Thing is MMO developers are often times way too greedy in my opinion.
When you get a polished non-MMO game (say a FPS or RPG) it's reasonable to expect standard multiplayer for free, which is limited but can be very fun (sounds familiar ?). You just pay the box price and multiplayer feature is there to sell more boxes.
I do not in fact consider the 10-15 euro/months you pay to be meant to cover bandwith costs. That would be just robbery and there are always third parties willing to host servers for much cheaper or even free.
The subscription is there to cover the complexities of a MMO server operation, the mass of extra content, the constant updates, the support and all that. If you don't provide that from day one why would people just hand you the money ?
If you can't compete with subscription games then release as free to play + microtransactions / premium accounts like so many other games or even just sell for the box price with no subscription. That's just the league your game is in at that time, maybe in the future you can make a p2p version when you can afford one and have the gameplay and content to justify it.
But you can't just ask your players to subsidise your development based on faith when you can't even convince your investors to do the same and wait for the polish. If you start blaming the customers you're doing something wrong.
MMO's need to grow, if not they become stagnent and folks leave.
The problem then becomes how they grow without turning the plyer base and making them leave.
Take for instance LOTRO's decision to change the pricing with the latest update, the lotro formus are full of hate. So no player likes to be told the pricing is going to change, they don't like things like that.
Why are people not happy when release is missing items? Two very simple reasons. First because you just bought the game and are paying monthly. Where as if you waited until those features were in you'd probably get a free trial, free game and only have the monthly fee. So you are paying more for less. This works into reason two, there are already games out there that have all the features, have fewer bugs, and have better balance and they only require the monthly fee at this point. So why pay more (because of the box fee) for a game that has less?
It really is that simple, if you want to bust into a market then you had better provide more then what is already there, not less. It is not the player's fault that investors didn't grasp how long it was until the game was going to be released and thus force it out the door to see some returns before it is ready. Some very good points which I totally agree with. As for Global Agenda I doubt I will ever play it, I could get the same type of action in Halo or a number of other FPS games and not pay a subscription fee. Where as I would pay for Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7, but even there they had better do it right other wise I wouldn't pay for it for very long because once again I could just go play any other shooter I have without a sub fee (I see that as the MMOFPS problem overall really). Indeed because Halo is an online game which has a large persistent map comprised of lots of seperate zones, in which the players can have an impact on the overall war effort by fighting meaningful battles in each of those zones and gaining control of them, where the results of each battle has an impact on adjacent areas on the map. I can also level up and customise my character and choose which class it belongs to (which leads to different abilities) as well as equip it with various different gear. In Halo I can also have a lasting impact on the map by performing such actions as building a gun emplacement on a building and leaving it there, knowing that at some point in the future my enemies will have to deal with it if they pass by that area. Halo also has areas where lots of players can gather, socialise and trade. Oh hang on a sec.......this doesnt sound anything like Halo or any normal FPS game at all does it. In fact the only thing it has in common is that you shoot stuff. Or were you referring to some other FPS shooter which offers everything that Global Agenda has? I would love to hear about this game. It might be worth reading up about the game before dismissing it as you clearly know very little about Global Agenda. It appears that your eyes have seen the letters "FPS" and your brain has gone into autopilot with the result of "FPS = Shooting things = Halo". Thats extremely lazy and ignorant. Its ok though. Plenty of other people have reached the same narrow-minded viewpoint. So you would play Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7 but you wont play Global Agenda because it.....ermm.....involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7? Just because the game has instanced battles doesnt mean you cant have an effect on the game world. In fact this game offers more meaningful world-impacting gameplay than most other MMOs. You see MMOFPS games as a problem becuse you could just go and play a normal FPS game? Oh really? Well yeah I guess that MMORPG's must have the same problem then because you could just go and play a normal RPG right? Your comment is a silly one good sir. A seperate mini-battle that has no impact on anything in an FPS game doesnt equate to an MMOFPS. They are very different things as the MMO element is completely absent. An MMO involves quite a lot more than simply having players being able to play online together on a few limited mini-maps. MMOFPS games are also more likely to have gameworlds which the players can change because they will invariably involve player conflict over things such as resources or structures and they are not tied down by a rigid storyline. A static unchangeable gameworld is the job of themepark MMORPG's. Can you change the world in WoW? No? Ok how about EQ2, Vanguard, AoC or WAR? The best you can hope for in any of those games is perhaps the swapping of ownership of a meaningless keep. Themepark RPG + storyline = static gameworld. ......unless some games company introduces dynamic story content which changes along with the game world based on overall player choices of course. Hmmm I wont hold my breath on that one.
I would however pay to play an Indie game from a small company that does not have as many features as one of the big boys. Because with a company like that you are helping bring new names in the industry, and since it is most likely their only game they will keep all their focus on improving and maintaining it. Darkfall is not an example of this though. I agree.
Yes, MMOs (especially niche MMOs) should start small and grow from there. They must have a good starting experience and a functional and fun end game right from the start, however. Skimp on mid game, and expand that and add new start and end game content. Four classes and two start areas is enough to launch a game. Add more later. As for charging more as new content is added - hell no. Players won't stand for that. Also, if you make some new content optional for extra charge, then the devs will concentrate on the cash content and neglect the core game.
Well, the value proposition I was making was a game that charged less than average to start and as it became a larger title, went up to standard rates.
But, I take it from your response, that wouldn't work for you? A fine opinion, just trying to see fully what you're saying.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Well, the value proposition I was making was a game that charged less than average to start and as it became a larger title, went up to standard rates. But, I take it from your response, that wouldn't work for you? A fine opinion, just trying to see fully what you're saying.
It might work for me - I just don't think it would work for most players.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I think part of the reason it wouldn't work for players, in general, is that it is hard to swollow current MMO pricing without more transparency from the industry. Let's take two recent examples.
World of Warcraft & Aion.
I know, these are AAA titles and the discussion is about smaller titles but I just want to show the upper example.
World of Warcraft (according to MMORPGchart.com) had 10Mil subscribers in 2008 (yeah, a tad old, sue me). Now, not all 10Mil are going to have the $15/month subscription. Well, most won't being that they are in other countries or have the 3/6/12 month plans. So let's just chop 33% right off the top. Call it $10/sub. That means they are pulling in $100 million... a... month. Someone try to tell me that the infrastructure costs on their servers are anywhere near $100 million a month. If I recall my figures correctly that is 4-5 times the total development budget of most AAA MMOs. A... month.
Aion, another AAA title, hit 300,000 pre-orders. $50 for the cheaper of the two pre-orders. That's $15 million before launch. If even half those people stay on and no other people purchase the game after launch, and the same 1/3rd off their $15/month price, that's still a monthly take of $1.5 million. Closer to what might be reality for their server farms but even then I doubt the residuals are going to cost that much.
IE, the larger the MMO gets the more incredulous the users are going to get that their subscription is needed to cover, largely, maintenance costs. I don't think maintenance costs scale the same as subs do. So the more subs an MMO has the harder it is to increase costs because, at some level, the customers are aware that the economics of scale is kicking in.
I have to agree with Dana, right now since most Developers try to charge 14.99 right out the door we as players have come to expect something close to a "complete" game.
Back in the days of the early MMO's, they launched quite incomplete and buggy, yet we tolerated it having nothing to fall back on or compare to.
Now a new game comes out and players leap on it for any percieved missing feature or functionality, and they inevitable get compared to games like WOW or EVE, who've been under constant development for many years.
Tiered release schedules might be one solution. Launch the game for 4.99 and limited features, after the first major expansion (within 3-6 mo tops) up the monthly to 7.99, and repeat the cycle until the content is worth the 14.99 the big boys charge.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Why are people not happy when release is missing items? Two very simple reasons. First because you just bought the game and are paying monthly. Where as if you waited until those features were in you'd probably get a free trial, free game and only have the monthly fee. So you are paying more for less. This works into reason two, there are already games out there that have all the features, have fewer bugs, and have better balance and they only require the monthly fee at this point. So why pay more (because of the box fee) for a game that has less?
It really is that simple, if you want to bust into a market then you had better provide more then what is already there, not less. It is not the player's fault that investors didn't grasp how long it was until the game was going to be released and thus force it out the door to see some returns before it is ready. Some very good points which I totally agree with. As for Global Agenda I doubt I will ever play it, I could get the same type of action in Halo or a number of other FPS games and not pay a subscription fee. Where as I would pay for Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7, but even there they had better do it right other wise I wouldn't pay for it for very long because once again I could just go play any other shooter I have without a sub fee (I see that as the MMOFPS problem overall really). Indeed because Halo is an online game which has a large persistent map comprised of lots of seperate zones, in which the players can have an impact on the overall war effort by fighting meaningful battles in each of those zones and gaining control of them, where the results of each battle has an impact on adjacent areas on the map. I can also level up and customise my character and choose which class it belongs to (which leads to different abilities) as well as equip it with various different gear. In Halo I can also have a lasting impact on the map by performing such actions as building a gun emplacement on a building and leaving it there, knowing that at some point in the future my enemies will have to deal with it if they pass by that area. Halo also has areas where lots of players can gather, socialise and trade. Oh hang on a sec.......this doesnt sound anything like Halo or any normal FPS game at all does it. In fact the only thing it has in common is that you shoot stuff. Or were you referring to some other FPS shooter which offers everything that Global Agenda has? I would love to hear about this game. It might be worth reading up about the game before dismissing it as you clearly know very little about Global Agenda. It appears that your eyes have seen the letters "FPS" and your brain has gone into autopilot with the result of "FPS = Shooting things = Halo". Thats extremely lazy and ignorant. Its ok though. Plenty of other people have reached the same narrow-minded viewpoint. So you would play Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7 but you wont play Global Agenda because it.....ermm.....involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7? Just because the game has instanced battles doesnt mean you cant have an effect on the game world. In fact this game offers more meaningful world-impacting gameplay than most other MMOs. You see MMOFPS games as a problem becuse you could just go and play a normal FPS game? Oh really? Well yeah I guess that MMORPG's must have the same problem then because you could just go and play a normal RPG right? Your comment is a silly one good sir. A seperate mini-battle that has no impact on anything in an FPS game doesnt equate to an MMOFPS. They are very different things as the MMO element is completely absent. An MMO involves quite a lot more than simply having players being able to play online together on a few limited mini-maps. MMOFPS games are also more likely to have gameworlds which the players can change because they will invariably involve player conflict over things such as resources or structures and they are not tied down by a rigid storyline. A static unchangeable gameworld is the job of themepark MMORPG's. Can you change the world in WoW? No? Ok how about EQ2, Vanguard, AoC or WAR? The best you can hope for in any of those games is perhaps the swapping of ownership of a meaningless keep. Themepark RPG + storyline = static gameworld. ......unless some games company introduces dynamic story content which changes along with the game world based on overall player choices of course. Hmmm I wont hold my breath on that one.
I would however pay to play an Indie game from a small company that does not have as many features as one of the big boys. Because with a company like that you are helping bring new names in the industry, and since it is most likely their only game they will keep all their focus on improving and maintaining it. Darkfall is not an example of this though. I agree.
I think you are bound to be disappointed by GA if you think that any of that stuff is going to prove to be meaningful. The "ever changing" aspects of GA will quickly fade into who cares, and it will be down to being an FPS pure and simple.
The reason I say I would be interested in playing Planetside 2 is they have experience from making the first one. In the first planetside there were skills you leveled up, and maps you took over, you could even take over whole continents. The battle raged on when you logged off.
But guess what it only took a few days before that stuff didn't matter at all. In order to make it fun for people you leveld up skills ridiculously fast, so everyone was maxed out in no time and you could switch them around whenever you wanted to try other roles. And those "long lasting effects, and battles actually change the game" quickly didn't matter. You logged on, you instant dropped to the action and you fought there. Ya you'd try to take the base you were fighting at, but for the same reason you would in UT on attack maps, just to win. Not because taking it meant anything at all to you. After it was taken you just went to the next spot that had action and repeated.
It is going to be extremely difficult for an MMOFPS to make any of that matter because there are two options. Make the results of what you own give real meaningful benefits to the side that is winning. However that will cause the effect of the losing sides all switching to the strong side to get the bonuses and the sides will be so unbalanced people will quit. To prevent that the other method is to make controlling areas of the map no all that meaningful, and now you're into an FPS with online multiplayer.
So you can be a big fanboy of the game and think it will revolutionize (I'm almost surprised you didn't use that word) the genre. Or you can be realistic and see what it will actually become. But that is fine to some people, as is shown by how many people continued to play Planetside over the years despite being the same exact situation. And that was without instanced gameplay, as soon as you add instanced gameplay that effects the outcome of the world it is really extra lame. To me it doesn't feel like because I queued up for a battle that now I should be effecting anything. It is what made that Xbox game Chromehounds lame, instanced battles controlled who was winning or losing, but also that game didn't have a monthly fee.
This is EXACTLY what I have been saying for the past 3 years. Start small - and then expand. But then you can not expect ppl to pay for the box - and thats where the money ppl cant agree with me and Massey.
Games like AOC and WAR failed partly because they tried to do alot - but most of it was bugged or half finished. Thats NOT what ppl buy from a boxed version of a game. Sorry.
We are starting to see games build with this growing concept tho. Aion for example is starting with just few classes (easier to handle balance) and very nailed down aspects in the game that can be added to later on. Thats why I see Aion as the next step in progression of MMOs.
There is a small problem with the growing online game concept. Its that everyone might not like what the game is growing into. Even WOW is now "growing" (or rather shrinking) into more of a casual game with very limited variations other than the items you wear and the skills you process. Before the game had alot more and "complicated" gaming system of farming materials and even farming special gear for raids. This has changed. And to me - its to the worse.
I truly hope that a gaming developer takes on this task of creating something really well - and then expanding it. What is wrong with starting in a small area with limited amounts of lvls ? As long as the gameplay is good and fun - the rest can wait. For example - WAR would have been alot better off by starting with just tier 1 and 2 since they are the best part of the game (if you leave the PVE out). Plenty of classes to play and great PVP areas to explore. Considering that Im a PVE player - I still create trial acount ever few weeks for WAR just to have FUN playing diffrent characters to lvl 10 and then just leave after. Cause long term comitment in WAR is simply not good enough.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf But guess what it only took a few days before that stuff didn't matter at all. In order to make it fun for people you leveld up skills ridiculously fast, so everyone was maxed out in no time and you could switch them around whenever you wanted to try other roles. And those "long lasting effects, and battles actually change the game" quickly didn't matter.
Well, the levels were not that fast to come by. It took quite a few weeks of dedicated play to get even middling BR, not to mention CR. Where PS failed was that CR was just another path of BR for most people, they'd grind to CR5 to be able to spam continent, have the toys, but actually leading!? Heaven forbid! Also the continents were too easy to take. Granted for people who come from a small-scale FPS background and went to PS they were rough. Several hour battles for a cont? Wow! But all it took was 15m to undo a cont lock, so the end result was meaningless.
For meaningful battles look to WWIIOL. Every time MMOFPSes come up I always retell the same tale. A week long battle for 1 city in WWIIOL. A week. No joke. While that sounds like the same problem with small-scale FPSes and PS it was another 3 weeks once that battle was decided before the map was reset and another week still before we got back to that city. Wins and losses in that game meant something because it could be weeks before one side was declared a winner and the map reset. Furthermore people who were "commanders" were expected to do just that, command. They were given real power to control the ebb and flow of their side of the conflict. If they didn't, they were removed from said toys.
People who want the next best MMOFPS where conflicts mean something should first look at what WWIIOL did; not what GA is attempting to do.
With all the great multiplayer shooter games and every other genre of single player games that are free to play once you buy the box, any subscription-based game has to be absolutely undoubtedly perfect for me to even give it a chance. The times have changed. Many players are not so willing to support a game or a company that is sub-par compared to every other game coming off the shelf as far as graphics, content, story, whatever. Personally, I am not willing to pay for server maintainance and data storage. I will pay for real entertainment if any MMORPG is willing or able to deliver that..
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
That is basically all a new MMO can do today, do a few things well with promises of adding more features later. Those that try to be all things with huge feature lists, ie Darkfall, end up being mediocre at best.
The times have changed. Many players are not so willing to support a game or a company that is sub-par compared to every other game coming off the shelf as far as graphics, content, story, whatever.
Preorder numbers for recent MMOs seem to indicate otherwise, though. Players know that the first three or so months of most MMOs are rocky. They know that they often release with less than planned during development. They know that they will either face queues or face a collection of servers that are either dead or lagged to hell with people. Veteran have seen this countless times over the past decade. If we start with the WOW generation of gamers, we can reasonably say that millions of MMO gamers have seen this several times over the past four or five years.
There is no reason currently to believe that an MMO will release with all the planned features and without initial problems.
Preorder numbers are consistently through the roof compared to retained numbers.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I think it will help the genre immensely if these narrow focused MMOG's did one UNIQUE thing and did it well. With games like Alganon it seems that even the art style is the subdued look we've seen already in WoW and in Free Realms. It really is getting to the point where the tried and true business models of fantasy, fantasy, fantasy, won't be sustainable because there's nothing but that genre with only a select few art styles to go with it in the MMO marketplace.
There's plenty of great creative minds out there and couple that with the fact that there's also tons of great game mechanic minded folks out there (just look at any MMO forum.) We should be able to conceptualize and produce an MMO experience that isn't out there on the market currently. Hopefully the "indie MMO" will take note of that instead of going for the "Hey we're just like all the other stuff out there, ONLY CHEAPER!"
Small world would cause the usual power gamers to get bored or finished in a day and then troll the game on the boards. (you know...the usual) It would also make the "I gotta explore everything and do everything" gamers to be done fast and want more fast. Both bad....very bad
Most of the best MMOs didn't start huge, but weren't small either. The games still around today kept at it and listened to nudging from the fans. They had that "something" that the players wanted. So people stuck around through the thick of it.
In the end.....we just want quality AND longevity. We are asked to pay for it. So we should be supplied with what we pay for and are told we are getting.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Yes, MMOs (especially niche MMOs) should start small and grow from there. They must have a good starting experience and a functional and fun end game right from the start, however. Skimp on mid game, and expand that and add new start and end game content. Four classes and two start areas is enough to launch a game. Add more later. As for charging more as new content is added - hell no. Players won't stand for that. Also, if you make some new content optional for extra charge, then the devs will concentrate on the cash content and neglect the core game.
Well, the value proposition I was making was a game that charged less than average to start and as it became a larger title, went up to standard rates.
But, I take it from your response, that wouldn't work for you? A fine opinion, just trying to see fully what you're saying.
Given human nature, I suspect that any company that tried that would run in to problems. Far too many people would object to such a price increase. Especially if the low price was in place for 3-6 months or so.
The times have changed. Many players are not so willing to support a game or a company that is sub-par compared to every other game coming off the shelf as far as graphics, content, story, whatever.
Preorder numbers for recent MMOs seem to indicate otherwise, though. Players know that the first three or so months of most MMOs are rocky. They know that they often release with less than planned during development. They know that they will either face queues or face a collection of servers that are either dead or lagged to hell with people. Veteran have seen this countless times over the past decade. If we start with the WOW generation of gamers, we can reasonably say that millions of MMO gamers have seen this several times over the past four or five years.
There is no reason currently to believe that an MMO will release with all the planned features and without initial problems.
Preorder numbers are consistently through the roof compared to retained numbers.
You make a good point, however in my opinion, pre-orders and beta access are mostly marketing gimmicks aimed at the ignorant and desperate, of which are an evergrowing segment of this genres playerbase, than any real commitment to support a company or a game. Preorders are mostly about hype in my opinion.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I think part of the reason it wouldn't work for players, in general, is that it is hard to swollow current MMO pricing without more transparency from the industry. Let's take two recent examples. World of Warcraft & Aion. I know, these are AAA titles and the discussion is about smaller titles but I just want to show the upper example. World of Warcraft (according to MMORPGchart.com) had 10Mil subscribers in 2008 (yeah, a tad old, sue me). Now, not all 10Mil are going to have the $15/month subscription. Well, most won't being that they are in other countries or have the 3/6/12 month plans. So let's just chop 33% right off the top. Call it $10/sub. That means they are pulling in $100 million... a... month. Someone try to tell me that the infrastructure costs on their servers are anywhere near $100 million a month. If I recall my figures correctly that is 4-5 times the total development budget of most AAA MMOs. A... month. Aion, another AAA title, hit 300,000 pre-orders. $50 for the cheaper of the two pre-orders. That's $15 million before launch. If even half those people stay on and no other people purchase the game after launch, and the same 1/3rd off their $15/month price, that's still a monthly take of $1.5 million. Closer to what might be reality for their server farms but even then I doubt the residuals are going to cost that much. IE, the larger the MMO gets the more incredulous the users are going to get that their subscription is needed to cover, largely, maintenance costs. I don't think maintenance costs scale the same as subs do. So the more subs an MMO has the harder it is to increase costs because, at some level, the customers are aware that the economics of scale is kicking in.
While I agree Wow probably is a money making machine, It isn't as simple as you make it sound. Monthly fees cover bandwith and server maintenance charges; yes. But they also cover support personnel and live development costs (not expansion devs). Paying people adds up quickly and I doubt the worldwide bandwith fees are as trivial as you think they are.
300,000 people paying $15 a month should get NCsoft into positive cash flow soon but the $15M box sales probably just about covers the translation costs.
I totally allow MMO's to grow... out of other peoples pockets, not mine!
Here's some food for thought...
No one buys a book at full price, that's half written, and pays a quarter of the cost in a monthly fee for the author to fill in the blanks whenever they feel like it.
No one buys a car at full price, that's half built/functional, and pays a quarter of the cost in a monthly fee for the automakers to finish their work.
The people are now voting with their money, and voicing their opinions about how they're sick of paying full price for a "full version release" of beta quality games. ESPECIALLY with veteran companies! If the smaller companies wish to compete, then they need to prepare for the FUTURE by learning from the PAST. The ONLY MMO that I have played that had a wonderful transition from BETA to FINAL was Earth and Beyond.
Anarchy Online had lag so horrible that traveling in the city took 1/2 an hour at 1fps. I don't know how long that lasted, but I wasn't going to pay a monthly fee for a game that I couldn't play.
Shadowbane on launch had a lot of problems and the devs wouldn't even reply to the people or post the problems early on. If people who are supposed to be running a game aren't communicating with their customers about THEIR gamebreaking problems, then no I don't need to pay them for a service that they aren't, as far as I know, doing.
and for some not-so-recent horrible launches...
Hellgate: London. Awesome intro! That's about it. If the bugs were fixed in a timely manner, classes were ironed out a bit more, and had more content... aka, wasn't a Beta release in "Final" disguise, then Hellgate may have survived past the first year. The one thing was wonderful was that they allowed you to play a Single Player version of the game.
Tabula Rasa had Milla Jovovich's voice in it... awesome! That's about it. If the bugs were fixed in a timely manner, classes were ironed out a bit more, and had more content... aka, wasn't a Beta release in "Final" disguise, then Hellgate Tabula Rasa may have survived past the first year. The one thing was wonderful was that they allowed you to play a Single Player version of the game it had Richard Garriott fired by NCsoft despite him being a Lord/General/Egomaniac.
Last two huge MMO's I heard about are Champions Online, and Aion.
CO I hear they did a massive ninja nerf/balance in transition of beta/release... and I heard lots of people were upset, so upset they were offering refunds. I lol'd. Outside of what I hear I have no in game experience with this one, but I'll wait a year while people let the game "GROW" with their money, not mine.
Aion I hear there was a lot of "queue queue" going on. I saw a screenshot of some EU guy trying to get in and ALL of the servers were closed to him. I lol'd. Outside of what I hear, I have no in game experience with this one, but I'll wait a year while people let the game "GROW" with their money, not mine.
As long as people let "games GROW", they are sending the message "We don't care what state the game is in at release, fix it at your own pace and we'll still pay!"
After 10 years since the release of EQ, there should be enough data/common sense there for people to learn from... if not, then gtfo of my MMO.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
I play a lot of text based MMORPGs, and unlike the Devs of fancier games, the Devs of Text-based games CAN be trusted to slowly expand a game. In fact my experience has been that the quality of plot and writing in text-based games is superior to that of flashy 3-d mmorpgs. So yes, if it was a proven dev company, I would support a slowly expanding game, 3-d or text based, but it would have to be a dev I trusted.
Why are people not happy when release is missing items? Two very simple reasons. First because you just bought the game and are paying monthly. Where as if you waited until those features were in you'd probably get a free trial, free game and only have the monthly fee. So you are paying more for less. This works into reason two, there are already games out there that have all the features, have fewer bugs, and have better balance and they only require the monthly fee at this point. So why pay more (because of the box fee) for a game that has less?
It really is that simple, if you want to bust into a market then you had better provide more then what is already there, not less. It is not the player's fault that investors didn't grasp how long it was until the game was going to be released and thus force it out the door to see some returns before it is ready. Some very good points which I totally agree with. As for Global Agenda I doubt I will ever play it, I could get the same type of action in Halo or a number of other FPS games and not pay a subscription fee. Where as I would pay for Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7, but even there they had better do it right other wise I wouldn't pay for it for very long because once again I could just go play any other shooter I have without a sub fee (I see that as the MMOFPS problem overall really). Indeed because Halo is an online game which has a large persistent map comprised of lots of seperate zones, in which the players can have an impact on the overall war effort by fighting meaningful battles in each of those zones and gaining control of them, where the results of each battle has an impact on adjacent areas on the map. I can also level up and customise my character and choose which class it belongs to (which leads to different abilities) as well as equip it with various different gear. In Halo I can also have a lasting impact on the map by performing such actions as building a gun emplacement on a building and leaving it there, knowing that at some point in the future my enemies will have to deal with it if they pass by that area. Halo also has areas where lots of players can gather, socialise and trade. Oh hang on a sec.......this doesnt sound anything like Halo or any normal FPS game at all does it. In fact the only thing it has in common is that you shoot stuff. Or were you referring to some other FPS shooter which offers everything that Global Agenda has? I would love to hear about this game. It might be worth reading up about the game before dismissing it as you clearly know very little about Global Agenda. It appears that your eyes have seen the letters "FPS" and your brain has gone into autopilot with the result of "FPS = Shooting things = Halo". Thats extremely lazy and ignorant. Its ok though. Plenty of other people have reached the same narrow-minded viewpoint. So you would play Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7 but you wont play Global Agenda because it.....ermm.....involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7? Just because the game has instanced battles doesnt mean you cant have an effect on the game world. In fact this game offers more meaningful world-impacting gameplay than most other MMOs. You see MMOFPS games as a problem becuse you could just go and play a normal FPS game? Oh really? Well yeah I guess that MMORPG's must have the same problem then because you could just go and play a normal RPG right? Your comment is a silly one good sir. A seperate mini-battle that has no impact on anything in an FPS game doesnt equate to an MMOFPS. They are very different things as the MMO element is completely absent. An MMO involves quite a lot more than simply having players being able to play online together on a few limited mini-maps. MMOFPS games are also more likely to have gameworlds which the players can change because they will invariably involve player conflict over things such as resources or structures and they are not tied down by a rigid storyline. A static unchangeable gameworld is the job of themepark MMORPG's. Can you change the world in WoW? No? Ok how about EQ2, Vanguard, AoC or WAR? The best you can hope for in any of those games is perhaps the swapping of ownership of a meaningless keep. Themepark RPG + storyline = static gameworld. ......unless some games company introduces dynamic story content which changes along with the game world based on overall player choices of course. Hmmm I wont hold my breath on that one.
I would however pay to play an Indie game from a small company that does not have as many features as one of the big boys. Because with a company like that you are helping bring new names in the industry, and since it is most likely their only game they will keep all their focus on improving and maintaining it. Darkfall is not an example of this though. I agree.
I think you are bound to be disappointed by GA if you think that any of that stuff is going to prove to be meaningful. The "ever changing" aspects of GA will quickly fade into who cares, and it will be down to being an FPS pure and simple.
So now your tune has changed from "this game is just the same as a normal FPS game" to "Oh this game might have lots of features that set it apart from a normal FPS game but no-one will care about them anyway". Not only can you predict the future but you know what everyone else likes as well. I'm impressed.
The game may well turn out to be a disappointment like so many MMO's before it.......or it might not. Only time will tell that one. However it obviously wont devolve into an ordinary FPS game will it. Whats gonna happen? Is the MMO aspect of the game and all of its features gonna magically vanish simply because some features arent enjoyable and "meaningful" enough to some people? You're not making any sense.
The reason I say I would be interested in playing Planetside 2 is they have experience from making the first one. In the first planetside there were skills you leveled up, and maps you took over, you could even take over whole continents. The battle raged on when you logged off.
And Global Agenda is offering all of that too. Levelling up? Check. Maps to take over? Check. Control the overall map? Check. Battle rages on when you log off? Check.
Yes experience helps but it doesnt guarantee anything. WoW and WAR are prime examples of this. WoW was Blizzards first MMO and it turned out to be the most successful. Mythic already had experience at making a very good MMO with DAoC and yet WAR turned out to be a dreadful game.
Besides I'm not saying Planetside 2 will be a bad game or comparing it to anything. I would happily play such a game. It was simply that the reasons you gave for not wanting to go near Global Agenda simply dont make any sense. You said you can get exactly the same experience from a game like Halo and that obviously isnt true. Yet for some reason the misguided "MMOFPS games are the same as normal FPS games" thought doesnt seem to apply to Planetside 2 in your mind for some reason.
But guess what it only took a few days before that stuff didn't matter at all. In order to make it fun for people you leveld up skills ridiculously fast, so everyone was maxed out in no time and you could switch them around whenever you wanted to try other roles. And those "long lasting effects, and battles actually change the game" quickly didn't matter. You logged on, you instant dropped to the action and you fought there. Ya you'd try to take the base you were fighting at, but for the same reason you would in UT on attack maps, just to win. Not because taking it meant anything at all to you. After it was taken you just went to the next spot that had action and repeated.
Yes I see what you're getting at.......but then that can be applied to absolutely any game. "Meaningful" can only stretch so far in an online game. Enemies can always take back controlled land, structures, resources or whatever. The same happens in real life too ya know, so I guess you could argue that nothing matters in real life either then. However within the context of the game, the things you do in Global Agenda have a lasting effect on the overall map and ultimately the experience of the other players and that does make it more meaningful than what most games offer. If the actions of others (eg enemies invade and take over a zone) are effecting the choices you can make (eg that enemy controlled zone has a missile silo in it which is preventing air support from helping out in nearby zones. You can try and reclaim it or instead go for some other asset) then of course it will matter. So you can focus on levelling up quickly to be competitive? So what? Whats your point?
The fact remains that an MMOFPS is a very different experience to playing a seperate mini-map on a normal FPS game. There are goals that can be worked towards, objectives that can be achieved and outcomes and effects that can be witnessed as a result of your own and others actions that you just dont get in a standard FPS game. Also because of Global Agendas focus on a large hex map comprised of lots of individual zones each of which have an effect on adjacent zones, those effecst arent simply meaningless and irrelevant. If your team cant use a particular ability or structure in a zone because a nearby enemy zone is preventing it then you wont be able to ignore the results of others actions. If you read about the game you would know this.
It is going to be extremely difficult for an MMOFPS to make any of that matter because there are two options. Make the results of what you own give real meaningful benefits to the side that is winning. However that will cause the effect of the losing sides all switching to the strong side to get the bonuses and the sides will be so unbalanced people will quit. To prevent that the other method is to make controlling areas of the map no all that meaningful, and now you're into an FPS with online multiplayer.
I'm just going to have to repeat what I said before. Go and read about the game because you are clearly speculating without actually knowing anything about it. The games devs explained their approach to dealing with the exact situation you just described in one of their interviews with mmorpg.com. Part of it involves having each battle instanced with teams which are equally matched against each other. One side will never be able to outnumber the other so switching onto the other side wont really achieve much. They also did this to eliminate zerg tactics.
Go and read about the game.
So you can be a big fanboy of the game and think it will revolutionize (I'm almost surprised you didn't use that word) the genre. Or you can be realistic and see what it will actually become. But that is fine to some people, as is shown by how many people continued to play Planetside over the years despite being the same exact situation. And that was without instanced gameplay, as soon as you add instanced gameplay that effects the outcome of the world it is really extra lame. To me it doesn't feel like because I queued up for a battle that now I should be effecting anything. It is what made that Xbox game Chromehounds lame, instanced battles controlled who was winning or losing, but also that game didn't have a monthly fee.
Big fanboy? What are talking about you lunatic? I simply think what the game is offering looks rather good as does the OP and plenty of other people. Does liking the proposed features of a game and looking forward to its release make us all fanboys? No I didnt think so. Grow up. There's no need to get your knickers in a twist simply because I explained that what you said about the game is wrong. You made statements based on your own fabricated ideas and ignorant viewpoints (eg Global Agenda offers the same experience as Halo) without actually knowing anything about the game. I corrected you on that. Suck it up and deal with it.
Also stop making statements about how the game will turn out as you cant read the future. The success or failure of a completely seperate game in the past has got nothing to do with how Global Agenda or any other game will turn out.
Its also clear that you believe ALL instanced gameplay is bad......even if it works for the purposes of the game. Thats very narrow minded. So you're saying that fighting an instanced battle knowing that the outcome will have an impact on the rest of the gameworld will somehow not make you "feel" like you are effecting anything? How does that make any sense at all if you KNOW that you are effecting things and you can actually see and participate in the results afterwards (eg Defending a zone from enemy attack which you previously helped to take over, trying to take control of a building which has a weapons installation built guarding it by an enemy who was there previously, using a resource that was gained from a previous conquest to help sway the outcome of a battle etc).
This is a computer game. Its not real life and trying to simulate real life by having a big open zoneless gameworld isnt always the best way to do things. Thats how you get the very situations which you said cause people to quit in frustration (ie the zerg, ganking lower level players and people switching to the winning side and outnumbering the losing said). Open worlds might work well for some games and it might not work so well for others. For Global Agenda the devs have decided to opt for instanced gameplay as they want their game to be fair, balanced and enjoyable. Thats a pretty sensible move. If you think thats a bad thing then......well......thats your problem.
OP I just wrote out a massive post but for some reason I thought a short summary of my point would be better.
The size of the mmo market is not growing at the same rate that games are being released. The days that EVE had to develop are a thing of the past unless you find that unknown niche of course. It's a business first. An online experience second.
But in all honesty I have no idea why companies pull out of games post launch? It's not like there is a shortage of people who would freely give their time to get experience in behind the scenes stuff. Why not start apprenticeship or internship type programs that could take the costs of keeping the game alive. Yes their are other costs involved but the deals some companies get on servers etc would make that negligible.
Killing an active mmo is a senseless crime, and strangling one so that it dies quicker is even worse.
Good question. For myself, I'd give a strong "maybe". A game would have to strongly appeal to me to be considered. I would be concerned about the company itself going under and the game vanishing. If I'm going to invest my time and money into a game, I want to enjoy it for years, not months. It would take a lot for me to be sure the game had a future. But if it did, I would sign up.
I was one of those Earth & Beyond players and the sudden demise of the game left me burnt. I didn't want to risk it happening with EVE (plus I'm not a PvPer) besides, City of Heroes was coming out and I liked that concept more. From what I understand though, EVE was the stronger game in how it was organized. I liked building things in ENB but no one class could go from raw materials to finished product. EVE allows you too just that if you wanted.
My day job is a computer programmer and I can tell you how hard it is to design a program where the rules are easy to change. It's one thing to add another zone or add new ships, but something radical as an auction house is a massive undertaking. The developers of a focused game with room to grow would have to allow for nearly everything to be edited and still flow easily. People like that would be in such high demand that the game would cost many times what a full game would. The only other alternative is to go back rewriting hundreds of lines of code which may mess something else up.
Originally posted by Lansid I totally allow MMO's to grow... out of other peoples pockets, not mine! Here's some food for thought...
(snipped a lot of missing the point)
So. You've never bought a serialized story before? Never bought a comic from a current series. Never read a comic of a current series (web or print)? Never purchased from a series that was not complete? Never watched a TV show unless it was a standalone or canceled?
You seem to be missing the point of the main difference between content which is intended to stand alone and content which is intended to be added to into perpetuity. Traditional single-player games and console games are the former, MMOs are the latter. MMOs are like a book series; new chapters are added, new characters and locations and stories introduced as time goes by. I think most people would scoff at someone who honestly said, "Oh, I don't want to read a series by that author because he isn't done with it yet. Why should I pay for an incomplete work? Let him finish it with his money, not mine."
It's not so much as buying a comic from a current series. It would be more like buying a comic from a current series with some pages missing, with the "guarantee" that you'll get those pages for free in a while. It's basically making us pay full price for beta-quality product.
Now, the reason that happens is because they keep trying and give you the entire volume right off the bat. So in order to pull it off, they don't finish the pages in each book.
I guess the point in the article, and I think you and I would agree, is that they need to stop trying to offer you an entire volume right off the bat, and focus just on a real solid first issue. Then the problem people have with that is they say "Why pay full price to get just 1 issue, when you can get an entire volume of a different series for the exact same money". To which I reply, because this series is different, and may become better. You simply can't get this series anywhere else...
And I think I way over-stretched that comic-book/series analogy hehe
Comments
Thing is MMO developers are often times way too greedy in my opinion.
When you get a polished non-MMO game (say a FPS or RPG) it's reasonable to expect standard multiplayer for free, which is limited but can be very fun (sounds familiar ?). You just pay the box price and multiplayer feature is there to sell more boxes.
I do not in fact consider the 10-15 euro/months you pay to be meant to cover bandwith costs. That would be just robbery and there are always third parties willing to host servers for much cheaper or even free.
The subscription is there to cover the complexities of a MMO server operation, the mass of extra content, the constant updates, the support and all that. If you don't provide that from day one why would people just hand you the money ?
If you can't compete with subscription games then release as free to play + microtransactions / premium accounts like so many other games or even just sell for the box price with no subscription. That's just the league your game is in at that time, maybe in the future you can make a p2p version when you can afford one and have the gameplay and content to justify it.
But you can't just ask your players to subsidise your development based on faith when you can't even convince your investors to do the same and wait for the polish. If you start blaming the customers you're doing something wrong.
MMO's need to grow, if not they become stagnent and folks leave.
The problem then becomes how they grow without turning the plyer base and making them leave.
Take for instance LOTRO's decision to change the pricing with the latest update, the lotro formus are full of hate. So no player likes to be told the pricing is going to change, they don't like things like that.
Well, the value proposition I was making was a game that charged less than average to start and as it became a larger title, went up to standard rates.
But, I take it from your response, that wouldn't work for you? A fine opinion, just trying to see fully what you're saying.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
It might work for me - I just don't think it would work for most players.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I think part of the reason it wouldn't work for players, in general, is that it is hard to swollow current MMO pricing without more transparency from the industry. Let's take two recent examples.
World of Warcraft & Aion.
I know, these are AAA titles and the discussion is about smaller titles but I just want to show the upper example.
World of Warcraft (according to MMORPGchart.com) had 10Mil subscribers in 2008 (yeah, a tad old, sue me). Now, not all 10Mil are going to have the $15/month subscription. Well, most won't being that they are in other countries or have the 3/6/12 month plans. So let's just chop 33% right off the top. Call it $10/sub. That means they are pulling in $100 million... a... month. Someone try to tell me that the infrastructure costs on their servers are anywhere near $100 million a month. If I recall my figures correctly that is 4-5 times the total development budget of most AAA MMOs. A... month.
Aion, another AAA title, hit 300,000 pre-orders. $50 for the cheaper of the two pre-orders. That's $15 million before launch. If even half those people stay on and no other people purchase the game after launch, and the same 1/3rd off their $15/month price, that's still a monthly take of $1.5 million. Closer to what might be reality for their server farms but even then I doubt the residuals are going to cost that much.
IE, the larger the MMO gets the more incredulous the users are going to get that their subscription is needed to cover, largely, maintenance costs. I don't think maintenance costs scale the same as subs do. So the more subs an MMO has the harder it is to increase costs because, at some level, the customers are aware that the economics of scale is kicking in.
Not just another pretty color.
I have to agree with Dana, right now since most Developers try to charge 14.99 right out the door we as players have come to expect something close to a "complete" game.
Back in the days of the early MMO's, they launched quite incomplete and buggy, yet we tolerated it having nothing to fall back on or compare to.
Now a new game comes out and players leap on it for any percieved missing feature or functionality, and they inevitable get compared to games like WOW or EVE, who've been under constant development for many years.
Tiered release schedules might be one solution. Launch the game for 4.99 and limited features, after the first major expansion (within 3-6 mo tops) up the monthly to 7.99, and repeat the cycle until the content is worth the 14.99 the big boys charge.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think you are bound to be disappointed by GA if you think that any of that stuff is going to prove to be meaningful. The "ever changing" aspects of GA will quickly fade into who cares, and it will be down to being an FPS pure and simple.
The reason I say I would be interested in playing Planetside 2 is they have experience from making the first one. In the first planetside there were skills you leveled up, and maps you took over, you could even take over whole continents. The battle raged on when you logged off.
But guess what it only took a few days before that stuff didn't matter at all. In order to make it fun for people you leveld up skills ridiculously fast, so everyone was maxed out in no time and you could switch them around whenever you wanted to try other roles. And those "long lasting effects, and battles actually change the game" quickly didn't matter. You logged on, you instant dropped to the action and you fought there. Ya you'd try to take the base you were fighting at, but for the same reason you would in UT on attack maps, just to win. Not because taking it meant anything at all to you. After it was taken you just went to the next spot that had action and repeated.
It is going to be extremely difficult for an MMOFPS to make any of that matter because there are two options. Make the results of what you own give real meaningful benefits to the side that is winning. However that will cause the effect of the losing sides all switching to the strong side to get the bonuses and the sides will be so unbalanced people will quit. To prevent that the other method is to make controlling areas of the map no all that meaningful, and now you're into an FPS with online multiplayer.
So you can be a big fanboy of the game and think it will revolutionize (I'm almost surprised you didn't use that word) the genre. Or you can be realistic and see what it will actually become. But that is fine to some people, as is shown by how many people continued to play Planetside over the years despite being the same exact situation. And that was without instanced gameplay, as soon as you add instanced gameplay that effects the outcome of the world it is really extra lame. To me it doesn't feel like because I queued up for a battle that now I should be effecting anything. It is what made that Xbox game Chromehounds lame, instanced battles controlled who was winning or losing, but also that game didn't have a monthly fee.
This is EXACTLY what I have been saying for the past 3 years. Start small - and then expand. But then you can not expect ppl to pay for the box - and thats where the money ppl cant agree with me and Massey.
Games like AOC and WAR failed partly because they tried to do alot - but most of it was bugged or half finished. Thats NOT what ppl buy from a boxed version of a game. Sorry.
We are starting to see games build with this growing concept tho. Aion for example is starting with just few classes (easier to handle balance) and very nailed down aspects in the game that can be added to later on. Thats why I see Aion as the next step in progression of MMOs.
There is a small problem with the growing online game concept. Its that everyone might not like what the game is growing into. Even WOW is now "growing" (or rather shrinking) into more of a casual game with very limited variations other than the items you wear and the skills you process. Before the game had alot more and "complicated" gaming system of farming materials and even farming special gear for raids. This has changed. And to me - its to the worse.
I truly hope that a gaming developer takes on this task of creating something really well - and then expanding it. What is wrong with starting in a small area with limited amounts of lvls ? As long as the gameplay is good and fun - the rest can wait. For example - WAR would have been alot better off by starting with just tier 1 and 2 since they are the best part of the game (if you leave the PVE out). Plenty of classes to play and great PVP areas to explore. Considering that Im a PVE player - I still create trial acount ever few weeks for WAR just to have FUN playing diffrent characters to lvl 10 and then just leave after. Cause long term comitment in WAR is simply not good enough.
Well, the levels were not that fast to come by. It took quite a few weeks of dedicated play to get even middling BR, not to mention CR. Where PS failed was that CR was just another path of BR for most people, they'd grind to CR5 to be able to spam continent, have the toys, but actually leading!? Heaven forbid! Also the continents were too easy to take. Granted for people who come from a small-scale FPS background and went to PS they were rough. Several hour battles for a cont? Wow! But all it took was 15m to undo a cont lock, so the end result was meaningless.
For meaningful battles look to WWIIOL. Every time MMOFPSes come up I always retell the same tale. A week long battle for 1 city in WWIIOL. A week. No joke. While that sounds like the same problem with small-scale FPSes and PS it was another 3 weeks once that battle was decided before the map was reset and another week still before we got back to that city. Wins and losses in that game meant something because it could be weeks before one side was declared a winner and the map reset. Furthermore people who were "commanders" were expected to do just that, command. They were given real power to control the ebb and flow of their side of the conflict. If they didn't, they were removed from said toys.
People who want the next best MMOFPS where conflicts mean something should first look at what WWIIOL did; not what GA is attempting to do.
Not just another pretty color.
With all the great multiplayer shooter games and every other genre of single player games that are free to play once you buy the box, any subscription-based game has to be absolutely undoubtedly perfect for me to even give it a chance. The times have changed. Many players are not so willing to support a game or a company that is sub-par compared to every other game coming off the shelf as far as graphics, content, story, whatever. Personally, I am not willing to pay for server maintainance and data storage. I will pay for real entertainment if any MMORPG is willing or able to deliver that..
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
That is basically all a new MMO can do today, do a few things well with promises of adding more features later. Those that try to be all things with huge feature lists, ie Darkfall, end up being mediocre at best.
Preorder numbers for recent MMOs seem to indicate otherwise, though. Players know that the first three or so months of most MMOs are rocky. They know that they often release with less than planned during development. They know that they will either face queues or face a collection of servers that are either dead or lagged to hell with people. Veteran have seen this countless times over the past decade. If we start with the WOW generation of gamers, we can reasonably say that millions of MMO gamers have seen this several times over the past four or five years.
There is no reason currently to believe that an MMO will release with all the planned features and without initial problems.
Preorder numbers are consistently through the roof compared to retained numbers.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I think it will help the genre immensely if these narrow focused MMOG's did one UNIQUE thing and did it well. With games like Alganon it seems that even the art style is the subdued look we've seen already in WoW and in Free Realms. It really is getting to the point where the tried and true business models of fantasy, fantasy, fantasy, won't be sustainable because there's nothing but that genre with only a select few art styles to go with it in the MMO marketplace.
There's plenty of great creative minds out there and couple that with the fact that there's also tons of great game mechanic minded folks out there (just look at any MMO forum.) We should be able to conceptualize and produce an MMO experience that isn't out there on the market currently. Hopefully the "indie MMO" will take note of that instead of going for the "Hey we're just like all the other stuff out there, ONLY CHEAPER!"
Small? As in how?
Small world would cause the usual power gamers to get bored or finished in a day and then troll the game on the boards. (you know...the usual) It would also make the "I gotta explore everything and do everything" gamers to be done fast and want more fast. Both bad....very bad
Most of the best MMOs didn't start huge, but weren't small either. The games still around today kept at it and listened to nudging from the fans. They had that "something" that the players wanted. So people stuck around through the thick of it.
In the end.....we just want quality AND longevity. We are asked to pay for it. So we should be supplied with what we pay for and are told we are getting.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Well, the value proposition I was making was a game that charged less than average to start and as it became a larger title, went up to standard rates.
But, I take it from your response, that wouldn't work for you? A fine opinion, just trying to see fully what you're saying.
Given human nature, I suspect that any company that tried that would run in to problems. Far too many people would object to such a price increase. Especially if the low price was in place for 3-6 months or so.
Preorder numbers for recent MMOs seem to indicate otherwise, though. Players know that the first three or so months of most MMOs are rocky. They know that they often release with less than planned during development. They know that they will either face queues or face a collection of servers that are either dead or lagged to hell with people. Veteran have seen this countless times over the past decade. If we start with the WOW generation of gamers, we can reasonably say that millions of MMO gamers have seen this several times over the past four or five years.
There is no reason currently to believe that an MMO will release with all the planned features and without initial problems.
Preorder numbers are consistently through the roof compared to retained numbers.
You make a good point, however in my opinion, pre-orders and beta access are mostly marketing gimmicks aimed at the ignorant and desperate, of which are an evergrowing segment of this genres playerbase, than any real commitment to support a company or a game. Preorders are mostly about hype in my opinion.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
While I agree Wow probably is a money making machine, It isn't as simple as you make it sound. Monthly fees cover bandwith and server maintenance charges; yes. But they also cover support personnel and live development costs (not expansion devs). Paying people adds up quickly and I doubt the worldwide bandwith fees are as trivial as you think they are.
300,000 people paying $15 a month should get NCsoft into positive cash flow soon but the $15M box sales probably just about covers the translation costs.
I totally allow MMO's to grow... out of other peoples pockets, not mine!
Here's some food for thought...
No one buys a book at full price, that's half written, and pays a quarter of the cost in a monthly fee for the author to fill in the blanks whenever they feel like it.
No one buys a car at full price, that's half built/functional, and pays a quarter of the cost in a monthly fee for the automakers to finish their work.
The people are now voting with their money, and voicing their opinions about how they're sick of paying full price for a "full version release" of beta quality games. ESPECIALLY with veteran companies! If the smaller companies wish to compete, then they need to prepare for the FUTURE by learning from the PAST. The ONLY MMO that I have played that had a wonderful transition from BETA to FINAL was Earth and Beyond.
Anarchy Online had lag so horrible that traveling in the city took 1/2 an hour at 1fps. I don't know how long that lasted, but I wasn't going to pay a monthly fee for a game that I couldn't play.
Shadowbane on launch had a lot of problems and the devs wouldn't even reply to the people or post the problems early on. If people who are supposed to be running a game aren't communicating with their customers about THEIR gamebreaking problems, then no I don't need to pay them for a service that they aren't, as far as I know, doing.
and for some not-so-recent horrible launches...
Hellgate: London. Awesome intro! That's about it. If the bugs were fixed in a timely manner, classes were ironed out a bit more, and had more content... aka, wasn't a Beta release in "Final" disguise, then Hellgate may have survived past the first year. The one thing was wonderful was that they allowed you to play a Single Player version of the game.
Tabula Rasa had Milla Jovovich's voice in it... awesome! That's about it. If the bugs were fixed in a timely manner, classes were ironed out a bit more, and had more content... aka, wasn't a Beta release in "Final" disguise, then Hellgate Tabula Rasa may have survived past the first year. The one thing was wonderful was that they allowed you to play a Single Player version of the game it had Richard Garriott fired by NCsoft despite him being a Lord/General/Egomaniac.
Last two huge MMO's I heard about are Champions Online, and Aion.
CO I hear they did a massive ninja nerf/balance in transition of beta/release... and I heard lots of people were upset, so upset they were offering refunds. I lol'd. Outside of what I hear I have no in game experience with this one, but I'll wait a year while people let the game "GROW" with their money, not mine.
Aion I hear there was a lot of "queue queue" going on. I saw a screenshot of some EU guy trying to get in and ALL of the servers were closed to him. I lol'd. Outside of what I hear, I have no in game experience with this one, but I'll wait a year while people let the game "GROW" with their money, not mine.
As long as people let "games GROW", they are sending the message "We don't care what state the game is in at release, fix it at your own pace and we'll still pay!"
After 10 years since the release of EQ, there should be enough data/common sense there for people to learn from... if not, then gtfo of my MMO.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
I play a lot of text based MMORPGs, and unlike the Devs of fancier games, the Devs of Text-based games CAN be trusted to slowly expand a game. In fact my experience has been that the quality of plot and writing in text-based games is superior to that of flashy 3-d mmorpgs. So yes, if it was a proven dev company, I would support a slowly expanding game, 3-d or text based, but it would have to be a dev I trusted.
I think you are bound to be disappointed by GA if you think that any of that stuff is going to prove to be meaningful. The "ever changing" aspects of GA will quickly fade into who cares, and it will be down to being an FPS pure and simple.
So now your tune has changed from "this game is just the same as a normal FPS game" to "Oh this game might have lots of features that set it apart from a normal FPS game but no-one will care about them anyway". Not only can you predict the future but you know what everyone else likes as well. I'm impressed.
The game may well turn out to be a disappointment like so many MMO's before it.......or it might not. Only time will tell that one. However it obviously wont devolve into an ordinary FPS game will it. Whats gonna happen? Is the MMO aspect of the game and all of its features gonna magically vanish simply because some features arent enjoyable and "meaningful" enough to some people? You're not making any sense.
The reason I say I would be interested in playing Planetside 2 is they have experience from making the first one. In the first planetside there were skills you leveled up, and maps you took over, you could even take over whole continents. The battle raged on when you logged off.
And Global Agenda is offering all of that too. Levelling up? Check. Maps to take over? Check. Control the overall map? Check. Battle rages on when you log off? Check.
Yes experience helps but it doesnt guarantee anything. WoW and WAR are prime examples of this. WoW was Blizzards first MMO and it turned out to be the most successful. Mythic already had experience at making a very good MMO with DAoC and yet WAR turned out to be a dreadful game.
Besides I'm not saying Planetside 2 will be a bad game or comparing it to anything. I would happily play such a game. It was simply that the reasons you gave for not wanting to go near Global Agenda simply dont make any sense. You said you can get exactly the same experience from a game like Halo and that obviously isnt true. Yet for some reason the misguided "MMOFPS games are the same as normal FPS games" thought doesnt seem to apply to Planetside 2 in your mind for some reason.
But guess what it only took a few days before that stuff didn't matter at all. In order to make it fun for people you leveld up skills ridiculously fast, so everyone was maxed out in no time and you could switch them around whenever you wanted to try other roles. And those "long lasting effects, and battles actually change the game" quickly didn't matter. You logged on, you instant dropped to the action and you fought there. Ya you'd try to take the base you were fighting at, but for the same reason you would in UT on attack maps, just to win. Not because taking it meant anything at all to you. After it was taken you just went to the next spot that had action and repeated.
Yes I see what you're getting at.......but then that can be applied to absolutely any game. "Meaningful" can only stretch so far in an online game. Enemies can always take back controlled land, structures, resources or whatever. The same happens in real life too ya know, so I guess you could argue that nothing matters in real life either then. However within the context of the game, the things you do in Global Agenda have a lasting effect on the overall map and ultimately the experience of the other players and that does make it more meaningful than what most games offer. If the actions of others (eg enemies invade and take over a zone) are effecting the choices you can make (eg that enemy controlled zone has a missile silo in it which is preventing air support from helping out in nearby zones. You can try and reclaim it or instead go for some other asset) then of course it will matter. So you can focus on levelling up quickly to be competitive? So what? Whats your point?
The fact remains that an MMOFPS is a very different experience to playing a seperate mini-map on a normal FPS game. There are goals that can be worked towards, objectives that can be achieved and outcomes and effects that can be witnessed as a result of your own and others actions that you just dont get in a standard FPS game. Also because of Global Agendas focus on a large hex map comprised of lots of individual zones each of which have an effect on adjacent zones, those effecst arent simply meaningless and irrelevant. If your team cant use a particular ability or structure in a zone because a nearby enemy zone is preventing it then you wont be able to ignore the results of others actions. If you read about the game you would know this.
It is going to be extremely difficult for an MMOFPS to make any of that matter because there are two options. Make the results of what you own give real meaningful benefits to the side that is winning. However that will cause the effect of the losing sides all switching to the strong side to get the bonuses and the sides will be so unbalanced people will quit. To prevent that the other method is to make controlling areas of the map no all that meaningful, and now you're into an FPS with online multiplayer.
I'm just going to have to repeat what I said before. Go and read about the game because you are clearly speculating without actually knowing anything about it. The games devs explained their approach to dealing with the exact situation you just described in one of their interviews with mmorpg.com. Part of it involves having each battle instanced with teams which are equally matched against each other. One side will never be able to outnumber the other so switching onto the other side wont really achieve much. They also did this to eliminate zerg tactics.
Go and read about the game.
So you can be a big fanboy of the game and think it will revolutionize (I'm almost surprised you didn't use that word) the genre. Or you can be realistic and see what it will actually become. But that is fine to some people, as is shown by how many people continued to play Planetside over the years despite being the same exact situation. And that was without instanced gameplay, as soon as you add instanced gameplay that effects the outcome of the world it is really extra lame. To me it doesn't feel like because I queued up for a battle that now I should be effecting anything. It is what made that Xbox game Chromehounds lame, instanced battles controlled who was winning or losing, but also that game didn't have a monthly fee.
Big fanboy? What are talking about you lunatic? I simply think what the game is offering looks rather good as does the OP and plenty of other people. Does liking the proposed features of a game and looking forward to its release make us all fanboys? No I didnt think so. Grow up. There's no need to get your knickers in a twist simply because I explained that what you said about the game is wrong. You made statements based on your own fabricated ideas and ignorant viewpoints (eg Global Agenda offers the same experience as Halo) without actually knowing anything about the game. I corrected you on that. Suck it up and deal with it.
Also stop making statements about how the game will turn out as you cant read the future. The success or failure of a completely seperate game in the past has got nothing to do with how Global Agenda or any other game will turn out.
Its also clear that you believe ALL instanced gameplay is bad......even if it works for the purposes of the game. Thats very narrow minded. So you're saying that fighting an instanced battle knowing that the outcome will have an impact on the rest of the gameworld will somehow not make you "feel" like you are effecting anything? How does that make any sense at all if you KNOW that you are effecting things and you can actually see and participate in the results afterwards (eg Defending a zone from enemy attack which you previously helped to take over, trying to take control of a building which has a weapons installation built guarding it by an enemy who was there previously, using a resource that was gained from a previous conquest to help sway the outcome of a battle etc).
This is a computer game. Its not real life and trying to simulate real life by having a big open zoneless gameworld isnt always the best way to do things. Thats how you get the very situations which you said cause people to quit in frustration (ie the zerg, ganking lower level players and people switching to the winning side and outnumbering the losing said). Open worlds might work well for some games and it might not work so well for others. For Global Agenda the devs have decided to opt for instanced gameplay as they want their game to be fair, balanced and enjoyable. Thats a pretty sensible move. If you think thats a bad thing then......well......thats your problem.
OP I just wrote out a massive post but for some reason I thought a short summary of my point would be better.
The size of the mmo market is not growing at the same rate that games are being released. The days that EVE had to develop are a thing of the past unless you find that unknown niche of course. It's a business first. An online experience second.
But in all honesty I have no idea why companies pull out of games post launch? It's not like there is a shortage of people who would freely give their time to get experience in behind the scenes stuff. Why not start apprenticeship or internship type programs that could take the costs of keeping the game alive. Yes their are other costs involved but the deals some companies get on servers etc would make that negligible.
Killing an active mmo is a senseless crime, and strangling one so that it dies quicker is even worse.
Good question. For myself, I'd give a strong "maybe". A game would have to strongly appeal to me to be considered. I would be concerned about the company itself going under and the game vanishing. If I'm going to invest my time and money into a game, I want to enjoy it for years, not months. It would take a lot for me to be sure the game had a future. But if it did, I would sign up.
I was one of those Earth & Beyond players and the sudden demise of the game left me burnt. I didn't want to risk it happening with EVE (plus I'm not a PvPer) besides, City of Heroes was coming out and I liked that concept more. From what I understand though, EVE was the stronger game in how it was organized. I liked building things in ENB but no one class could go from raw materials to finished product. EVE allows you too just that if you wanted.
My day job is a computer programmer and I can tell you how hard it is to design a program where the rules are easy to change. It's one thing to add another zone or add new ships, but something radical as an auction house is a massive undertaking. The developers of a focused game with room to grow would have to allow for nearly everything to be edited and still flow easily. People like that would be in such high demand that the game would cost many times what a full game would. The only other alternative is to go back rewriting hundreds of lines of code which may mess something else up.
(snipped a lot of missing the point)
So. You've never bought a serialized story before? Never bought a comic from a current series. Never read a comic of a current series (web or print)? Never purchased from a series that was not complete? Never watched a TV show unless it was a standalone or canceled?
You seem to be missing the point of the main difference between content which is intended to stand alone and content which is intended to be added to into perpetuity. Traditional single-player games and console games are the former, MMOs are the latter. MMOs are like a book series; new chapters are added, new characters and locations and stories introduced as time goes by. I think most people would scoff at someone who honestly said, "Oh, I don't want to read a series by that author because he isn't done with it yet. Why should I pay for an incomplete work? Let him finish it with his money, not mine."
Not just another pretty color.
It's not so much as buying a comic from a current series. It would be more like buying a comic from a current series with some pages missing, with the "guarantee" that you'll get those pages for free in a while. It's basically making us pay full price for beta-quality product.
Now, the reason that happens is because they keep trying and give you the entire volume right off the bat. So in order to pull it off, they don't finish the pages in each book.
I guess the point in the article, and I think you and I would agree, is that they need to stop trying to offer you an entire volume right off the bat, and focus just on a real solid first issue. Then the problem people have with that is they say "Why pay full price to get just 1 issue, when you can get an entire volume of a different series for the exact same money". To which I reply, because this series is different, and may become better. You simply can't get this series anywhere else...
And I think I way over-stretched that comic-book/series analogy hehe