Alternative Distribution Schemes For The MMO?

Thanks to The Adrenaline Vault for its editorial discussing ways the MMO and online gaming industry can evolve beyond its current saturation levels. The author argues: "The structure of MMOGs all but requires consumers to choose one title to the exclusion of all others... so, how can game makers continue to use this business model without collectively suffocating?" Therefore, a solution is suggested: "Scale projects back and use episodic content instead. Under the drip feed model, users pay for gameplay in small chunks rather than a periodic access fee. For example, Resident Evil: Outbreak would have translated perfectly into this type of game because its scenarios are encapsulated and self-sufficient... This approach... requires much less in the way of maintenance costs and initial investment [and] provides entertainment in digestible bursts... which means more room in the marketplace for everyone to sell their wares."

Comments

South Korea

[Apreche]

It is my understanding that in South Korea they have tons and tons more MMOs than we do. And while many of them are the same glorified chat rooms that we (don't) enjoy some of them are quite amazing. They have forced roleplaying. They have lists of characters predefined in a great story and you apply to take the roles of one you really like. People actually role play. This role playing cancels out the negatives of the treadmill style gameplay. Camping the fields for items != game. Heck, its as close as you can get to playing D+D without getting a bunch of bums in your friend's basement.

Keep in mind, this is just what I've heard about SK MMOs, I haven't actually seen a game like this. However, if it is untrue, it SHOULD exist. Set up an MMO world that plays like D+D. Heck, it could even be the freakin' forgotten realms. Then when people sign up either put them in parties or have them sign up in parties. Find a time each week they can play. For continuities sake make it so they have to start and stop at an inn. Hire dungeon masters to handle all the gameplay. It will be just like real D+D. You can make it episodic. And you will constantly come across people in other parties and your plots can intermingle. The mere presence of a DM assigned to your party will force role playing and remove treadmilling. Sure, you have to pay the DMs, but you can just charge more for the game since it is so high quality. And you can charge a per-campaign basis. You could even set a pricing model based on how often you want to play. If you want the DM there every night, more money. Once a week, average money.

Just take the idea and run with it. I've got to go to work :)

What incentive for the developers?

[Synkronos]

There are absolutely no incentives for the developers of quality titles to create an MMO environment that encourages playing multiple games. If you feel you have the best (or even just a good) title, you would rather have subscribers locked into your service. The only people who wouldn't want openness is people who have created mediocre or sub-par games, who are desperately hoping for a few people to try their games out for a little while, since they can't hope to captivate their audiences.

Re:What incentive for the developers?

[llefler]

MMO developers need to realize that any "loyalty" that their games command is only amongst the power-gamer minority.

I would have described it the other way. Power gamers are LESS likely to be loyal to a game. They burn through levels and content so quickly that they get bored and try new games. A gamer with only a few hours a week will stick around because they have to work harder to build a character. The thing that gets the average gamer is the repetitive nature of leveling that power gamers have ways of getting around.

Here is an example: Asheron's Call recently opened a new server. The power gamers are racing to see who can be the first to hit maximum level (126), and in a month, several are getting pretty close. (lvl 100+) As a more average gamer, my main character is in it's 20's. The power gamers are going to max out in less than 2 months and move on just as my character is maturing into it's interesting levels.

Just a gimmick.

[Bluesman]

The only way to make these things work is if success is based on player skill rather than how much time you've put in.

With a D&D style leveling model, this is always going to be impossible.

These games are always going to be glorified chatrooms until technology catches up and allows either much faster content creation or player skill based gameplay so that a relative beginner can be an asset to a group that's been playing a long time.

How about a little variety?

[hal2814]

It seems to me like every MMOG I've ever played is just the same MMORPG in a different setting. While change of scenery is nice, I'd like to see a little bit more variety than that. How about a MMO football or soccer game? I'd buy that in a second if it were at least decent. Maybe someone out could do a MMO casino. I think it would add a level of social interaction not found in the browser-based casino games. They probably wouldn't even have to charge a subscription for that one since the house should be taking enough in to pay for the servers.

Here's my idea

[truffle]

As a gamer you pay a monthly subscription fee for a gaming service, the fee is something like $19.99 a month.

Any online game can choose to be covered under this service. If it is, you can play that game.

My $19.99 fee is then distributed proportionally to each of the game providers based on how much time I spent playing their game.

For example, in one month I might:
- Spend 10 hours playing MMO #1 ($10)
- Spend 5 hours playing MMO #2 ($5)
- Spend 5 hours playing team FPS game ($5)

My total allowed gameplay is unlimited, it's only the proportion of play that matters.

Unfortunately I don't think the publishers will ever agree to that, and unless the majority of fun online games was covered, it just wouldn't work.

Most Annoying Part

[_Neurotic]

Is having to shell out $40-$50 for a retail box for most of the online games. If I'm paying $15-$20 month for a subscription, why should I have to walk down to my local CompUSA and pay $50 for a CD? They should be downloadable, period.

I can say that I probably would be a susbscriber to one or more games if it were not for the barrier of initial investment.

Re:Most Annoying Part

[joinder]

I totally agree. One of the biggest obstacles I see towards widespread MMO adoption is the current distribution model which emphasizes inital purchase of the "starter" set rather than giving it away.

The first "hit" should always be free. If you have a good product, you'll get them hooked.

Guild Wars

[wickedj]

Hmmm... I remember playing the E3 demo for Guild Wars. It's almost an MMORPG. The pricing scheme announced for this game seemed totally different from other MMORPGs and seems more desirable. Basically, you pay a one time fee for the basic game. Every few months, they release an expansion which allows for new classes, skills, areas, etc. You can buy the expansion or if you want to try out the new stuff for free, ask a buddy who has the expansion to invite you to a new area. All the content is streamed over the internet. The gameplay handles like Diablo 2. Check it out here.

Why per month and not per level?

[whitepony02027]

The whole idea of playing per month is what keeps me from plaing MMO's in the first place. I go to school and work in two different cities that are 2 hhours apart. Driving between the 2 takes up valuble playing time that i would still be paying for under the pay per month model. I think things would be much better if i could pay for a group of levels. Like $10 keeps me playing until i get my character to level 30. Then I have to pay another $10 to add more levels on to that. This way if i can't play for a month for whatever reason my money isn't just thrown away.