Might MMORPGs be played like any other?

[Duhulk]

I think one major problem is that everyone, players and developers, seems to be stuck in this mindset that if players don't have a subscription 365 days a year, something is being done wrong.

I dont want to play an MMO all year long. I'm perfectly happy to play an MMO until a satisfactory level of completion, and then sit out until the expansion. That's exactly how I plan on playing EQ2.

The content didn't "dry up", I simply finished it. Okay, I finished a game, so I won't play it anymore. When EQ2's first content sequel, Desert of Flames, comes out, i'll buy that and play it until I reach a satisfactory level of completion =p.

Make all the immersive worlds you want, these are still games you can play, beat, and be done with. Get a 100% score in, no, but beat, yes.

[dub]

I think this trend with MMORPGs is becoming more and more common. Everyone knows MMOs soak up your time like a sponge, and sometimes I think people feel an obligation to play that game whenever they can because they pay a monthly fee for it. I'm starting to gravitate towards your playing habits, especially when other non-subscribtion-based games come out that I want to play (BF2).

Everyone knows when Elderscrolls IV: Oblivion is released, you won't touch any MMORPG for a fortnight.

[Nevergone]

It's not that they think specifically that they think that they're doing something wrong if people aren't subscribed all the time, it's that they're not making as much money as they possibly can. Most of these companies are publicly traded, which means they have to attempt to maximize profits at all times.

Now, whether or not a subscription based service is the way to do that; that's up for debate. I'm sure Arena.net would disagree, considering that Guild Wars is subscription free, but they are supposedly going to release smaller, more frequent, expansion packs to compensate. I'm interested to see how that's received by consumers, and how it ultimately pans out for Arena.net.

[Mkopec1]

I have the complete reverse train of thought when it comes to this.

And I believe that a thriving "alive" virtual world is the answer. Where when you dont have anything to do content wise, you can do any of the other 100 things like trade, craft, even shoot the shit with someone in a pub.

I think these games are going in the wrong direction being all designed and catered for little snippets of activities, like 1 hour here one hour there. Dont get me wrong, little snippets of time for some content is good, but not for all. It just does not feel like a "alive world" when all content is designed for little snippets of time.

I would also love to see some kind of system come out, which would constantly improve your character, rather than a stagnant Lv60 and gear being the only way to advance further. Think of EQ AA but diffrent...... WoWerized.

[Kevincheese]

I just want full sensory-interface virtual worlds.

So help me, if we aren't seeing these in my lifetime, I'm going to save all my money to cryo-freeze until we have it.

[Deathwing]

Originally Posted by Kevincheese

I just want full sensory-interface virtual worlds.

So help me, if we aren't seeing these in my lifetime, I'm going to save all my money to cryo-freeze until we have it.

So...you're waiting for the Matrix?

[Etadanik]

The reality of the matter comes down to money. MMORPGs can afford what they do because of monthly subscriptions. Without that kind of upkeep money, you run into problems such as the infeasibility of running hundreds of networked servers on T3 lines and hiring full time staff and live content teams. Depending on expansions simply means you go back to the standard game cycle for development, while incurring the extra costs of server-side maintenance. Why, then would you not simply develop single-player games, or classic MP?

The answer, of course, is that you want to keep the persistent MMORPG world environment, because that's what attracts players.

Guild Wars is the vanguard here, but Guild Wars cannot be, at the moment, compared to a MMORPG. Guild Wars is, so far, essentially Diablo III with group-based PvP, and while I'm sure companies like Blizzard and Arena.net can afford to use non-subscription based MP services ala Battle.net, they're not nearly as profitable as MMORPGs. But of course, this is not the last word on Diablo-esque games, and it will be curious to see how Guild Wars pans out eventually (when the coveted expansions hit the shelves, etc.). Do remember, though, that alot of that instancing you see in GW exists because the world is not meant to be a MMORPG world, but a Battle.net-like matchmaking service.

Moving on, the idea of persistent worlds coupled with no subscription is intriguing, because we're then looking at a much larger potential audience - presumably - due to the lack of monthly upkeep. A company would not need to care about $14/month if it can sell three times more game and expansion boxes than its competitors. Once again, however, we get back to the Guild Wars syndrome, and that is the fact that GW just isn't as profitable as WoW in its current incarnation. Whether that has anything to do with the underlying game design, we don't know, but marketing does know that GW isn't churning in monthly millions like WoW, and that, as far as they're concerned, is enough.

My personal opinion? A game that offers multiple expansions in the place of a subscription fee is not going to be cheaper in the long run if that mode of payment is going to be competitive with the monthly subscription-based games. So you'll be paying once every two monthes for a $30 expansion instead of once every month for $15, and the content the two genres will have will be roughly the same, because a expansion-based MMORPG cannot spend nearly as long of a time (or as much money) in development as WoW, and would need to *reserve* content / features for expansions specifically rather than pushing them out to live. With respect to your wallet, then, expansion based games will only help insofar as they force a competitive rate of content development in MMORPG live teams.

However, a expansion-based game is going to be more attractive to the average player for the reason that it's a more casual mode of play. Feel like stopping for a month or two? Sure. Changed your mind? No problem. In neither case will you be charged, and that, with respect to a casual player, might mean alot, even if you could achieve the same results in MMORPGs simply be planning out your schedules of play and subscribing/unsubscribing accordingly (it's only because people are lazy and operate on a whim that my point really applies). This means that expansion-based games should, in theory, have an advantage over MMORPGs by virtue of giving more options to the customer. This is counter-balanced, however, by the perception that subscription-based games make more money, sometimes by virtue of the fact that the mode preys on human nature and laziness (ie a guy who doesn't play anymore but still passively subscribes to keep in touch with friends because it's such a negligible payment/month; obviously he would not actively buy a expansion).

In the end, as long as the industry perception is that you can gouge people for both subscription $$$, box $$$, and expansion $$$, I doubt many companies will assume the charitable position of giving you the option of not paying. Until a true contender to the genre of subscription-based MMORPGs arise, and so far GW is not that contender imo, this will likely remain the case. One more rant: for a expansion-based game to really compete with a game like WoW at launch, the box price is going to have to be alot higher. Will you pay $100 for a game? If not, then think about this from a industry's point of view. Games have not increased their box prices for a LONG time now despite the fact that almost every other entertainment medium has and inflation dictates that they do. Why? Because marketing thinks that a game sold at a higher price will be shooting itself in the foot, because consumers PERCEIVE spending large chunks of money on a single game wasteful. This is despite the fact that it's exactly what you do when you pay $50 for WoW and then spend $50 in subscriptions over the course of four monthes - yet that is more acceptable, from marketing's point of view, to us consumers, and that's why they use it. So until that attitude changes, I reckon that MMORPGs will continue to favor subscription-based modes, and games will continue to try and cater to the lowest common denominator - because if box prices aren't going up but production costs are (and they are, folks; those FMV's and eye candy you love so much don't come cheap), then the only option we got is to expand the market.

[Lhon]

Originally Posted by Deathwing

So...you're waiting for the Matrix?

I'm guessing he has something more like a holosuite in mind.

[Mkopec1]

Originally Posted by Lhon

I'm guessing he has something more like a holosuite in mind.

Dont count this out entirely, they already have neurons in lab conditions interfacing and growing on/with computer chips, so well that the scientists were even surprised.

Maybe we wont see it i our life times, but im betting our kids will.

[Cybsled]

If they made the Matrix IRL, people would never leave their homes cept to get food and get money. "Cybering" would soon become a MMO's most touted feature as well.

"Dude, why arent you playing the World of Elfcraft? It's so easy to get groups in the game"

"Ya, but what if I want to solo? Grouping and killing monsters is less xp sometimes"

"Killing monsters? haha rofl u newb!!!11!"

SERVERWIDE BROADCAST: Servers are coming down in 5 minutes to correct an issue with people using macros to interact with other players. Please pull out and find a safe place to camp.

[Nevergone]

I remember the video that was linked in screenshots where some french scientists were displaying actual holographs. They had a truck on a table, they could pick it up and move it - but it wasn't really there.

Also, I remember reading that Sony recently bought the patent for a device (or method) of sending images and sound signals directly into people's cerebral cortex.

Interesting, and slightly scary, stuff.

[Etadanik]

In the future:

I could see someone wanting to spend their whole life in a virtual world.

I could see some company wanting to build a world in which someone would want to spend their whole life in.

I could see designers and artists being hired to create the immersion and addictive "life style" needed to realize that ambition.

And finally, I could see elitest boards like this where people argue exactly what makes a virtual world immersive, worth living in, and how the genre could be improved.

MMORPGs are the first step. We humans as a species are always building models. One day, we'll make the real thing.

[Sylas]

Originally Posted by Etadanik

Moving on, the idea of persistent worlds coupled with no subscription is intriguing, because we're then looking at a much larger potential audience - presumably - due to the lack of monthly upkeep. A company would not need to care about $14/month if it can sell three times more game and expansion boxes than its competitors. Once again, however, we get back to the Guild Wars syndrome, and that is the fact that GW just isn't as profitable as WoW in its current incarnation. Whether that has anything to do with the underlying game design, we don't know, but marketing does know that GW isn't churning in monthly millions like WoW, and that, as far as they're concerned, is enough.

My personal opinion? A game that offers multiple expansions in the place of a subscription fee is not going to be cheaper in the long run if that mode of payment is going to be competitive with the monthly subscription-based games. So you'll be paying once every two monthes for a $30 expansion instead of once every month for $15, and the content the two genres will have will be roughly the same, because a expansion-based MMORPG cannot spend nearly as long of a time (or as much money) in development as WoW, and would need to *reserve* content / features for expansions specifically rather than pushing them out to live. With respect to your wallet, then, expansion based games will only help insofar as they force a competitive rate of content development in MMORPG live teams.

However, a expansion-based game is going to be more attractive to the average player for the reason that it's a more casual mode of play. Feel like stopping for a month or two? Sure. Changed your mind? No problem. In neither case will you be charged, and that, with respect to a casual player, might mean alot, even if you could achieve the same results in MMORPGs simply be planning out your schedules of play and subscribing/unsubscribing accordingly (it's only because people are lazy and operate on a whim that my point really applies). This means that expansion-based games should, in theory, have an advantage over MMORPGs by virtue of giving more options to the customer. This is counter-balanced, however, by the perception that subscription-based games make more money, sometimes by virtue of the fact that the mode preys on human nature and laziness (ie a guy who doesn't play anymore but still passively subscribes to keep in touch with friends because it's such a negligible payment/month; obviously he would not actively buy a expansion).

In the end, as long as the industry perception is that you can gouge people for both subscription $$$, box $$$, and expansion $$$, I doubt many companies will assume the charitable position of giving you the option of not paying. Until a true contender to the genre of subscription-based MMORPGs arise, and so far GW is not that contender imo, this will likely remain the case. One more rant: for a expansion-based game to really compete with a game like WoW at launch, the box price is going to have to be alot higher. Will you pay $100 for a game? If not, then think about this from a industry's point of view. Games have not increased their box prices for a LONG time now despite the fact that almost every other entertainment medium has and inflation dictates that they do. Why? Because marketing thinks that a game sold at a higher price will be shooting itself in the foot, because consumers PERCEIVE spending large chunks of money on a single game wasteful. This is despite the fact that it's exactly what you do when you pay $50 for WoW and then spend $50 in subscriptions over the course of four monthes - yet that is more acceptable, from marketing's point of view, to us consumers, and that's why they use it. So until that attitude changes, I reckon that MMORPGs will continue to favor subscription-based modes, and games will continue to try and cater to the lowest common denominator - because if box prices aren't going up but production costs are (and they are, folks; those FMV's and eye candy you love so much don't come cheap), then the only option we got is to expand the market.

expansions in standard MMORPGs, even the box price itself, are more of a "bonus" than a revenue source, and this is where guildwars has shot itself in the foot. Sure the money from the initial box go to pay back development costs and ongoing expansion sales pay for the next expansion and so on, but it has to be considered seperately as a bonus revenue with this model. 3 years from now when you go to buy the WoW box in the store, it's going to have the first 2-3 expansion packs bundled with it for 30-40 bucks. The box sale itself is just icing on the cake, the main revenue is from the subscription fee. In 3 years, Guildwars, if it's still around, is going to have the initial box and as many as 18 expansion packs, which is their only source of income. They may do bundles 6 or so at a time, or offer digital downloads for $5 a pop or something after the expansion is no longer current, but the cost of entry down the road is going to be higher for GW than will be for any other MMO. It's going to be a balancing act keeping the initial costs low enough to be viable and remaining profitable with content development costs. The best case schenario for them is the "required" purchase being the initial box + the most current expansion ala a FOTM schenario where the cost to the new player is original game +30 bucks to get in the door and up to speed. Each exp pack they will pretty much need to obsolete the previous expansion (skills/items/etc) with their newest one in order to get the players to buy it. Also with the pvp centric focus, they can't have "must have" items/skills only available in certain older expansions since that would increase the cost of entry for new players.

[Etadanik]

Okay, there are major flaws to GW's model that I neglected, but I'm not sure you hit the nail here. From what you're saying, the problem is the content/$$$ ratio GW is packaging LATER down the line. I'm not sure I agree.

The people that play these games tend to stick with them - new players after 3-4 years isn't a major source of revenue in either case, I'd predict from experience in EQ. Moreover, even if they were, WoW gets no benefits here: those players haven't subscribed for 3 years, and that's 3 years of their primary income source that's missing. They're only going to get their box bonus plus whatever they make from now on. With GW, that's the exact same model: they'll get a fraction of their primary revenue, and whatever they make from now on.

The new player gets the benefit of 3 years worth of development for cheap in either case. If WoW spent most of its subscription fee buffing up servers, balancing, and getting more live content, that player 3 years down the line is going to inherit that as much as the player of GW will inherit 18 expansions worth of content, both for nearly free. Packaging and details aside, 18 expansions worth of revenue is equivalent to 36 monthes worth of subscription in terms of revenue, and you're giving away both to the new player, basically, in the hopes that he'll stay and play.

The only difference here, I think, is that critical factor of player retention, of what they make from now on: with Guild Wars, it maybe wise to wait 5-6 monthes for prices to DROP before buying a expansion, whereas for WoW you can't wait for subscription costs to drop if you want to play. That's not a matter of initial setup cost, though, but more of a matter of someone who's played GW continuously but who prefers not to buy the expansions immediately. In this area GW, unless it can come up with a immediate incentive for buying expansions as soon as they're released, will suffer compared to WoW because of content development costs. That's perhaps what you're aiming at, but it's got little to do with someone buying the game 3-4 years down the road and everything to do with people not buying expansions at full price *after* they started playing continously, I think.

[Duhulk]

that they're not making as much money as they possibly can.

Well, you certainly don't get as much money from one person if they are only subscribed half the year. However, there's lots of people that won't actively cancel their accounts so they can still jump in. Or you can be ruthless like Square-Enix and just delete if they stay unsubscribed for 3 months. I think, in the end, you'd likely recoup far more money from extra box sales if the community, as awhole, had a more casual "I won't have to devote 100000's hours to this game if I buy it for it to be worth it" attitude. People would be inclined to try out more MMO's at once.

It's really more about needing less time to go through more intersting content. Most people still won't play enough to go through content faster than developer's can make it. Perhaps they can feel as if they're accomplishing more in the same span of time though, which only lends them to feeling more rewarding and staying around longer. Of course, the really hardcore people might finish before the next "chunk" of content is out, but these are people that are more likely to keep their subscription up anyway. Basically, if you're tailoring the game so that even the most hardcore people won't be finished until just before the next expansion, the game is probably too time-consuming (note I don't say too hard, but time-consuming). Hardcore player's shouldn't consider it some kind of design sin to have an MMO game they "finish".