How Much Content Is Enough and What's it Worth?

nate1980 · February 2010

One often complaint seen on these forums, is that x MMO isn't worth the money, because it lacks content, endgame, or whatever. Well let's put that to the test.

A single-player game lasts around 40 hours these days, and they sell for $60 brand new. So that's $1.50 for each hour of content. STO is the most recent game to release and release an estimate of how long it'd take to complete content, so we'll use it as an example. It has 80-120 hours worth of content. Let's just say 100 hours. MMO's cost $50 brand new. So that's .50 cents for each hour of content. So already, MMORPG's are priced at a bargain, and yet we're still hearing complaining. Now we also pay $15/mo for a subscription. Ignoring the costs we should bear for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators, our $15/mo should get us 30 hours of content per month. Yet we still hear complaining in the forums.

There is a difference in the quality of content between single player games and MMO's, however, as each new MMO comes out, that gap is closing. Never-the-less, there is a difference. However, the ability to socialize with others, group, use an auction house, and the use of many other features single player games don't have make up for that disparity in quality. Remember, we still haven't added in the cost customers should incur for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators.

Mathematically speaking, it's only fair that people who are doing all of this complaining should be willing to pay .50 cents more per hour of content they're expecting from developers. After all, we are fair-minded individuals, correct? That, or we can stop complaining, and appreciate the bargain we're getting with each MMO.

GTwander · February 2010

There is such a thing as a perpetually miffed customer you know.

When a washing machine breaks, a person might give the phone representatives flak, the repair man flak, anyone around him flak - even if it's his fault for putting a can of red paint in there, and none of the people he's dealing with to fix it are under contract to do so. CS is a rough job, lemme tell you.

As for how much something is perceivably "worth" to someone, you are arguing with a hoard of people that think they are paying too much for F2P games they have no interest in, nor spent a dime on.

Ilvaldyr · February 2010

Originally posted by nate1980

One often complaint seen on these forums, is that x MMO isn't worth the money, because it lacks content, endgame, or whatever. Well let's put that to the test.
A single-player game lasts around 40 hours these days, and they sell for $60 brand new. So that's $1.50 for each hour of content. STO is the most recent game to release and release an estimate of how long it'd take to complete content, so we'll use it as an example. It has 80-120 hours worth of content. Let's just say 100 hours. MMO's cost $50 brand new. So that's .50 cents for each hour of content. So already, MMORPG's are priced at a bargain, and yet we're still hearing complaining. Now we also pay $15/mo for a subscription. Ignoring the costs we should bear for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators, our $15/mo should get us 30 hours of content per month. Yet we still hear complaining in the forums.
There is a difference in the quality of content between single player games and MMO's, however, as each new MMO comes out, that gap is closing. Never-the-less, there is a difference. However, the ability to socialize with others, group, use an auction house, and the use of many other features single player games don't have make up for that disparity in quality. Remember, we still haven't added in the cost customers should incur for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators.
Mathematically speaking, it's only fair that people who are doing all of this complaining should be willing to pay .50 cents more per hour of content they're expecting from developers. After all, we are fair-minded individuals, correct? That, or we can stop complaining, and appreciate the bargain we're getting with each MMO.

Have to disagree with the highlight; some of the newer single player games I've played blow MMOs out of the water completely. I'm thinking Dragon Age, Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 2 and the like. Frickin' awesome games. No MMO even comes close.

I agree with the core point though; MMOs are value for money.

ben3283 · February 2010

Originally posted by nate1980

One often complaint seen on these forums, is that x MMO isn't worth the money, because it lacks content, endgame, or whatever. Well let's put that to the test.
A single-player game lasts around 40 hours these days, and they sell for $60 brand new. So that's $1.50 for each hour of content. STO is the most recent game to release and release an estimate of how long it'd take to complete content, so we'll use it as an example. It has 80-120 hours worth of content. Let's just say 100 hours. MMO's cost $50 brand new. So that's .50 cents for each hour of content. So already, MMORPG's are priced at a bargain, and yet we're still hearing complaining. Now we also pay $15/mo for a subscription. Ignoring the costs we should bear for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators, our $15/mo should get us 30 hours of content per month. Yet we still hear complaining in the forums.
There is a difference in the quality of content between single player games and MMO's, however, as each new MMO comes out, that gap is closing. Never-the-less, there is a difference. However, the ability to socialize with others, group, use an auction house, and the use of many other features single player games don't have make up for that disparity in quality. Remember, we still haven't added in the cost customers should incur for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators.
Mathematically speaking, it's only fair that people who are doing all of this complaining should be willing to pay .50 cents more per hour of content they're expecting from developers. After all, we are fair-minded individuals, correct? That, or we can stop complaining, and appreciate the bargain we're getting with each MMO.

I have to disagree with this statement, if you can prove this statistic then I could understand where your coming from. For right now im going to believe PC Gamers newest magazine March 2010, page 59 top left, "230 Hours invested into Dragon Age by Desslock". Thats about 26 cents an hour.

Gabby-air · February 2010

One thing your missing is that single player games have continuos story and fun whereas MMOs have the same old quests and boring things that take majority of that time.

Dawnherald · February 2010

Considering a lot of that "reaching end game" in MMOs is uncompelling boredom, players are allowed to expect to get something nice upon hitting end game, instead of... Nothing.

Compared with your non-MMO games, which are specifically designed to NOT bore or take a lot of time to get to the "fun".

Honestly, an MMO-esque singleplayer game would be DESPISED, but because it's an MMO it's fine to take liberties such as not being bothered to make the game fun to level up in.

( Note: There are exceptions, such as Warhammer Online's Tier 1, which is the best part of the game. )

EDIT: GabbyAir, that is creepy on so many fucking levels.

lttexxan · February 2010

We are all looking for OZ. To be transported over the rainbow. Excellent adventures to follow.

I think L.Frank Baum had it about right.

I'd take about that much content.

GTwander · February 2010

Originally posted by Dawnherald

Considering a lot of that "reaching end game" in MMOs is uncompelling boredom, players are allowed to expect to get something nice upon hitting end game, instead of... Nothing.
Compared with your non-MMO games, which are specifically designed to NOT bore or take a lot of time to get to the "fun".

News flash.

MMOs lead to nothing but recycling endgame goals, single-player games end with credits rolling. The fun has to start at the beginning for you or it's never coming.

nate1980 · February 2010

Originally posted by ben3283

Originally posted by nate1980

One often complaint seen on these forums, is that x MMO isn't worth the money, because it lacks content, endgame, or whatever. Well let's put that to the test.
A single-player game lasts around 40 hours these days, and they sell for $60 brand new. So that's $1.50 for each hour of content. STO is the most recent game to release and release an estimate of how long it'd take to complete content, so we'll use it as an example. It has 80-120 hours worth of content. Let's just say 100 hours. MMO's cost $50 brand new. So that's .50 cents for each hour of content. So already, MMORPG's are priced at a bargain, and yet we're still hearing complaining. Now we also pay $15/mo for a subscription. Ignoring the costs we should bear for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators, our $15/mo should get us 30 hours of content per month. Yet we still hear complaining in the forums.
There is a difference in the quality of content between single player games and MMO's, however, as each new MMO comes out, that gap is closing. Never-the-less, there is a difference. However, the ability to socialize with others, group, use an auction house, and the use of many other features single player games don't have make up for that disparity in quality. Remember, we still haven't added in the cost customers should incur for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators.
Mathematically speaking, it's only fair that people who are doing all of this complaining should be willing to pay .50 cents more per hour of content they're expecting from developers. After all, we are fair-minded individuals, correct? That, or we can stop complaining, and appreciate the bargain we're getting with each MMO.

I have to disagree with this statement, if you can prove this statistic then I could understand where your coming from. For right now im going to believe PC Gamers newest magazine March 2010, page 59 top left, "230 Hours invested into Dragon Age by Desslock". Thats about 26 cents an hour.

I guess you didn't read the Dragon Age forums a week after release. Them, and myself included, beat Dragon Age in 30 hours. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 lasted 8 hours.

GTwander · February 2010

Originally posted by nate1980

I guess you didn't read the Dragon Age forums a week after release. Them, and myself included, beat Dragon Age in 30 hours. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 lasted 8 hours.

People actually play CoD:MW2 for the single-player campaign? I have to say I never bothered with it or it's predecessor beyond pumping hundreds of hours into multiplayer - which make up for it's cost by far.

lttexxan · February 2010

We are all looking for OZ. To be transported over the rainbow. Excellent adventures to follow.

I think L.Frank Baum had it about right.

I'd take about that much content

I reiterate....a big word.for sure...look it up.

Bloodaxes · February 2010

Not all single players last for 40 hours specially rpgs but leave that aside you can't compare STO to a single player because people play mmos because they want them to last them more then a week before buying something else and even if it lasts let's say 20 hours more then a single player it's an mmo it shouldn't end hench the monthly fee.

WW4BW · February 2010

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by nate1980

I guess you didn't read the Dragon Age forums a week after release. Them, and myself included, beat Dragon Age in 30 hours. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 lasted 8 hours.

People actually play CoD:MW2 for the single-player campaign? I have to say I never bothered with it or it's predecessor beyond pumping hundreds of hours into multiplayer - which make up for it's cost by far.

Multiplayer games are definatly missing from the OP. Single Player games rarely have much in the way of replay value. Although in the case of games with some sort or RPG element or achievements to unlock there is some. Multiplayer features add loads of replay value to games. Take a simple game like Pong. Its one of the first games on a computer and people are still playing games like it. Although solitaire and other puzzle games seem to have some people comming back for more, its when you get to play against others rather than against chance or a stupid AI that the replay value really skyrockets.

In reality a MMO doesnt need to have much content if it allows for its players to be each others content. I would be happy if companies would stop making these silly themepark MMOs of popular IPs that is basicly a string of poor single player content that allows for teamwork. And instead focused on making innovative playgrounds where customers were allowed to invent their own games, rules and goals within that virtual world.

FC-Famine · February 2010

Originally posted by nate1980

One often complaint seen on these forums, is that x MMO isn't worth the money, because it lacks content, endgame, or whatever. Well let's put that to the test.
A single-player game lasts around 40 hours these days, and they sell for $60 brand new. So that's $1.50 for each hour of content. STO is the most recent game to release and release an estimate of how long it'd take to complete content, so we'll use it as an example. It has 80-120 hours worth of content. Let's just say 100 hours. MMO's cost $50 brand new. So that's .50 cents for each hour of content. So already, MMORPG's are priced at a bargain, and yet we're still hearing complaining. Now we also pay $15/mo for a subscription. Ignoring the costs we should bear for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators, our $15/mo should get us 30 hours of content per month. Yet we still hear complaining in the forums.
There is a difference in the quality of content between single player games and MMO's, however, as each new MMO comes out, that gap is closing. Never-the-less, there is a difference. However, the ability to socialize with others, group, use an auction house, and the use of many other features single player games don't have make up for that disparity in quality. Remember, we still haven't added in the cost customers should incur for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators.
Mathematically speaking, it's only fair that people who are doing all of this complaining should be willing to pay .50 cents more per hour of content they're expecting from developers. After all, we are fair-minded individuals, correct? That, or we can stop complaining, and appreciate the bargain we're getting with each MMO.

Good topic.

I think the argument is flawed somewhat. Today's MMO's aren't reducing in content but rather there's a misconception of "end game". There is no ending to any MMO on the market. You can only reach a certain point where you could feel as if there is no more content left to experience. In reality, MMO's focus in replayable content or player generated content where most single players games might not.

For example, you have mini-games which is replayable content and a lot of players just play the game for those mini-games. Another example is repeatable quests or missions, these never end and you can do as many as you want until the end of time. Most of these are not favored as much as other styles of content but they still exist to help expand on things to do in game.

Content overall is very large in most MMO's compared to single player games. On top of that, it's expanded ever so often with content updates that help add even more content than before. Most single player games may only release expansions where MMO's release both expansions and patches/updates. Using Age of Conan for example, we are on Update 6, which means we have had 6 major updates to the game since launch. Every major update includes some type of major content addition to the game for a specific level range. Then on top of that, we have our expansion coming out that add even more content than before.

Ending here, content is easily seen as short when there is no real ending. On top of that, you have most content that is super expensive to create on a developers end. We can't keep pumping out more and more content every week so instead we spread it out every 1 to 3 months. It's not easy to do and as a Community Manager, I can tell you that most players do burn through content faster than expected. It's hard trying to keep up because there is really no sure fire way to measure how quickly everyone on average will spend on each content update you push out.

Rockgod99 · February 2010

Mmorpg are the welfare equivalent of the video game genre.

Low cost, low quality gameplay that takes up an amazing amount of time.

With that said I do agree with the op that people should stop complaining about the amount of content in a mmo.

You pay next to nothing to play games 24/7 that run fairly well on PCs damn near five years old.

demc · February 2010

Originally posted by FC-Famine

Originally posted by nate1980

One often complaint seen on these forums, is that x MMO isn't worth the money, because it lacks content, endgame, or whatever. Well let's put that to the test.
A single-player game lasts around 40 hours these days, and they sell for $60 brand new. So that's $1.50 for each hour of content. STO is the most recent game to release and release an estimate of how long it'd take to complete content, so we'll use it as an example. It has 80-120 hours worth of content. Let's just say 100 hours. MMO's cost $50 brand new. So that's .50 cents for each hour of content. So already, MMORPG's are priced at a bargain, and yet we're still hearing complaining. Now we also pay $15/mo for a subscription. Ignoring the costs we should bear for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators, our $15/mo should get us 30 hours of content per month. Yet we still hear complaining in the forums.
There is a difference in the quality of content between single player games and MMO's, however, as each new MMO comes out, that gap is closing. Never-the-less, there is a difference. However, the ability to socialize with others, group, use an auction house, and the use of many other features single player games don't have make up for that disparity in quality. Remember, we still haven't added in the cost customers should incur for servers, customer service, GM's, and moderators.
Mathematically speaking, it's only fair that people who are doing all of this complaining should be willing to pay .50 cents more per hour of content they're expecting from developers. After all, we are fair-minded individuals, correct? That, or we can stop complaining, and appreciate the bargain we're getting with each MMO.

Good topic.

I think the argument is flawed somewhat. Today's MMO's aren't reducing in content but rather there's a misconception of "end game". There is no ending to any MMO on the market. You can only reach a certain point where you could feel as if there is no more content left to experience. In reality, MMO's focus in replayable content or player generated content where most single players games might not.

For example, you have mini-games which is replayable content and a lot of players just play the game for those mini-games. Another example is repeatable quests or missions, these never end and you can do as many as you want until the end of time. Most of these are not favored as much as other styles of content but they still exist to help expand on things to do in game.

Content overall is very large in most MMO's compared to single player games. On top of that, it's expanded ever so often with content updates that help add even more content than before. Most single player games may only release expansions where MMO's release both expansions and patches/updates. Using Age of Conan for example, we are on Update 6, which means we have had 6 major updates to the game since launch. Every major update includes some type of major content addition to the game for a specific level range. Then on top of that, we have our expansion coming out that add even more content than before.

Ending here, content is easily seen as short when there is no real ending. On top of that, you have most content that is super expensive to create on a developers end. We can't keep pumping out more and more content every week so instead we spread it out every 1 to 3 months. It's not easy to do and as a Community Manager, I can tell you that most players do burn through content faster than expected. It's hard trying to keep up because there is really no sure fire way to measure how quickly everyone on average will spend on each content update you push out.

It is not just the content that matters though it is the quality of that content. I personally never had a beef with AoC and content.. Maybe a bit to linear but then that was the design.

Aysono · February 2010

When I play a single player game my goal is to beat the game. Every single player game has a goal, whether it is a specific score, level or quest. When I buy a single player game it doesn't matter how long I play it. As long as I can beat it and have fun while achieving my goal it worths the money. However, when I pay for an mmo I expect continous frequent updates and an aspect of comparing with other online players whether through pvp or scores or whatever. If these mmo don't give me constant updates and the multiplayer aspects then they don't worth the money. Since I always want more content and be better than other players there is always not enough content in mmo.

Howdy, Stranger!

How Much Content Is Enough and What's it Worth?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

How Much Content Is Enough and What's it Worth?

Comments