Many have opined that all MMOs are the same. They all have swords and magic and orcs and wizards and treasure and levels. Even the Scifi themed games have the same trappings in a futuristic package. The few that break this mold are nothing more than niche games.
I think that developers have determined that this formula generally works and rather than tinker with it, they've decided to pursue other methods of enticing new players into their virtual worlds. One of the most obvious is the license trend: building a game around a well-known marquee title. People who love the movie/game/novel in its original form are at least curious to try the MMO, so this should lead to a bunch of new players, right?
I don't think this is the case. In fact, the only example I can think of as an unqualified success is World of Warcraft, which had a huge following before its MMO days and is even more popular now. The others are less than awe inspiring:
- Star Wars: Galaxies - has had some success, but was never a runaway hit, and SOE's constant nerfing has driven many of the faithful away
- The Matrix Online - hardly a success
- Asheron's Call 2 - the sequel to the popular Asheron's Call was shut down in December
- EverQuest 2 - a solid title, but not one of the top games out there. Still in the shadow of its predecessor
- Dungeons and Dragons Online - the jury's still out on this one, but Turbine is already offering a free trial and many players appear to be dumping after the first month
I included sequels because they are playing off the success the previous game built from nothing.
I tend to think that this is not the best way to lure players, merely based upon the performance of these games. These games bring a tremendous amount of expectation to the table and they almost always fall short. The original properties are proving to be a tough act to follow.
Upcoming, we have Lord of the Rings Online, Warhammer Online, Star Trek Online, etc. All of them, particularly LOTRO, will have a tough bill to fill. I have to wonder if any of these games will prove successful. I hope they are, but in my estimation, history is against them.
Comments
I have a rule: A game based on a Movie is never any good. Like wise a Movie base on a game isn't good.
Why? For games, it's generally a issue of where the money goes, if you have to buy expensive licenses and other costs of doing business with copy right holders, it dilutes funds that would go into making a good game. What makes a good movie, isn't what makes a game.
For a number of other reasons crappy games are normally the result.
As for sequels, I think Mythic said it best: with a on-line game, you can keep making new content and changes, their little need to make a sequel.
For example in EQ people (like myself) literally put years into that character. Why pitch that, and start over for more of the same? Or something kinda like but different?
Of course our standards for success may be a bit different. I have a friend in the movie industry that once told me Critters was the one of the best money makers of all time. "How can that be" I said, "It's not a very good movie, surely movies like Lord of the Rings have made your company more"
"It's not only a issue of what a movie brings in" he said,"But also what it cost to make. And on that scale Critters is one of the most successful films ever"
We're gamers, from the company point of view it's merely did it make some money or not. EQ2 or Galaxies may have been a success on that scale, I have no idea what SoE dumped into them, or what they made back.
Companies are still trying to feel out the market. I have a feeling 'get them to buy once' like single player games, won't cut it in the MMO market. But it's hard to tell at this point. NCsoft is making a good run at that model.
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.