we'll simply never have that. So people generally use subjective material to support their claims.
Surely that basically comes down to a metacritic score.
I think people are using the terms success and failure in entirely the wrong context here. If a game fails it fails due to financial reasons, i.e. the game failed to recoup development costs, earn a profit or earn sufficient regular cashflow to cover operating costs (yes these are related to customer satisfaction in some cases).
A game does not fail because a performance indicator shows it got a medium on the likeability-of-the-last-ten-people-you-grouped-with chart.
No, not at all, when I was talking about performance indicators I was talking about internal performance indicators. That's why there's rarely publicly-available information that makes sense for a performance indicator.
I agree with you entirely, it has nothing to do with reviews. A game could score 1/10 and actually be a success in the mind of the developer. If it cost them 10K to make, then chances are they'll recover their costs, even with a horrible game. However, what are their expectations? Do they expect to make 20K? 50K? 100K? 1 Million? Whatever they decide on would ultimately be the greatest measure of success for that game, but it's an ever-changing target.
But it isn't. Funders, investors, shareholders expect a return, and when it is a risky proposition such as a game they will expect the return to be higher than the alternative safe investments they could have made.
In order to attract said investors there will be a detailed business plan which will show detailed programmes and projections of... well everything. There will be a payback period for the initial investment, this may anticipate 500k boxsales before it occurs or retaining 100k subscribers for a period of 6 months before it occurs. But whatever it says it will show a return on the investment of X amount after Y period of time so that it can be measured against alternative investments and to enable some basic financial planning.
This is why I said in an above post that I would imagine that SWTOR after its initial release was a failure, I would be surprised if it hit those targets, but since going F2P it appears to have become a success.
However, more important for the continued success of a game is that cashflow covers the operating costs, a situation that will be hugely exacerbated if there are outstanding loans/ debts etc from the initial development.
I'm pretty sure we're saying the exact same thing, so I'll go ahead and say you're right.
Yes! Score 1 to PioneerStew. Jk.
Yeah re-reading I think we are saying the same thing.
The benchmark of a successful game is whatever you make it to be. If you buy it and play it and continue to play it for a reasonable amount of time, then it is a success... because clearly you're not going to play a game you dislike. If you buy it, play it, then pretty much stop playing it right away, then it is a failure.
But in today's world, we can't trust our own definition of success or failure, we have to have a consensus. If the game is a success it must be a success across a large player base, otherwise it is a failure. Forget the fact that you like the game and are having fun, others don't, so clearly your assessment needs to be revised. It is no longer a success because other people don't like it.
Then there is the financial success of the game... of which you personally see no return, but apparently, if they can spend a month on a yacht in the caribbean at whim, the game is a success. In other words, if they are making an indecent profit off of you, the game is a success. They need to be getting rich in order for the game to be fun to you.
In other words, instead of relying on your own judgement about what you like and dislike, you leave it up to others to decide for you. You choose to play games based on server populations, quarterly financial reports, and earnings forecasts.
And you wonder why games aren't as fun anymore... you haven't chosen a game based on "fun" for quite some time and this thread proves it along with all the other threads that talk about earnings and the like.
Personally, the only time a game fails is when it closes its servers/ceases to exit.
Whether I like the game or not, or if the game is popular or not is irrelevant.
I agree with this too. For me all these so called new AAA titles are really not all that great anymore. They start out fun but after a few lvl's you can pretty much tell where they are going and if its for you or not. As a vet mmo player i find it insulting when people say you need to be a certain lvl to know if a game is good or not. The market is just to flooded now. So i think dev's are looking at the niche market now. This is why your seeing so many open world pvp games coming out now. And Eve online is about to be challenged by alot of space game's offering up the same type of game with some better extra's. So you have alot of game's still up and running even with small playerbase's. No game fail's today till the server's are shut off. Their are maybe a 500 to 1000 people playing AC2 and loving it.
The benchmark of a successful game is whatever you make it to be. If you buy it and play it and continue to play it for a reasonable amount of time, then it is a success... because clearly you're not going to play a game you dislike. If you buy it, play it, then pretty much stop playing it right away, then it is a failure.
But in today's world, we can't trust our own definition of success or failure, we have to have a consensus. If the game is a success it must be a success across a large player base, otherwise it is a failure. Forget the fact that you like the game and are having fun, others don't, so clearly your assessment needs to be revised. It is no longer a success because other people don't like it.
Then there is the financial success of the game... of which you personally see no return, but apparently, if they can spend a month on a yacht in the caribbean at whim, the game is a success. In other words, if they are making an indecent profit off of you, the game is a success. They need to be getting rich in order for the game to be fun to you.
In other words, instead of relying on your own judgement about what you like and dislike, you leave it up to others to decide for you. You choose to play games based on server populations, quarterly financial reports, and earnings forecasts.
And you wonder why games aren't as fun anymore... you haven't chosen a game based on "fun" for quite some time and this thread proves it along with all the other threads that talk about earnings and the like.
The terms 'success and failure' are not the same as 'like or dislike'.
If a game is a success it is financially viable and will continue running. If a game is a failure it fails to cover development costs, earn a profit for its investors or cover operational costs with cashflow, and will eventually shut down. Your personal opinions of a game have no bearing on this.
well, the only measurable benchmark is either a) amount of money made/copies sold, number of active players or b) total review scores on sites like Metacritics.
Anything else is personal preferences (i.e. I like the game, i don't like the game ...)
The benchmark of a successful game is whatever you make it to be. If you buy it and play it and continue to play it for a reasonable amount of time, then it is a success... because clearly you're not going to play a game you dislike. If you buy it, play it, then pretty much stop playing it right away, then it is a failure.
But in today's world, we can't trust our own definition of success or failure, we have to have a consensus. If the game is a success it must be a success across a large player base, otherwise it is a failure. Forget the fact that you like the game and are having fun, others don't, so clearly your assessment needs to be revised. It is no longer a success because other people don't like it.
Then there is the financial success of the game... of which you personally see no return, but apparently, if they can spend a month on a yacht in the caribbean at whim, the game is a success. In other words, if they are making an indecent profit off of you, the game is a success. They need to be getting rich in order for the game to be fun to you.
In other words, instead of relying on your own judgement about what you like and dislike, you leave it up to others to decide for you. You choose to play games based on server populations, quarterly financial reports, and earnings forecasts.
And you wonder why games aren't as fun anymore... you haven't chosen a game based on "fun" for quite some time and this thread proves it along with all the other threads that talk about earnings and the like.
The terms 'success and failure' are not the same as 'like or dislike'.
If a game is a success it is financially viable and will continue running. If a game is a failure it fails to cover development costs, earn a profit for its investors or cover operational costs with cashflow, and will eventually shut down. Your personal opinions of a game have no bearing on this.
But that's just it... we shouldn't even care about success or failure at the corporate level... we're not stock holders, we don't get a dividend every time someone logs into the game. From our standpoint, the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is our opinion... is it fun? Simple question. Don't need spreadsheets, quarterly earning reports, or some tabloid history of what developer is smoking what. As soon as you concern your self with the corporate level, you are no longer thinking in terms of what you find fun in a game.
And quite frankly, even the crappiest of games can linger around for years. From a corporate standpoint it was a failure and yet even failures don't disappear overnight. What is gained by even following such things. You either like the game or you don't. It's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
The benchmark of a successful game is whatever you make it to be. If you buy it and play it and continue to play it for a reasonable amount of time, then it is a success... because clearly you're not going to play a game you dislike. If you buy it, play it, then pretty much stop playing it right away, then it is a failure.
But in today's world, we can't trust our own definition of success or failure, we have to have a consensus. If the game is a success it must be a success across a large player base, otherwise it is a failure. Forget the fact that you like the game and are having fun, others don't, so clearly your assessment needs to be revised. It is no longer a success because other people don't like it.
Then there is the financial success of the game... of which you personally see no return, but apparently, if they can spend a month on a yacht in the caribbean at whim, the game is a success. In other words, if they are making an indecent profit off of you, the game is a success. They need to be getting rich in order for the game to be fun to you.
In other words, instead of relying on your own judgement about what you like and dislike, you leave it up to others to decide for you. You choose to play games based on server populations, quarterly financial reports, and earnings forecasts.
And you wonder why games aren't as fun anymore... you haven't chosen a game based on "fun" for quite some time and this thread proves it along with all the other threads that talk about earnings and the like.
The terms 'success and failure' are not the same as 'like or dislike'.
If a game is a success it is financially viable and will continue running. If a game is a failure it fails to cover development costs, earn a profit for its investors or cover operational costs with cashflow, and will eventually shut down. Your personal opinions of a game have no bearing on this.
But that's just it... we shouldn't even care about success or failure at the corporate level... we're not stock holders, we don't get a dividend every time someone logs into the game. From our standpoint, the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is our opinion... is it fun? Simple question. Don't need spreadsheets, quarterly earning reports, or some tabloid history of what developer is smoking what. As soon as you concern your self with the corporate level, you are no longer thinking in terms of what you find fun in a game.
And quite frankly, even the crappiest of games can linger around for years. From a corporate standpoint it was a failure and yet even failures don't disappear overnight. What is gained by even following such things. You either like the game or you don't. It's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
In which case we aren't talking about success or failure, but about your own subjective opinions about a game, which is fine, it is all I care about as a gamer.
My point is that on sites such as this people throw around posts like 'X game failed' when what they mean is 'I did not like X game'.
It is really subjective so there just isn't a benchmark.
I consider Rift a failure but it sold well at release and it made a profit I'm sure. The fact it had to go F2P so fast and the population died before going F2P to me made it a failure. However the game is still going and it probably is even making a profit at this point. I completely quit following the game other than trying it one more time a few months ago and hating the monetization model they went with.
I consider GW2 a success even though I ultimately didn't care for it. From what I've seen they have kept a really solid player base and I expect if they do ever add an expansion it will sell well, I won't buy it unless they add a PvP server though~.
Anything successful makes money, or at least reaches whatever goal it originally set out. A failure doesn't.
Someone can say WoW, Guild Wars 2, or SWtOR are failed games but the numbers will probably say otherwise.
You can say "I think WoW/Guild Wars 2/SWtOR sucks." Then no one can disprove you because it's an opinion, but they can argue with you and say why they think those games are good.
At the end of the day, numbers are the concern of the publishers and investors and a big chunk of the concern of the developers too, because they all gotta eat. I don't think we should care too much about the numbers, because they don't tell us whether we would like a game or not. That's what gameplay videos, free trials and watching our friends play are for.
It is really subjective so there just isn't a benchmark.
I consider Rift a failure but it sold well at release and it made a profit I'm sure. The fact it had to go F2P so fast and the population died before going F2P to me made it a failure. However the game is still going and it probably is even making a profit at this point. I completely quit following the game other than trying it one more time a few months ago and hating the monetization model they went with.
I consider GW2 a success even though I ultimately didn't care for it. From what I've seen they have kept a really solid player base and I expect if they do ever add an expansion it will sell well, I won't buy it unless they add a PvP server though~.
Pretty much this. However, you *can* talk about financial success if there is data.
For example, D3 sold 20M boxes, and in any measure, it is a financial success. Ditto for LoL (made $600M+ in 2013).
To me if the servers are up and the game isn't on life support the game is a success because no publisher is going to keep a truly failed game running. Whether it's a success according to the expectations the publisher had is another question I guess. It's hard for me to consider SWTOR a success when they promised personal story updates and that the game would never go F2P and then quickly went back on both those things seems like unless you believe they were lying just for the hell of it the game failed to live up to the initial plan so they had to change it. But it is profitable enough to keep it going so it isn't a total failure at least.
The Secret World said they would never go F2P either and they did in under a year I believe? I still call that game a success though. It is just a really hard thing to define unless you just want to talk financials and then we don't generally get legit numbers for that.
LONGEVITY who cares if theres only 300-500 ppl playing as long as its fun and you even joy it and others do the same, its good! ~ btw im still playing shadowbane ffs lol and having a blast every day
it dose not matter if its subs / f2p / b2p or mega-servers or wait time servers..LONGEVITY is the key
Originally posted by VassagoMael Obviously the answer is forum comments.
I agree with this. If I see a forum post saying words to the effect of "X game has failed" I find it tends to be the case, particularly if this statement is backed up by such indisputable evidence as "this is not opinion, it is FACT".
The benchmark of a successful game is whatever you make it to be. If you buy it and play it and continue to play it for a reasonable amount of time, then it is a success... because clearly you're not going to play a game you dislike. If you buy it, play it, then pretty much stop playing it right away, then it is a failure.
But in today's world, we can't trust our own definition of success or failure, we have to have a consensus. If the game is a success it must be a success across a large player base, otherwise it is a failure. Forget the fact that you like the game and are having fun, others don't, so clearly your assessment needs to be revised. It is no longer a success because other people don't like it.
Then there is the financial success of the game... of which you personally see no return, but apparently, if they can spend a month on a yacht in the caribbean at whim, the game is a success. In other words, if they are making an indecent profit off of you, the game is a success. They need to be getting rich in order for the game to be fun to you.
In other words, instead of relying on your own judgement about what you like and dislike, you leave it up to others to decide for you. You choose to play games based on server populations, quarterly financial reports, and earnings forecasts.
And you wonder why games aren't as fun anymore... you haven't chosen a game based on "fun" for quite some time and this thread proves it along with all the other threads that talk about earnings and the like.
The terms 'success and failure' are not the same as 'like or dislike'.
If a game is a success it is financially viable and will continue running. If a game is a failure it fails to cover development costs, earn a profit for its investors or cover operational costs with cashflow, and will eventually shut down. Your personal opinions of a game have no bearing on this.
But that's just it... we shouldn't even care about success or failure at the corporate level... we're not stock holders, we don't get a dividend every time someone logs into the game. From our standpoint, the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is our opinion... is it fun? Simple question. Don't need spreadsheets, quarterly earning reports, or some tabloid history of what developer is smoking what. As soon as you concern your self with the corporate level, you are no longer thinking in terms of what you find fun in a game.
And quite frankly, even the crappiest of games can linger around for years. From a corporate standpoint it was a failure and yet even failures don't disappear overnight. What is gained by even following such things. You either like the game or you don't. It's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
In which case we aren't talking about success or failure, but about your own subjective opinions about a game, which is fine, it is all I care about as a gamer.
My point is that on sites such as this people throw around posts like 'X game failed' when what they mean is 'I did not like X game'.
Exactly what it should mean. Because everything else has nothing to do with whether a game is fun or not.
A sucesfull game is a game I personaly enjoy and it doesn't matter if it's a populair game or not. Of course I do hope it's succesfull in terms of a high amount or atleast revenue worthy of other gamers playing the game.
For some if it doesn't scratch WoW numbers it's fail, for some if they can not play what is promised instead of what is given games are fail. For some no game can match their own imaginations and see them as fail. Some even think that if game X has certain feature's they don't understand why game Z doesn't have those same feature's completly disregarding a games engine and what it's cappable at. Many people have proven on these forums to be unable to addept to things that might be new, agian these people will cal fail as for some reason they think a game has to addept to them asking for things which again shows to disregard of the games enhine.
OP do you want a personal benchmark or one that is financually accepted in terms of the gaming bussines?
I can only say this so many times. Success and failure is a financial indicator. A game has targets, it is what investors use as a benchmark when making investments (be they funders, shareholders, bank loans, whatever.
If a game is a success it has achieved one or more of the following; recouped development cost plus interest, earned profit over and above safer alternative investment options, earn sufficient cashflow to cover operating costs and profit. The payback period and individual feasibility for every game is different. But this is the measure of success and failure and the only one. Customer satisfaction is a part of this but only in so far as the payback period may require X number of subscriptions for Y number of months before a game hits the payback period.
This is the only measure of success or failure. Not liking a game does not equal failure.
The benchmark of a successful game is whatever you make it to be. If you buy it and play it and continue to play it for a reasonable amount of time, then it is a success... because clearly you're not going to play a game you dislike. If you buy it, play it, then pretty much stop playing it right away, then it is a failure.
But in today's world, we can't trust our own definition of success or failure, we have to have a consensus. If the game is a success it must be a success across a large player base, otherwise it is a failure. Forget the fact that you like the game and are having fun, others don't, so clearly your assessment needs to be revised. It is no longer a success because other people don't like it.
Then there is the financial success of the game... of which you personally see no return, but apparently, if they can spend a month on a yacht in the caribbean at whim, the game is a success. In other words, if they are making an indecent profit off of you, the game is a success. They need to be getting rich in order for the game to be fun to you.
In other words, instead of relying on your own judgement about what you like and dislike, you leave it up to others to decide for you. You choose to play games based on server populations, quarterly financial reports, and earnings forecasts.
And you wonder why games aren't as fun anymore... you haven't chosen a game based on "fun" for quite some time and this thread proves it along with all the other threads that talk about earnings and the like.
The terms 'success and failure' are not the same as 'like or dislike'.
If a game is a success it is financially viable and will continue running. If a game is a failure it fails to cover development costs, earn a profit for its investors or cover operational costs with cashflow, and will eventually shut down. Your personal opinions of a game have no bearing on this.
But that's just it... we shouldn't even care about success or failure at the corporate level... we're not stock holders, we don't get a dividend every time someone logs into the game. From our standpoint, the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is our opinion... is it fun? Simple question. Don't need spreadsheets, quarterly earning reports, or some tabloid history of what developer is smoking what. As soon as you concern your self with the corporate level, you are no longer thinking in terms of what you find fun in a game.
And quite frankly, even the crappiest of games can linger around for years. From a corporate standpoint it was a failure and yet even failures don't disappear overnight. What is gained by even following such things. You either like the game or you don't. It's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
In which case we aren't talking about success or failure, but about your own subjective opinions about a game, which is fine, it is all I care about as a gamer.
My point is that on sites such as this people throw around posts like 'X game failed' when what they mean is 'I did not like X game'.
Exactly what it should mean. Because everything else has nothing to do with whether a game is fun or not.
You finding a game fun or not means nothing to me.
Wow having 12 million subs and making a billion+ a year means it's the direction all mmos will go for the next 10 years.
Which success has more impact on me and the games I want to play ?
Comments
That happens now even without an official benchmark and what happens is the poster argues that any data presented isn't right and the opinion they've formed from their observations of the game are more accurate and the next time they post about the game they're right back at the whole it failed nonsense.
No amount of real life will break through some peoples negative little fantasies.
I'm pretty sure we're saying the exact same thing, so I'll go ahead and say you're right.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Yes! Score 1 to PioneerStew. Jk.
Yeah re-reading I think we are saying the same thing.
The benchmark of a successful game is whatever you make it to be. If you buy it and play it and continue to play it for a reasonable amount of time, then it is a success... because clearly you're not going to play a game you dislike. If you buy it, play it, then pretty much stop playing it right away, then it is a failure.
But in today's world, we can't trust our own definition of success or failure, we have to have a consensus. If the game is a success it must be a success across a large player base, otherwise it is a failure. Forget the fact that you like the game and are having fun, others don't, so clearly your assessment needs to be revised. It is no longer a success because other people don't like it.
Then there is the financial success of the game... of which you personally see no return, but apparently, if they can spend a month on a yacht in the caribbean at whim, the game is a success. In other words, if they are making an indecent profit off of you, the game is a success. They need to be getting rich in order for the game to be fun to you.
In other words, instead of relying on your own judgement about what you like and dislike, you leave it up to others to decide for you. You choose to play games based on server populations, quarterly financial reports, and earnings forecasts.
And you wonder why games aren't as fun anymore... you haven't chosen a game based on "fun" for quite some time and this thread proves it along with all the other threads that talk about earnings and the like.
I agree with this too. For me all these so called new AAA titles are really not all that great anymore. They start out fun but after a few lvl's you can pretty much tell where they are going and if its for you or not. As a vet mmo player i find it insulting when people say you need to be a certain lvl to know if a game is good or not. The market is just to flooded now. So i think dev's are looking at the niche market now. This is why your seeing so many open world pvp games coming out now. And Eve online is about to be challenged by alot of space game's offering up the same type of game with some better extra's. So you have alot of game's still up and running even with small playerbase's. No game fail's today till the server's are shut off. Their are maybe a 500 to 1000 people playing AC2 and loving it.
The terms 'success and failure' are not the same as 'like or dislike'.
If a game is a success it is financially viable and will continue running. If a game is a failure it fails to cover development costs, earn a profit for its investors or cover operational costs with cashflow, and will eventually shut down. Your personal opinions of a game have no bearing on this.
well, the only measurable benchmark is either a) amount of money made/copies sold, number of active players or b) total review scores on sites like Metacritics.
Anything else is personal preferences (i.e. I like the game, i don't like the game ...)
But that's just it... we shouldn't even care about success or failure at the corporate level... we're not stock holders, we don't get a dividend every time someone logs into the game. From our standpoint, the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is our opinion... is it fun? Simple question. Don't need spreadsheets, quarterly earning reports, or some tabloid history of what developer is smoking what. As soon as you concern your self with the corporate level, you are no longer thinking in terms of what you find fun in a game.
And quite frankly, even the crappiest of games can linger around for years. From a corporate standpoint it was a failure and yet even failures don't disappear overnight. What is gained by even following such things. You either like the game or you don't. It's the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
In which case we aren't talking about success or failure, but about your own subjective opinions about a game, which is fine, it is all I care about as a gamer.
My point is that on sites such as this people throw around posts like 'X game failed' when what they mean is 'I did not like X game'.
It is really subjective so there just isn't a benchmark.
I consider Rift a failure but it sold well at release and it made a profit I'm sure. The fact it had to go F2P so fast and the population died before going F2P to me made it a failure. However the game is still going and it probably is even making a profit at this point. I completely quit following the game other than trying it one more time a few months ago and hating the monetization model they went with.
I consider GW2 a success even though I ultimately didn't care for it. From what I've seen they have kept a really solid player base and I expect if they do ever add an expansion it will sell well, I won't buy it unless they add a PvP server though~.
Anything successful makes money, or at least reaches whatever goal it originally set out. A failure doesn't.
Someone can say WoW, Guild Wars 2, or SWtOR are failed games but the numbers will probably say otherwise.
You can say "I think WoW/Guild Wars 2/SWtOR sucks." Then no one can disprove you because it's an opinion, but they can argue with you and say why they think those games are good.
At the end of the day, numbers are the concern of the publishers and investors and a big chunk of the concern of the developers too, because they all gotta eat. I don't think we should care too much about the numbers, because they don't tell us whether we would like a game or not. That's what gameplay videos, free trials and watching our friends play are for.
Pretty much this. However, you *can* talk about financial success if there is data.
For example, D3 sold 20M boxes, and in any measure, it is a financial success. Ditto for LoL (made $600M+ in 2013).
To me if the servers are up and the game isn't on life support the game is a success because no publisher is going to keep a truly failed game running. Whether it's a success according to the expectations the publisher had is another question I guess. It's hard for me to consider SWTOR a success when they promised personal story updates and that the game would never go F2P and then quickly went back on both those things seems like unless you believe they were lying just for the hell of it the game failed to live up to the initial plan so they had to change it. But it is profitable enough to keep it going so it isn't a total failure at least.
The Secret World said they would never go F2P either and they did in under a year I believe? I still call that game a success though. It is just a really hard thing to define unless you just want to talk financials and then we don't generally get legit numbers for that.
Free to play = content updates for the cash shop. Buy to play = content updates for the cash shop.
Subscription = Actual content updates!
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
OP what is the benchmark for a successful mmo?
LONGEVITY who cares if theres only 300-500 ppl playing as long as its fun and you even joy it and others do the same, its good! ~ btw im still playing shadowbane ffs lol and having a blast every day
it dose not matter if its subs / f2p / b2p or mega-servers or wait time servers..LONGEVITY is the key
I agree with this. If I see a forum post saying words to the effect of "X game has failed" I find it tends to be the case, particularly if this statement is backed up by such indisputable evidence as "this is not opinion, it is FACT".
Exactly what it should mean. Because everything else has nothing to do with whether a game is fun or not.
A sucesfull game is a game I personaly enjoy and it doesn't matter if it's a populair game or not. Of course I do hope it's succesfull in terms of a high amount or atleast revenue worthy of other gamers playing the game.
For some if it doesn't scratch WoW numbers it's fail, for some if they can not play what is promised instead of what is given games are fail. For some no game can match their own imaginations and see them as fail. Some even think that if game X has certain feature's they don't understand why game Z doesn't have those same feature's completly disregarding a games engine and what it's cappable at. Many people have proven on these forums to be unable to addept to things that might be new, agian these people will cal fail as for some reason they think a game has to addept to them asking for things which again shows to disregard of the games enhine.
OP do you want a personal benchmark or one that is financually accepted in terms of the gaming bussines?
You define "success" as "you like it"? I see.
I can only say this so many times. Success and failure is a financial indicator. A game has targets, it is what investors use as a benchmark when making investments (be they funders, shareholders, bank loans, whatever.
If a game is a success it has achieved one or more of the following; recouped development cost plus interest, earned profit over and above safer alternative investment options, earn sufficient cashflow to cover operating costs and profit. The payback period and individual feasibility for every game is different. But this is the measure of success and failure and the only one. Customer satisfaction is a part of this but only in so far as the payback period may require X number of subscriptions for Y number of months before a game hits the payback period.
This is the only measure of success or failure. Not liking a game does not equal failure.
You finding a game fun or not means nothing to me.
Wow having 12 million subs and making a billion+ a year means it's the direction all mmos will go for the next 10 years.
Which success has more impact on me and the games I want to play ?