F2P MMOs are all the rage, while subscription games appear to have fallen on tough times. Dana thinks he knows why and it has nothing to do with how people pay for them. It's all about accessibility in this week's edition of Dana Massey Asks "Why Not?" Ask yourself this: What do World of Warcraft and virtually every F2P game have in common? And what do Age of Conan, Warhammer Online and others have in common? Many people say Funcom and Mythic copied WoW, but if they did, they forgot to rip off the single most important thing. Blizzard even published that top secret design document on bottom of the box. It was the system requirements. This is what F2P games and WoW share the most. Forget design, forget art style. They can all be run by a wad of chewing gum and a rubber band.
Man tell me how 2 get ur article to EVERY game developer!?
ur dead right!--i loved your comments!-i do alot of beta testing-and i have a fairly good comp.-recently got a beta test of a subscription turning over the game to a f2p aspect with micro-payments. was REALLY looking 4ward 2 play!-but the downloader is so complicated and the info on the forums so technical,i gave up!
then they suggested to go and buy the game from store to get into closed beta test?
RIGHT!
if we could only get the developers to follow ur advice!
GREAT ARTICLE! please keep voicing logic to an illogical market!
The problem with F2P (not really the right term because most force you to pay to compete) and the reason I don't like them is because they favour the rich. If you are poor and cannot afford to sped hundreds a month in it, you will not be able to compete with the top players.
Competition has many aspects. You pay either in time(hours and hours per day) or in money. Not everyone can afford the time that raiding takes. Just as not everyone can afford the money that some games take. Its up to the players to determine which type of game they prefer. Talent will only take one so far. Then the force multiplier kicks in. That may be time and/or money depending on the game. Bottom line, if you want to be competitive, its going to cost you.
This article, while making a slim point about accessibity, is complete bunk when it comes down to the facts. Just look at the comparisons. WoW doing well and AoC/WAR not because of graphics? Horse shit. There are so many grossly more important factors that AoC/WAR had wrong, and so much crap WoW has done to itself to pander to as many people as possible, that graphics are the LEAST of concerns. F2P games are still hardly "all the rage" being that they're still universally seen as a fairly terrible model by anyone interested in actually PLAYING the game or at least playing fairly. I've yet to see a quality game on a F2P budget either. Yeah, it's all the rage if you're counting accounts, but who's going to pass up free?
Sorry, but it really is the truth. F2P is popular because it's free and kiddos want free stuff, and companies want to exploit their fanbase for as much money as they can, and premium games have been failing because they've been uninspired copies or down right broken executions with no imagination.
Edit: Please, PLEASE don't even start with that "It's my money I can spend it how I want" "You're either spending money or time" BS. It's a completely fallacious argument for so many reasons and still doesn't address the problem of fair and equal play, it just sidesteps it.
People upgrade their computers, or buy new consoles, to experience the latest technology has to offer. Graphics = Immersion.
People who play a game like vanguard are looking for an immersive experience beyond the simplicity of leveling and looting, which is all F2P caters to.
If all games started being like WoW then there would be a huge void left for the more hardcore and mature crowd, people who have the money to invest in gaming.
Same story as always. The rich are evil and the poor deserve a free ride.
Sorry, I ain't buying it.
I enjoy my subscription games. For a lot of reasons too. Foremost, they mostly keep the kiddies out. They can't get their parents to give them their credit card numbers. I also enjoy a more "epic" game. One that takes loads of development. Not just a dry and treadmill type gameplay model with cheap low grade graphics. I want the best and I'm willing to PAY for it.
Look, I really have never considered WoW anything more than an anomaly in the MMO field. It's not normal. I also have a lot of trouble considering it a true MMO. I know, it fits the criteria, but I just never got the same feeling in it as games like Vanguard, EQ2, or even EQ. It's just too easy. I want that challenge. I want to be tested. And I want the danged best designers behind my game with their wit, creativity, and experience. I also want them to send me into a wonderfully layed out world with lots of beauty and inspiration. And I don't want them feeling like they "failed" because they don't match sub numbers of the WoW game. I really don't care for WoW and I think a lot of people feel the same. I'm not going to consider a designer a failure for not matching their stellar numbers.
I think you're going to find that most people who agree with you are a younger crowd. They're mad because (like I said) their parents won't give them their credit card. That and you're going to find very young adults who are just getting started financially. There is a more mature MMO crowd out here. We don't mind paying and subsequently demand a lot more out of our games. Likewise, we're not afraid to plop down the money to build or buy a nice computer.
We're not evil, we just are really into our hobby.
I agree with the O.P, and I'd like to add a few thoughts. Most of the subscription games lately seemed to view WoW as a cash cow. They seemed to try to copy and ship it ASAP to try to get their slice of the pie. The problem? In short, they suck. You can tell they were thrown together or revamped half-way through development, or revamped after going live--all on the hurry-up offence plan--in an attempt to cash in on Blizzard's action. Why didn't this work? WoW doesn't suck. What I mean is, it actually works. It wasn't built in a hurry, revamped halfway through development or, god-forbid, after it went live--a real kick in the groin to gamers. Because it doesn't suck, it's actually worth paying a subscription fee for. Gamers aren't as stupid as some producers seem to think. We really don't want to pay for stuff that doesn't work, even if it happens to be not working on a PC. This brings us full circle to the success of f2p games. If they suck, so what? It's free. Why not give it a try? If it's fun, great. If it doesn't draw me into some nasty RMT marketting scheme along the way. even better. The risks of this, if they exist, are still generally hidden so to speak. I can login to a subscription based game right away and tell whether or not the game is functional. If it's not, forget about it. Even if a f2p game has some crazy RMT model (e.g. you can be a pet trainer for free, but actual pets will cost you extra...), it's going to take me a while to figure out what's going on. This is especially true, sadly, if the game is marketted to minors; and many of these are. Personally, I think people will inevitably realize that some f2p games have user friendly business models, whereas others do not. It's going to take some time though. Once people figure this out, I expect the games with manipulative cash schemes to fizzle out, leaving only those who remain hooked on the experience, or continue to be unaware of the dynamics. Whatever the model, my preference would simply be that MMO producers are up-front about the cost of playing the game, and that they actually work. I think people generally don't like paying for broken games, and I think tolerance for hidden fees is at an all-time low; once people recognize they are actually there.
Same story as always. The rich are evil and the poor deserve a free ride. Sorry, I ain't buying it. I enjoy my subscription games. For a lot of reasons too. Foremost, they mostly keep the kiddies out. They can't get their parents to give them their credit card numbers. I also enjoy a more "epic" game. One that takes loads of development. Not just a dry and treadmill type gameplay model with cheap low grade graphics. I want the best and I'm willing to PAY for it. Look, I really have never considered WoW anything more than an anomaly in the MMO field. It's not normal. I also have a lot of trouble considering it a true MMO. I know, it fits the criteria, but I just never got the same feeling in it as games like Vanguard, EQ2, or even EQ. It's just too easy. I want that challenge. I want to be tested. And I want the danged best designers behind my game with their wit, creativity, and experience. I also want them to send me into a wonderfully layed out world with lots of beauty and inspiration. And I don't want them feeling like they "failed" because they don't match sub numbers of the WoW game. I really don't care for WoW and I think a lot of people feel the same. I'm not going to consider a designer a failure for not matching their stellar numbers. I think you're going to find that most people who agree with you are a younger crowd. They're mad because (like I said) their parents won't give them their credit card. That and you're going to find very young adults who are just getting started financially. There is a more mature MMO crowd out here. We don't mind paying and subsequently demand a lot more out of our games. Likewise, we're not afraid to plop down the money to build or buy a nice computer. We're not evil, we just are really into our hobby.
soon you ll be able to lock level
so you ll be able to kill level 20 foe at level 1 if its your thing
best use i can see is lock it till all your quest are red then start questing and always lock it if quest arent red
EVE is the anti-thesis of everything WoW is in terms of accessibility, yet it only grows and grows with it's complexity.
There is a market for people seeking deep and involving games, and these people are generally willing to invest money in their hobby in the form of upgraded graphics.
You also forgot about getting right into buisness.
No one dosn't want to pay for a game that "might" get better, at level 30.
Most MMOs at level 1 you're taken through all these basic tutorials about how to kill target... so on, and then you're handed all these quests that are kill x number of things.
Sure you can do bombing runs off giant bats when you reach level 70, sure you can particiapate in hardcore territory battles at level 50, don't forget that end-game content at level 90!
But all this means nothing for somone that has only been playing the game for 10 days and just reached level 14.
Demos, Free Trials, Betas.... all of these things are what would turn a gamer on or off the game.
Sure you can hear lots of people talking about all these cool features a game has, or watch gameplay videos and see other people playing them.... but what good is it if YOU can't play them?
First impression is everything in this world, it be Movies, Games, People. If somthing dosn't get "intresting" after the first 30 mintues... then you're going to have to say bye bye to you're customers.
P.S Not all F2P graphics are cartoony, anime, or pixels. The upcoming Korean games just look amazing!
EVE is the anti-thesis of everything WoW is in terms of accessibility, yet it only grows and grows with it's complexity. There is a market for people seeking deep and involving games, and these people are generally willing to invest money in their hobby in the form of upgraded graphics.
your right people pay everyday for various thing involving their game
gw player buy pvp kit
f2p player buy various item
wow sell cards that give ingame mount or bonus
and verious collector item from t-shirt to dwarf beer buck
You're pretty right, people don't want games with such a high quality they won't be able to run, but they don't want pieces of crap either.
My examples are Guild Wars and Aion, NCSoft has shown they have a good tradition of offering excelent graphics while greatly optimized. Funny thing is that I can run Aion on max settings with 40+ FPS while in WoW that would turn into 10~30 FPS. Miracle? No, just polishment.
It does not explain the way F2P and P2P MMOs are taking though, this is more due to an idea of freedom. You can play whatever F2P you want without feeling yourself bound to play it eternally. That is not the case with monthly fee MMOs, when you pay a monthly fee you are expecting to play that same game for 30 days (or more). Until P2Ps in the West start offering subscriptions in hours which you can spend whenever you want, competition among the same sub model will keep harming themselves. People want fun and flexibility.
You're wrong on the costs though, a F2P will cost much more for the average gamer than a P2P, with $15 you can barely do anything, these F2P games usually have items in the costs of $5~$10, and they are cassino-like, you will want to buy more and more. And I don't want to get the feeling I pay for randomly generated items instead of content and service maintenance. Still, you have the sense of flexibility, your money is bound to your character, not to a 30-day timeframe.
You also forgot about getting right into buisness.
No one dosn't want to pay for a game that "might" get better, at level 30. Most MMOs at level 1 you're taken through all these basic tutorials about how to kill target... so on, and then you're handed all these quests that are kill x number of things. Sure you can do bombing runs off giant bats when you reach level 70, sure you can particiapate in hardcore territory battles at level 50, don't forget that end-game content at level 90! But all this means nothing for somone that has only been playing the game for 10 days and just reached level 14. Demos, Free Trials, Betas.... all of these things are what would turn a gamer on or off the game.
Sure you can hear lots of people talking about all these cool features a game has, or watch gameplay videos and see other people playing them.... but what good is it if YOU can't play them? First impression is everything in this world, it be Movies, Games, People. If somthing dosn't get "intresting" after the first 30 mintues... then you're going to have to say bye bye to you're customers.
P.S Not all F2P graphics are cartoony, anime, or pixels. The upcoming Korean games just look amazing!
High Requirements wont make an MMO unsuccesful. Granted if you wanted a larger playerbase, then yes, it would have a fairly large factor in it. A huge playerbase doesnt necessarily facilitate a "successful" MMO, as some fill small niche areas (ie: EVE is a really good example).
The most things that are breaking MMO's now is lack of polished content and game breaking bugs that are released. Investors have found that MMO's are the next big money maker, so theyll naturally invest in a studio, but then when theyre not getting ANY money back in the 3 years of development (sometimes less) they start to demand there money back. So then the studio has no other choice but to publish a non-polished, early to late beta version of the game and hope for the best (ie: Most MMO's published after WoW, prime example is Vanguard and AoC). Other companies publish a stable MMO but fail to listen to what the community wants, and fail to try and make logical compromises( ie: SWG and WAR).
F2P MMO's are like Diablo II, nice to play on the offtime, but most are not a very credible "timesink" to most people. And alot lack story and lore which are typical of Eastern/Asian MMO's. Western MMO's tend to focus around a pre-made lore IP and develop around that, which then tends to draw a much larger population to it.
Another focus of concern is sometimes too much is well...too much. Some MMO studios try to incorporate so many things into the game theyre making and the end-user gets so overwhelmed that they find no interest in the learning curve of the game. Not to mention this slew of features not only hinders performance, but incorporates an ASS ton of bugs that need to be squashed. Start out simple, and if the game is polished and well maintined, you can add these features in later so if there is a major bug in that feature, its easily handled and able to be fixed relatively quick.
This article, while making a slim point about accessibity, is complete bunk when it comes down to the facts. Just look at the comparisons. WoW doing well and AoC/WAR not because of graphics? Horse shit. There are so many grossly more important factors that AoC/WAR had wrong, and so much crap WoW has done to itself to pander to as many people as possible, that graphics are the LEAST of concerns. F2P games are still hardly "all the rage" being that they're still universally seen as a fairly terrible model by anyone interested in actually PLAYING the game or at least playing fairly. I've yet to see a quality game on a F2P budget either. Yeah, it's all the rage if you're counting accounts, but who's going to pass up free? Sorry, but it really is the truth. F2P is popular because it's free and kiddos want free stuff, and companies want to exploit their fanbase for as much money as they can, and premium games have been failing because they've been uninspired copies or down right broken executions with no imagination.
Edit: Please, PLEASE don't even start with that "It's my money I can spend it how I want" "You're either spending money or time" BS. It's a completely fallacious argument for so many reasons and still doesn't address the problem of fair and equal play, it just sidesteps it.
First, if a game is a slide show on your current system, how likely are you to keep a subscription? Not very much at all. Second, how many people are going to run out and buy a new system(or have the experience/knowledge/money to upgrade their own system)? Again, the answer is not very many. That means that games that have high system requirements(out of the box) aren't going to be nearly as successful as those which do not.
Next, I'm always amused by those who make arguments about "fairness". "Fairness" is a subjective value judgement. Is it "fair" that some people have the hours and hours required to raid? Is it "fair" that some people have access to raiding guilds, that have enough people to raid? As I said, if you wish to be competitive you are going to spend time and/or money. Time/money are force multipliers that are applied in different situations to achieve ones goals. Spending money is no more "unfair" than spending time is. Its simply a matter of what one values more.
If you're getting a slideshow in a game that really intrigues you then you will upgrade if you can afford it.
Games push hardware sales, not the other way around.
This is just a bad last few years PC gaming because the cheapness of the xbox 360 has substituted for needing a high end PC in the eyes of most gamers, leaving a smaller market for high end PC exclusives; But this can't last forever, because other forces are at work screwing up the market dynamics. Which is that microsoft is taking a huge loss on the sale of their hardware in order to gain marketshare. Austensibly they want to make it back with game sales, but they never do. They haven't made a profit on the console business since they started, and they don't plan to until they dominate the market so thoroughly that they can start charging people a lot more for the price of admission.
The article dismisses the improvement in graphics which has driven every computer game genre since the genre started. We aren’t that bothered about better graphics apparently, but the whole history of gaming confounds his argument!
WoW raised expectations in the MMO industry, every big title could expect equal success. It didn’t turn out that way, so now they are trying to find out why, but no one really knows why. MMO pundits search for answers and come across F2P (RMT) games, which are not doing badly. These are then treated like a saviour of the genre, which they are not. They are a different genre, for a different type of player. Pundits ask yourself this, maybe WoW just came in at the right time and has been a hard act to better?
They might as well look at web based games now, and tell us they are the new saviour. We only need two dimensional graphics and instant gratification, utter nonsense. Come on pundits wake up, there simply was no room in the market for another big title and then another. Stop looking for reasons which are not there.
If you're getting a slideshow in a game that really intrigues you then you will upgrade if you can afford it. Games push hardware sales, not the other way around. This is just a bad last few years PC gaming because the cheapness of the xbox 360 has substituted for needing a high end PC in the eyes of most gamers, leaving a smaller market for high end PC exclusives; But this can't last forever, because other forces are at work screwing up the market dynamics. Which is that microsoft is taking a huge loss on the sale of their hardware in order to gain marketshare. Austensibly they want to make it back with game sales, but they never do. They haven't made a profit on the console business since they started, and they don't plan to until they dominate the market so thoroughly that they can start charging people a lot more for the price of admission.
Your first is a good point, but is a special case. How many companies can risk the tens of millions required for todays large scale projects, on the chance that a sufficient number of people will be interested enough to upgrade their system to play?
Its much safer(money/time wise) to get a sense of the typical system(and add a bit for when the game is released, in say two years) than it is to expect people to upgrade. As for the Xbox 360, Mickysoft is more interested in Xboxlive and its potential profits, than making money on their hardware. Only time will tell if this is a wise investment.
F2P MMOs are all the rage, while subscription games appear to have fallen on tough times. Dana thinks he knows why and it has nothing to do with how people pay for them. It's all about accessibility in this week's edition of Dana Massey Asks "Why Not?" Ask yourself this: What do World of Warcraft and virtually every F2P game have in common? And what do Age of Conan, Warhammer Online and others have in common? Many people say Funcom and Mythic copied WoW, but if they did, they forgot to rip off the single most important thing. Blizzard even published that top secret design document on bottom of the box. It was the system requirements. This is what F2P games and WoW share the most. Forget design, forget art style. They can all be run by a wad of chewing gum and a rubber band.
This i believe is the fundamental of gaming at the moment and almost no big company has picked up on it. If you can make a good game make it playable by everyone, not just a select few with the squillions needed to get that latest and greatest PC. Its not a matter of elitism. Even to the point where i now see some MMO's are starting to make the journey to console. not a bad idea. They just need to make it so that everyone anywhere can play.
Another example of low requirement and high enjoyment game is classic Ultima Online. It doesn't matter how incredibily old for a game UO is, I still see hundreds of players logging in amateurial servers. It is all about that: good gameplay, immediate action, simple graphics, great fun!
Comments
Read it all here.
ok... what was the point is that?
That we need more crappy games.
Man tell me how 2 get ur article to EVERY game developer!?
ur dead right!--i loved your comments!-i do alot of beta testing-and i have a fairly good comp.-recently got a beta test of a subscription turning over the game to a f2p aspect with micro-payments. was REALLY looking 4ward 2 play!-but the downloader is so complicated and the info on the forums so technical,i gave up!
then they suggested to go and buy the game from store to get into closed beta test?
RIGHT!
if we could only get the developers to follow ur advice!
GREAT ARTICLE! please keep voicing logic to an illogical market!
Competition has many aspects. You pay either in time(hours and hours per day) or in money. Not everyone can afford the time that raiding takes. Just as not everyone can afford the money that some games take. Its up to the players to determine which type of game they prefer. Talent will only take one so far. Then the force multiplier kicks in. That may be time and/or money depending on the game. Bottom line, if you want to be competitive, its going to cost you.
This article, while making a slim point about accessibity, is complete bunk when it comes down to the facts. Just look at the comparisons. WoW doing well and AoC/WAR not because of graphics? Horse shit. There are so many grossly more important factors that AoC/WAR had wrong, and so much crap WoW has done to itself to pander to as many people as possible, that graphics are the LEAST of concerns. F2P games are still hardly "all the rage" being that they're still universally seen as a fairly terrible model by anyone interested in actually PLAYING the game or at least playing fairly. I've yet to see a quality game on a F2P budget either. Yeah, it's all the rage if you're counting accounts, but who's going to pass up free?
Sorry, but it really is the truth. F2P is popular because it's free and kiddos want free stuff, and companies want to exploit their fanbase for as much money as they can, and premium games have been failing because they've been uninspired copies or down right broken executions with no imagination.
Edit: Please, PLEASE don't even start with that "It's my money I can spend it how I want" "You're either spending money or time" BS. It's a completely fallacious argument for so many reasons and still doesn't address the problem of fair and equal play, it just sidesteps it.
Bans a perma, but so are sigs in necro posts.
EAT ME MMORPG.com!
People upgrade their computers, or buy new consoles, to experience the latest technology has to offer. Graphics = Immersion.
People who play a game like vanguard are looking for an immersive experience beyond the simplicity of leveling and looting, which is all F2P caters to.
If all games started being like WoW then there would be a huge void left for the more hardcore and mature crowd, people who have the money to invest in gaming.
Same story as always. The rich are evil and the poor deserve a free ride.
Sorry, I ain't buying it.
I enjoy my subscription games. For a lot of reasons too. Foremost, they mostly keep the kiddies out. They can't get their parents to give them their credit card numbers. I also enjoy a more "epic" game. One that takes loads of development. Not just a dry and treadmill type gameplay model with cheap low grade graphics. I want the best and I'm willing to PAY for it.
Look, I really have never considered WoW anything more than an anomaly in the MMO field. It's not normal. I also have a lot of trouble considering it a true MMO. I know, it fits the criteria, but I just never got the same feeling in it as games like Vanguard, EQ2, or even EQ. It's just too easy. I want that challenge. I want to be tested. And I want the danged best designers behind my game with their wit, creativity, and experience. I also want them to send me into a wonderfully layed out world with lots of beauty and inspiration. And I don't want them feeling like they "failed" because they don't match sub numbers of the WoW game. I really don't care for WoW and I think a lot of people feel the same. I'm not going to consider a designer a failure for not matching their stellar numbers.
I think you're going to find that most people who agree with you are a younger crowd. They're mad because (like I said) their parents won't give them their credit card. That and you're going to find very young adults who are just getting started financially. There is a more mature MMO crowd out here. We don't mind paying and subsequently demand a lot more out of our games. Likewise, we're not afraid to plop down the money to build or buy a nice computer.
We're not evil, we just are really into our hobby.
===============================
yep your absolutly right
people say this
i want for my moneys worth gees
i dont want to pay 125 $ for a capuccino
This article is truth.
soon you ll be able to lock level
so you ll be able to kill level 20 foe at level 1 if its your thing
best use i can see is lock it till all your quest are red then start questing and always lock it if quest arent red
EVE is the anti-thesis of everything WoW is in terms of accessibility, yet it only grows and grows with it's complexity.
There is a market for people seeking deep and involving games, and these people are generally willing to invest money in their hobby in the form of upgraded graphics.
You also forgot about getting right into buisness.
No one dosn't want to pay for a game that "might" get better, at level 30.
Most MMOs at level 1 you're taken through all these basic tutorials about how to kill target... so on, and then you're handed all these quests that are kill x number of things.
Sure you can do bombing runs off giant bats when you reach level 70, sure you can particiapate in hardcore territory battles at level 50, don't forget that end-game content at level 90!
But all this means nothing for somone that has only been playing the game for 10 days and just reached level 14.
Demos, Free Trials, Betas.... all of these things are what would turn a gamer on or off the game.
Sure you can hear lots of people talking about all these cool features a game has, or watch gameplay videos and see other people playing them.... but what good is it if YOU can't play them?
First impression is everything in this world, it be Movies, Games, People. If somthing dosn't get "intresting" after the first 30 mintues... then you're going to have to say bye bye to you're customers.
P.S Not all F2P graphics are cartoony, anime, or pixels. The upcoming Korean games just look amazing!
your right people pay everyday for various thing involving their game
gw player buy pvp kit
f2p player buy various item
wow sell cards that give ingame mount or bonus
and verious collector item from t-shirt to dwarf beer buck
but people rarelly pay for worthless item
You're pretty right, people don't want games with such a high quality they won't be able to run, but they don't want pieces of crap either.
My examples are Guild Wars and Aion, NCSoft has shown they have a good tradition of offering excelent graphics while greatly optimized. Funny thing is that I can run Aion on max settings with 40+ FPS while in WoW that would turn into 10~30 FPS. Miracle? No, just polishment.
It does not explain the way F2P and P2P MMOs are taking though, this is more due to an idea of freedom. You can play whatever F2P you want without feeling yourself bound to play it eternally. That is not the case with monthly fee MMOs, when you pay a monthly fee you are expecting to play that same game for 30 days (or more). Until P2Ps in the West start offering subscriptions in hours which you can spend whenever you want, competition among the same sub model will keep harming themselves. People want fun and flexibility.
You're wrong on the costs though, a F2P will cost much more for the average gamer than a P2P, with $15 you can barely do anything, these F2P games usually have items in the costs of $5~$10, and they are cassino-like, you will want to buy more and more. And I don't want to get the feeling I pay for randomly generated items instead of content and service maintenance. Still, you have the sense of flexibility, your money is bound to your character, not to a 30-day timeframe.
men your ps is a very welcome news ty
any exemple of title coming up per chance
High Requirements wont make an MMO unsuccesful. Granted if you wanted a larger playerbase, then yes, it would have a fairly large factor in it. A huge playerbase doesnt necessarily facilitate a "successful" MMO, as some fill small niche areas (ie: EVE is a really good example).
The most things that are breaking MMO's now is lack of polished content and game breaking bugs that are released. Investors have found that MMO's are the next big money maker, so theyll naturally invest in a studio, but then when theyre not getting ANY money back in the 3 years of development (sometimes less) they start to demand there money back. So then the studio has no other choice but to publish a non-polished, early to late beta version of the game and hope for the best (ie: Most MMO's published after WoW, prime example is Vanguard and AoC). Other companies publish a stable MMO but fail to listen to what the community wants, and fail to try and make logical compromises( ie: SWG and WAR).
F2P MMO's are like Diablo II, nice to play on the offtime, but most are not a very credible "timesink" to most people. And alot lack story and lore which are typical of Eastern/Asian MMO's. Western MMO's tend to focus around a pre-made lore IP and develop around that, which then tends to draw a much larger population to it.
Another focus of concern is sometimes too much is well...too much. Some MMO studios try to incorporate so many things into the game theyre making and the end-user gets so overwhelmed that they find no interest in the learning curve of the game. Not to mention this slew of features not only hinders performance, but incorporates an ASS ton of bugs that need to be squashed. Start out simple, and if the game is polished and well maintined, you can add these features in later so if there is a major bug in that feature, its easily handled and able to be fixed relatively quick.
These are just a few of my observations.
First, if a game is a slide show on your current system, how likely are you to keep a subscription? Not very much at all. Second, how many people are going to run out and buy a new system(or have the experience/knowledge/money to upgrade their own system)? Again, the answer is not very many. That means that games that have high system requirements(out of the box) aren't going to be nearly as successful as those which do not.
Next, I'm always amused by those who make arguments about "fairness". "Fairness" is a subjective value judgement. Is it "fair" that some people have the hours and hours required to raid? Is it "fair" that some people have access to raiding guilds, that have enough people to raid? As I said, if you wish to be competitive you are going to spend time and/or money. Time/money are force multipliers that are applied in different situations to achieve ones goals. Spending money is no more "unfair" than spending time is. Its simply a matter of what one values more.
If you're getting a slideshow in a game that really intrigues you then you will upgrade if you can afford it.
Games push hardware sales, not the other way around.
This is just a bad last few years PC gaming because the cheapness of the xbox 360 has substituted for needing a high end PC in the eyes of most gamers, leaving a smaller market for high end PC exclusives; But this can't last forever, because other forces are at work screwing up the market dynamics. Which is that microsoft is taking a huge loss on the sale of their hardware in order to gain marketshare. Austensibly they want to make it back with game sales, but they never do. They haven't made a profit on the console business since they started, and they don't plan to until they dominate the market so thoroughly that they can start charging people a lot more for the price of admission.
The article dismisses the improvement in graphics which has driven every computer game genre since the genre started. We aren’t that bothered about better graphics apparently, but the whole history of gaming confounds his argument!
WoW raised expectations in the MMO industry, every big title could expect equal success. It didn’t turn out that way, so now they are trying to find out why, but no one really knows why. MMO pundits search for answers and come across F2P (RMT) games, which are not doing badly. These are then treated like a saviour of the genre, which they are not. They are a different genre, for a different type of player. Pundits ask yourself this, maybe WoW just came in at the right time and has been a hard act to better?
They might as well look at web based games now, and tell us they are the new saviour. We only need two dimensional graphics and instant gratification, utter nonsense. Come on pundits wake up, there simply was no room in the market for another big title and then another. Stop looking for reasons which are not there.
Your first is a good point, but is a special case. How many companies can risk the tens of millions required for todays large scale projects, on the chance that a sufficient number of people will be interested enough to upgrade their system to play?
Its much safer(money/time wise) to get a sense of the typical system(and add a bit for when the game is released, in say two years) than it is to expect people to upgrade. As for the Xbox 360, Mickysoft is more interested in Xboxlive and its potential profits, than making money on their hardware. Only time will tell if this is a wise investment.
Umm..
City of Heroes.
Read it all here.
Very well said, Dana. Been saying this for years.
Solid gameplay
Easy access
Polish
Mechanics that your target audience enjoys
Those are the REAL 4 pillars of a successful MMO.
"A ship-of-war is the best ambassador." - Oliver Cromwell
Love this message.
This i believe is the fundamental of gaming at the moment and almost no big company has picked up on it. If you can make a good game make it playable by everyone, not just a select few with the squillions needed to get that latest and greatest PC. Its not a matter of elitism. Even to the point where i now see some MMO's are starting to make the journey to console. not a bad idea. They just need to make it so that everyone anywhere can play.
100% agree with you Dana.
Another example of low requirement and high enjoyment game is classic Ultima Online. It doesn't matter how incredibily old for a game UO is, I still see hundreds of players logging in amateurial servers. It is all about that: good gameplay, immediate action, simple graphics, great fun!
FTP games are surging because current PTP games are so poorly designed, and because of todays' and tomorrows economic concerns.