Tobold's Blog
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
 
Mass market MMORPGs

Content is king! Much of the quality, and the success that followed from that quality, of World of Warcraft can be explained by the amount of work that went into creating that virtual world. Every zone is hand-crafted, every mob hand-placed in some semblance of fantasy logic, and for each of the little corners of a zone there seems to be a quest or other reason to go there. The huge amount of work that went into WoW cost a huge amount of money, estimated to be around $50 million. By getting millions of players, that bet paid off, and Blizzard is reaping over $500 million of profits per year. And that is good, because profits like these encourage other game companies to invest similar huge sums of money into games. Of course you can make a bad game with lots of money, but it is reasonable to assume that Blizzard doesn't have a monopoly on good game design. If you look at smaller games, you often see great design ideas, and a lack of execution and polish, which is directly related to a lack of money. I mean, I love Pirates of the Burning Sea, but it sure could have used another couple of programmer and game developer man-years to polish it up.

Large investments in MMORPGs are only possible as long as you can expect large returns, which means large number of subscribers: mass market MMORPGs. That move towards the mass market comes with a design cost, as the only way to attract large numbers of subscribers is to make your game accessible for everybody. You need to lower the barriers to success until people who aren't very dedicated can overcome it. And you need to design your game in a way that people don't really need other players to advance. The original Everquest is a great game, but it clearly showed the limits you can reach with a game that needs hard work and a group to advance. World of Warcraft got 20 times more subscribers by appealing to all those people who would never have had the time to succeed in Everquest.

It is easy to deride the mass market game as being carebear or trivial, their players as soft or spoiled. But in any hobby there is only a small number of truly dedicated people willing to go to enormous lengths to achieve the ultimate result, and a much larger number of people that are just pottering around for fun. What I am not sure about is whether everybody realizes how the fact that you want a game to succeed and attract many players (and thus be financially successful and not shut down after a few months) clashes with some very reasonable wishes towards game design. My post yesterday on how I don't believe that Warhammer Online will manage to introduce meaningful PvP is based on my assumption that EA will want WAR to be a mass market game, not a niche game for hardcore PvP fans.

In a mass market game communities tend to be less tightly knit, have less cohesion. In Everquest a players reputation was still taken very seriously. You couldn't steal from your guild and expect the next guild to still invite you, like in WoW. The concept of gaining epics in one guild, making you strong enough to leave that guild and join the next more powerful one, was unheard of. You couldn't even switch servers at that time, not to mention changing your name.

Dark Age of Camelot never had more than a quarter of a million of subscribers, about half those of Everquest. It is by many considered to be the best PvP game ever. But can you translate the PvP concept of DAoC into a mass market MMORPG? Or will WAR get stuck somewhere in between two goals that are impossible to reach at the same time: having great and meaningful PvP, and appealing to millions of players? I can easily imagine WAR to come true with all their promises of PvP greatness, but only reaching a quarter or half a million of subscribers, because meaningful PvP means that the players who aren't serious about PvP and just want to play around for fun will get their nose blodied and quickly give up on the game. I can also easily imagine WAR going for the mass market, stressing soloable PvE more, and making PvP fighting for keeps a fringe activity for the top guilds (just like PvE raiding is a fringe activity for the top guilds in WoW). I can't see how WAR could reach both. I don't see how meaningful mass market PvP could happen. I think the best the PvP fans can hope for is having a great PvP sub-part of WAR for the hardcore, but structured in a way that the majority of players can live without it. It will not be "meaningful" in a way where you can really dominate another faction, because the majority of that faction will simply be able to ignore the fact that their side is losing.
Comments:
> It is easy to deride the mass market game as being carebear or trivial,
> their players as soft or spoiled. But in any hobby there is only a small
> number of truly dedicated people willing to go to enorm[ous] lengths
> to achieve the ultimate result, and a much larger number of people
> that are just pottering around for fun.

In a way I feel for the guy who wrote that post and all who agree with him.

It is natural to think of yourself as the center of the universe, part of growing up means that you come to recognise that you are not that special, you are not that unique, you do not have a god-given right to demand that the world conforms to your liking. I have played WoW since release and I just tallied up the costs of that, in total I have spent 476 euros on the game, most of that is on subscriptions of course. If I make such an investment why wouldn't I want to be the hero, even if I play fairly casually?

Is my 476 euros worth less because I haven't killed Illidan? Is my 476 euros worth more than the money a guildy of mine payed but who has never levelled a character above 60, has never raided, and doesn't do PvP?

If you want a game to have mass-market appeal you will have to find ways to keep a large diversity of players interested. Catering only to the hardcore and relegating everyone else to killing floozles is not the way to make half a billion a year. And game publishers know this.
 
People aren't going to pay 15 bucks a month to lose. In other words, WAR will have a reset feature or the losing side will eventually:

1. join the winning side
2. start over on a new server
3. quit

I agree with your assessment. WAR isn't going to be Darktide. Those days are over.
 
Yet oddly enough DAoC never had a reset feature, and at its time, it was a huge hit. Not to mention one of the three sides was always massively underpopulated, and yet somehow those people survived as well...

Far too often people confuse PvP with hardcore players. PvP is viable for casuals as well, if done right, just like you have viable hardcore PvE (raiding)
 
Yet oddly enough DAoC never had a reset feature, and at its time, it was a huge hit. Not to mention one of the three sides was always massively underpopulated, and yet somehow those people survived as well.

This is exactly what I am talking about. DAoC RvR worked because the winning side could *not* crush the losers. The main cities of DAoC were firmly in PvE-only territory, and PvE players didn't even need to care who was controlling what keep and contested zone. WAR could be a very good, and popular, game if it would end somewhere similar to that. But if they stick with their announced PvP "finale" of the winning side conquering and sacking the main city of the losing side, with serious negative consequences for the losers, a reset mechanism is the very least they will need. PvP would be more meaningful, more world changing that way, but it would also drive away the losers in droves.
 
PvE players most definitely did care who controlled Keeps in DAoC, as Keep control determined control of Darkness Falls, the only dungeon to gain the best items. It was very common for PvE players to gather up and raid a few Keeps just to gain DF access. WAR will be similar, only expended to include high end zone control as well as access to quest NPCs and vendors.

We will see if the losing side will indeed mass /quit like you predict Tobold. I'm betting (maybe hoping?) not, you seem to think they will. Time will tell.
 
"I don't see how meaningful mass market PvP could happen."


Halo is just one of many games which are 'mass market' for the PvP. Note, it has PvE in it.
 
Something i have been thinking about, is the whole PvP thing, meaning the focus on "versus". Even PvE focuses on that, in the naming structure. I know for me the fun isn't that i'm against other people, but playing "with" them, mostly on my side. I have very little "skill" when it comes to combat, so i tend not to win, but i enjoy it a lot when i play with other people. I know part of why i keep going back to WoW is that there are just so many different types of people running around, and it's always fun to interact with them or even just have them around. I think it should be important for companies to look at the with instead of the versus in their games.

but maybe that's just me.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
Newer›  ‹Older

  Powered by Blogger   Free Page Rank Tool