GDC: 10 Reasons NOT to Make MMOGs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GDC: 10 Reasons NOT to Make MMOGs

Posted by chrisd on Friday March 7, 2003 @08:08AM from the he-tasks-me dept.

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."

12 of 266 comments (clear)

and the #1 reason...... by stratjakt · 2003-03-07 08:10 · Score: 5, Funny

They suck once you realize it's just an IRC chatroom with graphics that you're paying $40 a month for.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
1. Re:and the #1 reason...... by GabrielPreston · 2003-03-07 08:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I realized this two weeks into Everquest's release and went straight back to MUDs. Least its free and I still get to kill stuff. I've yet to find an MMOG that can actually hold my attention. Too much going on, and I'm too limited to where I can play from. IRC, MUDs, whatever have you, they are accessible from anywhere, require any barebones system, and still let a person envision the game and characters in whichever way their mind chooses. People always say the book is better than the movie. The same goes for MMOG's.
I'd comment on this... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-07 08:11 · Score: 5, Funny

But I need to get back to the game, sorry.
And his most compelling reason... by NerveGas · 2003-03-07 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Please don't make them, because we don't want any more competition."

--
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
1. Re:And his most compelling reason... by feepcreature · 2003-03-07 08:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Funny :) But this quote from the article suggests otherwise, if you agree with the analysis.
  Walton wasn't giving the talk because he wanted the industry to quit trying. In fact, just the opposite: he expressed an inherent human need for community that goes unfulfilled in modern society, and how online games can fill that basic need while uniting people with similar interests.
  However, he expressed his fears that the market is stagnating, and a series of poor product launches could make it even worse...
  
  Which seems like a reasonable concern!
  
  --
  Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
Its like any other product! by grahamsz · 2003-03-07 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you are only going to make a half-assed attempt then you may as well not bother.

Surely the brightest minds in game development dont need someone standing up there telling them that massive online multiplayer games aren't as easy as single player ones?! .. if they do then we're probably all doomed
Two things: by Wind_Walker · 2003-03-07 08:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

First off, that guy looks like the Heaven's Gate cult leader from a few years ago. The bald head really does it for me.
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.
MMOCR by Joe+the+Lesser · 2003-03-07 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Massively Multiplayer Online ChatRoom ;)

Seriously, these games need to be made so they have a real point, and so that people will not get so attached to them. I'm sick of seeing my friends drop out of classes because they'd rather wait two hours for an imaginary dragon to spawn so they can cast the same spell over and over again and after another half hour they die and sit around waiting for someone to resurrect them.

I have a friend who's 65th level on EQ. (Currently the highest possible so he says proudly). He's also a year behind in his studies, and has had bouts of depression and alchololism (due to his lack of social life) for the past three years.

Pardon the sudden rant, but why can't there be an actuall MMOG that people can spend, oh, 1-3 hours on a week instead of 10-30 hours a week and still have fun.

--
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
1. Re:MMOCR by Geaty · 2003-03-07 08:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I strongly agree with you here. What is needed is a more "casual" MMOG, where you don't need to stop eating to become successful in. There was something in the article about UO and EQ being developed for users to pay on an hourly basis, so perhaps long spawn times are a relic of that system.
  If you make it too "casual" however, and people can pop in and out at will, you lose some of the point of the game, the community and the relationships needed to succeed. In a game like this, they only groups you'd see doing things would be people that know each other from RL, so whats even the point of playing? Hey that sounds like Diablo 2, huh?
  
  --
  All I ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Using the wrong business model?? by reality-bytes · 2003-03-07 08:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

He mentions in the article how 'old business models' aren't suitable for online games; reffering to the pre-packaged product.

Surely the answer then is to develop a new business model adapted to the new market?
Is this too blindingly obvious? (I would think he mentions this in the seminar although its not in the article)

"And don't call me Shirley!"

--
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
A big reason left out... by Tofino · 2003-03-07 08:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

A huge reason for not making a MMORPG, especially on a shoestring, is that your game at release cannot possibly hope to compete with games that have been balancing and adding content for a year, or three, or more.
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.
Interesting comment about shorter gameplay. by TheKodiak · 2003-03-07 08:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

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]=-