EverQuest And The Skaff Effect Explored

Thanks to the QT3 forums for pointing to a Bastion Press column discussing why EverQuest and its sequels may always be the most popular MMORPG series. The author argues that EverQuest, though not without its problems, is good at keeping up with the competition: "Sony learns from other products released into the marketplace, and they continue to watch new developments from new games and absorb the more innovative features." This is all part of what he calls 'The Skaff Effect', referencing a similar phenomenon seen in another genre: "Despite a number of very good games in the tabletop RPG marketplace, none of them have ever managed to topple D&D as the #1 game in the field. Skaff Elias (one of the guys behind the Magic revolution) hypothesized that any new game released into a marketplace dominated by one brand would only serve to drive more consumers to that brand."

Comments

I don't agree

[Kethinov]

Honestly IMHO that's a bunch of nonsence. EQ was the first truly 3d MMORPG which gave it it's initial huge player base. Since MMORPGs are addictive, people stick with'm. And since MMORPGs are about the MMO part, people flock to popular ones. Yes a big part of EQ's success is that it has stayed current, but if EQ was released only 2 years later, someone else would be leading the race.

BTW, FFXI is catching up fast.

(Disclaimer, I play UO... on emulated (free) servers :p)

Re:I don't agree

[Araxen]

FF XI is the #2 MMORPG on the market atm with 400,000+ subsribers and thats w/o the console version of the game being released stateside. They will at least pick up 100,000+ more subscribes when that is release. Everquest will be the #2 MMORPG come 2004.

Not necessarily true

[Lord_Dweomer]

""Despite a number of very good games in the tabletop RPG marketplace, none of them have ever managed to topple D&D as the #1 game in the field."

While in pure dollars, none have managed to topple D&D, many have stolen large numbers from its playerbase. In the article (yes I did RTFA) they mention that while new games coming out may be innovative, they will never steal a significant portion of EQs 500,000 playerbase. Let me give an example of why this may not necessarily hold true.

Whitewolf.

If the points made in this article were true, D&D would have absorbed the innovative features Whitewolf games have, and Whitewolf would be histroy. Yet Whitewolf has its own thriving playerbase that grows every day, in large part due to their many innovations (LARP?). There are always exceptions, and the points made in this article are most CERTAINLY not the rule.

Re:Not necessarily true

[Dachannien]

It's not really fair to compare pen and paper RPGs with computer MMORPGs anyway, and here's why:

A small RPG house (like, say, Chaosium) can stay afloat with a very few products with low circulation numbers, because the development and maintenance costs for a pen-and-paper RPG are scalable (that is, if you plan on having a small audience, you don't have to hire 50 people to work on the thing - in fact, in this day and age, half a dozen could conceivably produce a nice-looking pen-and-paper RPG).

On the other hand, developing a computer game requires the creation of content as well as the program itself, and for MMOGs, content (being King, as Brad McQuaid has said) has to be extensive to keep individual people playing (regardless of the size of the audience).

While MUDs - being smaller - have managed to stay afloat throughout the MMOG revolution, they require a fraction of the people needed to create content (art, world-building, sound, and design, not to mention programming) and to maintain operations.

For MMOGs, however, all those extra people *are* required, and so in order to have a game with compelling content, you have to start with a minimum expected playerbase (to recoup development costs). Investors will want to see the game generate profits, and companies will be unwilling to devote time and resources to a game whose profit margin is less than they could get on another project.

I have no idea whether Elias is right or not. But I can tell you that EQ has made some tremendous improvements in the past year based on the successes of other games, as well as some that they came up with themselves.

Too bad that SOE's marketing department keeps getting in the way of a good product, though. But that's another story altogether. :p

Re:Not necessarily true

[PainKilleR-CE]

Yet Whitewolf has its own thriving playerbase that grows every day, in large part due to their many innovations (LARP?).

Just a note, but LARP, regardless of whether or not it was official or had a name, was a big part of the reason for the whole D&D scare in the first place. People will do that sort of thing with almost any rpg system, it's simply that Whitewolf's games, for one reason or another, seem to be more popular in this fashion (maybe because it's far more popular to fantasize that you're a vampire than a lvl 1 dwarven fighter).

Re:Not necessarily true

[DAldredge]

LARP isn't new. It used to be called acting. :->

Player Competition.. EQ is the measuring stick

[Stray7Xi]

The addictiveness of everquest (besides the social contacts) is an unhealthy amount of player competition. (players compete against players to beat X, rather then players competing against X) The hardcore players aren't playing to have fun, but because they have something to prove.

A lot of the hardcore players play because they need to get to the top and stay on the top. They'll even resort to sabotaging other guilds (In everquest such as racing to kill key mobs they don't need, just so another guild can't get access to a zone). I wouldn't classify it as griefing since their goal is not to cause misery, but to remove the competition.

This is why everquest is so popular, because in the other games it's relatively easy to reach the peak. The players then realize they're only a big fish in a small pond. When a game is first released you'll see the players racing to the top in a most unhealthy manner, only to quit when they reach the top. Afterall, if you're going to try to the compensate for the size of your.. shoes, you'll want to show off where there's a large playerbase.

Furthermore Everquest is one of the only MMORPG's that doesn't rank players. This allows players to make their own arbitrary rankings to skew it whichever way they want. Most of the MMORPG's give a score (such as pvp kills) which means less dispute over who is the most L33T. "We killed super_mob_a first" "Well we killed super_mob_a with only 30 people" "Ha! but you used cheap_method_B, you're pathetic!" They can argue forever when ranks are subjective...

I stopped playing MMORPG's when I realized I was buying into that attitude that one has to compete against someone that is not their enemy. Unfortunately the MMORPG encourages this competition more then any other gaming genre.

But our whole society is based on ranking people.. does my High /. ID make me inferior?

Re:Player Competition.. EQ is the measuring stick

[Godeke]

I'm curious why you use the terms "unhealthy" as you do. Perhaps from your perspective (or even a casual observer's perspective) player competition is unhealthy. Having coded muds for 10 years back in the day, I can safely say that our experiments with less competitive environments were total flops, and our grand experiment in competitive gaming (a full political system built on top of an existing clan codebase) was our greatest success.

Interestingly, our political system codified ranking *within a clan* (to a degree), but it simply caused the warring *between* the clans to become more fluid as people tried to accumulate the "new flavor" of power: votes. Joining a huge clan may have benefits, but moving up is near impossible, so new splinter clans were regularly formed.

So, while this might be "unhealthy" in some regard, it was the best thing we ever did for the health of the mud itself. Why complain about Everquest's similar success in player competition?

Non competitive games are cool (I have a book of them from the 70's, and they can be fun), but like many artifacts of the 70's, they have little staying power today. How many games of Earthball were played this year? People become bored without competition, as evidenced by the quick transformation of playing with an Earthball into some giant size soccer derivitive with it.

Re:Player Competition.. EQ is the measuring stick

[jafuser]

I stopped playing MMORPG's when I realized I was buying into that attitude that one has to compete against someone that is not their enemy. Unfortunately the MMORPG encourages this competition more then any other gaming genre.

Second Life is a fairly non-competitive online environment, with a "SEAK" Bartle ranked sort of slant. Best thing is they have a required minimum age of 18, so most of the griefer kiddies don't make it in, and those that do don't last long, as the developers keep in close contact with players and any complaints are quickly addressed.

Their next update on 12/22 comes with a big change to their economy and how we pay for our accounts. One thing that should attract a lot of people is the addition of a non-monthly one-time $10 account for people who don't have the desire to own any land.

There is a "Leader Board" of sorts, but as there are no minors in the game, little is made of it, and that which is said is usually congradulatory.

True for Software as Well?

[Prien715]

I think this dynamic holds true for software as well. Embrace and extend anyone?

Quality and Brand

[neglige]

[...] any new game released into a marketplace dominated by one brand would only serve to drive more consumers to that brand.

If the statement means that a new game will increase the total size of a market, I would agree (being aware that this is not universally true). The new game has to be different enough so new customer are attracted to it and buy it. And then they will try the dominating brand. To compare or for variation.

If you assume a market with a fixed or stable size (which is possible), then any new game will take customers away from the dominating brand. The quality of the new game will determine whether the customers stay with the new game or revert to the old brand.

Take the X-Box as an example. Some people who would never buy a console before bought it (increasing the market size for consoles). And surely some who were planning to buy a PS2 bought a X-Box instead (taking away PS2 customers). And it looks like the X-Box has established itself. When the next generation of consoles arrives, people will be in a different position - then they decide which system to buy on their experiences they have with their current system(s), not on the marketing that sparked their interest in consoles the fist time.

If some customers were planning to buy a X-Box and bought a PS2 instead - thus supporting the theory above - is certainly debateable.

Re:Quality and Brand

[Xner]

If some customers were planning to buy a X-Box and bought a PS2 instead - thus supporting the theory above - is certainly debateable.

I was planning to buy an X-Box, but looking into it while I saved the money up I found out that the games I wanted to play were PS2 only, so I bought a PS2.

I had exactly the same thing, but with a Gamecube instead. I guess there is more merit to the article's premise than I originally thought.

Supported hardware

[foniksonik]

Is it possible that part of Everquest's continuing success is that it was made for hardware at the time and has maintained compatibility with it going forward? Many of the newer games lock out huge numbers of consumers who just don't feel like upgrading their machines to play the latest game. There's your installed customer base if nothing else.... and of course it doesn't stop anyone from playing who has newer hardware.

Might have some merit....

[shadowcabbit]

I kind of exemplified the Skaff Effect in my own habits. I'd started with alternative PnPRPGs (RIFTS and a half-hearted attempt at designing my own) before moving into D I'd proudly collected the ST:TNG CCG before I realized that nobody played that and everyone was playing Magic instead.

But in terms of MMOs? I doubt it. I tried twice to get into EQ (two years ago to the day and again last year, around November) and found it tedious, anti-social, and with far too steep a learning curve. I started FFXI a month and a half ago and wouldn't dream of going back now; having progressed further than I ever did in EQ, having enjoyed the company of my fellow player FAR more than in EQ, and finding the experience more newbie-friendly than EQ. Almost everyone I've spoken to in my limited experience agrees.

It may have some merit, but to be honest I really don't think so, MMORPGs being somewhat different from other products.

Skaro

[dstillz]

...was the planet on which the Daleks lived.

Very clever "department" subheader.

Re:D&D's success is due to playerbase

[captainktainer]

It isn't. A partner and I are writing two new GURPS books due out at the end of 2004; the system is flexible and good for people who have never played an RPG before. I mean, you roll 3 dice, for chrissakes.

At the gaming cons, GURPS dominates, even moreso than D&D. If you'd like to challenge that, bear in mind that I've demoed at four different conventions since August; I'm not an SJGames representative, so my viewpoint isn't biased. I'm just stating a fact: GURPS is ruling at cons.

Yes, D&D will always have a leg up. However, GURPS has not failed by any means.

Three words

[Anonymous Coward]

World of Warcraft. If any company has proven themselves able to deliver games of top notch quality that are easily accessible to the masses, it's Blizzard.

In this particular case World of Warcraft looks like it will not innovate particularly, but rather take bits and pieces from all MMO's to make a game that has less grind and more fun factor.

i'm not convinced

[truffle]

The article uses the Magic the Gathering CCG as an example. Bad example. The pokemon CCG is the most popular CCG of all time (I'm serious). While wizards (makes of MTG) do distribute this game in North America, they do not create it, and in fact I've heard that Nintendo wants to cut them out of the deal. Why does pokemon break the rules? Because it appealed to a widely different play base that was not interested in the original produce at all.

But wait, there's more.

D&D is currently in version 3.5. If you compare that to D&D 1.0, you're going to see a lot of differences. D&D continues to dominate the market because it is willing to reinvent itself completely, while retaining the brand name and tone. Everquest is doing the same thing. Everquest 2 is in development, and by all accounts it's going to be very different from a mechanical perspective. This kind of reinvention will be required for Everquest to stay ahead in the marketplace, and Sony knows it. The reason why it is required is legacy issues. As sony releases each new expansion, that makes characters more powerful, the game world becomes more and more imbalanced. The game world becomes bloated with more and more content - there is no content expiry in Everquest. The Rathe Mountains never get retired because Sony has introduced enough new places to adventure. At some point, you just have to check it all out and start fresh, or you will not have a game that will last 10 years, 20 years, or even longer.

The reason I wrote that long winded bit above is because the article never mentioned everquest 2, and how it's a key strategy, instead focusing only on expansions.

I'd also like to note that while Everquest has a huge market share, it think it's down to less than a 50% market share, which is lower than it used to be. Also keep in mind that Everquest subscription figures will always be inflated by people who buy Sony's MMO pass (which allows access to all their MMOs, I.E. play star wars galaxies and your EQ characters will not be deleted).

Re:i'm not convinced

[silentbobdp]

1) Nintendo has already cut them out of the deal, resulting in a lawsuit.

2) Pokemon WAS the most popular CCG in its time, but Magic has again overtaken it. Pokemon was a fad - Magic, while it may ebb from time to time, will always be there waiting for the #1 spot again.

market dominance == mass market preference

[*weasel]

Contrary to this assertion, Everquest and D&D succeed based on their design. Not their entrenched positions.

they are the easiest games in their genres to pick up, play, and put down. The rules are very simple, straightforward, and hard to get 'wrong' in the beginning.

Sure, there are tactics that make a big difference in the end games, but the gamer is given a long time to figure these things out.

Contrarily, you can much more easily screw up a Hero-system character long before you ever play. And many other games seem to use complexity as a reward in and of itself. Complexity for its own sake.

This complexity seems to be the dividing line between casual and hardcore gamers.

As we all know the more casual gamers are more numerous, so it shouldn't be a surprise that if your game design is to take D&D but remove the archetypes, change the fiction, and add a more complex combat system, you're going to wind up not doing as well. Indeed, you may actually attract people to your game, who are put off, but like the genre itself, and gravitate toward the more consumer-friendly game.

This isn't to say they're the -best- games in their genres, just to say that they are certainly not sustaining their strength from being the first arriver. Everquest quite frankly was the third commercially supported 3d massmog. but it was friendlier to the mass market consumer than UO, and M59 before it.

When a massmog design hits that is both appealing and friendly to the mass market gamer, and still provides the depth of experience the hardcore gamer requires - it will overtake everquest. It's as simple as that. The network effect has weight on pulling people -to- a game, but not keeping them.

Indeed, Everquest's primary weakness, is the number of people who have played and left. This suggests there is room for improvement in appealing to the more casual gamer.

And if you appeal to the more casual gamer, you probably won't 'kill' any other massmog out there. But your numbers will certainly dwarf theirs, and push them firmly out of the genre-leading position.

The problem currently is that everyone either tries to directly emulate the leader in a slightly different genre, or they try to make gameplay advances through complexity.

Poker, Hearts, Chess -- the most endearing and widely appealing games in western culture (the only one i know enough to speak intelligently about) have very straightforward rules that make them easy to learn. Yet they harbor a depth to gameplay that modern role playing games and massmogs seem to miss in their never-ending quest for loot and levels.

Personally i think the number 1 reason for the seperation, is the longstanding tradition that in roleplaying games (online and off) a player who has been playing longer (higher level, higher skills, whatever) is nearly infinitely more powerful than one who just began -- not because of the player's ability, but because of the resources heaped upon them.

imagine playing cards against a euchre player who got to keep every trump card he was ever dealt. you simply would never be able to win.

in the cooperative sense, he would never play with you as his partner, for your lack of trump cards would be a liability in any competition he found challenging for his hand.

also consider that the truly interesting and exciting stuff is almost always reserved for those at the high end of this power scale.
The new gamer has to trudge through a level grind of killing rats and bats to get to the point where teamwork matters, and -his- ability can be challenged.

EQs numbers primarily show that -most- people who try massmogs are not looking for the level grind, though many more hardcore gamers are more than pleased with it.

Lineage: Bloodpledge

[Roger Wernersson]

I can not take seriously an article suggesting EverQuest to be the most popular MMORPG. Has the author been living under a rock (or in USA) the last three years?

Ever heard of Lineage: Bloodpledge? 5-10 million subscribers is surely a tad more than EQ.

There's something there....

[inkless1]

But I think it's more prevalent with say, Counter-Strike than even EQ. CS has fallen far behind on many fronts in terms of design and technology, but it's far and away the most popular online game.

One big reason? You can always find a game for it. There's so many servers, it's easily the cheapest and easiest way to play an online PC FPS right now. It's surviving in part because of it's own weight.

Evaluation

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but it can't just be dominance alone, since Ultima Online was the only game in town for some time, and now they have been displaced. So clearly it's not enough to just be dominant for the Skaff effect to take hold. Probably it has to do with overall (absolute) popularity as well.

Emotional/time investment

[Castaa]

I have tried many other MMORPGs since playing EverQuest. (EVE Online, DAoC, FFXI, etc). I played each for at least a few weeks to a few months.

Except for EVE, it all comes to one thing: the games are all too similar. The core gameplay differences are too small and the time requirements are too great. I cannot justify spending another year leveling to reach the end game.

So I return to EQ because they keeping adding things to do at the high level end. The things that are added to EQ aren't all that different than the previous expansion(s) but at least I don't have to toil through the low level time sink again to get there.

Frankly, Verant/Sony isn't doing anything that much better than anyone else. They were just the first get get me to invest the time required.