Vanguard - Brad posts about the Casual/Hardcore debate

[Braen]

http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/sh...637#post318637

"Fair enough, although I would assert that WoW has been able to cater to much more than a 'minority'. And I think EQ 1 really did too.

At the risk of sounding defensive, no I don't think EQ was simply lucky due to lack of competition. It had competition when I was in charge... games like AC, DAOC, AO and UO all competed with EverQuest to a significant degree, though I also think each of those games were different enough to appeal to different types of players and were/are also a success. Some people did indeed jump ship during my watch, and now we have even more options to choose from than back then to allow us players to even better dial into what appeals to us more. And this was and is good! Choices are good for the player, and better and more accurately defined target audiences are good for the developer. No one can make a game that is all things for all people, as I have so often said.

Though I obviously hope you enjoy Vanguard for a long and fun time, it's also very possible that it turns out not to be the game for you. And this may be because you feel left behind, or that we focus too much on large guilds, or any other variety of reasons.

No matter how proud I am that under my watch we grew the game from 0 subscribers to well over 430k, and I am, that doesn't mean it was ever my goal to create a universally appealing game. That it later was dethroned by FFXI and then later still by WoW, all things considered, was good for the genre (and my ego survived too). And now, with Vanguard, I think we've identified a target audience, a viable and significant playerbase, that wants to play the game we want to make. What's ultimately important is that we make a great game and a long lasting one. And I think we do this by holding true to our vision and my making sure that vision is a financial success. I honestly see the future of MMOGs as being one of more choices, so players can choose a game that even moreso meets what they are looking for. And that means a gamespace with successful and popular games, but successes that are variable. The goal shouldn't be to make a 2 million subscriber game and then to immediately try to make a 3 million subscriber game that appeals to even more people somehow, and then later a magical 5 million subscriber game.

That scenario isn't the healthy one, IMHO, because the more players the game has to appeal to the less it can cater specifically to various playstyles and the groups that represent them. It would lead to watered down games, and less choices too. Much more healthier would be a future MMOG gamespace of many more, smaller, specialized games. No, I'm not advocating a bunch of niche games with tiny playerbases. That's jumping too far to the other extreme. Instead, I think we'll end up with a middle ground consisting of games that appeal to both not too many and not too few. There will still be WoWs, and there will still be Tales in a Desert, certainly. But it's that middle ground that will arise that gets me the most excited: games considered great by those for whom they were made, and with big enough budgets to make them great, and big enough subscriber bases to ensure both their initial success and also their success long after commercial launch.

We're not there yet though, even though we're on our way. And so I see a playerbase of older MMOG players that have been neglected as of late as well as those more recently introduced to MMOG gaming and wanting more depth and challenge. The combination of those two groups (and hopefully yet others attracted to, say, diplomacy and other more innovate online gameplay) is one we've seen grow, even become restless, and also the one to which we attach ourselves personally as gamers.

Anyway, forgive me for rambling on and taking this opportunity to use your post to try to address a more general issue, but, well, I can’t help myself. We are confident that Vanguard will appeal to that audience, move the genre forward, and not just be a great game but also one that makes both Sigil and Microsoft a profitable game we all can be proud of. How popular in terms of numbers will this turn out to be? I've guessed between 250k and 500k (and some have agreed, and others scoffed), but then we also guessed and hoped for 70k for EQ 1 And having enjoyed being number one for several years, it certainly wouldn't be unpleasant to be surprised yet again. But neither is it necessary, and nor do we feel creatively driven to make another game like WoW. Rather, a great game, a profitable game, and a game we can be proud of and enjoy playing ourselves is both more important to us and more realistic. Likewise we welcome other upcoming MMOGs with very different mechanics and goals, regardless of whether we'd want to play those games or not (and many of us did enjoy CoH and other more targeted games, btw). Again, choices = good. Variety = good. And neither require going after obscure niches either.

And being successful a second time will then open up other doors, other opportunities, and the chance to make other MMOGs we've been thinking about... dreaming about... for quite some time. And the really cool thing is that while all of this is going on, the overall MMOG gamespace is growing (despite some naysayers and intermittent claims of saturation), meaning budgets for future titles will generally increase. Combine this with how quickly technology is advancing and I think Sigil and other similar MMMOG developers will be able to create cooler and cooler games. Which explains, quite succinctly, why I and others are here, now, doing what we do, enjoying the present challenges while also looking very optimistically towards the future.

Ok, here goes an attempt to bring this missive back to the OP's topic: Casual vs. Hardcore. What I've been trying to do in posting like a crazy man today and in the past, amongst other things, is to expose this concern of how to appeal to both types of gamers and that core group in-between as really rather narrow and myopic. Yes, they are real and legitimate concerns, but they also need to be taken into perspective. As someone who has enjoyed MMOGs in the past or, conversely, been mostly frustrated by them yet still resolute that online gaming is something that should eventually appeal to them, I'd rather see more specific inquiries and concerns directed toward MMOG developers in an attempt to determine whether their game is going to be for them or not. If we can accept that a game like Vanguard or any other next gen MMOG can appeal to many casual, core, and fanatic gamers successfully, though most certainly not all of them , then we can ask deeper questions that will further define and illuminate the myriad of tastes that are out there.

Is a vast, seamless virtual world more your cup of tea, or a heavily instanced game like, say, D&D Online? Does a mixture of adventure, crafting, and diplomacy float your boat, or just, say, adventure? Do games that purposely take advantage of the cutting edge of technology appeal to you in hopes that the world will be that much more immersive, or does a lower-tech more stylized approach fill your needs better? Is travel important to you? Exploration? Or is it moreso PvP & RvR? Heck, we could even simply leave the casual vs. hardcore issue and focus instead on the classic Bartle types. Which upcoming game is more centered around achievement but not socialization? Does the ability to buy in-game items for out-of-game money turn your stomach, or is it right up your alley?

I bring all of this up to both hopefully encourage discussion in these areas on these boards and elsewhere, but also in the hopes that, if I'm right and more and more choices become available to MMOG gamers open up as we head into this next generation, these issues become the more important ones, the ones that determine to whom your monthly subscription is paid. And if we do this, if we head more in this direction of inquiry and debate, I think MMOG gamers will end up seeing developed and then playing games that frustrate them a lot less, and not only because they are designed moreso for you, but also because your expectations for these games will become more valid and realistic.

The alternative, as I've asserted, is one where MMOG developers are spending more time trying to appease playstyles that aren't actually nearly as mutually as exclusive as some would assert. This again leads to compromises, watering down of ideals, less vision and more spreadsheets, and probably slower and less exciting growth in this exciting gamespace. Seriously, should I spend more time making sure that travel is fun and diplomacy new and appealing and combat more visceral and then communicating to potential players why these features might very well appeal to them, or on trying to convince members of the casual, core, and raid groups that many or most of them can very likely co-exist and have a great time in the same MMOG and that their differences, while real, are not great impenetrable barriers where on each side players of that group must fear, mock, and mistrust the players on the other side? Shall we remain mired down in worry over which items and other rewards might be made available to us but not the other group? Shall we debate endlessly that power gamers are selfish catasses or, conversely, that casual gamers are only out for entitlements and a free lunch?

See. as much as I truly believe Vanguard can appeal to casual, core/group, and raid oriented players, and as committed we are to create content for all three groups, there will so also be significant numbers of members of all three groups that end up not buying or later quitting Vanguard for reasons that I think are much more game defining and meaningful.

So, um, let's talk more about what makes Vanguard Vanguard. Let’s talk more about what features and goals differentiate it from other existing or upcoming games. Let’s also approach some ideas that might superficially resemble features that were problematic in other games both concerned but also with a willingness to think outside of the box and how the madmen at Sigil might just be able to apply these seemingly similar ideas in very different ways, or, and perhaps more importantly, with very different goals in mind.

Anyway, I had best stop now, and probably should have stopped much earlier, for I am now truly deep into Kosterian waters and risk finding myself suddenly teleported elsewhere, snared by other sites and instead contributing to anyuzer, terranova, or any of the other myriad of blogs that opine thusly.

Because I'd much rather be spreading the happy and hopefully appealing gospel of Vanguard to the fanbois, skeptics, and displaced and homeless MMOGs gamers floating in the ether. And then outward and onward, beyond all of you (though never really leaving, of course) and to arguably the most important of groups: those who haven't heard much if anything about Vanguard at all!

edit: where else should I be posting that's not an official site of another game? Preferably, of course, sites/boards/blogs that have significant traffic."

Then has this little gem about WoW and EQ2:

http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/sh...653#post318653

"Hats off to the former -- they did define a target audience (although some would argue that it was marketed claiming the same as the latter)

The latter game claims to do this, or want to do this, but do they really?"

Interesting...

[Faille]

[quote=Braen]http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/sh...637#post318637

"
That scenario isn't the healthy one, IMHO, because the more players the game has to appeal to the less it can cater specifically to various playstyles and the groups that represent them. It would lead to watered down games, and less choices too. Much more healthier would be a future MMOG gamespace of many more, smaller, specialized games. No, I'm not advocating a bunch of niche games with tiny playerbases. That's jumping too far to the other extreme. Instead, I think we'll end up with a middle ground consisting of games that appeal to both not too many and not too few. There will still be WoWs, and there will still be Tales in a Desert, certainly. But it's that middle ground that will arise that gets me the most excited: games considered great by those for whom they were made, and with big enough budgets to make them great, and big enough subscriber bases to ensure both their initial success and also their success long after commercial launch.

"

I just wanted to highlight this section in relation to the recent Sony takeover of MxO. It seems as if there is going to be a trend of companies churning out these niche like games targeting specific playerbases. Already Sony is doing it with their all access subscription. Its only a matter of time before Square Enix gives it a try also. I can easily see a company like EA following suit. They have haven't really been able to develop a good online game themselves as yet though I'm sure they are keen to harness the revenue streams. The idea of buying an already established game must be very appealing for them. Games like Eve or a Tale in the Desert will soon be swallowed up by these companys.

Once within the parent company they will be changed so that they more fit the image of the company, or at least made similar enough to each other to so that players can easily move from one to another.

Then there is also the issue of cross promotion. Most of us are already aware of how much advertising spam you get logging into a Sony game. Can you image flying around in Eve and passing a bilboard advertising Madden 2006?

[WarderX]

I think they have it wrong when they think there's this big correlation between the gameplay style of the player and if he or she will buy/stay with the game or not. Maybe i'm wrong, but I think a lot of people buy MMOG with the thought process "hmm, this might be fun, i'll try it". And staying with a MMOG? Well the hardcore croud is always around until the company is gay enough to them. I think the casuals just stay on in the hope that they can improve themselves.

I think more and more people are feeling kinda like this:
Will it be challenging and appealing to play casually/hardcore in this soandso upcoming MMOG? We don't really care
Will it be frustrating to play this MMOG? Hell yes, we'd like to know. And don't BS us.

But I have been up for 48 hours so this may not make senes later

[Neric]

Whenever Brad writes something, it sounds pretty good and quite convincing. Writing long articles is only half the job though. I'd like to see him follow up where it really counts and that's the game after all. Encouraging high hopes is a dangerous approach if you can't keep promise in the end.

[WarderX]

The cool thing about A Tale in the Desert was that the great accomplishments of the most hardcore guilds affected EVERYONE, made life easier for everyone, gave the casual players advantages too.

I think that is one thing a lot of MMOGs need to look at too. Link the hardcore to the casual more. The only thing they really have is that items trickle down to twinkage. But maybe that's a question of community.

Like in ATITD, a huge accomplishment for one guild could unlock a wonderful skill for everyone.. it would be nice if WoW had that.. You could be proud of your server

[Faille]

Don't forget the community aspect either. A lot of the reason for EQ's ongoing success was the friendships people built up in the game. So then you not only had a situation of finding a better game to play, but also finding one that all your friends wanted to switch to also.

I think this is where WoW is really suffering. I don't really see people logging into wow just to chat with their friends and catch up, like what commonly happened in EQ. The nature of the gameplay in WoW doesn't really build the same sort of bonds. Do people really make that many friends when they solo to 60? No doubt there are exceptions to this but I think for the most part I don't think you get the same connections.

I think as long as Vanguard has the gameplay that lets you build up a good sense of community with other players and that not only do you just want to log into play the game, but you want to log in to spend time with your online friends, then it will be successful for both the hardcores and the casual players.

[Faille]

Originally Posted by WarderX

The cool thing about A Tale in the Desert was that the great accomplishments of the most hardcore guilds affected EVERYONE, made life easier for everyone, gave the casual players advantages too.

I think that is one thing a lot of MMOGs need to look at too. Link the hardcore to the casual more. The only thing they really have is that items trickle down to twinkage. But maybe that's a question of community.

Like in ATITD, a huge accomplishment for one guild could unlock a wonderful skill for everyone.. it would be nice if WoW had that.. You could be proud of your server

EQ2 has a litle of that. Completing the last raid they added unlocks froglocks as a playable race for everyone on the server. prior to that you had to do a quest to unlock the race for your account.

Not long ago they had a plague that spread from player to player until it covered the entire server. Completing a long quest culminating in a end game raid resulted in the plague being cured for your server. Sadly the plague didn't really do anything bad so no one really cared, but the idea was there.

[Creediki]

All that typing with so little to say.....

Go Go Brad.

[WarderX]

Originally Posted by Creediki

All that typing with so little to say.....

Go Go Brad.

Not he's kinda like:

This is a problem that we might have
This is a problem that we might have
This is a problem that we might have
This is a problem that we might have
This is a problem that we might have
This is a problem that we might have
This is a problem that we might have
Instead of talking about solutions, i'll say that I think we'll do just fine!

[kohl]

Originally Posted by Faille

Don't forget the community aspect either. A lot of the reason for EQ's ongoing success was the friendships people built up in the game. So then you not only had a situation of finding a better game to play, but also finding one that all your friends wanted to switch to also.

I think this is where WoW is really suffering. I don't really see people logging into wow just to chat with their friends and catch up, like what commonly happened in EQ. The nature of the gameplay in WoW doesn't really build the same sort of bonds. Do people really make that many friends when they solo to 60? No doubt there are exceptions to this but I think for the most part I don't think you get the same connections.

I think as long as Vanguard has the gameplay that lets you build up a good sense of community with other players and that not only do you just want to log into play the game, but you want to log in to spend time with your online friends, then it will be successful for both the hardcores and the casual players.

I think you end up getting out what you put into many of these games. I spent most of my career in WoW from 1-60 duoing with my wife (paladin and rogue). We did join groups for the elite instances, but for the most part we were thrilled just going about our business with just the two of us. However, we also have a dedicated chat channel for all of us who came over from EQ - probably about 10-15 people so far in various guilds who still enjoy keeping in touch and doing thing occasionally.

I don't think that WoW is any more or less social than EQ. What I *do* see happening is people who have an established base of friends and whatnot in EQ sometimes having a hard time building up that kind of base in WoW, partly because it involves going out of your way to make new friends. Many of us forget that in EQ, it took effort as well to build up that base of friends. As a necro I spent many levels soloing in various locations. It wasn't until I approached 50 that I started making more friends because until that point, I just didn't see a need to group up much.

[Surlok TP]

[quote=Faille]

Originally Posted by Braen

http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/sh...637#post318637

"
That scenario isn't the healthy one, IMHO, because the more players the game has to appeal to the less it can cater specifically to various playstyles and the groups that represent them. It would lead to watered down games, and less choices too. Much more healthier would be a future MMOG gamespace of many more, smaller, specialized games. No, I'm not advocating a bunch of niche games with tiny playerbases. That's jumping too far to the other extreme. Instead, I think we'll end up with a middle ground consisting of games that appeal to both not too many and not too few. There will still be WoWs, and there will still be Tales in a Desert, certainly. But it's that middle ground that will arise that gets me the most excited: games considered great by those for whom they were made, and with big enough budgets to make them great, and big enough subscriber bases to ensure both their initial success and also their success long after commercial launch.

"

I just wanted to highlight this section in relation to the recent Sony takeover of MxO. It seems as if there is going to be a trend of companies churning out these niche like games targeting specific playerbases. Already Sony is doing it with their all access subscription. Its only a matter of time before Square Enix gives it a try also. I can easily see a company like EA following suit. They have haven't really been able to develop a good online game themselves as yet though I'm sure they are keen to harness the revenue streams. The idea of buying an already established game must be very appealing for them. Games like Eve or a Tale in the Desert will soon be swallowed up by these companys.

Once within the parent company they will be changed so that they more fit the image of the company, or at least made similar enough to each other to so that players can easily move from one to another.

Then there is also the issue of cross promotion. Most of us are already aware of how much advertising spam you get logging into a Sony game. Can you image flying around in Eve and passing a bilboard advertising Madden 2006?

Right now I have open Subscriptions to 4 games,It may end up being 5 before the month is through.Unlike some people I can justify the 15 dollar price even if I only play the game for 4 hours.I easily spend the same amount of money for equal length of entertainment going to see a movie,or Renting one or what have.If I spend more than 4 hours with the game,great,If I spend less oh well.I find myself paying to test games lately,IE I pay when osmethign comes on a test server and play it there and then find myself not playing it when it goes live because I am bored of it already.

The only thing about opening a subscription that irritates me,is that it suggest I support the game,when that isn't always the case.Often I support it's ideals but not the way it presents them I am loathe to subscribe to some for this reason,but often do anyway,in the hopes that the new feature will redeem itself for me in some way.

Truth is,none of the new games have the content or features to keep someone with the playtime that I have happy,in a few years maybe they will.As more and more titles are shipping that pique my interest though,will I have time down the road for the old games forgotten that then have the content to satisfy? Time will tell.The key in keeping a player like me around is just as SoE is doing and offering multiple titles.It's already working for SoE and also for the Xbox,which I assume is Micrsoft? If thats the case I can see Sigil already on board for such an All Access type of situation.The Xbox live account is certainly an appealing structure for a player such as myself.

As revoutionary as the games currently out are getting,I also find them very stagnant,to intent on offering new great things,and then forgetting about them while also forgetting about the foundations of the game.At some point someone has to stop and say,ok lets take these established ideas and work with them for a while,instead of trying to re-invent the wheel with every single content patch or what have you.

[Fammaden]

Originally Posted by Faille

I just wanted to highlight this section in relation to the recent Sony takeover of MxO. It seems as if there is going to be a trend of companies churning out these niche like games targeting specific playerbases. Already Sony is doing it with their all access subscription. Its only a matter of time before Square Enix gives it a try also. I can easily see a company like EA following suit. They have haven't really been able to develop a good online game themselves as yet though I'm sure they are keen to harness the revenue streams. The idea of buying an already established game must be very appealing for them. Games like Eve or a Tale in the Desert will soon be swallowed up by these companys.

Probably true, S-E already has PlayOnline set up with the stated purpose of being able to function as a launch pad for multiple titles. PoL doesn't actually cost money to keep an account on. You do not actually log into FFXI directly, which many people took understandable issue with, you log into PoL and access FFXI from a series of menus. You have a friends list, e-mail, chat and CS contact options within the free PoL service. It is actually a pretty cool setup but at the time I quit, FFXI and the mini game associated with it were the only things you could log into. I did like how you could mail or message offline friends and see if they were logged into PoL but not playing the game. With multiple titles that could be a very useful feature. Heck throw an FPS, a head to head fighter and a single player RPG into the package and you can easily keep groups and raid informed without forcing everyone to sit around doing nothing on the MMO side of things. Someone will always be doing tradeskills or some shit and can seek their friends out when the time to play is more opportune.

I guess the danger is, as you said, that the niche titles that get absorbed by larger companies would lose their unique appeal as they become assimilated into the image of the parent corporation. I suppose only time will tell. MxO by most accounts does not have much unique allure to lose in the first place so it might not end up being the best example.

[WarderX]

No, i've noticed that in WoW, people just plain flat out don't talk as much.

[kohl]

Originally Posted by WarderX

No, i've noticed that in WoW, people just plain flat out don't talk as much.

Thats a bit broad don't you think? Do you mean in groups they dont talk as much? In general chat? In guildchat? Obviously each person will probably have their own take on this, but personally my playstyle is such that I do less PvP and more instances. In all the pickup groups I've been in, people tend to be pretty chatty and friendly. Obviously you run into morons from time to time, but on my server anyhow, your reputation gets around.

[Lenaldo]

I am pretty excited for Vanguard only because it is made by true gamers. I have been very dissapointed in WoW because it seems to be made by people who primarily care about money, not about the quality of their game. I only hope that brad and team keeps their vision(like he says he will do) going regardless of the pricks who will complain about anything thats not givent o them.

I also agree that in the mmorpg world it is becoming mroe and more about filling a niche than capturing the whole market. WoW has a huge playerbase, but mainly because it was the first mmorpg to get the "i wont pay for a game" crowd. Blizzard coaxed the bnet crowd into buying it and was lucky enouhg that there are no other good alternatives atm and so they got a lot of the older mmorpgs as well. Thus, they gained a huge playerbase, however it is pretty evident that this playrebase is starting to thin out. Hardcore gamers are getting sick of how easy the game is, and a lot of the people who had never played an MMORPG are not liking what they are experiencing.

However, WoW will always hold the casual market; at least for now. It is the easiest game to "beat" out of any of the mmorpgs. I think this is where UO failed miserably. UO's pvp to this day is still the most fun i have ever done. 3 people could take on a group of 6 or 7 easy if they were substantially better than the opposition... this doesnt happen in any other game that i know of. However, when EQ came out it was such a success that UO decided to follow their footsteps. Now, UO is just like eveyr other mmorpg just with shittier graphics. They lost their uniqueness and it will most likely be the downfall of their game.

Thats a different rant. In the end... i think brad is right. Each game is going to need to pick their target audience and stick with it. It will be impossible to capture everyone now since there are so many different markets for mmorpgs to hit. One of the spots that has not been filled is a truely hardcore game and im hoping vanguard will be it.