Do MMORPG's Cause People to Buy Fewer Games at Retail?

Grimwell writes NPD reports that the video games industry isn't doing so hot in 2006. Information on a report found at GameSpot indicates that consoles are down, but PC titles are up, led by MMORPG sales. From the article: "Do MMORPG's benefit the industry by bringing in more actively involved gamers? Or do they bleed money away from other companies in the industry as MMORPG players spend their money on subscriptions and skip out on trying other games that hit the shelf because they already have something to go home to?"

Comments

Yes

[republican gourd]

Yes. Next?

In fact, several people I know (WOW addicts), are so amazed by the amount of extra money they save by not buying 3-4 games a month that they re-evaluate buying that many games even after they kick the WOW habit. So it isn't just a temporary loss... it could very well be a permanent one.

Re:Yes

[Cheapy]

If they were buying 3-4 video games a month, the video game industry might have more of a problem than MMORPGs taking money. If games are so short and unreplayable that people have to buy games that often, then something seriously needs to be rethought.

In the meantime, I'll just stick with Nethack and Battle for Wesnoth :)

Re:Yes

[Rogue974]

Yes, very true, fully agree. I recently broke the MMORPG addiction, for the 3rd time, and haven't bought many new games since. I am enjoying talking with people and going out of doors (although the sun did hurt for the first few weeks of trying to go out in it).

Re:Yes

[Xzzy]

If games are so short and unreplayable that people have to buy games that often, then something seriously needs to be rethought.

Huh? From the perspective of the publisher, that sounds like an ideal situation. Maybe a starry-eyed idealist programmer would agree with you, but to the bean counters, expensive frequently purchased trinkets is exactly what should be done.

Re:Yes

[Cheapy]

Yeah, that's another reason why it needs to be rethought.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. It's purely a matter of free-time. MMORPG reward you for spending LOTS of time.

You buy Quake 17, you spend 40 hours of play time beating it, and then you go back to your MMORPG.
a) you are "wasting" your subscription payment by not spending time on your MMORPG
b) all your friends have now advanced by 40 hours, but you haven't moved. depending on the game, this can make it hard to group with your friends, until you can catch up.

Because the MMORPG lasts for years, any other game is viewed as "temporary". Why spend a month playing Quake 17, when you could play your MMORPG and grind out another level?

The game industry should HATE MMORPGs, since they suck up all available free time, leaving the gamer with no time to play 5 new games each month (or even 1). Only the MMORPGs benefit.

Re:Yes

[nofx_3]

The Sun? Never heard of it, what weird world do you live in with your fantasy realms called "out of doors". Man, Slashdot really does attract crazy people.
 
-kap

Re:Yes

[IAmTheDave]

Maybe a starry-eyed idealist programmer would agree with you, but to the bean counters, expensive frequently purchased trinkets is exactly what should be done.

I've got it for you - playing FPS and a lot of MMORG games are just so much easier with your keyboard and mouse. Ever tried to play one with a standard game controller?

Playing games with the keyboard and mouse increase your degree of acuracy, speed, and control exponentially over controller-based games. Maybe the consoles need to start coming with keyboard/mouse controllers... more games like WoW would translate over a lot easier.

Re:Yes

[laffer1]

You are absolutely correct. I bought my wife WoW the day it came out. It included a 10 day free trial for me. We both started at the same time. I couldn't find another copy to buy for 3 months. Her first character was already level 28 or something by the time I got the game. (i was level 9)

She started a new character with me. Since my first love is FPS games, it always ends up with her 20 or more levels ahead of me by the time I play Wow again. I only spend 5-10 hours a month playing WoW and 20-30 playing Enemy Territory. I can never keep up with her and I often need to play WoW to talk to her. :)

Another problem with the industry is that most people don't play games very long. Most of my friends don't stick with a game long enough to get more than one or two plays in with them online. Its costly keeping up. One minute battlefield 2 is hot and the next they are playing guildwars. I can't keep up anymore. I miss playing Doom or AOE2 for 5 hours with friends, etc. I've got literally hundreds of games collecting dust because no one else has them or wants to play them anymore.

Re:Yes

[stunt_penguin]

"but to the bean counters, expensive frequently purchased trinkets is exactly what should be done.

The bean counters need to worry solely about the quality of the game, and not the overall frequency of purchase for gamers in general. The games industry, like the movie industry has a long tail of shitty, not-worth-the-money games, and a gamer only sees about one or two games a month that is good enough to splash out €60 on and fits their taste in games.. The long tail of poo is not where the games industry makes it's money.

If this number of good games was zero as in your scenario, and the only thing that people were able to purchase were short, shit games that cost €60 and were immediately disposable then people wouldn't bother remaining gamers, they'd switch to movies or music, (and Jack Thomspson would have to get that which he needs so much, a real job).

The bottom line in the games industry is that quality sells and keeps the industry alive- other hangers-on are just there to make up the numbers, through accident or design. It's not like you can even release the games industry equivalent of the Adam Sandler movie (I see he has another steamer out this month) and expect to make a profit- games makers don't have much of the type of unaware-how-shit-this-thing-is audience that movie makers have.

In the TV world, the real sellers are 24, Lost, Sex in the City, The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives, CSI. No TV beancounter would dare say 'hey lets fund another 10 series of family fortune' instead of any of these shows no more than a games industry bencounter would say 'you know what, I think it's time we made another Sonic sequel' because he could be funding another Battlefield 2, World of Warcraft, Oblivion, Ghost Recon:Advanced Warfighter- projects that keep the games industry alive and make it worth it to be a gamer in the way that Lost and 24 makes it worth it to buy a TV and put up with advertising.

If you build it (and it's good) they will come.

Re:Yes

[ceoyoyo]

I know a WOW addict. I was telling her how I didn't have time to make paying a monthly fee for a MMPORG worthwhile. She told me, in all seriousness, "it actually saves me money. I don't have to pay to go out and do things anymore."

Re:Yes

[colinbrash]

The bean counters need to worry solely about the quality of the game, and not the overall frequency of purchase for gamers in general.... If you build it (and it's good) they will come.

This is a lovely picture of how the world ought to be, but it is not an accurate one. As in pretty much every other area in the world, a high quality product is neither necessary nor sufficient to generate profit.

Quality costs money, and people are willing to sacrifice quality to save money. This is true in the game industry, just as it is true in all other aspects of life.

Re:Yes

[mrbooze]

If they were buying 3-4 video games a month, the video game industry might have more of a problem than MMORPGs taking money. If games are so short and unreplayable that people have to buy games that often, then something seriously needs to be rethought.

By that logic, movies would be better if they were 24 hours long, and novels should be 100,000 pages.

I love movies, and books, and games. That means I actually want to experience many of them, not buy one book and spend the next 5 months reading it, or reading it over and over again.

If I get 10-20 hours of *good* play out of a game then I'm perfectly happy with that. This is mostly with story-driven-type games though, which I tend to gravitate to. When I hear that some RPG has "100 hours of gameplay" I usually suspect that's bullshit and is padded out with half-assed reasons to replay the game. (Start over from the beginning, but *this* time as a *dark* elf! The story is pretty much the same, but we have different text at the ending! And a couple of the NPCs will be rude to you!)

Re:Yes

[stunt_penguin]

"a high quality product is neither necessary nor sufficient to generate profit."

At least some quality product is, however necessary for the games industry to even exist in ther first place, otherwise people would shy away from buying the gear necessary to get into gaming, or loose interest after they've been stung with a few expensive stinkers.

Also, it's a generally accepted fact in the industry that most games loose money> Those games that are successful in turning the profit are not those that make up the long fecal tail. They're the gems.

Re:Yes

[a_nonamiss]

wtf, did they think that they could continue to make perpetually increasing profits?

Apparently, you don't follow Wall Street much. :)

They actually look at "profit growth" when they are researching companies. If I ran a public company makes $100,000 profit, then my investors expect me to make $110,000 profit next quarter, and $120,000 the next quarter, and so on. When I worked at a large mega-company a while back, we made a profit of $37 million one quarter, and our stock tanked. Why? Becuase we had made $36 million the same quarter the year before, so people were expecting a higher profit. It's called "not meeting expectations."

It's really stupid, but it's how the world works. Companies can't afford to sit making a comfortable profit. They must keep increasing their profit to be viewed as successful. It's actually what caused some of the spectacular crashes of the early 21st century. (WorldCom, Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, etc.) Their investors wanted to see profit growth, but they had figuratively (and, in the case of Enron, literally) burned up all of their fuel. The CEO's had to create the illusion of profit growth to keep investors happy, (and earn their $300 million bonuses) which eventually caught up with them and brought down the house of cards they had constructed.

Re:Yes

[tbannist]

Personally, I prefer this synopsis:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/04/30

Re:Yes

[thatguywhoiam]

I've got it for you - playing FPS and a lot of MMORG games are just so much easier with your keyboard and mouse. Ever tried to play one with a standard game controller? Playing games with the keyboard and mouse increase your degree of acuracy, speed, and control exponentially over controller-based games.

I agree that the mouse + keyboard is the superior control scheme (at the moment) for FPS, RTS and the vast majority of MMORGs.

But that's where the list ends.

Any other kind of game that I can think of is much better with a console-style controller. Racing? Yes, analog sticks. Flying, same. Action/twitchy games, much better suited for the console controller than a keyboard/mouse. Anything that involves a running 3rd-person character.

The mouse has precise aiming, and they keyboard has a lot of buttons... but dual analog sticks are fantastic for varying amounts of force in a particular (limitless) direction, and never having to look down to find a hotkey is quite advantageous as well.

Duh?

[keyne9]

Do MMORPG's Cause People to Buy Fewer Games at Retail?

Yes? How hard is it to realize that paying $15/mo for (similar) entertainment is a better option than shelling out $50 every few weeks?

draining the industry?

[darkchubs]

well , its less distributed... but I mean they spend 10-15 USD a month on these games... it's just voting with dollars. the Industry should respond acordingly

I buy fewer games....

[shinma]

I haven't bought nearly as many games in the time I've been playing World of Warcraft.

The time I have that can be allotted to video games is simply taken up. That doesn't mean I'm not spending just as much money on games now as I used to, just that all my money's going to Blizzard, rather than being spread out.

RPG's take a long time to play.. cant just "beat"

[plasmacutter]

You can't just "beat" an mmo.

they take a long time to play.. they have very comprehensive worlds, thousands of items, quests, plot arcs.

a lot of the newer generation games are open "world" environments. They could potentially be played for a human's entire life because they are fully open ended.

I failed to bookmark the post, but the best case i've seen made on this was a post regarding EVE online.
The thing has 4,000 star systems and hundreds of thousands of players who carry on alliances and trade. There are even huge wars with massive armadas fighting it out for territory.. it's like an interactive version of babylon 5.

Heck.. there are still hardcore people playing the vintage 2001 release of gamecube PSO because they are hard core legits and want to find hard to find items without hacking them.

Meanwhile FPS games are generally very limited. They generally few enough maps to count on your hand, and similarly few weapons. Further an argument can be made that all games from the same generation are fairly the same save causmetics.

Weather youre shooting with a wwII era thompson or a covenant needler.. its pretty much the same experience either way..

this all leads to people getting bored quickly and moving on.

"Until the holidays"

[minginqunt]

The article assumes that, whatever is causing the current doldrums, will clear up by "the holidays".

It seems to me that these mythical "holidays", with the expense of buying a PS3 or Wii or 360, will merely exacerbate the problem. Not only are consumers not buying Madden 2016 or OMG Total Warfighters VII *now* on current-gen hardware, they are likely to be even less inclined having forked out $600 on which to see Teh New Shiny.

Also, if the XBOX 360 is riding a wave of indifference already, it must be extremely worrying to MS about what will happen when they square off against Wii and a newly-confident Nintendo.

Retail is eventually going to suffer even more...

[popo]

Its not just MMORPG's that are going to bruise retail sales, its digital delivery.

People may not be talking about it so much yet, but the idea of selling digital
information 'burned into plastic' is already as archaic for GameStop as it is for
a record store.

It's an addiction

[Tyrsenus]

MMORPGs are essentially a black hole for the gaming industry.

WoW, for example, is an endless, time- and money-sink. In that respect it's very similar to gambling for some people. They are so involved with the game that they don't want to play anything else. They can't show off their e-peens in an FPS! And if they were to play another MMORPG, they would have to start over which not many are willing to do.

This is why I don't think Blizzard will make a Starcraft or Diablo MMORPG. Nobody would leave WoW to start over.

That's my $.02.

Re:It's an addiction

[Ignignot]

This is why I don't think Blizzard will make a Starcraft or Diablo MMORPG. Nobody would leave WoW to start over.

Of course they are going to make Starcraft or Diablo into an MMORPG. Their parent company, Vivendi, says "hey you guys are making a ton of money with this WoW thing. Can you do more of that sort of stuff?" Then Blizzard says, "well yes we can do more of it." Then Vivendi says "ok then do more of it right now - we will give you as much resources as you need just make us more profitable so our stock will go up"

Re:It's an addiction

[Derosian]

I played Counter-strike for 2 years, and I mean hardcore played, 10 hours a day.

You can show your E-penis off in FPS, its just that much easier to get pwned, and you feel it. In WoW, its level over long period of time, it takes hardly any skill, all you have to do is hit keys in rhythm, use certain keys in different situations, I still play WoW, but I feel it misses a lot of player skill. This way the 12 year olds can strut and say they own when they are 60 and go around ganking 50s.

But seriously, the minute something as good as WoW comes out that is an FPS, and on a massive scale like Planetside, I am switching over.

Not enough time

[illumina us]

There simply isn't enough time to be actively involved in MMOs and play other games at more than a less than casual level. A lot of people who play WoW and are in raiding guilds easily spend 20-40 hours a week if not more playing WoW!

Largely concur...

[thebdj]

I haven't paid "full price" for games since I quit playing WoW (I might play when the expansion hits). Since then my game purchases have include, Tribes Vengeance, I love the series and at $5 at Microcenter there was no way not to get this. I picked up the Myst Collection (or whatever) for like $15. Since I never beat any of the games before, I figured why not. I also purchased NWN: Diamond Edition for around $30, so that is NWN + 2 expansions (or is it 3). The last game I got was HL2: Episode One. Once again, only $8 at Circuit City.

I just believe that there is no reason to spread out so much cash like I once did for games. Once I start playing WoW again, I probably won't buy anything at all until I stop again. I really think that this also goes beyond money. I think people who play an MMORPG, like WoW, get highly involved and play that one game and nothing else, or little else. This translates into a need for fewer games over all, since once they stop playing WoW, they can immerse themselves in their new games until they beat it before having to buy a new one.

There's three sides to that fence...

[steveo777]

One is that you pay for your MMORPG and you love it and play it because, in the words of my cousin and I, it's freer than going out and buying a game. We pay in advance because it's cheaper.

The second is that some people don't like subscriptions and would rather just play their games when they want, and move on. If they want, they can alway go back to their old games and pick it up where they left of for free. They own it.

The thrid is them fence-riders. Or people with a lot of money and time. They pay for one or mor MMORPG and they buy games all the time. Single people with well-paying jobs, usually. Most people are on one side of the fence or the other as either side can just pick up the game when they want. It's all about how we/you/I view our money.

Personally, I play Wow and buy about as many games as I normally would (which isn't many). I rarely own two games that I haven't beaten, and MMORPGs don't really count. Couple that with the fact that there haven't been any games coming out that interest me and I'm saving up for a good Wii launch line up... No cash...

Not the only problem

[scrabbleguy]

I know that I've been buying less games due to lack of innovation. There's just too many sequels and not enough new ideas. Even Katamari. Playing the first Katamari was great. The sequel and the PSP version were really just more of the same.

That's one reason the DS is doing so well. A lot of things we're seeing for the first time and they're completely great. I'd much rather perform surgery with my touch screen then play something like Blinx 2.

Re:No.

[Chosen Reject]

So how do you make phone calls? What about your internet service? Cable TV? What do you do for haricuts? All of those are services. You pay for it, you get your service, then after some finite amount of time, the service you paid for is gone and you have to pay again to keep it.

MMORPGs are more of a service than a commodity.

But if you would rather think of it like a commodity item, think of it like this: you pay for it once and have it, it only lasts for a month though. Just like a haircut.

Is this why games are getting shorter in play time

[east coast]

I remember back when companies like SSI were putting out titles that they rated as 50-60 hours of game play. These titles normally lived up to the claims too. But in today's gaming it seems like the game play is shorter. Just look at HalfLife2, HL2 episode one, the Hitman series, etc etc where these games could just be absolutely crushed in under 10 hours.

There are few "long term" games today and most of those are RPGs (NWN and TOE come to mind) and few first/third person "shooters". Personally I was a big fan of the Thief series of games and it would take about 30 hours for each installment if you did it "right". You don't find many games like that today.

But then again there is the somewhat recent increase in game modding too... How many people are still playing the original Counter Strike today? Where would that time have gone if the gamer didn't have CS? Granted, it helped to keep the original Half Life out of the bargin bin but the number of hours spent playing online (and not just MMORPGs) adds value to the original product. Perhaps that's another aspect of this issue that should be reviewed. I know I have about 200+ hours in on CSS at this point. That's more time than I've logged into EQ2 since I got HL2.

Thief also should be noted as having fan missions. There are just tons of them and some are even better than the original maps. It helped add more time to the game. So this too added value and took time away from a new game to devote to an old original.

At least for me

[Odin_Tiger]

At least in my case, yes, MMORPG's suck my dollars away from other games, but that's only part of the problem. Oblivion was the last game that really caught my interest as 'must-have', and Spore is the next one I'll be looking to buy. That's a really long gap between games, and it's not like I'm picky about genre, either. Console RPG like Final Fantasy and racing games like Gran Turismo, PC single player-focused FPS like F.E.A.R., online FPS like Day of Defeat: Source or UT2K4 or Battlefield, PC Strategy like Warcraft III or Civ IV, PC RPG like Oblivion...

There are lots of games types that I love and will happily pay for, but the fact of the matter is, there aren't very many quality games, regardless of platform or genre, being released lately. Oh, I'm sure I'll get a few replies to this pointing out people's personal favorites, but how many games have come out in '06 that really jump to the forefront of your mind as something that you heard about, planned to buy, -did- buy, and were very happy with -and- was widely popular? Let's see, TES IV: Oblivion, and...uhhhhm... ... ...see? Games companies are in the same boat as Hollywood last summer. Sure, there are some factors relating to changes in customer behavior that are hurting sales a bit, but when you get down to it, the industry simply is not releasing much, and what little they are releasing is, by and large, crap.

Re:RPG's take a long time to play.. cant just "bea

[Cheapy]

a lot of the newer generation games are open "world" environments. They could potentially be played for a human's entire life because they are fully open ended.

Funny story about that. I've beaten Oblivion twice (which shows just how little a life I have...), yet yesterday I came upon a whole town that I had no clue exsisted. I didn't even rush through those previous games!

Re:The Second One

[east coast]

Not to dispute some of your claim but look at it this way:

10 hours of Half Life 2: 50 usd
10 hours of WOW (if that's how much you play a week) : 4-5 usd

I don't know what the real average time is per player/per week for WOW or the other assorted MMORPGs but frankly it's your best entertainment value at this point unless you got a serious Freecell addiction going on.

Seriously, how many times can you replay a game and still find it entertaining when there is no social interaction and the game play is pretty much a formula of triggered events. I remember when I was playing a lot of Medal Of Honor online I would buy the expansion packs to get more maps/weapons choices. Normally I would only play about half way through the actual single player missions before it would become tedious to me and I'd go back to playing the multiplayer instead.

If you're one of the MMORPG players that only farms or grinds it's going to get old quick but if you really go out and scout around these worlds are very entertaining and if you have people you know who play you get the addition of competition and socialization. I think a lot of gamers like that kind of gaming.

Of Course

[umbrellasd]

The primary reason that I do play an online game is cost. Even if I am not keen on playing, I shell out the monthly fee deliberately because it leaves me with little motivation to purchase $50-a-pop titles at retail. Usually there are 1 or 2 really great games a year that come out. I may buy one of those, but that's about it.

The question of whether the online game is responsible for losses in the industry is stupid. If there were 15 incredible titles a year, sales would be just fine. If on the other hand there are 13 mediocre titles and 2 great ones (if even), well now, I'd say it's not that some online *cough*WoW*cough* game is so unbelievably amazing, but rather than it's an economical alternative amidst a field of mediocrity.

Price

[duffbeer703]

In the late 80's and early 90's, PC games were in the $30-40 range, most in the $30 range. They'd drop to $19.99 after a year and then on to the CompUSA bargain bin. Now you see games going for $60-70, and dropping down to about $30. Good games seem stay at $30 for a few years... Half-Life 1 was $24.99 at Target a few months ago!

That's alot of money... at that price point, video games are going either going to turn into a niche market or you'll have a 1984 scenario again where everything crashes.

Re:RPG's take a long time to play.. cant just "bea

[i.r.id10t]

With a FPS though, the game is constantly changing (assuming you are playing w/ other real people online) because no bot can be like a human. Heck, I still play the original Quake.. sure, some of the maps are the same, but its the challenge the opponent(s) give you that makes it for me.

Re:The Second One

[Jugalator]

Not to dispute some of your claim but look at it this way:

10 hours of Half Life 2: 50 usd
10 hours of WOW (if that's how much you play a week) : 4-5 usd

???

How did you come to this conclusion? Do you for example not even include the retail box cost for WoW, while you do for HL2? Also, what's saying someone purchased HL2 during these 10 hours you compare them with? You don't keep purchasing HL2 while you play it, but you do keep playing fixed monthly fees for WoW as long as you play it, regardless how much you play it.

A more fair comparison looks to me like this:
- Half-Life 2 played during two years => $36.
- WoW played during two years => $37 (box cost @ Newegg) + $12 * 12 * 2 = $325.

WoW about 9 times more expensive during this period.

Two years seem to me a pretty reasonable time before become bored over games better than average.

I believe both HL2 and WoW is played even longer by many.