I'm reminded of a quote by a batting coach I had way back in my child-hood,,,, "Swing big, miss big. Swing small, miss small."
There is a constant tension in MMO's (most products really)...between making a product that has a "broad appeal" and making a product that "serves it's audiences needs well". The problem that many companies (not just game developers) have is that the people at the top (running the business and making the big decisions) too often loose touch with reality. Everyone (business wise) wants to sell their product to as many customers as possible...that maximizes profits....which means trying to appeal to the broadest possible audience. There is nothing wrong with that, in theory,....as long as you recognize the reality that people are DIFFERENT and have different (often mutualy exclusive) likes and dislikes. The old adage about one man's version of heaven being another mans version of hell. If management is realistic about that, they can make smart decisions about what they can actualy achieve in terms of satisfying a particular audiences preferences with the resources they have...and put out a proffitable product. Far too often though.....management has unrealistic expectations...and think they can satisfy wildly divergent audiences (often with mutualy exclusive desires) with a single product. That's a recipie for disaster.....because they end up with a product that satisfies no one. It's like the lure of selling to the broadest possible market...interferes with their basic sense of reality.
Of course the opposite can be a pitfall too. If you make a product that appeals to a very narrow and limited audience.... you can end up failing badly if you overestimate the return you can get from that audience given the resources you put in.
It's a balancing act. A company has to be realistic about 1) the resources it has, 2) the size (and proffit potential) of the audience it is targeting 3) the simple practicality of what preferences/desires are compatible with each other....and which arent..... and the resources it's going to take to meet those desires. If it can do all of the above....it should end up with a product that has the potential to be succesfull......if it fails on any one of those...it's likely to end up with a failed product.
I'm reminded of a quote by a batting coach I had way back in my child-hood,,,, "Swing big, miss big. Swing small, miss small."
There is a constant tension in MMO's (most products really)...between making a product that has a "broad appeal" and making a product that "serves it's audiences needs well". The problem that many companies (not just game developers) have is that the people at the top (running the business and making the big decisions) too often loose touch with reality. Everyone (business wise) wants to sell their product to as many customers as possible...that maximizes profits....which means trying to appeal to the broadest possible audience. There is nothing wrong with that, in theory,....as long as you recognize the reality that people are DIFFERENT and have different (often mutualy exclusive) likes and dislikes. The old adage about one man's version of heaven being another mans version of hell. If management is realistic about that, they can make smart decisions about what they can actualy achieve in terms of satisfying a particular audiences preferences with the resources they have...and put out a proffitable product. Far too often though.....management has unrealistic expectations...and think they can satisfy wildly divergent audiences (often with mutualy exclusive desires) with a single product. That's a recipie for disaster.....because they end up with a product that satisfies no one. It's like the lure of selling to the broadest possible market...interferes with their basic sense of reality. Of course the opposite can be a pitfall too. If you make a product that appeals to a very narrow and limited audience.... you can end up failing badly if you overestimate the return you can get from that audience given the resources you put in.
It's a balancing act. A company has to be realistic about 1) the resources it has, 2) the size (and proffit potential) of the audience it is targeting 3) the simple practicality of what preferences/desires are compatible with each other....and which arent..... and the resources it's going to take to meet those desires. If it can do all of the above....it should end up with a product that has the potential to be succesfull......if it fails on any one of those...it's likely to end up with a failed product.
Which ironicly explains why games like WoW and City of Heroes are the 800LBS gorilla. They have a broad but focused vision and don't try to please everyone. They figure out what their demographic is and what braches spin off for it and dont try to hard to jump trees and bring the first one with them
I agree with you that companies without the 5 and 50 capability should focus on niche corners of the market, but I noticed an inherent irony in your column.
Your suggesting that developers often are surprised by their player base, but then you go on to suggest that they tailor the game development to that niche market.
So your saying to game developers to design a game to player types they can't foresee? I think if they could design a game to a particular market they would, but it's so difficult to see what's coming ahead, and it's not until the product is out, and a community forms around that product, that a game develops a life of it's own.
So my suggestion to developers without 5 and 50 would be to design a focused game, that does a few things very well, and then let the community help decide where they should take the next step. Rather than promising the world, doing everything sub-par, and then spending your time trying to play catch-up.
If I could find an mmorpg that ran well, was bug-free, and had an enjoyable, if narrow gameplay. It would have my 15 bucks a month. God knows I'm looking for something new.
"Good design is about saying NO to thousand things" I dont remember where i heard it for the first time, but i see pople using this mantra to be much more sucessful.
"We planned, developed, and focus tested for tweens and young teens, but a third of our players are adults over thirty."
Is there any MMO made these days not designed for ‘tweens’? Point me to the MMO designed for “adults over thirty”. Such a MMO does not exsist and so we all have to play games desgined for babies.
“this confusion at certain levels, usually at the ‘selling it’ level”
Since when have those who sell something had the insight of the designer, the maker, the consummer, the player? . I have chamiponed the fact that RP and PvP go hand in glove for ages. Yes you need to have separate PvP zones, but that’s all you need.
She makes a great argument for niche games and the need for the company to stick to your guns, you cannot be all things to all men (I use that phrase too much myself), no matter how much the PR department wants you to be.
Oh yes, it's biscuits, not cookies, in proper English, me Duckies!
But seriously... what was this article about? I am still not sure, lol. Can someone rehearse the hypothesis in one sentence for the dull masses pls? *__*
Oh yes, it's biscuits, not cookies, in proper English, me Duckies! But seriously... what was this article about? I am still not sure, lol. Can someone rehearse the hypothesis in one sentence for the dull masses pls? *__*
sure i think it was something like
"ZMOG! I haz boobs but I still play games, the developers never expected that!"
Awesome read. Good to hear a strong voice with something decent to say. I've always been told, "Stand for something or fall for everything." Oh, and very funny bits on the girl gamers!
"We planned, developed, and focus tested for tweens and young teens, but a third of our players are adults over thirty." Well, here's the thing. When you develop a game for younger players, people who possibly don't know a genre's conventions and would find them irritating/too high a barrier to entry, what do you do first? You design an easy to use, intuitive interface with every feature focused on helping to enjoy the content. You bug test and polish to make sure that there are no issues that might cause a young person to become frustrated, and wander away to a competitor. You make the trial/free content/demo so compelling that the little darling races to wheedle credit card data out of Mom and Dad. If there are puzzles, help is a click away - in the game, not on a third party site that your developers don't control. These are things adults like, too.
So some game designers think that being an adult means liking bugs, poor polish and frustrating interfaces?
Apparently, some people have the crazy idea that the players of games like Ultima Online and Everquest liked them BECAUSE of their horrifically ill-designed interfaces and aggravating flaws. Nonsense; people liked those games IN SPITE OF their flaws because there was some genuinely challenging gameplay hidden under that mess.
Blizzard had an engine that blew everyone else's out of the water, so it made perfect sense for them to make the gameplay appeal to the least common denominator. That was the best way for them to maximize sales. But no one else can do that again. It's not reasonable to assume that any other designer can beat Blizzard at their own game -- because beating everybody else at their own game IS Blizzard's game.
The best anyone else can reasonably hope for is to try really hard to match Blizzard's quality, and then try to SEGMENT the market, and tear away the best chunk of it. (And in the case of MMO's, that would consist of the people who have their own credit cards!)
Originally posted by biplex:"Good design is about saying NO to thousand things"
Truer words weren't never spake. You need to pick your customer base carefully, and then target your product like a laser beam to their specific desires.
If a third of the people who play a game designed for children turned out to be grown-ups, just imagine how many would jump on a well-built game that's designed to interest them?
I loved the heck out of World of Warcraft, and I would recommend it to anyone. I played it for two months when it first came out, and then for another month after the first sequel. But I frankly could not comprehend the long-term appeal. That refresh-button-flashing minigame, and the arcade-like (i.e., non-existent) strategy component, may be endlessly entertaining to children and drug addicts, but after any length of time, it's enough to drive anyone with a functioning brain out of it. And I can't help but think that there are millions of other folks who have either quit, or gladly would if a more involving alternative came along.
But we're not getting that. It seems like all the new games copy Blizzard's interface layout - which is terrific. But they also copy the gameplay too, and that is a horrible mistake.
Comments
I'm reminded of a quote by a batting coach I had way back in my child-hood,,,, "Swing big, miss big. Swing small, miss small."
There is a constant tension in MMO's (most products really)...between making a product that has a "broad appeal" and making a product that "serves it's audiences needs well". The problem that many companies (not just game developers) have is that the people at the top (running the business and making the big decisions) too often loose touch with reality. Everyone (business wise) wants to sell their product to as many customers as possible...that maximizes profits....which means trying to appeal to the broadest possible audience. There is nothing wrong with that, in theory,....as long as you recognize the reality that people are DIFFERENT and have different (often mutualy exclusive) likes and dislikes. The old adage about one man's version of heaven being another mans version of hell. If management is realistic about that, they can make smart decisions about what they can actualy achieve in terms of satisfying a particular audiences preferences with the resources they have...and put out a proffitable product. Far too often though.....management has unrealistic expectations...and think they can satisfy wildly divergent audiences (often with mutualy exclusive desires) with a single product. That's a recipie for disaster.....because they end up with a product that satisfies no one. It's like the lure of selling to the broadest possible market...interferes with their basic sense of reality.
Of course the opposite can be a pitfall too. If you make a product that appeals to a very narrow and limited audience.... you can end up failing badly if you overestimate the return you can get from that audience given the resources you put in.
It's a balancing act. A company has to be realistic about 1) the resources it has, 2) the size (and proffit potential) of the audience it is targeting 3) the simple practicality of what preferences/desires are compatible with each other....and which arent..... and the resources it's going to take to meet those desires. If it can do all of the above....it should end up with a product that has the potential to be succesfull......if it fails on any one of those...it's likely to end up with a failed product.
Which ironicly explains why games like WoW and City of Heroes are the 800LBS gorilla. They have a broad but focused vision and don't try to please everyone. They figure out what their demographic is and what braches spin off for it and dont try to hard to jump trees and bring the first one with them
I agree with you that companies without the 5 and 50 capability should focus on niche corners of the market, but I noticed an inherent irony in your column.
Your suggesting that developers often are surprised by their player base, but then you go on to suggest that they tailor the game development to that niche market.
So your saying to game developers to design a game to player types they can't foresee? I think if they could design a game to a particular market they would, but it's so difficult to see what's coming ahead, and it's not until the product is out, and a community forms around that product, that a game develops a life of it's own.
So my suggestion to developers without 5 and 50 would be to design a focused game, that does a few things very well, and then let the community help decide where they should take the next step. Rather than promising the world, doing everything sub-par, and then spending your time trying to play catch-up.
If I could find an mmorpg that ran well, was bug-free, and had an enjoyable, if narrow gameplay. It would have my 15 bucks a month. God knows I'm looking for something new.
"Good design is about saying NO to thousand things"
I dont remember where i heard it for the first time, but i see pople using this mantra to be much more sucessful.
http://www.teraonline.info.pl Polski Poradnik Gry Tera Online
"We planned, developed, and focus tested for tweens and young teens, but a third of our players are adults over thirty."
Is there any MMO made these days not designed for ‘tweens’? Point me to the MMO designed for “adults over thirty”. Such a MMO does not exsist and so we all have to play games desgined for babies.
“this confusion at certain levels, usually at the ‘selling it’ level”
Since when have those who sell something had the insight of the designer, the maker, the consummer, the player?
. I have chamiponed the fact that RP and PvP go hand in glove for ages. Yes you need to have separate PvP zones, but that’s all you need.
She makes a great argument for niche games and the need for the company to stick to your guns, you cannot be all things to all men (I use that phrase too much myself), no matter how much the PR department wants you to be.
Oh yes, it's biscuits, not cookies, in proper English, me Duckies!
But seriously... what was this article about? I am still not sure, lol. Can someone rehearse the hypothesis in one sentence for the dull masses pls? *__*
sure i think it was something like
"ZMOG! I haz boobs but I still play games, the developers never expected that!"
Awesome read. Good to hear a strong voice with something decent to say. I've always been told, "Stand for something or fall for everything." Oh, and very funny bits on the girl gamers!
So some game designers think that being an adult means liking bugs, poor polish and frustrating interfaces?
Apparently, some people have the crazy idea that the players of games like Ultima Online and Everquest liked them BECAUSE of their horrifically ill-designed interfaces and aggravating flaws. Nonsense; people liked those games IN SPITE OF their flaws because there was some genuinely challenging gameplay hidden under that mess.
Blizzard had an engine that blew everyone else's out of the water, so it made perfect sense for them to make the gameplay appeal to the least common denominator. That was the best way for them to maximize sales. But no one else can do that again. It's not reasonable to assume that any other designer can beat Blizzard at their own game -- because beating everybody else at their own game IS Blizzard's game.
The best anyone else can reasonably hope for is to try really hard to match Blizzard's quality, and then try to SEGMENT the market, and tear away the best chunk of it. (And in the case of MMO's, that would consist of the people who have their own credit cards!)
Originally posted by biplex: "Good design is about saying NO to thousand things"
Truer words weren't never spake. You need to pick your customer base carefully, and then target your product like a laser beam to their specific desires.
If a third of the people who play a game designed for children turned out to be grown-ups, just imagine how many would jump on a well-built game that's designed to interest them?
I loved the heck out of World of Warcraft, and I would recommend it to anyone. I played it for two months when it first came out, and then for another month after the first sequel. But I frankly could not comprehend the long-term appeal. That refresh-button-flashing minigame, and the arcade-like (i.e., non-existent) strategy component, may be endlessly entertaining to children and drug addicts, but after any length of time, it's enough to drive anyone with a functioning brain out of it. And I can't help but think that there are millions of other folks who have either quit, or gladly would if a more involving alternative came along.
But we're not getting that. It seems like all the new games copy Blizzard's interface layout - which is terrific. But they also copy the gameplay too, and that is a horrible mistake.