I think you severely underestimate the ease with which people will switch.
Actually, all of the gamers I know switch games whenever the next one comes out. Being that this is primarily a social activity they tend to follow their friends regardless of the time they've invested in something. Of the people I know who play MMOs regularly, they have switched from EQ to DAOC to SWG . They're now playing City of Heroes and they say they'll jump straight into WoW when it hits the streets.
MMO developers need to realize that any "loyalty" that their games command is only amongst the power-gamer minority. They're missing out on the enormous demographic of the casual gamer, to whom the time barrier of entry is simply way too big. There's millions of 25-35 year-old, 9-5 working, trying to start a family, ready-to-throw-my-money-at-something-cool people out there who simply don't have the time to invest in the current state of MMOs and don't feel like throwing away $15/mo for something they rarely use. These are the people that episodic gaming can bring in.
If content were episodic in nature, I would most likely be able to play some of these games again without worrying about the time commitment.
This is a point that applies to most people I know. Gamers with lives.
The other incentive for developers is mitigating the risk of losing your players everytime the next big thing comes out. If your players aren't forced to pick one game to the exclusion of all others then people can play your game and that other one, instead of simply leaving yours for theirs.
Maybe google is a good company with our best interests at heart, but there are a hell of a lot of companies out there who wouldn't think twice about collecting, cataloguing, and selling your email.
I don't understand why everyone is screaming bloody-murder about this. When Wal-Mart wanted to use RFID in their warehouse everyone on/. rose up and screamed, "It's morally objectionable for Wal-Mart to catalogue how many bags of Doritos I eat!" Now, when google advertises the ability to catalogue your personal ideas and thoughts (even though they have no plans to do so), and some law maker decides to head them off at the pass, why is everyone rising up and screaming, "It's morally objectionable to prevent a company from cataloguing the fact that I like Doritos!"?
And suggesting that you boycott gmail if you don't like their terms doesn't make sense. You don't need to agree to any service agreement to send mail into the gmail servers. eg: I don't have a hotmail account but I email people who do. Now Microsoft has my email and can what they like with it even though I've never agreed to any Microsoft terms of service.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you severely underestimate the ease with which people will switch.
Actually, all of the gamers I know switch games whenever the next one comes out. Being that this is primarily a social activity they tend to follow their friends regardless of the time they've invested in something. Of the people I know who play MMOs regularly, they have switched from EQ to DAOC to SWG . They're now playing City of Heroes and they say they'll jump straight into WoW when it hits the streets.
MMO developers need to realize that any "loyalty" that their games command is only amongst the power-gamer minority. They're missing out on the enormous demographic of the casual gamer, to whom the time barrier of entry is simply way too big. There's millions of 25-35 year-old, 9-5 working, trying to start a family, ready-to-throw-my-money-at-something-cool people out there who simply don't have the time to invest in the current state of MMOs and don't feel like throwing away $15/mo for something they rarely use. These are the people that episodic gaming can bring in.
If content were episodic in nature, I would most likely be able to play some of these games again without worrying about the time commitment.
This is a point that applies to most people I know. Gamers with lives.
The other incentive for developers is mitigating the risk of losing your players everytime the next big thing comes out. If your players aren't forced to pick one game to the exclusion of all others then people can play your game and that other one, instead of simply leaving yours for theirs.
I don't understand why everyone is screaming bloody-murder about this. When Wal-Mart wanted to use RFID in their warehouse everyone on /. rose up and screamed, "It's morally objectionable for Wal-Mart to catalogue how many bags of Doritos I eat!" Now, when google advertises the ability to catalogue your personal ideas and thoughts (even though they have no plans to do so), and some law maker decides to head them off at the pass, why is everyone rising up and screaming, "It's morally objectionable to prevent a company from cataloguing the fact that I like Doritos!"?
And suggesting that you boycott gmail if you don't like their terms doesn't make sense. You don't need to agree to any service agreement to send mail into the gmail servers. eg: I don't have a hotmail account but I email people who do. Now Microsoft has my email and can what they like with it even though I've never agreed to any Microsoft terms of service.