Slashdot Mirror
GDC: 10 Reasons NOT to Make MMOGs
Warrior-GS writes "Gordon Walton, who helped create such games as Ultima Online and the Sims Online, is at the Game Developers Conference giving a seminar on "Ten Reasons You Don't Want to Run a Massively Multiplayer Online Game". GameSpy has been providing coverage of GDC, with several game previews and several conference reports. They also have a hands-on report of the Nokia N-Gage from four of their editors, and a somewhat unorthodox report of the Game Developer Choice Awards, where Metroid Prime was named Game of the Year. The convention continues through Saturday."
Why should MMPORPGs be restricted? These things are perfect for dropping GPAs, especially for freshmen at high-pressure universities like Cal Tech and MIT where numerous freshmen who've never had an internet connection finallu get a chance to play "Quake" or "Everquest" at 1+GBPs or something ridiculous. I remember one of my friends at Vanderbilt got slapped with academic probation and complained that he had no time to get his work done in Engineering. Six-Eight hours a day of Counterstrike and Ultima Online will put a crimp in the ol' calendar. And it becomes like an electronic crack or alcohol for the users, especially if they're anti-social or unpopular to begin with. Trying to tell them they have a problem only leads to fights and arguments. Oh well, regulating these things is almost out of the question entirely but there should be careful consideration of how to deal with the "addicts" and how to best manage these systems.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Secondly, and more seriously, he brings up valid points. I just started playing Asheron's Call 2 last month as part of a psychology experiment run by the University of Michigan. I found that the lower level game was very intense and packed with content, but as I gained levels over the course of a month, the content tapered off and turned into merely hack-and-slash. This makes sense, because the game is only a few months old and should thus have more content for low levels than high.
Unfortunately, high levels are relatively easy to attain. I played for 1 month, a few hours a night, and I'm currently at level 32, right where the content stops. But there are people who were level 50 only 3 weeks after the game was launched. What do they do now? They sit around, or create alternate characters until the 50 level cap is released.
You hear that sound? Every massively multiplayer game maker is suddenly trying to switch business plans to moderately-multiplayer, cloning Battlefield 1942. BF1942 is hugely popular, so it "makes sense" to do something like that.
Of course, like lemmings, there'll be a few dozen BF1942 clones, and most will die due to too much competition.
Game makers: go AWAY from what's suddenly popular.
His points are quite interesting, but the question I have is that if no one gets into the arena (and obviously 100 is a lot) then who will supply the demand? He has obviously figured out what challenges there are, but you have to be able to overcome them, because there is such a huge demand for interactive group fantasy. People want to escape.
What about a decentralized approach. A grid based or peer to peer for persistant worlds. You might have to increase the bandwith to double check nodes and the like to prevent hacking, but some of the problems (DOS, investment in infrastructure) would go away.
In the world we live in we can only see clearly and understand the world that is near by, that doesn't mean we have to be connected to a server that is one giant persistant world. There could be areas of the world hosted on several region peers. The client would be required to take on some function of the world and it could be totally decentralized.
Any thoughts comments?
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
The world is too static. I can imagine a space game like this one that allows people to travel all over the place, trying to find new things. Granted, it's impossible to allow an infinite amount of places to explore and stuff, but they simply have to start rotating servers, starting the exploration from zero again every once in a while...not let the game get stagnant as it seems to be now.
This follows exactly from what this guy says. To make a game world that's as dynamic and as exciting as I would want would require a huge amount of support, something a lot of people would like to see, but not something that a lot of people would like to pay for.
I guess that those ten reasons to not make an MMOG are simply those, but the more people that waste their time and money trying to make it better, eventually will bring along, not to use a silly pop-culture reference, 'the one' that brings it all together. Then we'll be rocking as everyone else will have to copy that one to make success for themselves.
well, here's hoping that afer the earth and beyond team moves they can start to juice up the sci-fi world they have created in such a way that they really impress people. I've got my fingers crossed.
A good example of this is Asheron's Call 2 vs. the original Asheron's Call. AC2 is a beautiful game that you can run through and just appreciate, while AC1's graphics are merely functional. AC2 has brand spanking new crafting and town building systems, while AC1 has the same old ones. AC2 offers individualized dungeons so groups can go hunting and questing without running into packed "camped" dungeons, and AC1 does not.
Which game has more subscribers and active players? AC1, by a wide margin, despite never having received anything in the way of advertising from Microsoft (as opposed to AC2 which was widely and aggressively marketed). AC1 simply has more content -- more stuff to do. It may not be eye candy like AC2, but the eye candy effect wears off after a week or two anyway. To catch up to AC1's three years of monthly (free) expansions, AC2 would have to -- well, be out three years. Or hire a MUCH larger content team (the AC2 content team is basically the old AC1 content team).
EQ2 will face the same problem compared to EQ1. People are going to buy EQ2, go "ooh, ahh", log in, appreciate New Freeport's amenities, walk outside and fight a couple of rats, and go back to their level 65 guys in EQ. Why would they want to level up on rats again in a game with 1/10 the content of EQ?
Games without the brand recognition of AC and EQ have it even worse off. Dark Age of Camelot somewhat sidestepped this phenomenon because they were the first "next generation" MMORPG out of the gate (Anarchy Online was too buggy at release, so doesn't count ;)), and got the disgruntled AC/EQ/UO players. The newer games, such as Shadowbane, have a LOT to live up to. Current MMORPG players will compare everything to their current game, and if the new game doesn't REALLY shine, they have no reason to leave. They have too much time invested in their characters. And The Sims Online's tepid sales show that the market isn't ready to expand much yet -- you're dealing with the same bundle of players that you have to lure away from their current addiction.
It's interesting that he mentions shorter gameplay - one of the online games I've enjoyed the most is (Although not an online RPG) Magic: The Gathering online. I really like it because I can sit down, log on, play a game, and log back out - all in the space of 10 minutes. There's no "I need to go get something to drink, let me wait for a 30 second logout animation, a 20 second 'connecting to character server' screen, and then another 20 second login animation when I get back," and there's no "I want to play, but it's going to take me 10 minutes to get my character ready to play, and another 5 minutes to run to the place I want to hunt (or another 10 minutes to try to find a ride there) and then there's really no point if I don't play for at least 20 minutes."
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
In truth, sony pours TONS of money into Everquest. Their bandwidth alone is huge. Add onto that that they have a full development team for dealing with the implimented game, (the live team: fixes bugs, etc), and then another whole development team that builds expansions and such to add content. They are contuiously changing the core code of the game, (such to add features not implimented in the original game such as 2 new user interfaces since the game was released).
They have 50ish servers compromising, (from what I understand), of roughly 30 computers per server, which means for every patch they are possibly updating around 1500. (Though it should be noted that I doubt they patch every computer every patch.) Also, these servers are located in both the United States and in Europe. And they are expected to have minor patches done in 2 hours, major patches, (for things such as expansions), done in 8. And no loss of any amount of data, (such as what character has which items), is tollerated in any way. Because of this their network administration must be near flawless.
Now lets look at what we have down the pipe. We have games that are being thrown together by people who come from single player games instead of MUDs and D&D. We have people who design games with out the backing of the enormious companies it takes to supply the capital required for a 4 to 5 year development cycle, implimentation of the enormious amount of hardware, the marketting, and the payroll for the support staff. We have people who don't realize that they must either be perfect at what they do, (see blizzard), or tap a previously untapped nitch, (Star Wars Galaxies) of MMoG potential. It would be wise that they make sure that the nitch exists and that the model for advancement in the game actually holds water first though (The Sims: Online).
In the end, we will have many companies that put 2/3rds of the work and money into making the games all competing with each other for a very small populace of people who are not already commited to as many games as they can afford time wise and monitarily. Most of them will die out, just like the dot-com bust.
But many games will pervail. Star Wars Galaxies will likely be as big, if not bigger than Everquest. Worlds of Warcraft shows amazing promise. Horizons seems to be a crowd favorite. And whatever product is being build by Sigil will be one of the leading contenders. (For those who don't know, the company is run by the people who made the decisions about Everquests form and is funded by microsoft. They also have recruited alot of the senior staff that had previously worked for the Everquest team.)
But with the majority of the market for Online RPGs and D&D type worlds already accounted for through Everquest, (or soon to be picked up by the above mentioned games), Developers better have a spot for their game to fit and they better do a DAMN good job of designing it, populating it, and supporting it if they plan on recouping their losses.
I do security
I never have been into MMO (Massive Multi-Player Onlines) and I'll tell you why:
1) Recycled games themes; You get either Dungeon and Dragons or Future Space SciFi. No one is really breaking out of the box on this. Of the 100 games on the market, they fall into these two catagories.
2) Too restrictive, Narrow play. Stop making the game so static. Just make a world that has rules and let the players do the rest. Don't make it so you have to do missions to advance.
If players want to be in a clan that raids other clans, then let it be. You can make protection zones (No fighting in the zones), but once out of the zone, go at it. For exmaple, let players set the price of items by supply and demand.
I am still waiting for a Fallout (Post apocalyptic) style MMOG where I can be evil or nice or anything in between. Just create the world and let the players do the rest.
Linux O Muerte!
I've contemplated this idea for a long time (I've run a mud for several years now).
With a good set of rules, I think its possible:
1.) Remove levels. Everything is based on attributes and skills.
2.) Put in aging (including death date from old age, character is gone forever).
3.) Allow players, on creation, to start from either a young age, middle age, or old age.
You're maniac 50+hours a week players will go for the young age, and can build up better skills when they reach a middle age than any player that starts at middle age. You're 'casual' players start at an older age, which includes a ton of skills, have fun, but don't have to worry about really working on skill development or getting thrashed by the maniac players.
And if maniacs stay maniacs, they'll eventually die.
Of course, this won't work well with games that require tons of monthly fees, because your maniacs give you your steady income, but its a great idea for free games like MUDs, etc...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
This guy has got this issue right on.
I worked for a computer gaming software development company called Maximum Charisma Studios in 2001-2002. I was the systems and network engineer, doing all of the production and corporate infrastructure -- desktops, servers, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, WAN and LAN networking.
Maximum Charisma actually produced their first software title called Fighting Legends to store shelves, which was a huge accomplishment considering that we were independent. We had Sony manufacture the CDs and a few other things, but we handled distribution. We outsourced some customer service agents for the anticipated needs of customers, but that was about it. The company consisted of about 30 people at it's height.
Fighting Legends was supposed to be a Multiplayer Online Real Time Strategy (MMORTS) game. It required a network connection that I metered out to be an average of something like 25Kbps bursting to 80Kbps per user for the persistent connection. Latency was a big issue, with the edge of enjoyment being about 250ms.
There was trouble with Fighting Legends. The big mistake was design. The game was designed poorly because the company was inexperienced. It lacked story, it lacked refinement of play, and it lacked fun. The game was not fun, so nobody played it. I know the actual statistics of how many players we had, how many at one time, etcetera, but I am not going to quote them. Instead I will just say that we didn't have enough.
The overhead to keep the company going without the subscription cost meeting the break even point is what killed the company. We could have gotten more money, we could have really cut down on spending, we could have probably made it for the second title if it was not for the overhead costs of Fighting Legends. It was the data center costs that were the killer -- $900 per month per cabinet, and about $5K+ per month for power data and other service costs.
Maximum Charisma took about 2.5 years of development time. The product was on the shelf on November 1st of 2001. The company called it quits on January 29th 2002, even though the servers stayed up for almost two months after.
Here are is a picture from Maximum Charisma Studios of our data cabinets. This is off of a 1.5Mbps VDSL line, so be wary. And don't even tell me about cable management. We got those 65 some odd servers out of box, software loaded, and in the rack within 72 hours. It was a break neck operation. As for the hardware costs of all of this equipment that you see, it was something like $450K -- I still have the receipts to prove it.
http://www.Opendreams.net/jesse/images/Maxim
Here is the Maximum Charisma death notice;
http://pc.ign.com/articles/354/354578p1.
mrnick posted the list of reasons given in the article. I feel these are all things an open source model would address well:
...eventually code and experts will leak out into the open source sector. Once the tons of people required to code these monsters realize they could get paid to write one that will fail or donate a few spare hours to one that will last the ages, enough may donate some time to make an open source one viable. ...but with open source development an artist can say "gee the art sucks...I'll redraw it" and an programmer can say "gee the AI sucks...I'll rewrite it" ...can't get bigger than the whole user base ...so you give it away for free or if you don't, just go through a service like PayPal or something. I would pay for an open source MMORPG because I can't possibly host the whole thing myself - but my friends and I could get together and host it (see below). ...so you don't use a Packaged-Goods company ...thus don't use those people to write it. Sure the current MMORPG's have serious problems - problems they likely won't worry about working out. But in an open source context, many more ideas can be tried and we can see what survives. ...thus don't deliver it as a commercial good. Let 1000 people host games and the strongest will survive. ...so have no CS. The example given is players loosing items. If it pisses you off that you are loosing items, rewrite the code so you *don't* loose items. If it pisses you off that you can't find a monster, or an item, look at the code and find out how the system works. Should that system be changed? ...which would be relieved if we didn't *pay* for a service ...so distribute the costs over many, many people: let me host one "zone" on a spare Linux box in the corner and my friend Dave will host one zone on his spare box and so on. Sure, we will not be able to have 500 people in one zone at one time, but is that a bad thing?
10: Too Many are Being Built
9: It Requires a Mastery of Too Many Disciplines
8: A Huge Team is Required
7: Getting a Credit Card from a Customer is Hard
6: The Online Industry is Counter-Intuitive to Packaged-Goods Company Management
5: Everything You Know about Single-Player Games is Wrong
4: The Internet Sucks as a Commercial Delivery Platform
3: Customer Service is Hard
2: There are Lots of Legal Issues
1: They Cost Too Much money to Build and Launch!
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Just a thought: i rented Animal Crossing from blockbuster a couple of days ago, and it really does a good job of fitting what you describe.
The game is basically The Sims, except from the perspective of a Sim rather than the perspective of God. The game takes place in realtime-- it works off the Gamecube's internal clock-- and even if you aren't there, stuff happens and changes in the town.
The reason the game is interesting is that after the 30-40 minute tutorialish session of setting up a new character, it is basically designed such to make you want to play it for about ten minutes every day-- however, after about ten minutes, there really won't be much to do. You basically sign on to see if anything changed in the town, see if you got any mail, check with your neighbors and see what's up, *maybe* do something to get some money to help toward eventually paying your mortgage and see what's new in the store. And then there really isn't much else to do, usually, unless you want to just sit around and fish. This is brilliant becuase it keeps you from getting sick of it. And, of course, every few days something will actually be *happening*, or every so often you'll decide to plant some trees, and you'll be playing for a couple hours maybe. But you generally won't overdose on it: you can't sit through and experience the entire game in one solid weeklong gaming session. The game *forces* you to take it in small bites, yet ensures there is something special worth signing on for every single day-- yet doesn't *penalize* you if you just stop playing for a month.
This is an example the MMORPG world would do well to follow. As you note, a system like this would lead to some community "issues", but it would make content creation, system maintenence, etc, an order of magnitude easier.
Interestingly, shigeru miyamotu is on record as saying that Animal Crossing 2 will have "network support". I assume this means internet support. As of now, it's possible to "take the train" to a friend's town with your character if you either borrow their memory card with their saved town on it, "take the boat" to an "island" if you plug in a GBA with the GBA version of animal crossing saved on it. I'm very curious how they'd implement internet features.. it could wind up being like a kind of p2p MMORPG.
(Note to everyone: make sure if you rent this game, you either have a spare memory card or rent it from somewhere that includes with the rental the memory card that came with the game. An animal crossing savefile takes up a full 57-block memory card.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts