www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Monday, April 09, 2007
Filling the half-empty glass
Late 2004 I beta-tested both World of Warcraft and Everquest 2. I was impressed how feature-complete and bug-free WoW was running. There were some server issues, but EQ2 had even more of those. And EQ2 was full of bugs, and major game mechanics were changed with every patch, leaving a distinct impression of an unfinished game. But even unfinished games get finished eventually, and I read that EQ2 is quite nice and stable nowadays. Only by now they obviously missed the boat, and only have a fraction of WoW's subscribers.
Early 2007 it's deja vu all over again. I beta-tested both Lord of the Rings Online and Vanguard. And this time it's LotRO which makes a finished impression, and Vanguard which isn't. Vanguard just announced getting rid of the naked corpse run, and I'm sure they are going to fill up all those empty areas with time, so in 2 years or so it could be a quite playable game. But who is going to buy Vanguard in 2 years?
If you buy a MMORPG you go for the market leader, or the recently released game. You don't buy the game that had bad reviews 2 years ago, hoping that it has become much better since then. Even if you wanted to, finding a good source for a review on how a game is 2 years after release is hard. A Google search just keeps directing you to the original, unfavorable reviews. You need to read a lot of blogs, and often between the lines, to get an idea how a game has evolved.
I just hope that the game company managers learn this one day. Bringing your game out early isn't going to help you if it isn't ready for release. The initial bad impression that a half-finished game is leaving behind is very hard to overcome, even if you improve the game a lot later with patches. Even Electronic Arts learned that lesson, and says that for example Spore will be released when it's ready, and not before. In spite of MMORPGs being easier to patch than single-player games, releasing them only when they are ready is the better marketing strategy for them too.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:21 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Exactly so. EQ2 was able to recover somewhat two years later. But I think the fact that there is not a lot of competition yet and they released a great expansion that triggered some nostalgia from old EQ players, contributed to that.
Two years from now, Vanguard will have even more competition than it does currently and will really have to do some extraordinary things to get players to come back.
Two years from now, Vanguard will have even more competition than it does currently and will really have to do some extraordinary things to get players to come back.
It is not easy to wipe out an initial bad impression - you never get a second chance to make a first impression.
However, I do not quite agree with the selction criteria for playing an MMOG, but that is just me.
Market leader itself or not have no relevance, more important is whether existing gaming friends will play it as well or if it will be easy to find others to play and group with.
Games with many players and new games are more probable targets in that case if you want to find many people to play with, at least if the game is such that people level 1-2 characters to max and then play at whatever endgame there is.
Games that are more alt and replay friendly will have less of a problem, even if they are older.
Some review sites have realised that MMOGs change over time and do reviews when they have been around for a while as well, but there is definitely a need for more of that.
I started/restarted playing some MMOGs long after release - EQ2 I restarted after I left WoW and CoV/CoH after that. EQ2 was great in many ways, but I found it lacking in players that were interested in taking their time with the quests and all. Most groups I found were a bit of grinding type or farming from named mobs.
CoV/CoH has been much better in that regard, I see new players more often and easier to get groups to have fun with.
However, I do not quite agree with the selction criteria for playing an MMOG, but that is just me.
Market leader itself or not have no relevance, more important is whether existing gaming friends will play it as well or if it will be easy to find others to play and group with.
Games with many players and new games are more probable targets in that case if you want to find many people to play with, at least if the game is such that people level 1-2 characters to max and then play at whatever endgame there is.
Games that are more alt and replay friendly will have less of a problem, even if they are older.
Some review sites have realised that MMOGs change over time and do reviews when they have been around for a while as well, but there is definitely a need for more of that.
I started/restarted playing some MMOGs long after release - EQ2 I restarted after I left WoW and CoV/CoH after that. EQ2 was great in many ways, but I found it lacking in players that were interested in taking their time with the quests and all. Most groups I found were a bit of grinding type or farming from named mobs.
CoV/CoH has been much better in that regard, I see new players more often and easier to get groups to have fun with.
The only bug I remember from WoW open beta was the loot bug, where you kneel to pick up loot - but then can't stand up again. So you would slide across the ground on your knee.
Other than that I can't recall thinking that WoW needed a lot of work.
The only other problem was trying to log in like thousands (millions?) of other players were trying to do when it first launched. I even think that just made me want to play it even more. (Not saying queues are a good strategy to build up anticipation.)
Other than that I can't recall thinking that WoW needed a lot of work.
The only other problem was trying to log in like thousands (millions?) of other players were trying to do when it first launched. I even think that just made me want to play it even more. (Not saying queues are a good strategy to build up anticipation.)
We only had about a year of ... "Authenticating" before they spent the money to fix that crap.
# posted by 
: 9/4/07 19:07
: 9/4/07 19:07
I equally tested WoW and EQ2 at that time, but picked EQ2, because it just felt more like a world I wanted to live/play in instead of that comic-style world of WoW.
I don´t regret that I missed the heyday of WoW when everyone and his brother were signing up and played it. EQ2 was hard, but both players and the game adapted - now its quite fun and the game-world is so huge and so full of content.
From a buyers perspective - isn´t a game more valuable after it has been on the market for some time ? Bugs are fixed, a lot of content added over time economy and support sites all well established. Compare that with a gamed played from launch day which can be more of a roller-coaster and you might end with a game you never wanted to play.
Since some time I am thinking about buying the EQ1-Collection which is sold for $19 or so. Should give you quite a lot of stuff to play through - now if I only had some more time on my hands... ;)
I don´t regret that I missed the heyday of WoW when everyone and his brother were signing up and played it. EQ2 was hard, but both players and the game adapted - now its quite fun and the game-world is so huge and so full of content.
From a buyers perspective - isn´t a game more valuable after it has been on the market for some time ? Bugs are fixed, a lot of content added over time economy and support sites all well established. Compare that with a gamed played from launch day which can be more of a roller-coaster and you might end with a game you never wanted to play.
Since some time I am thinking about buying the EQ1-Collection which is sold for $19 or so. Should give you quite a lot of stuff to play through - now if I only had some more time on my hands... ;)
# posted by : 9/4/07 19:40
: 9/4/07 19:40
Quanity does not equal quality.
VG, EQ2, Matrix Online, and SWG don't even add up to one good game.
SOE better hope that Rome Rising proves to be the exception, and not another dog to be thrown into their all access kennel.
VG, EQ2, Matrix Online, and SWG don't even add up to one good game.
SOE better hope that Rome Rising proves to be the exception, and not another dog to be thrown into their all access kennel.
# posted by : 10/4/07 05:16
: 10/4/07 05:16
I have very high hopes for Rome Rising, with Stieg Hedlund behind it... but SOE's involvement, naturally frightens me. :P
SOE is just the publisher for Gods&Heroes, Perpetual Entertainment handles the rest.
The same can be said for Vanguard also, SOE is just the publisher. I don't think SOE can be blamed for the timing of the Vanguard release either, but I don't know the details of the agreement between SOE and Sigil. AFAIK, the Vanguard release date was set long before SOE came into the picture.
And regarding quality, I would say that EQ2 is a good quality game as it is now. The current status for the non-EQ SOE offerings is another thing though.
Post a Comment
The same can be said for Vanguard also, SOE is just the publisher. I don't think SOE can be blamed for the timing of the Vanguard release either, but I don't know the details of the agreement between SOE and Sigil. AFAIK, the Vanguard release date was set long before SOE came into the picture.
And regarding quality, I would say that EQ2 is a good quality game as it is now. The current status for the non-EQ SOE offerings is another thing though.
<< Home
