Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
First Impressions
donjn
Member UncommonPosts: 816
Launching an MMO is a big deal. No one in recent memory did it better than Turbine.
But recently I came back to Warhammer and was amazed how much it has improved. It is finally the game I wanted it to be. Even though I don't care for Vanguard, it has made great improvements as well, not to mention Age of Conan which is the comeback winner.
This brings me to my poll question. Are we too unforgiving regarding second chances?
Comments
Frankly, I expect a game to in a reasonable state of completion when it releases. There's no excuse for releasing a game that is broken. It may not have all the features you ultimately plan on, but there should be something worth playing and it should *work*. Unfortunately, game publishers seems to want to make early buyers pay them to be their beta testers--and sometimes alpha testers. The best way to stop this is to make it clear that players won't stand for it--that games that release in this state will not attract players and will fail, and, no, it's *not* something you can fix later. The industry seems to be a little slow learning this, but hopefully they will catch on as time goes by.
Frankly, I expect a game to in a reasonable state of completion when it releases. There's no excuse for releasing a game that is broken. It may not have all the features you ultimately plan on, but there should be something worth playing and it should *work*. Unfortunately, game publishers seems to want to make early buyers pay them to be their beta testers--and sometimes alpha testers. The best way to stop this is to make it clear that players won't stand for it--that games that release in this state will not attract players and will fail, and, no, it's *not* something you can fix later. The industry seems to be a little slow learning this, but hopefully they will catch on as time goes by.
Perhaps you don't understand the economics of an MMO. Competition for features is so high, no one can cover the entire budget before launch. While you might not like this system, the market clearly bears this style of release in exchange for as developed of a 'platform' as possible; with small features and bugs to be dealt with after an income stream is generated. I personally don't like it either, but that's how most seem to be going. Development timeframes have stretched out considerably from years ago.
I dont know if we are too unforgiving, but MMO players (as a whole) tend to be forward lookers. We look for the next big thing to come out with a desired feature rather than look back to see what has now put in this same feature into an old game. Perhaps it is our flaw ...like lemmings falling over a cliff because that is where everyone is going.
I will say, that should 2010 MMO releases be percieved (both acurately and inacurately) as lackluster, I think we will find more players taking a second look at older, now established MMOs
Torrential: DAOC (Pendragon)
Awned: World of Warcraft (Lothar)
Torren: Warhammer Online (Praag)
mm so far the only game i saw last week -end that did have ton of player in it were dragon oath
and perfect world international(new area)add to those the top 5 in xfire list and that make a very short list of popular mmorpg.
It is probably inevitable that a game will always be judged by its launch, first impressions are lasting ones after all, and no matter what promises are made early on, even if their geniune, players dont always hang around to find out if their kept. The only exception is probably SOE's disastrous game change with SWG, but thats another issue... so yes, first impressions are very important for MMO's imo..
I play/buy games at release and if I don't like what I see I know I don't like it later on.
I am one of those gamers that can look beyond the bugs or issue's a games might have, that never bothers me, obvious if it's in a playeble state, I simply look at what the game is delivering, what it looks like, if it fits the playstyle I want and if a game doesn't fit me when it's released or weeks after I highly doubt it will make a 100% turn around from how the game that was released.
what i have seen with new games is the fact they promise to much at launch and cant deliver. take Age of Conan for example. I loved that game at launch it was savage and fun tons of pvp, and pve to do.
then you hit max level and there is nothing, they promised sieges wich were broken for over a year of the game coming out. and in my opinion if your going to make it that easy to level then you better have stuff for all those players to do or else they will quit.
they also added pvp points for killing other players. yeah thats great you can get pvp gear from those points and stuff like that, well just think how much fun it would of been if all that was in the game when it came out? and we were all earning those points as we leveled up fighting other players for hunting spots and so on. instead now you have a ton of max level characters standing around dueling for pvp points. boring.
I just think games are launching early to start earning money so they can work out the bugs and add content later, and i guess thats fine if you can get the player base to stick around that long. but you have to remember, most players are coming from already done games such as WoW were there is tons of things to do and they expect a new game to be like that or they quit. it sucks but thats the way it is.
This brings up a new question. Are publishers like EA for example to blame for pushing these MMOs out the door too early?
Frankly, I think it's really a combination of all 3. The deciding factor is interest and expectations. For example, let's take Warhammer. Let's say WAR's launch was horrible (which it wasn't, but for the sake of this example, it was). Many people tried it and quit almost immediately due to server crashes, horrible lag, bugs, etc. Most of those people wouldn't take a second look at the game, no matter how much time passes.
Let's say I'm one of the people who tried it at launch, but I really love the Warhammer IP and/or Mythic. Even if I quit because the launch was rough, I'd still have an interest in the game and I'd keep my eye on it. Then, maybe 6 months later, the game improves alot and I re-sub. If I hated the Warhammer IP and/or Mythic, I wouldn't give the game a second chance no matter what.
Obviously, developers should avoid crappy launches at all costs. But if their games have alot of potential or they're based on a popular IP, then people are more likely to keep an eye on it and give it a second chance later on. It's true that you only get one first impression.
Most of these MMOs would have needed at least another year or more before they were even launch ready. Some MMOs like Warhammer and AoC STILL have major problems that have been neglected since launch.
That's just plain bad programming. Some developers are just incapable of making a good working MMO no matter how much time and money you give them.
Most of these MMOs would have needed at least another year or more before they were even launch ready. Some MMOs like Warhammer and AoC STILL have major problems that have been neglected since launch.
That's just plain bad programming. Some developers are just incapable of making a good working MMO no matter how much time and money you give them.
If you asked DaVinci how long it would take to design something, what do you think he'd say? They can't completely project the time to complete something. They do, however, have time frames and projections. The publisher does indeed allow a certain level of flexibility (depending on each situation), but ultimately it has to be launched at some point. Even if it is not as good as they made it sound, they have to get it out there and see what kind of sales they can end up with from it. It's just the name of the game. Making games and making movies both require investment capital that is spent before a dime is ever earned. At a certain point they'll just cash in for what they can get out of it.
The first impression has to leave you with a sense of the games potential, the greater the imagination and scope of the design I think the greater the likelihood you will endure the bugs and/or return for a look later in the cycle.
Studios today are guilty of abusing the charity afforded mmo's however, and this has serious consequences for the game itself, once a game is released the core engine is almost cut in stone, development is confined to the peripherals and/or has to exist within many limitations. The evidence of SWG and MxO is that overhauls and changes to core features, no matter how well intentioned, are additionally devastating to the mmo's community.
Single player games do manage to exist with a single point release.....there is no logical reason why its impossible for mmo's to do likewise.
First impressions are vital because a game will never has as many new customers as it does at launch. I think most of us accept that a launch requires some leeway for teething troubles and you can still get a fair impression of the underlying game regardless. However, if a game is riddled with bugs or fails to deliver on promised features there is really no reason for the game to get a second chance as it will have already missed its opportunity to build up a decent population size and will therefore always be playing catch up in terms of content.
I think publishers generally do deserve a lot of blame for releasing games too early and it has wrecked many a game. Sadly it has become almost a norm for the industry. But I guess it is probably trickier than we realise to judge when a game will be ready for release. After all the developers do have to be held accountable to some kind of budget and timetable.
I consider starting out in a new mmo with an entire server to be a highlight of the game. Unless you make new servers all the time, that opportunity only comes around one time, at the launch of the game. So to me, first impressions are everything. To many others, first impressions for mmos don't amount to much.
IMO release is a golden age for MMOs. All the company's work (marketing, community-building, development, etc) throughout the years gets converged in this single period - release date. It's when most people that heard about the game will purchase it, this gets even more power if there are trials at release and no public beta. If you did a good marketing and manage to EVER reach a similar number of initial purchases in active post 1st-month subscriptions - you have achieved financial stability, the dream of any MMO company.
A MMO WILL have a huge player base loss after the first month - many people simply do not subscribe, it's inevitable as long as you aren't drugging your players or creating another large-scale close to 100% effective addiction, one could believe "fun" is the best one
Trying to gain as many customers as possible in release will be vital for the long-term plans of the game as this will define what the people with money plans for the continued development.
And with a high retention you can focus less on marketing and more on development (people will do the marketing for you, I don't know about you but if a RL friend (perhaps even a virtual friend) of mine shows me a game I didn't know or didn't care enough about, I will surely give it a try with him.