Has anyone ever considered MMO developers don't care if players stay or not ?

delete5230

They may not care if you stay.  I often think about that, its a numbers game.  Cost vs. Return in investment.

Two examples make me think of this : 

1) Single player games make a ton of money without reoccurring $15 a month or bothering with F2P.

2) This is my opinion, EverQuest 2 relied on selling expansions and marketing the game as new.  Blizzard went years repairing the basic vanilla World of Warcraft before they went all out selling expansions.  Everquest 2 didn't repair bugs they only looked to future expansion's.  

 Two different companies, two different marketing views.  Who's to say everything after took the view of "Sell and forget"....Retainability could be extra unreliable cash flow, a byproduct.

Maybe I'm wrong.......I don't have numbers to back this up, neather do you.......What do you think ?

Slapshot1188

Depends on their business model.  

rojoArcueid

MMO devs should always care.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
Single player games dont run on servers. They sell 1 billion copies, and the devs live happily and make either DLC or new games.
MMO games run on servers. They sell 1 billion copies, and the money goes away keeping the servers alive. More money comes in from the constant players, but it again goes away keeping the servers alive, its a vicious cicle with mmos.

And the main difference. If everyone leaves a single player game, the game stays alive, waiting for you to return. If everyone leaves an mmo, it shuts down and you will never see it again.

Gaendric

Like most things in game dev, it depends on the target audience. The game will be tailored to them, including the monetization.

Rusque

OP - Cost per acquisition vs Cost of Retention and the return associated with both is the concept you're trying to espouse here.

How much does it cost to retain vs how valuable those people are? Generally once you have someone, it's either very cheap or extremely expensive to retain them. On the very cheap end, they are relatively happy with the product and will continue being a customer. On the very expensive end, you have the customers who demand additional effort beyond what you're currently offering - if this group is small then it's in your best interest to ignore them and let them leave as they see fit. It will be cheaper to attract new customers.

Once the cost to acquire new players becomes too great, due to a saturated market, or for a variety of operational reasons, then you shift to a retention and service model in which you strive to keep those you have happy. During a retention phase, it's smart to also increase R&D so that you can release a new product and start the cycle over again.

Acquire > Assess > Retain > Develop


So yes, it is a numbers game, but at the same time the numbers shift and a good business will transition between areas of focus as those numbers inform the best course of action at the time.

Anireth

I don't think the devs particularly care if you or i or anyone in specific does leave, there is always someone new to fill the place. It's only about enough people playing. Whether it's the same 1 million people for 10 years, or a total of 100 million people where each only plays a few weeks is not really important, as long as they spent enough money.

Octagon7711

"They may not care if you stay.  I often think about that, its a numbers game.  Cost vs. Return in investment. "

If it's a numbers game, that makes you a number, so that means they care.  No you won't get a phone call asking what happened why did you leave?  But if you subbed, you will get an email asking that?


I've left a lot of MMO's and come back to play them years later in some cases, just like when playing an RPG.  I've also seen teams continue to work on RPG's and send out updates years after launch.  I still get a lot of these updates on Steam.

MrSnuffles

MMO's moved to pretty much the same business model single player games use. Get as much money as fast as possible while the game is new and players are willing to pay high prices.

This is done through:

1. Paid beta testing (a.k.a. EarlyAccess)  = PreOrder
2. Founders packs, Lifetime (a.k.a. Value added sales) = Collectors Editions

On top of this most MMOs also include a virtual casino for gambling with real money disguised as RNG based Treasure Chests, Keys, Hats.

The principle is the same and it works because people are sheep.

Gdemami

MrSnuffles said:

MMO's moved to pretty much the same business model single player games use. Get as much money as fast as possible while the game is new and players are willing to pay high prices.

This is done through:

1. Paid beta testing (a.k.a. EarlyAccess)  = PreOrder
2. Founders packs, Lifetime (a.k.a. Value added sales) = Collectors Editions

On top of this most MMOs also include a virtual casino for gambling with real money disguised as RNG based Treasure Chests, Keys, Hats.

The principle is the same and it works because people are sheep.

Please do explain how do you "get as much money as fast as possible" when MMO development takes 5-6 years...

It does not matter whether you sell pre-orders, founder packs or w/e, there is no difference between selling the game pre-release and after release. In both cases, you would still need to sell ridiculous amount of units to make profit.

Only highly anticipated titles can, if lucky, just recoup development costs shortly after release, and that still sets you at $0 profit for past 5-6 years.

Not going to happen. MMOs are long term venture.

Scot

Indeed we have. MMO companies have been searching for bigger player bases after the first MMOs were released. The new player base had very different expectations about games to the old, but as solo players were a far larger group, companies were not too concerned about losing their old players.

Indeed the could have lost their entire old player base and still made their new version of MMOs a success. That said apart from smartphone users there is no other market out there for them to go to now, which is why they are banging on that door.

Burntvet

SOE never really gave a shit if any of their customers stayed with their games, and they went under, with Smed now kicked to the curb.

RavingRabbid

If developers don't care about their customers they wont be in business long. That also doesn't mean they should cater to  the 1% of players that complain in their forums either.

Loktofeit

delete5230 said:

They may not care if you stay.  I often think about that, its a numbers game.  Cost vs. Return in investment.

Two examples make me think of this : 

1) Single player games make a ton of money without reoccurring $15 a month or bothering with F2P.

2) This is my opinion, EverQuest 2 relied on selling expansions and marketing the game as new.  Blizzard went years repairing the basic vanilla World of Warcraft before they went all out selling expansions.  Everquest 2 didn't repair bugs they only looked to future expansion's.  

 Two different companies, two different marketing views.  Who's to say everything after took the view of "Sell and forget"....Retainability could be extra unreliable cash flow, a byproduct.

Maybe I'm wrong.......I don't have numbers to back this up, neather do you.......What do you think ?

 I think that I'm now even more curious about what you supposedly managed at Time Warner Music and how that all panned out for them. 

Loke666

There have been threads about the subject for years, were plenty a month after STO came out to mention one time.

But the problem is that MMOs are so expensive to make, if you just want to sell copies it is both easier and cheaper to make a single player game.

So I think most if not all MMOs are made to last, some just fail with that.

Iselin

I'm guessing you meant to say publishers as in the bottom line focused suits. The actual developers, the people who make the game? I'd guess they care quite a bit.

alyndale

I am wondering...

If developers create a game, any game be it moba, rpg, mmorpg, ect., is there not some modicum of pride in their creation? Do we just make things for monetary profit or do we believe what we create is somehow tied to art?

I just really think that if I spent time, effort, and labor on a project, I would want that project to be remembered. If I am a toy maker or game designer am I not creating something that is long-term educational, entertaining, challenging, stimulating, or just plain fun for the masses to enjoy? Wouldn't I, as one of several game designers not want to see my creation last a period of time?

Now, I realize gaming companies are in it "for the profit" and thus it seems logical that those creative folk that design and create would also want to share in that success. Still, I really have faith that there are quite a few ladies and gentlemen that care enough about their "product", that they actually do want us to play their game...

Anyway, not trying to "stir the pot". I just know that some of the artist friends I know in my life love to share and invite as many to enjoy their artwork.

Gaendric

alyndale said:

I am wondering...

If developers create a game, any game be it moba, rpg, mmorpg, ect., is there not some modicum of pride in their creation? Do we just make things for monetary profit or do we believe what we create is somehow tied to art?

I just really think that if I spent time, effort, and labor on a project, I would want that project to be remembered. If I am a toy maker or game designer am I not creating something that is long-term educational, entertaining, challenging, stimulating, or just plain fun for the masses to enjoy? Wouldn't I, as one of several game designers not want to see my creation last a period of time?

Now, I realize gaming companies are in it "for the profit" and thus it seems logical that those creative folk that design and create would also want to share in that success. Still, I really have faith that there are quite a few ladies and gentlemen that care enough about their "product", that they actually do want us to play their game...

Anyway, not trying to "stir the pot". I just know that some of the artist friends I know in my life love to share and invite as many to enjoy their artwork.

In a perfect world where money isn't an issue and we are not hired to do specific jobs, I am sure most devs would aim for the cool crazy and more artistic stuff.

As for being proud of it even in the real world and the less artsy projects, why wouldn't they be?
Is a builder not proud of his work just because the current contract is another bungalow and not some fancy castle on a high hill? He can still deliver high quality work, make the customer happy and be proud of it.

MMOs are designed products. Design is goal oriented and fundamentally different from fine art.
This means game devs are constrained in what they can and should do.
Their decisions have to work towards the main goal. (profitable product, aimed at a specific audience) Otherwise they are not doing their jobs correctly, the company goes bankrupt and they all lose their jobs.

This doesn't mean more freely artistic (and not profit oriented) projects can't succeed. But they are riskier investments and will need non-standard ways of funding. (KS could work for instance)

AAAMEOW

Unless they put the mmorpg in autopilot, it still require a large sum of money to upkeep.  I dont' think so.

Moirae

Of course they care. But only as long as they get your money. Same as any other business. 

Loke666

AAAMEOW said:

Unless they put the mmorpg in autopilot, it still require a large sum of money to upkeep.  I dont' think so.

Usually they run games like that with a skeleton crew and a few rare smaller updates, like SOE did with Vanguard the last few years.

That isn't very expansive but a dev had to be insane to actually make a game to be like that. 

No, I think every dev team and publisher believe that their game will do fine and earn in a lot of money during the 10 years or solifetime most games have. It is just that things doesn't work out that way in most cases. Maybe they botch up the launch like FunCom did with AoC, maybe the idea of the game sounded better on paper or maybe the genre changed during the 5 years it took making the game. 

I seen more than a few games that released to late and were dated both graphically and content wise. I also seen games that failed because the money didn't last to make the game like it was supposed to be. WAR for example had many really cool ideas that got cut because of budget issues, the avatars were for example supposed to change as you played, dwarves beard getting longer when you got more level.
And the entire endgame was really supposed to be about sieging the 6 main cities but when Games workshop saw Altdorf they threatened to pull the license so they had to make a total revamp and cut off 4 of the cities and patch up a last minute endgame.

Things don't always turn out the way you think they will do, but that doesn't mean it is some kind of conspiracy.

Beatnik59

I don't think anyone is under the impression that these games are Persistent anymore...if they ever were to begin with. That's the big problem I see with 'buy to play'. At least if there's some financial incentive to retain a player from month to month, such as subscription fees, the producers have some incentive to invest in the service. But if that incentive isn't there, the only thing a player has to keep the good thing is the arbitrary whim of the publisher.

Wizardry

I would say they ALL most certainly care but that is not their main goal.

I firmly believe the main goal is to project how much INSTANT money they can make from their game and subtract from that the cost going into the game.

The ONLY ones that MIGHT go for a semi long term investment are known IP,such as a Star Wars IP or any well known IP.The rest are building budget games,low cost so that even a near catastrophe would still result in a break even scenario.

Make no mistake,we are witnessing real cheap game development from 99% of these developers.

Pemmin

Beatnik59 said:

I don't think anyone is under the impression that these games are Persistent anymore...if they ever were to begin with. That's the big problem I see with 'buy to play'. At least if there's some financial incentive to retain a player from month to month, such as subscription fees, the producers have some incentive to invest in the service. But if that incentive isn't there, the only thing a player has to keep the good thing is the arbitrary whim of the publisher.

this is essentially the problem with the industry.

at some point there was a paradigm shift with mmo publishers and developers starting to sell "a product" instead of trying to sell "an entertainment service".

delete5230

Wizardry said:

I would say they ALL most certainly care but that is not their main goal.

I firmly believe the main goal is to project how much INSTANT money they can make from their game and subtract from that the cost going into the game.

The ONLY ones that MIGHT go for a semi long term investment are known IP,such as a Star Wars IP or any well known IP.The rest are building budget games,low cost so that even a near catastrophe would still result in a break even scenario.

Make no mistake,we are witnessing real cheap game development from 99% of these developers.

Exactly what I would think,

Gozzar

delete5230 said:

They may not care if you stay.  I often think about that, its a numbers game.  Cost vs. Return in investment.

Two examples make me think of this : 

1) Single player games make a ton of money without reoccurring $15 a month or bothering with F2P.

2) This is my opinion, EverQuest 2 relied on selling expansions and marketing the game as new.  Blizzard went years repairing the basic vanilla World of Warcraft before they went all out selling expansions.  Everquest 2 didn't repair bugs they only looked to future expansion's.  

 Two different companies, two different marketing views.  Who's to say everything after took the view of "Sell and forget"....Retainability could be extra unreliable cash flow, a byproduct.

Maybe I'm wrong.......I don't have numbers to back this up, neather do you.......What do you think ?

well thats the SOE we all love hähä..

Axehilt

delete5230 said:

They may not care if you stay.  I often think about that, its a numbers game.  Cost vs. Return in investment.

Two examples make me think of this : 

1) Single player games make a ton of money without reoccurring $15 a month or bothering with F2P.

2) This is my opinion, EverQuest 2 relied on selling expansions and marketing the game as new.  Blizzard went years repairing the basic vanilla World of Warcraft before they went all out selling expansions.  Everquest 2 didn't repair bugs they only looked to future expansion's.  

 Two different companies, two different marketing views.  Who's to say everything after took the view of "Sell and forget"....Retainability could be extra unreliable cash flow, a byproduct.

Maybe I'm wrong.......I don't have numbers to back this up, neather do you.......What do you think ?

The fact that it's a numbers game is why they do care about maintaining many players. (They care a lot.)

The fact that it's a numbers game is why they don't care about forum extremists. (Because (a) they'll complain about something no matter what and (b) they're a vocal minority who are often statistically unimportant.)

There is always going to be a player out there, even in WOW, who thinks the game is unacceptable due to some very important reason to them.

But what matters is whether the millions of players who constitute the bulk of players care about that problem (and care enough to warrant change,) as those players are very important. Quite frequently extremists are simply a vocal minority when you look at the data, and so it literally makes no sense to let them lead the game around by its nose, wasting time chasing the happiness of that unsatisfiable player potentially at the cost of other players as you make too many changes they didn't like.

So it's essentially the act of becoming a forum extremist that causes one not to matter. Only widespread opinions carry weight, not individual rage-mongers.