Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Statistics, End Game Content, and You
Roybe
Member UncommonPosts: 420
Why are expansion's for MMO's released WHEN they are? Or asked differently; 'Why can a BtP model work?' I'd like to introduce you to: The Normal Distribution.
This little gem is the base reason why MMO's release new content when they do and why treadmills and grinding are not only inherent in the game model, but required in a subscription model.
On to the explanation! In large scale populations most skill based operations fall around the Normal Distribution. The tails (extreme left and right) are composed of those that are either extremely skilled or those that are extremely unskilled. The closer to the Mean (the middle of the chart) the more people there are with average skill sets. In the case of MMO's this can also be thought of in terms of time to 'completion', whatever your definition of that is. That means in a Normally Distributed population some inferences can be made:
1. In figuring out WHEN to release a new full update, the developers/publishers release when a threshold % of the people that 'finish' the game is reached. This is actually a quick statistical methodology looking at quest completion rates vs. population, and a little extrapolation. I can take a guess on some games answers to these statistics, WoW's threshold of their games is every 2 years, GW1 was 6 months.
2. Fast finishing players ('elite players') are the minority, (even if we only go out 1 standard deviation, (in actuality 'elite players' are more likely to be 2 standard deviations away from the Mean)) they only account for 15.9% of the population, however, to retain their subscriptions, their needs must be met in some way that allows for continued game play that is not only rewarding emotionally (content that is challenging) but also in-game rewards that are elite enough to bestow some level of higher in-game status.
Based on these two inferences looking at 'end game content', it starts to become obvious where there are, as well as why there are, differences between BtP and Subscription based games. Since the overarching goal of Sub games is to 'keep the money rolling in', it becomes a race against the devs and the 'elite players' to create and consume content. Since the devs main interests should be in creating large scale content changes for the overarching population when the population at large has 'completed' it, the minority 'elite players' get exactly enough content for them to consume at rates that allow the devs the time to make the large scale, game changing, content for the general population. To maximize the effort of the devs, it becomes apparent that the short term content must not only be more challenging but must somehow be highly re-playable (so as not to require more effort on their part to create more short term content). This has led to the idea of raids and slow gear drops in many games. This is a true treadmill. It keeps people playing without any advancement of the exterior game world, in other words: a world made specifically for the 'elite players' edification and subscription $$$. This is not a bad thing, it's a requirement of the payment model to not lose 15.9% of it's market every game cycle.
In BtP, the idea of retention isn't nearly as important as it is in sub based games. In actuality, a BtP game wants to be so memorable and fun that it's future purchases are as frequent, with hopes of increasing frequency, as it's past purchases, while maintaining a stable in-game population. The idea here is to create content at a rate that keeps the majority of the people around the mean playing long enough to have more content come out. This means that rather than trying to keep a minority (the 15.9% of 'elite players') happy while also creating content, a BtP game should attempt to create high quality content upon release to keep all players happy, (and buying future boxes) while releasing this content just as it's needed to keep populations of average level players stable. In other words, for BtP it's about keeping the elite players loving the game for what it is, rather than creating a 'world of waiting' just for them.
Comments
b2pp model is good but retention is a must too. if most players quit because there are lack of contents and "carrot." Then they will leave with a bad impression. And probably will not buy the future expansions. Same happend with GW1. GW vanila sold a lot of copies but the exansions sales were very low and with every expansions the numbers kept getting lower and lower. Anet/Ncsoft never mentions how many copies each version sold they always tell you a combined number.
Currently Playing: SSFIV AE, SFxTekken, SWTOR, WoW. Waiting for: GW2, Resident Evil 6.
If Anet/NCSoft never mentioned how many copies each version sold, how do you know expansion sales were very low and lower with each expansion? Source plz.
I was/am a long term player of the first GW. I can understand your point of view, however, the retention of a BtP PvE game is aiming at the middle ground, not the tail of the curve.
'Retention' in this definition is those that take longer to 'finish' the game. Look at it this way, as per your example, if there isn't enough content for the roughly 70% around the mean that means A) The next content package took to long coming out, or
There wasn't enough to start out with. Yes, either could be disastrous for the game in question. (B moreso than A, particularly if like Anet, there is a reason publicly given for the long wait between packages (as per GW1 and GW2) For BtP to be successful, they need people to buy the next package, not be continuously paying and playing. In a BtP game there is no need for a 'carrot' approach. If the game was enjoyable enough to finish it, then by rights (and any other game style), it should be enjoyable enough to purchase the next installment. Case in point, I'm still looking forward to the next part of the game and story in Half Life. For MMO's it's definitely a different viewpoint.
WoW's threshold was 2 years? Really? I don't think so. WoW expansions were every two years because they were extremely inefficient at leveraging their massive revenue into ongoing expansion development, not because two years was the ideal release schedule.
I wouldn't expect a full GW2 expansion more often than once per year. GW2 looks to release with more content than the majority of subscription titles, plus the nature of much of the content should greatly extend the amount of replayability and even extended play for characters at the cap. An annual expansion would be fairly aggressive for AAA MMORPGs and the amount of new content will determine just how well that schedule addresses ongoing play.
With no subscription fee, the major goals have to be to provide quantity and quality of content sufficient to ensure that the majority of people who buy the game feel it was worth the purchase cost; and provide enough fun to ensure that they will want to come back for the next installment, whether they play each release for three months, six months, nine months or with out a break during the gap.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
Ok, so you disagree with my assesment? You believe that Blizzard's 2 year expansion cycle (excluding the first expansion) is inefficient leverage rather than a planned business decision? I might not like subscription based games, but I have to believe the length of the development cycle for subbed games is utmost on these company's minds since their whole game line is dependent upon content creation for the maintainence of monthly rents. I can agree to disagree here.
I wasn't making any predictions about GW2, as this type of information is not available nor promised. However, I do agree with your quantity/quality statement. All I am suggesting is that the decision made by any of these companies on development cycles should, and does, rely upon a statistical use of population metrics and that the type of payment method creates pressures within the gameplay system to maximize profits based on these metrics.
Should? Yes. Does? Not often. You can't assume that a developer is always able to produce a quality expansion on the most desirable schedule. I played a lot of WoW the first three years and I can assure you that the game really needed an annual expansion cycle right from the start and that need grew after the release of The Burning Crusade, which definitely did not provide enough expansion content for another two year gap.
It's understandable for barely profitable games that have to struggle along and do expansions on a budget, but Blizzard could have and should have set up large, overlapping development teams to produce staggered, yearly releases.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
