Improving MMO Monetization For Win-Win

Brainy

Improving MMO Monetization For Win-Win

Concept:

AAA companies should come out with a solid product, then release a new improved updated version of the MMO every 2 years, fully standalone B2P new game.

Doing this concept will enable:

1) Sustained Monetization
2) Drives new players
3) Drives continued support and feedback through customer expenditure
4) Fair Pricing

Next post will go into details.

Brainy

New World is a good example I think. 

20mil+ units sold

40 per unit = ~$800 million

Sustained Monetization: 

$1 billion every 2 years is much more than they are making now.  Additionally a new version will drive customers to continue investing in the brand, and requires the company to continue to make good products to succeed.

About 30k people currently playing New World which is .1% retention.

They have been continuously trying to improve the game. Some may say they have done a good job lately, yet still only 30k players.

Rather than just put all their resources into a game that will NEVER get that player base back.  Why not just take all the lessons learned and put all of it into a new game iteration.  Just like all the Dark Souls, Elder Scroll, StarCraft, Diablo etc...  Stay with B2P model.

As the games become less popular just keep combining servers.  Even after say 10 years how much will 1 server cost them to maintain, chicken feed compared to the original money.

New players vs Splitting the player base:

I don’t really see this as a problem, staying with New World example 30k people is nothing compared to the amount of new players entering the market each year, most of which will not play the older games anyway.  Grow the IP by making better products over time, rather than trying to improve an old deprecated version.  

Splitting the player base didn’t hurt Dark Souls, Elder Scrolls, StarCraft or Diablo; actually those games got more popular over time and made more money on each subsequent release.

Most players will migrate to next version if its as good or improved.

Drives continue support and feedback via customer expenditure:

The company should continue to support the game with a small staff, bug fixes, patch fixes etc... This way they can continue to keep their brand looking good.  They just need to budget that into the price.

This is good for Both the Game Development Company bring in huge revenue, its also good for customers because they can invest in games versions they think are good, and not invest in versions they think are bad, which gives immediate feedback to game devs.  Additionally players can continue to play the version they like best, it wont significantly change on them. Dev companies wont anger their original customers with bad changes.

Fair Pricing: No price gouging or whales needed in this method.  Just a simple $40-$60 price tag to make $1 billion+ every 2 years.

Brainy

This is what it looks like to build a AAA brand B2P

The Elder Scrolls: Arena 3,000 (1994)

The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall 120,000 (1996)

The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind 4 Million (2010)

The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion 9.5 Million (2015)

The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim 30 Million (2016)

Dark Souls: 5.5 million copies (2011)

Dark Souls 2: 2.5 million copies (2013)

Bloodborne: 2 million copies (2015)

Dark Souls 3: 10 million copies (2016)

Sekiro: 5 million copies (2019)

Elden Ring: 21 copies (2022)

AAAMEOW

30k concurrent is probably mabe something like 300k monthly logon.

New World according to steam charts have 900k peak.  It have 30k now.  If base on that it is more like they keep 3% of the player.

Many people probably logon for a few minutes, don't like the game and quit.  

Theocritus

Most people dont play a game for that long....I dont know what the stats are, but I would guess 90% of players stick with a game for less than 2 months, so the companies realize they better get their money up front and quickly......Counting on players to invest in a game 2 years later is a risky proposition.....Using New World as an example, I bought the base game on sale to play with someone....The other person quit after 2 sessions, and I didnt find it all that thrilling solo....I wont spend any more money on it no matter what they do.

Brainy

AAAMEOW said:

30k concurrent is probably mabe something like 300k monthly logon.

New World according to steam charts have 900k peak.  It have 30k now.  If base on that it is more like they keep 3% of the player.

Many people probably logon for a few minutes, don't like the game and quit.  

Well even if its 300k total players which I dont believe.  Your math is still off, there were 20 mil+ unit sales. So thats 1.5% which is still not doing them any good since they are not really making money off these people.  If they were forced to pay, there would be very few playing.

They certainly are not getting another 1billion off them, it doesnt really change the concept of selling a new game iteration every 2 years vs investing in an old one. 

Having 900k peak every 2 years, and another 1billion banked is better than 30k peak every 2 years with some chump change cosmetics.  

Quizzical

You seem to assume that it's easy for a game to get 20 million box sales.  It isn't.

Sovrath

I just think this is "it's easy to be successful ... just do x, y and z and you will profit."

My thought is that every company worth their salt wants to make a successful game, build brand recognition, create a healthy revenue stream. It seems that it's more complex than just "collect underpants > ? > profit."

AAAMEOW

It sounds like an interesting idea.  But it take somehting like 6 years to make new world and that is with Amazon backing.

And the reason company like to make mmorpg is because they can make it into gaming as a service and keep getting more money coming in.  

If you look at GW2, it is using buy 2 play but they still keep raking in money every year from cash shop.  

But I suppose anything could work.  It'll be interesting if some company make a new mmorpg and simply stop updating it and only fix bug.  

Brainy

Quizzical said:

You seem to assume that it's easy for a game to get 20 million box sales.  It isn't.

It doesnt rely on 20mil box sales, this is a scalable idea.

Games with 500 players, its more benefitial for them to release new versions every 2 years.  When you look at old games with currently 500 players, do you really think them investing in a new zone etc... would net them more players than if they just released a new updated game?  

Its pretty obvious that a game that had 500k players over 10 years and currently has 500 players, would have way more people playing if they released a new version of the game.

Brainy

Sovrath said:

I just think this is "it's easy to be successful ... just do x, y and z and you will profit."

My thought is that every company worth their salt wants to make a successful game, build brand recognition, create a healthy revenue stream. It seems that it's more complex than just "collect underpants > ? > profit."

Most ideas are simple, just because a solution seems too obvious does not mean its wrong, a solution doesnt have to be complex just because others are not doing it.

People have tunnel vision, group think and cannot see the most obvious right in front of their face.  This is why they have patents, because the solution is so EZ that it can be duplicated, patents are their to protect the person that applied for it first. 

If something was so complex, then people wouldnt even need patents.

olepi

I certainly wouldn't want to have to start over every 2 years, after investing 2 years of play time into an MMO. I like to create alts, level my crafting skills, fiddle around with housing, and explore new areas while leveling up my characters. If that stops after 2 years, and I have to start over, then I'll likely just quit that game.

Unless I can carry over the old character and achievements into the "new" game, in which case it sounds a lot more like an expansion than a new game. Buying expansions every year or two is the standard model now.

Your examples of Elder Scrolls and Dark Souls are single player games. For those, a new one every few years makes more sense.

Sovrath

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:

I just think this is "it's easy to be successful ... just do x, y and z and you will profit."

My thought is that every company worth their salt wants to make a successful game, build brand recognition, create a healthy revenue stream. It seems that it's more complex than just "collect underpants > ? > profit."

Most ideas are simple, just because a solution seems too obvious does not mean its wrong, a solution doesnt have to be complex just because others are not doing it.

People have tunnel vision, group think and cannot see the most obvious right in front of their face.  This is why they have patents, because the solution is so EZ that it can be duplicated, patents are their to protect the person that applied for it first. 

If something was so complex, then people wouldnt even need patents.

I think my point is that it's very obvious and if it were so easy everyone would be doing it. Sure, there are people who have "tunnel vision" but I find it hard to believe that all these game companies, with all their minds solely concentrating on these issues "don't see it."

I think it's just hard to make a good game, it's hard to engage players, especially today when it's so easy to click away to something else, it's hard to continually make great additional content.

I mean, look at Starfield. Here you have a company who has a good track record with creating a "type" of game and they apply it to Starfield and it sort of "misses the mark" for some people.

Now, good on them for trying something new but it's just not "one size fits all."

Quizzical

Brainy said:

Quizzical said:

You seem to assume that it's easy for a game to get 20 million box sales.  It isn't.

It doesnt rely on 20mil box sales, this is a scalable idea.

Games with 500 players, its more benefitial for them to release new versions every 2 years.  When you look at old games with currently 500 players, do you really think them investing in a new zone etc... would net them more players than if they just released a new updated game?  

Its pretty obvious that a game that had 500k players over 10 years and currently has 500 players, would have way more people playing if they released a new version of the game.

A game with 500 players isn't going to survive for two years if they don't get a lot more revenue soon.  The only real exception is an extreme indie game that is only worked on part time for passion and not money.

Brainy

olepi said:

Your examples of Elder Scrolls and Dark Souls are single player games. For those, a new one every few years makes more sense.

Why?  Elaborate.  Doesnt make more sense to me that its good for RPG's and not MMO's.  Just because MMO's are not doing it doesnt mean it shouldnt be done.

I dont see how a deep RPG like Skyrim can do it, but an MMO cannot?

Even if you skip years its still way more money for the studio.  30k vs 30mil is vastly different especially since the 30k is not even making much purchases anymore.

cameltosis

You gotta match game design with business model.

If you're building a themepark, then sure, plenty of sequels could work. This is actually something I've been saying for nearly a decade now. Build the base game, run it for 5 years during which time you update and expand, then release the sequel.

I don't think the monetisation would work out as well as you expect it to, but I do believe it would be much better than what we have now.

Such an iterative approach would allow the game to keep getting better and better with each new version, mistakes made with the original launch don't have to be a millstone around your neck.

But if you're building a sandbox, or something built more around community, then a short sequel release schedule sounds like a bad idea. You want the game to stick around for years in order to build that community.

Brainy

Sovrath said:

I think my point is that it's very obvious and if it were so easy everyone would be doing it. Sure, there are people who have "tunnel vision" but I find it hard to believe that all these game companies, with all their minds solely concentrating on these issues "don't see it."

Well its pretty common for leadership to make bad decisions then not correct them.

Lets just look at Elderscrolls.

The Elder Scrolls: Arena 3,000 (1994)

The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall 120,000 (1996)

The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind 4 Million (2010)

The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion 9.5 Million (2015)

The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim 30 Million (2016)

Look at that trajectory.  Why switch when you are seeing exponential growth in your brand.  Then they still didnt course correct after making a bad decision.  10 years later and they still havent fixed it.

How many big companies make extremely stupid decisions to only admit 10 years later it was stupid.  No company is immune to stupidity.  People follow the stupidity, which is where group think comes from.

Then you have people using the same arguement you are making, in that well if everyone else is doing it, it must be right.  They are completely blind to what they are seeing straight in their face.

Its not like there is a bunch of popular AAA MMO's releasing.  If the dev teams were all making the right decisions, then how can you reconcile that the MMO's releasing now are not more successful than all the ones before it?

Following people off the cliff because everyone else is jumping is not always the best solution.

Sovrath

Brainy said:

Sovrath said:

I think my point is that it's very obvious and if it were so easy everyone would be doing it. Sure, there are people who have "tunnel vision" but I find it hard to believe that all these game companies, with all their minds solely concentrating on these issues "don't see it."

Well its pretty common for leadership to make bad decisions then not correct them.

Lets just look at Elderscrolls.

The Elder Scrolls: Arena 3,000 (1994)

The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall 120,000 (1996)

The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind 4 Million (2010)

The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion 9.5 Million (2015)

The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim 30 Million (2016)

Look at that trajectory.  Why switch when you are seeing exponential growth in your brand.  Then they still didnt course correct after making a bad decision.  10 years later and they still havent fixed it.

How many big companies make extremely stupid decisions to only admit 10 years later it was stupid.  No company is immune to stupidity.  People follow the stupidity, which is where group think comes from.

Then you have people using the same arguement you are making, in that well if everyone else is doing it, it must be right.  They are completely blind to what they are seeing straight in their face.

Its not like there is a bunch of popular AAA MMO's releasing.  If the dev teams were all making the right decisions, then how can you reconcile that the MMO's releasing now are not more successful than all the ones before it?

Following people off the cliff because everyone else is jumping is not always the best solution.

I'm not sure what's to course co

rrect? They haven't released Elder Scrolls 6 yet. Once we see what they've changed we can then judge. As far as Fallout and Starfield, it seems that Fallout is fine other than the survival game (76?) they made and it seems they wanted it to be one thing but players wanted it to be more like the single player games.

They tried something different because people who make things sometimes want to do things differently.

Starfield seems to be the same thing but what they tried with outer space flight as well as the planet exploration just didn't work. At least for some people. I think they wanted it more realistic but it didn't work once the player had the entire scope of the game before them.

And again, people who make things do get tired of their formula and want to tinker with it or else it's boring.

Angrakhan

The problem with your proposed business model is that MMO gamers have a LONG memory and you're prescribing that MMO companies build abandonware. That is build a game, get paid, and immediately put it into maintenance mode and start working on a new game. MMO gamers will have that figured out pretty darn quick and the developer's reputation will be trash before they get halfway through developing game #2 in the plan. Two months after launch they'll be asking where the content patch is and when one isn't forthcoming reddit will be on fire. Game #2 is going to see a very tepid response due to your well earned reputation and when history repeats you can bet Game #3 will be a collosal failure.

Angrakhan

Other glaring hole in your business model is the time it takes to develop a AAA MMO which is 7-10 years. In order to release a game every 2 years you would have to run 4 development teams with 2 year staggered starts. The burn rate on that is so high no investor is going to buy into that. Good luck.

mekhere

What do you mean Monetize the game? So, the player makes money or the developers? No one is going to compete anymore to make YouTube video's and try to get paid to play a game through monetization. You have to actually pay players at this point to play an MMO. You have to pay for that 500 people player base. Long gone are the days of monetization. If you don't pay a person to play your game, it will just die. Like any long-lasting relationship, if you want a committed player, you have to give it an incentive. Time wasted isn't free anymore. A 20-year game commitment must be a win/win for both sides. Not just a profit for developers and time wasted for players. If you want me to waste tons of time playing your game, teach me how to code inside it, pay me in crypto, give me college credit for creating an in-game business. How can we help each other with time management. Game developers need to adapt to the new reset. Not wait for a generation to die out just go back to the old business models. 

Quizzical

mekhere said:

What do you mean Monetize the game? So, the player makes money or the developers? No one is going to compete anymore to make YouTube video's and try to get paid to play a game through monetization. You have to actually pay players at this point to play an MMO. You have to pay for that 500 people player base. Long gone are the days of monetization. If you don't pay a person to play your game, it will just die. Like any long-lasting relationship, if you want a committed player, you have to give it an incentive. Time wasted isn't free anymore. A 20-year game commitment must be a win/win for both sides. Not just a profit for developers and time wasted for players. If you want me to waste tons of time playing your game, teach me how to code inside it, pay me in crypto, give me college credit for creating an in-game business. How can we help each other with time management. Game developers need to adapt to the new reset. Not wait for a generation to die out just go back to the old business models. 

Lose money on every player you have and try to make it up in volume?

vonryan123

If devs had more control of the games and CFO's and CEO's stayed out of it we might get games people want to play....in which case they wouldn't need to come up with new ways to milk us....crazy I know...

vonryan123

mekhere said:

What do you mean Monetize the game? So, the player makes money or the developers? No one is going to compete anymore to make YouTube video's and try to get paid to play a game through monetization. You have to actually pay players at this point to play an MMO. You have to pay for that 500 people player base. Long gone are the days of monetization. If you don't pay a person to play your game, it will just die. Like any long-lasting relationship, if you want a committed player, you have to give it an incentive. Time wasted isn't free anymore. A 20-year game commitment must be a win/win for both sides. Not just a profit for developers and time wasted for players. If you want me to waste tons of time playing your game, teach me how to code inside it, pay me in crypto, give me college credit for creating an in-game business. How can we help each other with time management. Game developers need to adapt to the new reset. Not wait for a generation to die out just go back to the old business models. 

And this is why I am scared to death when my kids generation starts running things. Most normal gamers play the games willingly that's why we call ourselves gamers. If you want to be paid to do what use to be considered leisure activities maybe look into being a "influencer". No one is forced (in most cases) to play games so if you feel games are a waste of time maybe you are not a gamer? 

mekhere

Quizzical said:

mekhere said:

What do you mean Monetize the game? So, the player makes money or the developers? No one is going to compete anymore to make YouTube video's and try to get paid to play a game through monetization. You have to actually pay players at this point to play an MMO. You have to pay for that 500 people player base. Long gone are the days of monetization. If you don't pay a person to play your game, it will just die. Like any long-lasting relationship, if you want a committed player, you have to give it an incentive. Time wasted isn't free anymore. A 20-year game commitment must be a win/win for both sides. Not just a profit for developers and time wasted for players. If you want me to waste tons of time playing your game, teach me how to code inside it, pay me in crypto, give me college credit for creating an in-game business. How can we help each other with time management. Game developers need to adapt to the new reset. Not wait for a generation to die out just go back to the old business models. 

Lose money on every player you have and try to make it up in volume?

You lean towards punishment and not rewards. Its business. Go where the money goes.

mekhere

vonryan123 said:

mekhere said:

What do you mean Monetize the game? So, the player makes money or the developers? No one is going to compete anymore to make YouTube video's and try to get paid to play a game through monetization. You have to actually pay players at this point to play an MMO. You have to pay for that 500 people player base. Long gone are the days of monetization. If you don't pay a person to play your game, it will just die. Like any long-lasting relationship, if you want a committed player, you have to give it an incentive. Time wasted isn't free anymore. A 20-year game commitment must be a win/win for both sides. Not just a profit for developers and time wasted for players. If you want me to waste tons of time playing your game, teach me how to code inside it, pay me in crypto, give me college credit for creating an in-game business. How can we help each other with time management. Game developers need to adapt to the new reset. Not wait for a generation to die out just go back to the old business models. 

And this is why I am scared to death when my kids generation starts running things. Most normal gamers play the games willingly that's why we call ourselves gamers. If you want to be paid to do what use to be considered leisure activities maybe look into being a "influencer". No one is forced (in most cases) to play games so if you feel games are a waste of time maybe you are not a gamer? 

Influencers aren't really a thing anymore in gaming. Way too many people tried that, and only a few rose to the top and got paid. You do realize people are used to getting paid to waste their time, right? How are you going to convince an entire generation of kids who are used to getting paid to waste their time, to waste their time for free? These kids get paid to game, socialize, be influencers, and a ton of other things. What incentive do they have to waste time playing a game, if the monetization money isn't there anymore? Gaming isn't about passion. It's about making enough money to keep gaming a business. You can be passionate about playing your game, but investors are passionate about making money. Now convince me why I should waste my time for free?