General: Crushing the Dream of Live Content

Stradden · July 2009

In his most recent Staff Blog Entry, MMORPG.com Managing Editor Jon Wood writes about he idea of a game with full, live content and why it just won't happen.

One of my fondest dreams for MMOs, and one that I’m sure must be mirrored by other fans, is for an MMO company to be able to offer live content as a regular feature in their games. The virtual world that I’m talking about would have GMs in-game, running events throughout the game world, on a regular basis. They would be able to plan one-time story arcs, react to player actions, interact with players on a level that goes beyond simple quest boxes, and more. It wouldn’t replace static content, but would be something extra. It wouldn’t be happening everywhere, all the time, but it would be happening somewhere.

The problem is, we’re never likely to see it happen beyond the current incarnation of the occasional in-game live event (that are getting rarer and rarer as time goes on). The reasons are pretty straightforward, starting with the fact that it is nigh on impossible to actually entertain a large enough number of people in this way to make the entire exercise worthwhile. It is very difficult to create an interactive, one-time, story driven event for more than a handful of people. Sanya Weathers actually sums this up quite nicely in her “RP Servers are Hard” column written two weeks ago. In it, she mentions the “ungodly amounts of time to design, plan, and execute” live events, and she’s right.

Read Crushing the Dream of Live Content

LynxJSA · July 2009

This really isn't anything that hasn't been tried before.

Prior to paid services were UO's Seer program and EVE's AURORA team. UO even went to a hire-a-GM system, offering parties and weddings for a fee - a GM, special item, decorations, and all. EQ also offered a broader premium service, the Legends server, which was a more tailored experience, which closed down in Feb 2006.

Money isn't the only issue. Favoritism, perceived or real, is a very large issue. Also, if people are paying for a tailored experience they will request the most outlandish things and be pissed when they cannot get it.

So, with the negatives aside, I think it *can* work, but it would probably only really work in a small community on a small server. I'd be willing to bet that a MUD or an NWN server could pull it off better with a staff of volunteers than a AAA title with a ton of money and staff thrown at the issue. I feel that way because in a community of 150-300 you are more likely to have a community with common goals and interests, who are also more likely to be happy for the guy next to them that got something cool (in content, gear, or game experience) rather than complain the other guy got something cooler than he got.

Khaunshar · July 2009

Frankly, why bother? Its not about player wishes... as long as nobody does it, nobody has to do it, because people cannot choose. You get all the money for much less work, and current MMOs are all about minimizing rendered services but keeping cost up, or even increasing cost, in order to manage to condense the profitability of MMOs into a much shorter timeframe. Monthly Subscriptions AND Cash Shop AND Box Sales are the name of the game, and all the newer MMOs also try and shed the burden of having to offer frequent content patches, rather going to a 6 months per patch policy to reduce cost.

10 years ago, MMORPGs very a goldmine when you could run them for a few years. They didnt flood you with money in the first 3 months, but EQ1 and AO and DAOC kept being profitable for years. Nowadays, MMOs last notably shorter, and investors want their money far quicker to re-invest somewhere else, so you have to get more money in the first months. MMOs nowadays also rarely grow, they usually explode and then slowly deflate, meaning you have the most income potential 1 month after release, when free time is up, but hopefully your content isnt yet.

Live Events would maybe buy a bit more longevity, but longevity is not what investors pay for. After years of development, come release, they want to be paid and off the ship ASAP.

Yauchy · July 2009

It's always about bang for the buck. Personally events like FFXI had, where the server worked toward a goal to unlock content for everyone, was great fun and did have benefits for all. Opening the gates in WoW was also a very good experience overall. Unfortunately these companies will never make these events more than once in a blue moon and will stick to simple "seasonal" events to make the attempt, without much substance. We know the real reason time and logistics, but they will also use excuses of sticking to lore and value gained for everyone: in large events there are bound to be people which find it frivilous or will never see the benefits which the event yields...and those who complain are always heard louder than those who rejoice.

One day developers will find a way to balance business with gameplay, but at the moment...anything extra and complex will be the last feature any company will be tagging onto the milestone board*

*-99% of the time

-Ellessar- · July 2009

I like the idea of live-events. They are unique and non-static and that adds greatly to the enjoyment of the experience. Its nice to be able to do something that not everyone else is able to do. Its nice to experience something where you have no idea what to expect. There is no quest helper for a live event. You can't run to the wiki or alkazham for the answers. There is something to be said about that kind of experience.

With that said I fully understand why no major MMO has ever truly implemented live-events as a regular feature. It simply requires too many personnel and resoucres to create and execute live events on a regular basis. However like so many have said there is no reason why this has to be all or nothing.

The large scale server wide and game wide events are a nice feature. Opening the gates to AQ in WoW springs to mind as one of best examples of large scale live events. The down side to this kind of large scale event is that they are infrequent and gamewide. There is nothing personal about them. So in effect they aren't really even live events in traditional sense. They are more like limited-time static events.

The idea of making live-events a payed service is a good one. Its certainly worth exploring. In a world where people will pay a few dollars for cell phone apps that they use for a week and never touch again, I think we can expect to see an increase in similar micro-payments in MMOs. We also have micro-payment MMOs like Free Realms, which to my considerable suprise, doing very well. So why not offer a payed service where players can pay for the time of a live events GM staff to create and run a live event for them?

A lot of guilds and players who would be willing to shell out some cash a few times a month for personal GM run live events. Guilds already pay for things like ventrillo servers and web domains to enchance their experience. I think paying for tailor made live events is in the realm of acceptable. I'll be honest I'd be willing to pay for a live event that me and my friends could experience.

Imagine an instanced dungeon crawl experience where you are not simply running the same old instance you've run ten times before. Instead there is a GM who serves as the dungeon master who personally tailors the experience for you and your group. It would be a throw back to the old school days of table-top RPGs. And that's only one kind of live event that could be done. The sky's the limit here.

Could the live event be bad and you feel like you wasted your money? Sure, but have you ever gone to the movies and not liked the movie you've payed to see. Paying for a bad movie here and there doesn't put you off going to the movies. So why would it be any more of a concern here?

At the risk of repating myself I think the idea of a micro-payment system in which players pay for live-event staff is a good one. I would like to see what a mainstream MMO could do with an idea like this.

Somnulus · July 2009

While I agree that for the most part, the execution of live content has been spotty and inconsistent at best for the most part, there is one MMORPG that actually employed those elements very well, although it hasn't been able to maintain that level of interaction for the duration of its release life.

I am referring to Asheron's Call, specifically, the Shadow War and the events leading up to and following the release of Bael'Zharon.

It is a real shame that a vast majority of MMORPG players never had the chance to enjoy that level of interactivity and live content. Besides just the monthly patches that made major content and storyline additions and changes, you also had GMs actively playing major characters in the storyline (Bael'Zharon and Asheron) and interacting with the players in extreme detail.

Anyone familiar with the Allegiance system in Asheron's Call knows that you could swear allegiance to another player in game and form allegiances from groups of players sworn to each other. The cumulative effect was that a percentage of experience earned by your vassal was passed up to you.

Both the GM-played characters of Bael'Zharon and Asheron also allowed players to swear to them, and they received special gifts (or punishment - Bael'Zharon was evil :-).

The GM-played characters stalked the world, speaking to players, creating havoc, and fighting each other with players sworn to either side fighting alongside them.

The monthly patches during the Shadow War were pretty incredible. I've never seen anything else like them in any other MMO I have played.

Creating dungeons that were designed to include three separate level ranges in cooperative play (where teams from the three different level ranges had to go through each dungeon simultaneously and pull switches to allow the other teams to progress) was, to me, a master stroke of MMORPG design. It allowed players from widely differing levels of play to bond together to accomplish goals.

Destroying entire cities.... talk about huge drama, especially in the case of Arwic, which was a major trade city and loved by a vast majority of the game population.

Then of course, there was the destruction of the Shard of the Herald to release Bael'Zharon, where players could either side with Bael'Zharon or protect the crystal.

You had one server, Thistledown, where the players had mounted such an effective defense against those trying to destroy the crystal and release Bael'Zharon that the devs had to step in again and create and use special characters to help destroy the crystal so that the storyline could progress (due to the tech used, all servers had to be updated simultaneously, so the storyline couldn't progress on any server until it had reached a conclusion on all servers).

www.youtube.com/watch

This was my first MMORPG, and I have to admit, it spoiled me. The storyline was epic, and the creativity of the developers and the interaction was pretty incredible.

I understand why that level of interactivity would be difficult to achieve on a regular basis, BUT I think that the vast majority of MMORPGs are not designed to support it, either.

If you begin with the concept that live content is central and crucial to the core of the game, the technology definitely exists (especially today) to allow that level of interactivity. Heck, if they could do it back in 2000 - 2001 in Asheron's Call, they can certainly do it today.

Not to knock anyone's creativity; but it requires a developer or developers who are highly imaginative and flexible to employ effective live content that makes sense and creates lasting appeal on a regular basis. Although there is no shortage of developers / designers capable of creating appealing and involving STATIC game worlds, I think it is rather rare to find developers / designers who are capable of that constant level of creativity and consistency.

cressowski · July 2009

of course one of the problems with live local events is the terrible impact it has on the server as everyone rushes to that location. An obvious example is the AQ gate opening which were impossible to actually experience as intended. The later related event were distributed across more zones (the skeleton farming) so it had no impact on the server stability.

I remember some live events in Asheron's Call and I was disappointed to miss them all because I was in the UK and that meant they were in the early hours of the morning (and I had to be up for work) - another consideration for games which don't have regional server farms.

However I would get just as much of a kick out of scripted events, perhaps randomly placed in the world, if they came without any warning (no patch notes or even appearance on beta servers) and fitted in with the general story arc. It doesnt need a GM to moderate them but they are a 'break from the norm' such as briefly making a previously safe place very dangerous, or disrupting the normal course of travel, with the players responsible for bringing order to the situation.

LynxJSA · July 2009

Somnulus, the TD scenario brings up another major issue, and that is divergence. A single-shard universe works well for this, where as a multiple shard MMO faces major issues.

(To repost something that I had written elsewhere...)

[A single shard universe] allows for more flexibility in controlling and shifting the story arc. With multiple servers, offering players a choice of options is very hard to do when it comes to major quests and plot events unless you are looking to have very divergent paths for the servers. The best that can be done there is either offer the appearance of a choice or offer meaningless choices - neither one is really all that fun for the players. With a single server, the option to present meaningful choices to the player is there. You still are following one path on one server, as opposed to the possibility of multiple story paths across several servers. For example, if the Evil Foo is guarding the Crystal of Safety, and the players need to kill him to get the crystal, what happens if a server decides not to kill him. Do you halt the story arc and leave him standing there forever on that server until he does? That doesn’t seem fair to the servers that killed him. Do you create a separate path for that server based on their decision? If so, then two or three major quests down the line and you will have your hands full managing divergent plots. Do you go in and use a character to kill the Evil Foo so that server moves to the next step of the arc? If so, then you have told the players their choice is meaningless.

Live Events like the ones AC does have to be done carefully and, even then, the 'choices' that players are given are more illusion of choice than actual choice.

Somnulus · July 2009

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Somnulus, the TD scenario brings up another major issue, and that is divergence. A single-shard universe works well for this, where as a multiple shard MMO faces major issues.
(To repost something that I had written elsewhere...)
[A single shard universe] allows for more flexibility in controlling and shifting the story arc. With multiple servers, offering players a choice of options is very hard to do when it comes to major quests and plot events unless you are looking to have very divergent paths for the servers. The best that can be done there is either offer the appearance of a choice or offer meaningless choices - neither one is really all that fun for the players. With a single server, the option to present meaningful choices to the player is there. You still are following one path on one server, as opposed to the possibility of multiple story paths across several servers. For example, if the Evil Foo is guarding the Crystal of Safety, and the players need to kill him to get the crystal, what happens if a server decides not to kill him. Do you halt the story arc and leave him standing there forever on that server until he does? That doesn’t seem fair to the servers that killed him. Do you create a separate path for that server based on their decision? If so, then two or three major quests down the line and you will have your hands full managing divergent plots. Do you go in and use a character to kill the Evil Foo so that server moves to the next step of the arc? If so, then you have told the players their choice is meaningless.

Live Events like the ones AC does have to be done carefully and, even then, the 'choices' that players are given are more illusion of choice than actual choice.

The technology exists today to allow divergence and to also allow mutable parameters so that no two servers have the exact same events in the exact same storyline occurring simultaneously, or even at all.

In response to your example, for the server that chooses not to kill the Evil Foo, YES absolutely, you create a divergent storyline. The other servers continue on the main storyline, but even they can diverge if they desire to do so. These divergent story lines are actually created at the same time the main storyline is created. The developers / designers set the environment and conditions and anticipate the possible player responses to those conditions, and design alternatives that allow for divergence.

Managing those divergent story lines really isn't as odious or difficult as it appears to be on its face. The real question that isn't answered in your example is WHY do the players want the Crystal of Safety? What is the result if they do NOT get the crystal? What are the consequences if they do not kill the Evil Foo?

You say that these are illusions of choice. No more so than those we face in real life on a daily basis. I can choose to break the law, but there are consequences if I am caught. So if I don't want to suffer the consequences, then the only real answer is not to break the law.

In your example, I can choose not to slay the Evil Foo. If the Evil Foo goes on a wanton player-killing spree, those are the consequences I have to face because of the very real decision I made.

If the only way to permanently stop the Evil Foo is to recover the Crystal of Safety (perhaps Foo rejuvenates after a period of time when defeated, so without the crystal, his defeat is only temporary) then the players have to decide if the consequences (putting up with Foo's swathe of destruction) are worth NOT recovering the crystal.

Those aren't illusions of choice any more than the same choices we face regularly.

You said it doesn't seem fair to the players on the servers who killed Foo that the server which didn't now has a different storyline. However, if you think about it with the addition of the consequences I established, is it unfair that the server that chose not to kill him now has to put up with him?

Simultaneously, wasn't it the player's choice on the servers that did kill him? We didn't force them to do it.

Regardless of the amount of care, planning, or effort required, my point is that live events on both small and epic scale can be executed effectively. Whether a given developer / designer chooses to do so or not does not change the fact that it is possible and it is most definitely NOT a dream.

Ozmodan · July 2009

Actually Jon, UO had a lot of live content. They had players who were designated as Seers who ran live events. It was amazing the imagination and time these people put into the game. Obviously the events varied alot from the simple to the complex, but I still remember some of the memorable ones. Some of these seers devoted a lot of time making their events fun.

So yeah, a MMO could still do this without a huge cost. Let the players do it.

Howdy, Stranger!

General: Crushing the Dream of Live Content

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

General: Crushing the Dream of Live Content

Comments