Slashdot Mirror
Making An MMOG For The Masses
Thanks to GameSpy for their article exploring whether massively multiplayer games can ever break into the mainstream. The piece starts by contrasting EverQuest's 460,000 subscribers with other media, saying: "What EverQuest is not, however, is a mass-market success. J.K. Rowling sold over nine million copies of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix this summer. Michael Jackson sold 25 million copies of 'Thriller.'" It goes on to analyze mass-market MMOG attempts such as the still-profitable, but disappointing The Sims Online, which Sims creator Will Wright says "...was the poster child for massively multiplayer games going wrong with the mass market", and Richard Garriott also comments: "...though the high concept was fabulous, [The Sims Online] suffocated under its own development weight."
The masses are not going to sit around and play MMORPG's all day, and shut out the rest of the world.
But then again, nobody would have thought in 1910 that the nation would be a land of overweight couch potatos either.
I ran across this game, BatleMaster, a while back. It's a light-weight online RPG - you just log in once or twice a day, and play for 15 minutes, max. Fun, and quite addictive.
Takes a little getting used to, so stick it out for at least a few days, and you'll be hooked.
Click here to see such a mog.
Harry Potter and Thriller are extreme examples of successful products. Most books/albums don't sell as many copies.
I'm not going to research this but just for the sake of argument, let's say EverQuest sold half a million copies at $40 per copy. That's $20m. Monthly subscription is $10 approx isn't it? So those 460,000 subscribers are paying $4.6m per month. For one year that's a total of $75.2m.
The majority of movies would be lucky to make that much money from ticket sales, sell-through and TV rights combined. I'd be surprised if any book has ever made that much.
MMOGs are always open to cheating. Someone is cheating in an MMOG as I write this, and there is nothing anyone (except for the game's administrators) can do about it. If I want to play a game against (or with) other people, I'll go over a friend's house. If he cheats, I can always throw a controller at him.
Aren't all MMOG's "for the massess" by definition? ;)
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
yes, compared to harry potter, MMOG is small. but comparing a one-shot gaming purchase (ala the sims offline) to harry potter sales is a different story.
for MMOG usage, it would be more useful to compare it to cable pay channel subscriptions, or something similar. they even use the same word, churn, to describe the turnover of subscribers.
at least with cable tv, (and i can't speak authoritatively for the current market with dish tv etc.) there used to a certain point at which the growth curve would basically almost flatten for pay services, and then you would just watch *who* was subscribed change- churn.
there is always going to be that psychological barrier to monthly service cost, i think. it somehow seems more of a fact than paying a once yearly fee, ala the xbox live setup.
furthering the difficulty of comparison is the fact that new MMOGs do come out further diluting the percentages. and you're also competing with the market for the largest MMOG setup there is, live chat in myriad guises. (and for some people it's even a RPG. heh)
all in all, especially when you take into account the top level of subscribership that exists in places like Korea, i would think the market is pretty healthy, and even if it doesn't double, it's still pretty substantial for interactive entertainment.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
There are more than a few problems with comparing books/CDs/games, but here are a few...
1) People like convenience. Pick it up, put it down, easy access, portable. CDs and books qualify under all of these, games decidedly don't.
2) People have such differing social desires at different times. I may want to play a single player game now, a MUD/Massively Multiplayer game later, then finish off with some PvP Starcraft with my roommate. Music and movies offer this kind of multilateral socialism, a single game usually doesn't.
3) Access...let's face it, computers are still pricey and not widely available. A CD (as outrageously priced as they are) is less than half of a new game, not including the monthly subscription that comes with many commercial MMORPGs. A book is similar. Both have user interfaces that an 8 year old can figure out on his first attempt. Computers aren't like that.
It's an unfair comparison. Though, I will say, I played the Sims Online for about 3 months and thought that with a few tweaks it would be the closest thing we had to a universally accepted game. It drew it guys, girls, kids, adults, seniors. Something for everyone, from decorating to competition to sociallizing. It just got old eventually, and I'm not sure I could suggest what they needed to add.
MMORPGs are more problematic because developers inherently want a theme and a role for the character to play, but in doing so they alienate a good portion of the population.
--trb
I think one of the key reasons that most MMOGs do not appeal to larger audiences is that, as someone else has said, they require too much time to be enjoyed. When I played EverQuest, if I only spent a few hours a month, my character did not develop enough to where I could explore new areas, see new creatures etc. Consequently, it was not worth the monthly subscription.
However, if one were designed such that the time spent was not as critical for the enjoyment of the game, I would expect it to appeal to a larger audience. I thought The Sims Online would do this, but unfortunately from what I hear, the game wasn't that fun regardless of whether you spent minutes or days playing.
I for one am quite interested to see what URU (Myst Online) will be like, as the description implies there is no sense of being "better" than any other player other than just having explored more and solved more puzzles. Granted that will not appeal to everyone, but it may make it more attractive to players who can only spend a few hours per week.
I'm not sure what it will take. I get the feeling that for the casual gamer, upgrading and buying new games isn't a big attraction. My dad still happily plays Civ2 every night. He knows Civ3 is out but simply has no interest in buying the new one. So to buy into something like a MMOG it has to be instantly obvious why it is better than what they already have.
I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and I still haven't even tried one of these MMOG's. WHile I'm sure that the experience is rewarding, there just isn't enough emphasis there to make it seem like something I want to buy. So if you can't interest a hardcore gamer like me to buy your product, how can you expect to interest the casual gamer?
The selling point of the Sims Online seemed to be "Its the Sims, but online!" which just doesn't seem to be enough of a difference to me. The idea of interacting with real people doesn't seem that big of a draw in that game.It is going to take something with a big "wow" factor to make MMOG's seem worthwhile.
Another thing that I would think is scaring people away is the fact that you have to pay every month. It seems like it would take a lot of playing time to get your money's worth in one of these games. Also I feel that the casual gamer thinks, "There are lots of games I only have to pay for once, why should I buy this one and pay every month?" SO this is an issue of public perception. Again, it is going to take a "wow" factor to win people over.
What is that wow factor? I have no idea. A lot of people have been thinking about this a lot more than I. But I look forward to what they come up with.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
I highly doubt MMORPGs as a genre will ever appeal to the mass market (unless the definition of an MMORPG changes radically) --
The idea of a game which requires you to spend countless hours with only moderate rewards in order to progress your avatar slowly along a path with no real end whilst building useful skills and friends along the way, that reminds me of another "MM-RPG" the mass markets already engage in droves: Real Life!
At one point in time, I'd have been known as a hardcore gamer. Know I'm barely a casual gamer. Its mainly for 2 reasons time & money. I spent a little bit of money picking up most of the FF series for PS. I have Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft II, Civ III, MOO II, & MOO 3. I've played demo's of newer games such as Wolfestien and C&C Generals. I have to face it. I suck at FPS. The graphics have improved greatly over Q2 & Q3, but I still suck. I'm sorry there is little ID can do other than make the game cheat in my favor to make me better.
Now RPGs & RTS games I'm fairly decent at. Of those listed, StarCraft & MO II would most likly be the ones that I play most often. Civ III was o.k. but it just got way to time consuming. MOO 3 is o.k. but I had to force myself to like it. After getting burnt like that I'm after computer games for awhile.
I can't afford a monthly subscription. I also can't afford to spend 4 hrs. every night playing a game. Actually I can spend that amount of time, but I'd like alot more immediate bonuses rather than knowning eventually my character will be stronger. FFX was really good at letting you max out stats, but along the way my wife & I had alot of fun. Those though monsters got easier & easier to kill. Of course you eventually get to a point where everything is too easy to kill and all your stats are at 255.
And right now, most MMORPGS aren't very fun if you play them casually. Casual players don't play very much and want games they can pop into and out of. MMORPGS as they are now are not at all friendly to that kind of player.
For one thing, it takes a significant investment of time to move up from stabbing rabbits or whatever to doing anything remotely interesting. What's up with that? Why should I have invest ten hours in a game before I can start having fun? I want to have fun right now. Even if it's cosmetic, at leat make my first enemies *look* impressive*.
Secondly, MMORPGS give an unreasonably huge advantage to people who play a lot. Because your bonuses are cumulative, the more you play the more powerful you are and the more of a disadvantage new players will have. A level 40 wizard has nothing to fear from level 1 thief.
Consider the difference between that and games like Soul Caliber or Quake: in those games, people who play a lot will be more skilled, but even ((insert name of best player in the world)) gets killed by a rocket launcher weilded by a newb sometimes. There is still an advantage to playing more but it's not overwhelming.
I guess the question that MMO game designers have to decide is "What's more important about MMO games? The persistence or the fact that so many other people are playing?" If it's the former, then they'll never be casual games. If it's the latter, then maybe someone will start making MMO games that get reset every X period of time. Or games that feature persistent relationships but don't give cumulative advantages to the players. Or games that scale the advantage down as you get to higher levels.
Maybe Uru will be the one that breaks the mold.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
If they can get MMORPG's to that level i don't think anyone would log out and that woulf be by choice!
Oh, please Take me back to the land....
CC Corp please make this soon!
Awaiting pluto's kiss in December...
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Thanks for the laugh... damn I wish i had mod points. That's not a troll, it's FUCKING HILARIOUS.
Whatever happened to the sims online house that Taco and some of the other /. editors were working on? I remember reading something about it way back around the first of the year......
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
I've seen many people pick up a copy of everquest at the local computer store and read the back... After asking about the monthly fee they commented on how stupid it was to buy the game then pay a monthly fee just to play it they placed it back on the shelf. We sold no copies of that
It's odd that an article, discussing how MMORPGs haven't penetrated the mainstream, fails to mention the single most popular MMORPG ever, Lineage. Granted, it's not western mainstream, but a game with over 4 million active subscribers is no longer a fringe game. That's a subscriber base that clearly qualifies as a success. As mentioned in the previous link, in Korea the game commands 47% of the market share. I doubt (m)any books, movies, or TV shows can claim that.
What's really odd is that they even mention NC Soft and their billing methods for an upcoming game. But no mention of the game that has a subscriber base an order of magnitude larger than Everquest... guess that would go against the hypothesis and require an actual analysis of how and why the Korean market is different than the western/American market.
I can think of lots of reasons EQ-style games don't enjoy wider appeal...
I could ramble on, but I think I've made my point. For people with a lot of time, few interruptions, a good attention span, and a desire for a strongly immersive game, MMOG are good. But for the masses, I don't see one gaining that much appeal, unless it deviates drastically from the EQ formula for success.
Because let's not miss an important fact here - socializing is the number one leisure activity humans want. If your hardcore gamers focus on levelling to the point where they're not fun to chat with, or will only chat about in-game things, that'll turn the average person off to socializing in that environment. Reality check on the numbers - last time I checked (years ago, admittedly), people spent around $10 billion each on electronic games and on movies a year, around $20 billion on radio and newspapers, around $40 billion on television... And something like $160 billion on talking to each other on the telephone.
Socializing is what people want most, and the first online game to get it right will make big money. Voice chat, video chat, build in messaging systems competitive with the best pagers and email programs, put in spectator modes, an attention economy, etc. etc. If you're working on a game to compete with mine though, please pretend you didn't hear any of that. *wink*
Furcadia - A free online game with user created content, DragonSpeak scripting, & more.
That was hilarious..however it doesn't really ring true, you should polish it up a bit :-)
"The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
Planetarion was my favourite game some three years back, I loved it. Then at about round 5 they decided charging was obligatory and users tapered off. The model they used to use, where paying was optional and gave loads of cushty features, worked famously.
Oh well... Nostalgia. I for one love MMOGs, especially MMORPGs--but don't devote my life to them...
C17H21NO4
Take the most important part of the (non-multiplayer) game and remove it. Gee, our product isn't selling, I wonder why? People play The Sims because you get to tell little people with their own thoughts and feelings what to do. The Sims Online version embodies the player in the sim removing the mental distinction between telling a little person what to do vs telling an avatar, that represents you what to do. It's pretty hard to imagine how much stress and infighting went on a Maxis to make them forget about this little issue.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What state and city are you in? I think I know this girl.