If you promise the world and deliver a can of worms you can hardly expect players not to complain. But why all this talk about developers, it is the corporate mentality that generates the hype. And it is the corporate balance sheet that decides how a game will expand. True it seems every person at a MMO is now a PR agent including the tea boy, but that’s a recent issue, you can still find honest devs out there.
Originally posted by BigJohnny 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.
Not sure where you're getting that analogy. Most people are not talking about incomplete, beta games. You pulled that out of thin air to make your point.
Pardon? In this topic I have quoted exactly 2 people. One person was talking about the transient nature of Planetside and the other was you. Are you mistaking me for someone else?
The rest of my comments have been based on the premise that Dana put forth, that MMOs be allowed to grow in features. IE, do we really need player housing at launch? Does not having it mean the product is "beta quality". No, and no.
These, these things we're discussing, are apples.
You, you're discussing blown glass. Not even remotely the same thing.
In the previous page (page5) the very last post is by you. You quoted Lansid as saying: "I totally allow MMO's to grow... out of other peoples pockets, not mine! Here's some food for thought..."
To which you replied: "So. You've never bought a serialized story before?..." etc etc
Lansid also said: "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."
Which I completely agree with. But you gave the analogy of a comic book series, which I also agree with.
All I'm trying to do is to clarify the analogy that you yourself made. I believe I'm perfectly on-topic
I did this with WAR. I played for up to 6 months, getting to t4, hoping it would be more fun, and they would fix/implement things to the game. But after I REALLY got bored of it, I just had to move to something else. I couldn't sink any more money or time into something that wasn't panning out for me. I gave Mythic 80 for the CE, and then 15/mo for 6 months (Well, 5 if you include the launch month).
I still hope WAR will come to something I will love, but, until that day. I'm just bored of it. And am hoping for it to fix the little things here and there, and implement some features worth using.
Also, you could start off a sub at $5/mo, like you said. And as it got bigger they would increase their sub cost. Well, that sounds fine, except for the fact that people will rage the second they increase the cost. Just because people hate change, and hate spending more money when they have been used to the first set amount. Honestly, that idea makes sense to me... But I see others just completely raging over it.
I did this with WAR. I played for up to 6 months, getting to t4, hoping it would be more fun, and they would fix/implement things to the game. But after I REALLY got bored of it, I just had to move to something else. I couldn't sink any more money or time into something that wasn't panning out for me. I gave Mythic 80 for the CE, and then 15/mo for 6 months (Well, 5 if you include the launch month). I still hope WAR will come to something I will love, but, until that day. I'm just bored of it. And am hoping for it to fix the little things here and there, and implement some features worth using.
Also, you could start off a sub at $5/mo, like you said. And as it got bigger they would increase their sub cost. Well, that sounds fine, except for the fact that people will rage the second they increase the cost. Just because people hate change, and hate spending more money when they have been used to the first set amount. Honestly, that idea makes sense to me... But I see others just completely raging over it.
The problems with WAR are probably based on the orginal beta tests and the fact that highest tiers were not really fully tested. But the biggest problem with WAR is ofc the fact that the basic game engine simply isn't good enough. So no matter how much you build on it - it simply will not get any better. Mythic already tried to speed up the gameplay and get the spells more responsive - but it lead to increase server problems and they had to revert to the same old setup.
If MMOs are supposed to be built around the fun aspect and at the same time give players the rpg concept of building up a character - then the basics need to be 100%. When it comes to WAR - the basics simply are not there. The gameplay is not good enough to be considered fun (laggy - sluggish) and that will not change with greowing abilites of the characters. If something it makes it more frustrating.
Im really sad to see WAR fail so miserably. I like the concept j- but again - I think that the beta tests and the overall progress of testing out the game simply failded terribly. Testing one tier at the time created a totally diffrent game with very broken up content. And when it was all put together - it left 90% of the content barren or pointless with just few ppl in every area (for public quests for example).
Thats why a game like WAR should have started small and build on it. At least the VERY first they should have done was to make sure the engine was good enough. It just isn't.
Would you support an MMO that started small, but strongly and then grew over time? With a few attitude adjustments from fans, media and developers, maybe this could be possible.
Sounds like Dana ate the wrong side of the frosted mini wheat's this morning. While the grown up intellectual side of me says sure, the kid in me that drew me to play this stupid MMO in the first place says NO NO NO!
An MMO's "Rush to Market" should be punished not coddled!
1st impressions are what decides the success of any mmo. If you don't do me right in the 1st 30 days your not going to get the subscription.
Would you support an MMO that started small, but strongly and then grew over time? With a few attitude adjustments from fans, media and developers, maybe this could be possible.
Sounds like Dana ate the wrong side of the frosted mini wheat's this morning. While the grown up intellectual side of me says sure, the kid in me that drew me to play this stupid MMO in the first place says NO NO NO!
An MMO's "Rush to Market" should be punished not coddled!
1st impressions are what decides the success of any mmo. If you don't do me right in the 1st 30 days your not going to get the subscription.
THE END!
PS. That baby picture is a perfect likeness..
These days that may well be true. But how then does one explain Eve? It started out small and has grown over the years. Then of course there is Anarchy Online. It had to have one of the WORST launches in MMO history, but it went on to recover from that. I suspect its a function of how the Dev's deal with the inevitable problems that come with MMO's. Under capitalization is endemic across the MMO industry.
Outside of a few exceptions(Blizzard comes to mind) investors/shareholders panic at the slightest hint of problem/delay, and start threatening to pull out if the game doesn't launch, ready or not. Of course, this type of short sightedness is what contributes to games either failing or never reaching the subscription numbers they would have, if the launch hadn't been rushed. But what else can one expect from people whose only focus is the quarterly report?
"I would love to see a company launch a focused, albeit narrower product and charge a narrower amount for it. If they did, I would hope that the fans would react accordingly and give it the support it needs to take that next step."
I agree. Back in July of 2007 I wrote a blog piece pointing out that, with a few exceptions, there are basically two sales curves for MMORPGs: start-big-and-slowly-decline, and start-small-and-slowly-grow.
We've seen examples of the start-big curve. Those are the big-budget AAA titles, who have to make as much money as possible in their first few weeks after launch (to pay back their big development costs) because that's the most subscribers they're ever likely to have.
And EVE remains the best example of the start-small curve, who make the bulk of their income over time. The question is, why aren't more developers going that route?
Perhaps we're now seeing the first wave of indie MMORPGs that are trying that path. Here's hoping so; it'll be good for the industry.
I would fully support an MMO starting small, and progressively getting better with new features, zones, and content. The reason it is hard to...
1) Often times the devs are not good with communication. Lets us know an estimated timeframe of what some of the big plans are.
2) The "small" game is often only small due to lack of development time, making the game feel completely unfinished and unpolished...give us a solid playable product at launch with good features and content already available.
I would fully support an MMO starting small, and progressively getting better with new features, zones, and content. The reason it is hard to... 1) Often times the devs are not good with communication. Lets us know an estimated timeframe of what some of the big plans are. 2) The "small" game is often only small due to lack of development time, making the game feel completely unfinished and unpolished...give us a solid playable product at launch with good features and content already available.
Yes. The only excuse for small amount of content is VERY high polish. If it is small and unpolished, it might as well not release at all.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
"I would love to see a company launch a focused, albeit narrower product and charge a narrower amount for it. If they did, I would hope that the fans would react accordingly and give it the support it needs to take that next step." I agree. Back in July of 2007 I wrote a blog piece pointing out that, with a few exceptions, there are basically two sales curves for MMORPGs: start-big-and-slowly-decline, and start-small-and-slowly-grow. We've seen examples of the start-big curve. Those are the big-budget AAA titles, who have to make as much money as possible in their first few weeks after launch (to pay back their big development costs) because that's the most subscribers they're ever likely to have. And EVE remains the best example of the start-small curve, who make the bulk of their income over time. The question is, why aren't more developers going that route? Perhaps we're now seeing the first wave of indie MMORPGs that are trying that path. Here's hoping so; it'll be good for the industry. --Flatfingers
As with much else WoW is the exception. It started big and got HUGE. It remains to be seen if they can duplicate that sucess with their next MMO. I suspect one of the reasons for the AAA class titles taking the approach that they do, is that its easier to sell their investors on a grand vision. Then when nature takes its course, and reality hammers them, their investors start to panic and demand that they launch NOW, ready or not. We've all seen the results, way too many times. Smaller titles simply run out of money. Its launch or perish. The bottom line is that all too many investors are focused on the short term returns, rather than long term returns.
I really have to disagree that WoW was an example of a game that started big. From my point of view, it's one of the better examples of a game that started small and grew from there.
When the game released, you only had the 1-60 leveling experience. Then at the end-game they had Onyxia and Molten core. And that's it. Even the leveling dungeons were incomplete. They had to patch Dire Maul in later, not to mention Maraudon.
Stuff like the honor system for pvp, battlegrounds, etc, were all patched in, and yet they're now considered part of the "core" experience. The extent of PvP in WoW back then was spontaneous fights in Hillsbrad. And the time it took them to patch in Blackwing Lair, which is only the second raid, was something like 6 months if I'm not mistaken. So they actually had a pretty rocky start I'd say.
But, they did have a really well-polished leveling experience. And likewise, the stuff they did give you was in-fact well done. So you had a pretty solid core to play with, and then they built from there.
I really have to disagree that WoW was an example of a game that started big. From my point of view, it's one of the better examples of a game that started small and grew from there. When the game released, you only had the 1-60 leveling experience. Then at the end-game they had Onyxia and Molten core. And that's it. Even the leveling dungeons were incomplete. They had to patch Dire Maul in later, not to mention Maraudon. Stuff like the honor system for pvp, battlegrounds, etc, were all patched in, and yet they're now considered part of the "core" experience. The extent of PvP in WoW back then was spontaneous fights in Hillsbrad. And the time it took them to patch in Blackwing Lair, which is only the second raid, was something like 6 months if I'm not mistaken. So they actually had a pretty rocky start I'd say. But, they did have a really well-polished leveling experience. And likewise, the stuff they did give you was in-fact well done. So you had a pretty solid core to play with, and then they built from there.
I've been in WoW since late beta, so I well remember the 1-60 cycle. I was more refering to their player numbers, than their content. One of my most enjoyable memories of the game was soloing my 60 rogue through the MC attunement quest. ^^ Scholo/UBRS and MC I've run way more times than I ever want to remember. But for the most part it was good times. Then came Outlands and Northrend , and they seem to have lost their way from the old style. But everything changes I guess(shrug). But its still a good game, until one hits level cap.
The players who complain about everything are sooting themselves in the foot. I really hope game makers have noticed this already, and have started to make changes based off of their own ideas for innovation rather then the direction players think they have the right to enforce on the devs. As a veteran player of some of the larger mmos I feel burned by the direction devs have taken to appease the communities. They either change the way they market the game, or the mechanics of the game. If any maker falls for this by changing the price people pay after people have already paid a certain amount is fail, and so is changing the mechanics after people spent time to level, or gain items. In the end the veteran subscribers would have spent more, and reroll more often.
First off, I just want to commend the author of this article, she has written a wonderful piece here, and this is something that I have been trying to get across to may people i come across on the web, that said, I myself have been guilty of comparing a brand new mmo to WoW, though I did realize my own hippocracy and have since reserve judgement a year or 2 down the line I will probably come back and reassess the game based on its growth and where it has gone since launch,
Dana Massey is right. I played WOW when it first released, i was kept playing it for around 1+ year after, when i eventually quit.
When WOW first released it had major problems. For example the classes had useless talents. Talents had almost no point except for very few exceptions, especially the so called 41-point talent etc. Back then we got every month a new patch, and what they did was that every month they fixed a class' talents. So it was the priest patch, the warrior patch etc etc. This lasted for around 1 year. So you had the weird phenomenon that some classes had very good talents and some others not. So they almost completely overpowered them. If this happens now everyone will quit the first month. But we kept playing and we waite around 1 year to have a complete talent overhaul.
Another problem was that when WOW released it didn't have many dungeons. Especially for max level (60), they added those dungeons after people reached level 60 and they had nothing to do. On top of that epic items from the epic dungeons didn't have good stats nor a unique look. They had only placeholder graphics, they waited only after people started doing those dungeons to fix them.
If i continue i can find out more and more problems.
Point here is, back then choices weren't many, so you just sticked with that game. Now there are many choices, so people just decide to quit for something else. What companies need to realize is that if we as players dont have to except their games to be so rich like for example WOW, then they also dont have to expect us to pay the same money we pay for WOW.
When you have 2 choices, a new game with not much content yet and possibly many bugs, and on the other hand you have WOW or whatever, a game that has much content, and many bugs are fixed, but when you check the price you see that both cost the same its obvious which one you will choose.
Companies should not think players as money machines, "lets convince them that our crappy product is good and make them pay the same so we get money", they have to respect them and realize that they have to charge LESS for their newly released product. They have to charge a price that will make players stick with the game despite the problems, and when they have polished the game and realize that the players like the game then they can decide if they will raise the price or not.
I'm being more wary of MMO's from big companies. The games end of being very generic and then they move along to produce another big title with a shadow of a team remaining on the original product.
I would rather play a game from a small company whose got everything riding on success.
What would you rather: Play an MMO that's an afterthought or it's only thought?
I love Dana's articles, they are always pretty nice to read.
Now as for EVE versus E&B.
It's a different context, E&B was Westwood's baby and not EA. I remember spending my night chatting with Arturus and Cerdik (don't remember the spelling) and I remember how they were a bit uneasy when EA bought WW. It's not that EA didn't let E&B breath, it's simply the fact that game didn't generate any important revenu compared to their other titles.
CCP only has one title and that is EVE. It's a very different context and obviously, when you only have one single game to invest in then it's much easier to manage. It's also your only source of revenu so letting it die is just a suicide, not a calculated risk and lost.
What EVE has over the other games is marketting strategies, evolution, name and support. Just the name EVE is enough to attract the attention of anyone that speaks english. It's a beautifull word with various definitions. Now, I'm not sure about you but EVE flash banners are everywhere on the internet. Every gaming site has one, from vgcats, penny-arcade to mmorpg still known as EVE fanboys lol. Evolution is a lit easier when you only have 1 team to work on one title. Why does Blizzard, Epic Megagames, ID software, CCP always have quality products? In most situation it's because they focus on one product at a time. Not saying they can't have multiple projects in the background but it's usualy 1 title at a time per studio/office. Support is important here, EVE has EVE-Radio, EVE-TV, battleclinic, Killboards, in-game browsers that allows corps to advertise and display sites in-game. CCP actievely support fan projects such as Day of Darkness II, allowing the movie producer to visit their studio and use any tools he needs.
They have never lacked in any of these fields and today, they are cultivating the fruits. I agree that we should let a game grow but the term garbage in, garbage out is very true for MMOs.
A game like WOW is a different story and what kick started WOW was the amazing background of Blizzard.
- Rock N Roll Racing
- Starcraft
- Warcraft
- Diablo
- Lost Vikings
Can't go wrong with any of these titles, why would WOW suck lol.
Comments
If you promise the world and deliver a can of worms you can hardly expect players not to complain. But why all this talk about developers, it is the corporate mentality that generates the hype. And it is the corporate balance sheet that decides how a game will expand. True it seems every person at a MMO is now a PR agent including the tea boy, but that’s a recent issue, you can still find honest devs out there.
Not sure where you're getting that analogy. Most people are not talking about incomplete, beta games. You pulled that out of thin air to make your point.
Not just another pretty color.
The post that you quoted was saying that people are sick of paying full-price for beta-quality games.
Pardon? In this topic I have quoted exactly 2 people. One person was talking about the transient nature of Planetside and the other was you. Are you mistaking me for someone else?
The rest of my comments have been based on the premise that Dana put forth, that MMOs be allowed to grow in features. IE, do we really need player housing at launch? Does not having it mean the product is "beta quality". No, and no.
These, these things we're discussing, are apples.
You, you're discussing blown glass. Not even remotely the same thing.
Not just another pretty color.
Maybe one of us is confused...
In the previous page (page5) the very last post is by you. You quoted Lansid as saying:
"I totally allow MMO's to grow... out of other peoples pockets, not mine!
Here's some food for thought..."
To which you replied:
"So. You've never bought a serialized story before?..." etc etc
Lansid also said:
"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."
Which I completely agree with. But you gave the analogy of a comic book series, which I also agree with.
All I'm trying to do is to clarify the analogy that you yourself made. I believe I'm perfectly on-topic
*facepalm* It is me, sorry.
Not just another pretty color.
I did this with WAR. I played for up to 6 months, getting to t4, hoping it would be more fun, and they would fix/implement things to the game. But after I REALLY got bored of it, I just had to move to something else. I couldn't sink any more money or time into something that wasn't panning out for me. I gave Mythic 80 for the CE, and then 15/mo for 6 months (Well, 5 if you include the launch month).
I still hope WAR will come to something I will love, but, until that day. I'm just bored of it. And am hoping for it to fix the little things here and there, and implement some features worth using.
Also, you could start off a sub at $5/mo, like you said. And as it got bigger they would increase their sub cost. Well, that sounds fine, except for the fact that people will rage the second they increase the cost. Just because people hate change, and hate spending more money when they have been used to the first set amount. Honestly, that idea makes sense to me... But I see others just completely raging over it.
The problems with WAR are probably based on the orginal beta tests and the fact that highest tiers were not really fully tested. But the biggest problem with WAR is ofc the fact that the basic game engine simply isn't good enough. So no matter how much you build on it - it simply will not get any better. Mythic already tried to speed up the gameplay and get the spells more responsive - but it lead to increase server problems and they had to revert to the same old setup.
If MMOs are supposed to be built around the fun aspect and at the same time give players the rpg concept of building up a character - then the basics need to be 100%. When it comes to WAR - the basics simply are not there. The gameplay is not good enough to be considered fun (laggy - sluggish) and that will not change with greowing abilites of the characters. If something it makes it more frustrating.
Im really sad to see WAR fail so miserably. I like the concept j- but again - I think that the beta tests and the overall progress of testing out the game simply failded terribly. Testing one tier at the time created a totally diffrent game with very broken up content. And when it was all put together - it left 90% of the content barren or pointless with just few ppl in every area (for public quests for example).
Thats why a game like WAR should have started small and build on it. At least the VERY first they should have done was to make sure the engine was good enough. It just isn't.
Yea EVE!
http://www.neonblackgames.com/
Sounds like Dana ate the wrong side of the frosted mini wheat's this morning. While the grown up intellectual side of me says sure, the kid in me that drew me to play this stupid MMO in the first place says NO NO NO!
An MMO's "Rush to Market" should be punished not coddled!
1st impressions are what decides the success of any mmo. If you don't do me right in the 1st 30 days your not going to get the subscription.
THE END!
PS. That baby picture is a perfect likeness..
Sounds like Dana ate the wrong side of the frosted mini wheat's this morning. While the grown up intellectual side of me says sure, the kid in me that drew me to play this stupid MMO in the first place says NO NO NO!
An MMO's "Rush to Market" should be punished not coddled!
1st impressions are what decides the success of any mmo. If you don't do me right in the 1st 30 days your not going to get the subscription.
THE END!
PS. That baby picture is a perfect likeness..
These days that may well be true. But how then does one explain Eve? It started out small and has grown over the years. Then of course there is Anarchy Online. It had to have one of the WORST launches in MMO history, but it went on to recover from that. I suspect its a function of how the Dev's deal with the inevitable problems that come with MMO's. Under capitalization is endemic across the MMO industry.
Outside of a few exceptions(Blizzard comes to mind) investors/shareholders panic at the slightest hint of problem/delay, and start threatening to pull out if the game doesn't launch, ready or not. Of course, this type of short sightedness is what contributes to games either failing or never reaching the subscription numbers they would have, if the launch hadn't been rushed. But what else can one expect from people whose only focus is the quarterly report?
Everquest started at 9.95 and increased it's price. People complained but they didn't leave. I think an underpriced MMO would get the same reaction.
Back then, there wasn't that much else to play
These days, I doubt most players would stay through a price increase.
"I would love to see a company launch a focused, albeit narrower product and charge a narrower amount for it. If they did, I would hope that the fans would react accordingly and give it the support it needs to take that next step."
I agree. Back in July of 2007 I wrote a blog piece pointing out that, with a few exceptions, there are basically two sales curves for MMORPGs: start-big-and-slowly-decline, and start-small-and-slowly-grow.
We've seen examples of the start-big curve. Those are the big-budget AAA titles, who have to make as much money as possible in their first few weeks after launch (to pay back their big development costs) because that's the most subscribers they're ever likely to have.
And EVE remains the best example of the start-small curve, who make the bulk of their income over time. The question is, why aren't more developers going that route?
Perhaps we're now seeing the first wave of indie MMORPGs that are trying that path. Here's hoping so; it'll be good for the industry.
--Flatfingers
I would fully support an MMO starting small, and progressively getting better with new features, zones, and content. The reason it is hard to...
1) Often times the devs are not good with communication. Lets us know an estimated timeframe of what some of the big plans are.
2) The "small" game is often only small due to lack of development time, making the game feel completely unfinished and unpolished...give us a solid playable product at launch with good features and content already available.
~Xiara D'Aarmon
Right, but that was more to do with inflation than content.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Yes. The only excuse for small amount of content is VERY high polish. If it is small and unpolished, it might as well not release at all.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
As with much else WoW is the exception. It started big and got HUGE.
It remains to be seen if they can duplicate that sucess with their next MMO. I suspect one of the reasons for the AAA class titles taking the approach that they do, is that its easier to sell their investors on a grand vision. Then when nature takes its course, and reality hammers them, their investors start to panic and demand that they launch NOW, ready or not. We've all seen the results, way too many times. Smaller titles simply run out of money. Its launch or perish. The bottom line is that all too many investors are focused on the short term returns, rather than long term returns.
I really have to disagree that WoW was an example of a game that started big. From my point of view, it's one of the better examples of a game that started small and grew from there.
When the game released, you only had the 1-60 leveling experience. Then at the end-game they had Onyxia and Molten core. And that's it. Even the leveling dungeons were incomplete. They had to patch Dire Maul in later, not to mention Maraudon.
Stuff like the honor system for pvp, battlegrounds, etc, were all patched in, and yet they're now considered part of the "core" experience. The extent of PvP in WoW back then was spontaneous fights in Hillsbrad. And the time it took them to patch in Blackwing Lair, which is only the second raid, was something like 6 months if I'm not mistaken. So they actually had a pretty rocky start I'd say.
But, they did have a really well-polished leveling experience. And likewise, the stuff they did give you was in-fact well done. So you had a pretty solid core to play with, and then they built from there.
I've been in WoW since late beta, so I well remember the 1-60 cycle. I was more refering to their player numbers, than their content. One of my most enjoyable memories of the game was soloing my 60 rogue through the MC attunement quest. ^^ Scholo/UBRS and MC I've run way more times than I ever want to remember.
But for the most part it was good times. Then came Outlands and Northrend , and they seem to have lost their way from the old style. But everything changes I guess(shrug). But its still a good game, until one hits level cap.
The players who complain about everything are sooting themselves in the foot. I really hope game makers have noticed this already, and have started to make changes based off of their own ideas for innovation rather then the direction players think they have the right to enforce on the devs. As a veteran player of some of the larger mmos I feel burned by the direction devs have taken to appease the communities. They either change the way they market the game, or the mechanics of the game. If any maker falls for this by changing the price people pay after people have already paid a certain amount is fail, and so is changing the mechanics after people spent time to level, or gain items. In the end the veteran subscribers would have spent more, and reroll more often.
Mhmmm
First off, I just want to commend the author of this article, she has written a wonderful piece here, and this is something that I have been trying to get across to may people i come across on the web, that said, I myself have been guilty of comparing a brand new mmo to WoW, though I did realize my own hippocracy and have since reserve judgement a year or 2 down the line I will probably come back and reassess the game based on its growth and where it has gone since launch,
Dana Massey is right. I played WOW when it first released, i was kept playing it for around 1+ year after, when i eventually quit.
When WOW first released it had major problems. For example the classes had useless talents. Talents had almost no point except for very few exceptions, especially the so called 41-point talent etc. Back then we got every month a new patch, and what they did was that every month they fixed a class' talents. So it was the priest patch, the warrior patch etc etc. This lasted for around 1 year. So you had the weird phenomenon that some classes had very good talents and some others not. So they almost completely overpowered them. If this happens now everyone will quit the first month. But we kept playing and we waite around 1 year to have a complete talent overhaul.
Another problem was that when WOW released it didn't have many dungeons. Especially for max level (60), they added those dungeons after people reached level 60 and they had nothing to do. On top of that epic items from the epic dungeons didn't have good stats nor a unique look. They had only placeholder graphics, they waited only after people started doing those dungeons to fix them.
If i continue i can find out more and more problems.
Point here is, back then choices weren't many, so you just sticked with that game. Now there are many choices, so people just decide to quit for something else. What companies need to realize is that if we as players dont have to except their games to be so rich like for example WOW, then they also dont have to expect us to pay the same money we pay for WOW.
When you have 2 choices, a new game with not much content yet and possibly many bugs, and on the other hand you have WOW or whatever, a game that has much content, and many bugs are fixed, but when you check the price you see that both cost the same its obvious which one you will choose.
Companies should not think players as money machines, "lets convince them that our crappy product is good and make them pay the same so we get money", they have to respect them and realize that they have to charge LESS for their newly released product. They have to charge a price that will make players stick with the game despite the problems, and when they have polished the game and realize that the players like the game then they can decide if they will raise the price or not.
I'm being more wary of MMO's from big companies. The games end of being very generic and then they move along to produce another big title with a shadow of a team remaining on the original product.
I would rather play a game from a small company whose got everything riding on success.
What would you rather: Play an MMO that's an afterthought or it's only thought?
I love Dana's articles, they are always pretty nice to read.
Now as for EVE versus E&B.
It's a different context, E&B was Westwood's baby and not EA. I remember spending my night chatting with Arturus and Cerdik (don't remember the spelling) and I remember how they were a bit uneasy when EA bought WW. It's not that EA didn't let E&B breath, it's simply the fact that game didn't generate any important revenu compared to their other titles.
CCP only has one title and that is EVE. It's a very different context and obviously, when you only have one single game to invest in then it's much easier to manage. It's also your only source of revenu so letting it die is just a suicide, not a calculated risk and lost.
What EVE has over the other games is marketting strategies, evolution, name and support. Just the name EVE is enough to attract the attention of anyone that speaks english. It's a beautifull word with various definitions. Now, I'm not sure about you but EVE flash banners are everywhere on the internet. Every gaming site has one, from vgcats, penny-arcade to mmorpg still known as EVE fanboys lol. Evolution is a lit easier when you only have 1 team to work on one title. Why does Blizzard, Epic Megagames, ID software, CCP always have quality products? In most situation it's because they focus on one product at a time. Not saying they can't have multiple projects in the background but it's usualy 1 title at a time per studio/office. Support is important here, EVE has EVE-Radio, EVE-TV, battleclinic, Killboards, in-game browsers that allows corps to advertise and display sites in-game. CCP actievely support fan projects such as Day of Darkness II, allowing the movie producer to visit their studio and use any tools he needs.
They have never lacked in any of these fields and today, they are cultivating the fruits. I agree that we should let a game grow but the term garbage in, garbage out is very true for MMOs.
A game like WOW is a different story and what kick started WOW was the amazing background of Blizzard.
- Rock N Roll Racing
- Starcraft
- Warcraft
- Diablo
- Lost Vikings
Can't go wrong with any of these titles, why would WOW suck lol.