Slashdot Mirror
MMORPG: Money, Money, Money
JTacomis writes "There's an
interesting
article up at Business 2.0 magazine about Sony Online and EverQuest.
It says that EverQuest makes Sony over $5 million a month. Star Wars
Galaxies is expected to make even more than that. It's a long and in-depth
articles that takes us through the whole back-story to EverQuest. One
interesting fact: EverQuest almost didn't get made. According to the
article, the idea was originally turned down inside of Sony."
I'm just not sure whether 5 million a month is a lot ... it doesn't seem like it would be a lot for a company the size of Sony. And if the Star Wars game gets popular, you have to expect that a lot of it will come at the expense of cannibalizing the Everquest ranks. MMORPGs, like MUDs, after all, require a very particular type of person to pay to play.
With all the MMORPGs in development, I think people are going to play more diverse games. And since, playing a MMORPG takes a lot of time, people aren't going to play more than 1 or 2 at a time. So either all those new MMORPGs aren't going to be popular or the current big ones are going to lose a lot of customers.
True warriors use the Klingon Google
Or, more likely, you will be able to play as a Gungan (or whatever he is) Imagine it - hordes of little kids with their parents credit cards, swarming you with their characters, blocking the only way out with their dead bodies. I'd pay a lot of money to see loads of dead Jar-Jars.
In Ultima Online, you can now change your character name, which was previously fixed. But, quess what, it costs $29.99. Can you believe it!! A simple DB query, I believe. Sheesh.
Yeah, a lot of projects are initially turned down for business investment ONLY because they suck.
You see, a business project needs to be shown to be profitable (in the short or long term), and if the original business plan didn't drive that point home, well, it'd be rejected by management. Plus the original business plan would have had to fit into Sony's core business model. If not (and this plan did not!), the plan would have to be much more detailed and robust.
It isn't that management is always stupid - most executives get dozens of business plans thrown in front of them every week. They have to pick and choose the most likely to succeed.
After all, it doesn't make anyone look good if $10 million was "lost" in a business plan that most senior executives would laugh at.
It's kind of like FedEx. We all know that business plan only got a "C" at Harvard Business School. But the fact is, it should have gotten an "F". As a business plan, it sucked. Sure, in the end it turned out to be a wildly successful and profitable business... but the initial business plan could be summed up as "likely to be a failure".
Would you rather pay $150-$200 for a game and not have monthly charges, or pay $40 for a game and $12.95 a month to play it? I think MMORPG's would be more successful, in the terms of user numbers, if they would stop charging by the month. Maybe that's why some people are still playing MUD's and MUCKing around....
-Tolerate my intolerance
Ideas that have "almost" been turned down by Sony are legend, the point about Sony has always been that they tend to take a punt on this "possible" cases rather than doing the standard corporate drone concept of "doesn't look like something we've done before".
As the recently departed (as in dead) chairman said of the Walkman "if we'd asked focus groups we'd never have made it". They've also almost not invented CDs almost didn't get into the console market etc etc etc.
Sony are the company that doesn't kick itself years later saying "damn we though of that why didn't we try it".
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I think what is interesting is that the flat-fee model rewards playing a lot -- I guess these companies have balanced out server loads with making sure the game is popular. More people playing for long periods of time = better word of mouth, happier players, more $10-15/m in the future.
For the record, I only ever played Ultima Online and I think I got to be a Noble Master Warrior, all on a friend's account and PC. I played so much I made him fail freshman comp sci and drop out of school. So beware! Don't let me play Star Wars, say, at your work, or you'll be fired!
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Blizzard is on the other side of the spectrum in terms of how they make profit. They initially charged $60 for Warcraft III.
It reportedly sold one million copies, which means roughly $60 million - about as much as Verant makes in a year with Everquest.
If Blizzard plans to sell Worlds of Warcraft, their massively multiplayer version of Warcraft for about the same retail price, they've got a huge cash cow waiting for them, especially with the current trends of higher monthly pricing for MMORPGS - from $10 to $12.95.
(Assuming they can get it out before the market becomes stuffed with major contenders such as Star Wars, Everquest 2, and Asheron's Call 2)
This becomes much more of an issue as the market becomes riddled with next-generation MMO-Games (I believe we're at the 3rd or 4th gen. right now).
The big three used to be Asheron's Call, Everquest, and Ultima Online. More recently there are challengers such as Anarchy Online, Dark Ages of Camelot and that one space-age MMORTS game. While all have acheived a significant user base due to its hype, they don't seem to have the stability that the "big 3" still manage to maintain.
I've played all three of the big 3, and it is truly difficult to balance between even two of them, playing 8-10 hours daily.
Getting back to the original point - the upcoming MMOers will need to rely on more than hype, as can be seen by the current offerings. Hopefully they've learned the lesson by the launch of Anarchy Online.
As for the current big ones - it's slowly getting to the point where the only players are the dedicated ones, so there shouldn't be much of an "mass exodus" when new ones appear - probably more of a gradual one.
No, I have no idea why I wrote this much at 5am.
When the whole concept of MMORPGs was explained to me, I thought "Wow, this is pretty cool!" But when I was told that I would have to pony up $10 a month after paying $50 for the game, as long as CS and Battlenet are still out there, I think I'll pass.
Don't get me wrong, more power to these guys, but really, we're talking about the same mentality behind selling heroin, except that the first hit isn't free. Now if the game was a free downloadable, I might consider it. Hats off to these guys for the scam of the century, but my money is going towards something without ongoing expenses.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Any death is tragic, any death. Are we to now limit our lives because of some that are irresponsible and undisciplined? Look at automobile fatalaties, should we all walk (it would do us fatties some good :)
I don't think that saying anything related to your statement is fair or accurate, as it implies that the existence of the game killed that kid. While sickenly enough it might testify to the power of interactive gaming, the reality is that it did not _cause_ any harm (the game that is). Plus, we are not talking about anything that is inherantly dangerous in and of itself. You take motorcrossing, that is rather dangerous but many do it (it's loads of fun). You have your skydiving, skateboarding, baseball, softball, swimming, diving, hiking, camping, etc.
I think you are making the same mistake many of the gray haired gentlemen on the hill make, that of confusing something new with being a totally new idea instead of a new implementation. Even once we get full immersion (VR and the like) with full sensory i/o, that will be just a new implementation.
The real problem with ideas as yours are that it also implies that humans are incapable of thinking for themselves and acting in their best interest. Perhaps what we should all focus on is teaching our youth the lost art of responsibility and accountability that the baby boomers sold out for orgies and drugs. When a society trully cherishes the individual above all else, then as a consequence it will fight harder to protect the individual. The individual will be stronger (sort of a learned social darwinism) and synergistically add to the strength of the whole society. However if we sell our individuality for rhetoric, sound bites and temporary convenience then we become like the sheep who is stalked by the wolf. The sheep better hope that shepard can be all places at all times.
I seem to remember a case where a mother sued MTV over Beavis and Butthead because of Beavis's constant infatuation with fire (more often the word than anything he himself did). one of her kids set fire to the house and died along with a brother and the remaining brother had severe inhalation and burn damage. Sadly for the kids (and this sets a precedence), the children were left unsupervised OFTEN like this while the mother was either trolling for that week's latest boyfriend, or was busy testing the mattresses with said boyfriend in another room. An avid smoker and drinker, there was not a place in the house that lighters, cigarettes and highly flamable spirits were not easily accessable. The children, whom never should have been allowed to watch the show in the first place, had a short history of near arson accidents before. However that stopped not the flagrant negligence of the gold digging demon that was their mother. Some day she will wake up in her cozy bed, in her well equiped bedroom which overlooks her swimming pool in the lush neighborhood all bought for by the MTV winnings. She will wake up and scream until someone stops her. She will scream because it will dawn on her what a terrible monster she is.
However, back to earth now. The point is self reliance and responsibility. The game is no more at fault for anything like this, than is the drugs at fault for the addict.
I've played all three of the big 3, and it is truly difficult to balance between even two of them, playing 8-10 hours daily.
What?! You play a game for 10 hours a day? As a habit?! Good god, man.
I can't believe you ponder the difficulty of "balancing between two games" like pondering the difficulty between balancing work and family.
I remember years ago when the very first Sim City came out. I thought it was great game. I wasted too much time on it. I realized once that had spent 7 hours in one sitting playing that game. I deleted the game from my system and haven't been a game player since.
But, holy shit, to repeatedly play any game, or any number of games for 8-10 hours a day, strikes me as dysfunctional. Is this typical for gamers? How do you get anything else done?
This post sounds like a flame or a troll, but it's not. That post just threw me for a loop.
Software Wars
I find MMPORPG's really annoying. I find the people annoying, I find the experience annoying, and I find paying for the annoyance annoying.
I loved EQ for the first 3 months of play, but realized I just don't have the time to focus on 'levelling' and after accomplishing my first big quest and getting a nift item, I realized everyone will do that quest, kill that monster, get that item. My actions don't change the world one iota.
So I gave up and waited for DAoC. It at least allowed the world to be affected through the PvP/realm vs realm option, which was a cool concept. I played, found a group of people to play with who played in character and didn't metagame -- but of course they all played 4-6 hours a day while I could only play 4-6 hours a week. Thus they quickly increased in level and I didn't, which means I couldn't join them on group adventures because I wouldn't get any xp.
Now we come to Neverwinter Nights which so far is exactly what I've always wanted. I can create the world, I can play in the world with other people, and our actions can change the world. And I don't have to be annoyed by yet another meaningless online wedding/funeral/whatever.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Finally a subject where I feel I can safely contribute. :)
;)
:)
:)
;)
I've spent a few years in the MMP (Massively Multi Player) arena so I think I know my way around. As founder and CEO of Nevrax, where I initiated the Ryzom RPG and the NeL technological platform, I've had plenty of time to reflect on the state of this industry.
First let me say that MMPs are an entirely different class of video games. The technology, the gameplay dynamics, almost everything is different. It just happened that the game industry got its hands on them first because it had the closest ties, but it could have been otherwise.
The most important thing to remember is that MMPs have a radically different business model.
In the traditional game industry you create a game, put it a box, then try to move as many boxes you can in the few month the public stays interested. It's a product oriented business.
The typical business plan for a studio is:
1- Convince publisher to finance the production of a game
2- Try to make a small profit in the process
3- Make some royalties (maybe) if the game is hugely successful
4- Start all over again
This is not very different from what goes on in the music business or in the movie business. Basically to make it simple, the author/studio gets a lousy deal from the publisher/distributor who gets to reap all the benefits.
The MMP industry could - it's not there yet, but it will eventually - be very different.
An MMP producer creates a virtual environment, then sells access to this environment. It's a service oriented business.
A simplified business plan for an MMP producer could be:
1- Create a Massively Multi Player Game
2- Make the client software as easily accessible as possible
3- Sell access to the MMP on a recurrent basis
4- Profits!
5- Keep improving your MMP over time > expand user base > more profits!
This would be the equivalent of a musician cutting the middle man and selling his music straight on the Internet. With one enormous advantage: An MMP producer has no fear of having the client software copied since all that does is expand his potential user base. Whatever you do, you *have* to pay if you want to get the experience.
Which is, IMHO, the reason why so many people are whining about the subscription fees. It's not that it's too expensive (12$/month for 20H of entertainment time in average is cheap compared to say, movies), it's just that they can't freeload anymore.
My guess is, in the coming years, there will be a real distinction appearing between traditional studios (doing regular PC and console games) and companies building MMPs.
Now back to the current game industry.
The hardest part with the model I just described is making "step 1" happen while still retaining the control of your creation. That, from my painful experience, means avoiding to be financed by either game publishers or vulture capitalists, as they will find a way to wrest control from you. The problem, as it has been said before, is that making a professional MMPs is expensive.
Sure, they are ways to get the numbers down if you know the trade secrets, but it's still going to be expensive.
That's where Free Software can help.
My initial idea for Nevrax was that Free Software and MMPs were a perfect match.
You get all the benefits of Free Software, but keep a strong business model where you can avoid having a competitor piggyback on your work as you stay in control of all the "data" (art assets mostly).
One of the big cost associated to running an MMP is due to maintenance. Also, having a robust tech on launch helps a lot. Those are things that Free Software can help alleviate tremendously. This is why we created NeL. A Free Software engine for MMPs.
As an added benefit, now that I am starting a new company out of the hands of the VCs, I can freely reuse all the tech we did at Nevrax. My software development costs just got divided by a factor of 10. Imagine that...
And the best thing is: you can do it to!
One last thing I would like to say to people who think that Everquest & co are boring and ugly: you are right. But real communities formed around these games, and that's what is truly fascinating about MMPs. As time goes, you will see MMPs that are more and more geared towards fostering these online communities, and less and less "games" in the sense that we understand it today. Just because you don't see the point of playing today, doesn't mean that you won't see the point of playing tomorrow...
And I know I'll be working hard to make that happen !
What I would add is this: first, there are different mixtures if community and game that should be recognized, IMHO. This is an aspect of not just the game but the type of gamer. Many really do play for the community. There are many online chat communities that have an almost occult following, yet there is no interactive gaming. Look at the old BBS's. They added some games as afterthoughts, and when they did good it was usually because of a well designed (or just luck) integration and use of said community into the game itself.
Which leads to my second comment. I feel that many of these games are a horribly made collage instead of a well engineered system of parts. While it is not new for this (movies and single player games) method of plugging in something as an afterthought in the hopes of attracting more people, the aspect of community is just now beginning to dawn on many designers' minds. Again... my opinion. (I feel I have to say that because of lurking trolls and other over sensitive folk :)
To date, I have felt like these games are basically a graphical click fest game, overlaid with a chat room. That is great for many, but what about a true immersive world? Instead of a lame situation of "Hey, lets go raid Dungeon X" to which thousands of raids have already happened, along with current raids yet the environment never seems to acknowledge this, how about raiding a group of orcs that are players (most of them maybe)? They will definitely react to continual raids by dying, leaving or changing tactics like fortifying and having patrols.
Basically, the problem I see is that the MMG's created to date are entirely too inflexible, limited and predictable so as to not work with the community aspect. It seems all the focus has been placed on things like shield symbols, colors of clothes and little cute floaty name things that tell what 'Guild' you are in. However, what about making a real community? I think that making it more natural and cutting back on the 'safety net' of unrealistic protections for players and their property is the main problem. Imagine if you will a mountain that is found to have rich veins of gold and high quality iron. Soon, many miners will settle there. However, where will they keep their stuff when selling unless a trade and logistics system is setup. Those trade carts sure are easy picking for evil characters/npc's! So they will need guards, or even better clear the surrounding areas. Soon, depending on choices and the environment an entire town will emerge that could become a kingdom based on its control of arms and trade in the region.
Now compare this situation to what has been presented mostly to date. You have a very fake system of housing to where once you plop that house down, it invulnerable to harm, intrusion, etc. You just eliminated some naturally occurring quests and fun because of that. Sure you might have some static NPC that besides never leaving the same spot EVER and repeating their dialog/mantra endlessly without change will give a fake quest to find the 'orcish burgler' and return his magic gem of village shielding. Yet when you perform this mission, you are given a coin or two and NOTHING CHANGES. You will come across that orc later, as will someone else.
Making a truly dynamic questing system is hard, but they make it harder because they hard code it all. Instead of just feeling for the game environment, the quests should integrate with it and be a part of the change. Quests should be based perhaps on economy, or security, or such, not hard coded to one particular 'named critter.'
Well that is my rant and raving on this, forgive me if it is too odd or too long.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
You're right about EQ being terribly unfun to anybody not hooked to it and how it's like crack to most of the regular players.
My personal addiction to EQ lasted 2.5 years - from launch in March of '99 to 9/11 of last year. Yes 9/11 was the event that made me realize what EQ really is: a banal, empty escape from reality.
I played on Mithaniel Marr, which is home to 'Afterlife', one of the most powerful guilds in the game. I wasn't in AL, but I used to visit Afterlife's website just to check out their accomplishments.
Afterlife is for hardcore addicts only, the degree of their addiction must be mind boggling considering most of them play every single day 6 to 8 hours a day(or more). They literally have thousands of hours 'invested' in addiction, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of their characters had a 'played' time of 300 real world days or more.
True to form they held a raid on the evening of 9/11, as nothing was going to keep them from their addiction, not evening the most horrifying attack on this country since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41.
Something about that really disgusted me, as it made it painfully clear for once and for all that EQ is an addiction that's just as harmful as an addiction to alcohol or drugs.
I never mentioned this to anyone on the discussion boards. I just quietly came to the conclusion that for the sake of my own health and welfare I needed to leave the game.
Initially I considered just taking a break for a couple of weeks, but I never played EQ again after 9/11. In early October I logged on for the last time and gave all of my items and wealth to a couple of my closest in game friends. Once my characters were stripped I said my goodbyes and bid the world of Norrath farewell. I immediately camped out and deleted my characters(56 War, 56 Shm, 46 Mnk) to make sure I wouldn't be tempted to come back.
It wasn't easy, but it turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made.
Its been nearly a year since I left behind the world of Norrath. I don't have too many regrets since I always had a love/hate relationship with the game. In the end I decided the negative aspects outweighed the positive and that it just wasn't worth wasting my time.
Since then I still occasionally play computer games, like Civ III, Medal of Honor, or RTCW, but they don't take over my life like the way EQ did. I started riding my bike again in March for fun/exercise, which helped my lose about 30 lbs of mush that I put on while playing EQ. I'm generally much more social with my friends in the real world, and I've even started dating again. I read a lot more and find it much easier to think clearly now that my mind isn't in a constant EQ induced haze.
Being away from EQ has made me realize that reality is infinitely much more interesting and bizarre than anything I ever did in Norrath. Addictive MMORPGS such as EQ are ultiamtely a poor substitute for 'reality', 'community' or 'relationships'.
This more than anything is the reason why I think MMORPGS will always be a niche category. Americans are already overworked and suffering from a society fraying at the seams. The last thing we need is a mass escape from reality that encourages people to once and for all drop out from society.
Will most people will realize that it just isn't worth it?
I'm not so sure..
While yo did make money, you only made $70 off of six months of work. Even working at Starbucks for minimum wage, you'd at least make a few thousand with the same time investment.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I suspect this thing will have a huge churn rate. 90% of the users will drop out within a month. Remember the last time Lucas overestimated the fanaticism of his fans? 80 Billion Tons of Jar Jar Merchandise now 70% Off.
With a movie-inspired game, everybody wants to go to the places from the movie. That's going to be a problem for an MMORPG. Sure, you can have a huge number of instances of the universe (shards), but then, what's the point of having a big shared online universe? Either the world is mostly empty, the world doesn't let you go where you want to, or there are lines like Disneyland on a bad day.