Excerpted from a thread on SW:TOR retention (with apology to the author, I'd like to see this addressed by the dev crowd)

Originally posted by DarLorkar
 

The rest will leave no matter what, just the way this market is now, people treat every game as a single player game, and leave 30-60 days after starting them.

This struck me as a strongly interesting topic.  I have an opinion, but no specific agenda.  Just hoping that others might toss in with comments.

Is there a pattern where players of single player games play for a month or two and then move on?

Could an influx of players of single player games, or possibly a shift toward treating MMORPGs as single player games be hurting industry retention numbers for subscriptions?

If there is a connection, could this be contributing to the playerbase of non-subscription games (F2P or buy 2 play) where you can leave at any time and come back to play when you feel like it?

I submit that treating an MMO like a single player game doesn't hurt any where near as much as making a game TOO easy.

When it takes little to no effort to reach max level, the gamer has little to nothing invested in the character and the game.  Conversely the developers can't make it too hard, so that it discourages the average player.

Now if you take that to mean that they don't ever need help of others to advance to end game then yes single player mmos are hurting retention.

I think it's more of the lacking of social features, player interaction, and players build connections with each other is what hurts rentention. I suppose you could define what I said as the opposite end of a focus on a singleplayer game experience BUT there is no reason you can't have both.

How about this question. Is the fact that players run out of content solo/group/pvp hurting retention?

Surely once you plow through everything you can do there isn't much reason to stay is there? So fast leveling or easy content could be problems too.

Too soon to tell, wait for the game to hit the six month period.  Or however long it would take someone to go through the amount of story content that they claim is in the game.

If they don't add something to trick the themeparkers into sticking around, like a gear treadmill and/or progressive raid system with interwoven golfclap achievements, I have a feeling that it will have trouble with retention.  Although, if they did add some themeparky retention measures, they'd be in direct violation of the underlying foundation that so many people seem to think is the essence of the game: that TOR is the ultimate expression of all the things that are good about themepark games, minus all the things that are classically bad.  So they would ultimately fall for the old bit about guaranteed success at the expense of their integrity as a developer.  Finalizing that transition from developer of games that they themselves want to play, to developer of games that only people with addictive personalities want to play.

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

Is there a pattern where players of single player games play for a month or two and then move on?

Could an influx of players of single player games, or possibly a shift toward treating MMORPGs as single player games be hurting industry retention numbers for subscriptions?

If there is a connection, could this be contributing to the playerbase of non-subscription games (F2P or buy 2 play) where you can leave at any time and come back to play when you feel like it?

If I had to speculate, I'd have to go with the way that F2P players move from game to game.  But that's not so much "single player game" as "easily bored and short attention span".  Watching my son play is rather like watching Richocet Rabbit hopped up on coffee and amphetamines.

massive.

multiplayer.

i feel as if people are treating "MMO" the same way "RPG" gets treated. just some word that gets stamped on the box they want to sell.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

Is there a pattern where players of single player games play for a month or two and then move on?

Could an influx of players of single player games, or possibly a shift toward treating MMORPGs as single player games be hurting industry retention numbers for subscriptions?

If there is a connection, could this be contributing to the playerbase of non-subscription games (F2P or buy 2 play) where you can leave at any time and come back to play when you feel like it?

If I had to speculate, I'd have to go with the way that F2P players move from game to game.  But that's not so much "single player game" as "easily bored and short attention span".  Watching my son play is rather like watching Richocet Rabbit hopped up on coffee and amphetamines.

These games do nothing to hold anyone's attention anymore.  The trouble few want to admit is that the MMO genre is so shallow now that the new norm is to be tired of the game within about three months, after you have burned through the content. 

My personal feeling is that this genre needs to be split into two new genres.  Games like TOR are not MMORPGs in the traditional sense.  At best it's an ORPG (Online Role Playing Game).  It certainly is not Massively Multiplayer in the sense that is has been designed to bring hundreds or thousands of  players together, or to create an in-game community.  It plays like a single player game with a chat room and occasional coop grouping - only when absolutely required to beat an instance. 

Even the term "roll playing" has been bastardized to mean "we (the developers) shove a story down your throat, and you pretend it's your own", rather than meaning that you chose a role for your character, create your own adventure/story and interact with other players on a large scale accordingly.

Originally posted by MindTrigger

These games do nothing to hold anyone's attention anymore.  The trouble few want to admit is that the MMO genre is so shallow now that the new norm is to be tired of the game within about three months, after you have burned through the content. 

My personal feeling is that this genre needs to be split into two new genres.  Games like TOR are not MMORPGs in the traditional sense.  At best it's an ORPG (Online Role Playing Game).  It certainly is not Massively Multiplayer in the sense that is has been designed to bring hundreds or thousands of  players together, or to create an in-game community.  It plays like a single player game with a chat room and occasional coop grouping - only when absolutely required to beat an instance. 

Even the term "roll playing" has been bastardized to mean "we (the developers) shove a story down your throat, and you pretend it's your own", rather than meaning that you chose a role for your character, and interact with other players on a large scale accordingly.

Roleplaying.  Roll Playing used to be a derrogatory.

Anyway, not much to work with in that healthy batch of dicto simpliciter.  But we have to wonder, if all is doom and gloom and we're all going over the falls in a leaky bucket, why you spend so much time here?

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by MindTrigger

These games do nothing to hold anyone's attention anymore.  The trouble few want to admit is that the MMO genre is so shallow now that the new norm is to be tired of the game within about three months, after you have burned through the content. 

My personal feeling is that this genre needs to be split into two new genres.  Games like TOR are not MMORPGs in the traditional sense.  At best it's an ORPG (Online Role Playing Game).  It certainly is not Massively Multiplayer in the sense that is has been designed to bring hundreds or thousands of  players together, or to create an in-game community.  It plays like a single player game with a chat room and occasional coop grouping - only when absolutely required to beat an instance. 

Even the term "roll playing" has been bastardized to mean "we (the developers) shove a story down your throat, and you pretend it's your own", rather than meaning that you chose a role for your character, and interact with other players on a large scale accordingly.

Roleplaying.  Roll Playing used to be a derrogatory.

Anyway, not much to work with in that healthy batch of dicto simpliciter.  But we have to wonder, if all is doom and gloom and we're all going over the falls in a leaky bucket, why you spend so much time here?

Because there is hope.  Hope that one day a developer will try something innovative AND come out with a polished product.  Here's to 2012.  May that be the year of the MMORPG. 

Originally posted by sullivanj69

Because there is hope.  Hope that one day a developer will try something innovative AND come out with a polished product.  Here's to 2012.  May that be the year of the MMORPG. 

Then the productive thing to do would be to gather somewhere where developers actually participate?

Feedback's terrific, but this is a pretty ineffectual venue to provide it.

I still honestly think that all people need is the *ruse* of not actually being alone.

People will always solo, but will truly think it's a single-player game if they don't have active chatlines, or don't see another player (physically) once every 5-10 minutes - regardless if the intent is to have both parties continue minding their own business.

I for one played Wurm Online for an equal length of time as that of SWG in it's heyday, about 2 years each. SWG was a game where meeting people was important (I won't go over the social mechanics of it), but in Wurm you would rarely want to deal with people, unless you were actively working on a project with them. I spent a long time by myself out in the woods, making my acreage look all kinds of epic, as so long as there was healthy conversation over the global chat, all was fine. You'd actually worry about running into people near your settlement because it's a "get off my lawn" situation where you own a little piece of the game world and don't want strangers f**king it up - which they will do by hunting everything to extinction, building near you, or outright griefing your works off-deed. It happens.

So, depending on the game itself - you might actually *NOT* want to see anyone else, ever. Yet you are more than happy to convince yourself you're not alone through whatever lines of communication there is.

I'd consider it a very minor factor in the grand scheme of things.

Solo play is kind of necessary in most current designs.  The same devices used to craft the experience also chop the population into very small blocks of players, at least until "endgame".  When a level or two, or a couple drops can put you well behind... nothing good comes from that design.  Actually I wonder how many of the 30-60 day "quiters" are the people who simply can't keep up and because of that (the nature of the design) the game becomes far more work than it is worth to continue.

I place far more emphasis on the market though.  There are hundreds if not thousands of options in the market, all of them capable of swallowing hundreds of hours (and of course $$$).  Where once the new game stayed the new game for months and there was no real backlog of "older" games that still could be checked out, now there is a new game every couple weeks.  The idea of retention in this market is realistically a dated concept.  While it is sad, fire and forget is a better match to the market conditions.

F2P and B2P do have some great advantages in the current market (and for the foreseeable future).  They lessen or eliminate the entry and exit barriers.  The lack of a recurring payment allows players to play when they are availible and interested without feeling a bit ripped off because they only had 10 hrs to do so this month (can we please skip the debate of the virtues of this arguement and simply acknowledge that it is a sentiment among a sizable group of players).

Originally posted by ghstwolf

I'd consider it a very minor factor in the grand scheme of things.

Solo play is kind of necessary in most current designs.  The same devices used to craft the experience also chop the population into very small blocks of players, at least until "endgame".  When a level or two, or a couple drops can put you well behind... nothing good comes from that design.  Actually I wonder how many of the 30-60 day "quiters" are the people who simply can't keep up and because of that (the nature of the design) the game becomes far more work than it is worth to continue.

Quite off the subject, but everyone seems to think that gear treadmills (use WoW as an example here, if you must) leave a gap where you'll never catch up - but the fact is that while you might not get the full set of "must have" endgame shit, you'll have enough of it, and soon enough, to cut the already small margin between you and the others using the the full setup. People only seem to think in terms of "max out or go home", and will never be content with their ability with say, 5/8 total pieces of the set... even if the other 3 add only a 1.7% difference overall (if that).

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by ghstwolf

I'd consider it a very minor factor in the grand scheme of things.

Solo play is kind of necessary in most current designs.  The same devices used to craft the experience also chop the population into very small blocks of players, at least until "endgame".  When a level or two, or a couple drops can put you well behind... nothing good comes from that design.  Actually I wonder how many of the 30-60 day "quiters" are the people who simply can't keep up and because of that (the nature of the design) the game becomes far more work than it is worth to continue.

Quite off the subject, but everyone seems to think that gear treadmills (use WoW as an example here, if you must) leave a gap where you'll never catch up - but the fact is that while you might not get the full set of "must have" endgame shit, you'll have enough of it, and soon enough, to cut the already small margin between you and the others using the the full setup. People only seem to think in terms of "max out or go home", and will never be content with their ability with say, 5/8 total pieces of the set... even if the other 3 add only a 1.7% difference overall (if that).

You point out the issue in your last paragraph. "People only seem to think in terms of "max out or go home"

If a player isn't personally bothered by that 1.7%, but can't get into groups for [content] because of it, then the player does have to catch up or not participate in that content.

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

 

This struck me as a strongly interesting topic.  I have an opinion, but no specific agenda.  Just hoping that others might toss in with comments.

Is there a pattern where players of single player games play for a month or two and then move on?

Could an influx of players of single player games, or possibly a shift toward treating MMORPGs as single player games be hurting industry retention numbers for subscriptions?

If there is a connection, could this be contributing to the playerbase of non-subscription games (F2P or buy 2 play) where you can leave at any time and come back to play when you feel like it?

 It is a possibility of course. Most single player games are made to play for a shorter peiod of time andhave no monthly fees for that matter.

So if MMOs becomes too close to singleplayer games people can tire faster of them.

Difficulty adds on, hard singleplayer games usually last longer for me than easy and I don´t think I am the only one there.

But MMOs really big problem with keeping subs is probably because they are very similar and more or less have the same endgame, we have been raiding for gear for years now and a slightly different skin and background story just ain´t enough to keep everyone happy anymore.

MMOs need to figure out more endgame activeties if they want people to keep playing them.

 Heh , for starters , for those who play MMO's as single player games needs to be shot at , period.

The point of a MMO is the community , clans , guilds , alliances , name it.

 I can't describe it any clearer , it's like mixing water and oil.  

Most likely why we got all these crappy MMOs being released because they encourage more the single player type then the party type , which is lame. 

In a word... yes.

When you remove the social complexity of mmorpgs and essentially just make a single player game with a chat room function then of course that is going to impact upon player retention.

It is also why we see mmos getting churned out which are the same crap in a new skin, Rift and SWTOR are like Doom 2 and 3.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by ghstwolf

I'd consider it a very minor factor in the grand scheme of things.

Solo play is kind of necessary in most current designs.  The same devices used to craft the experience also chop the population into very small blocks of players, at least until "endgame".  When a level or two, or a couple drops can put you well behind... nothing good comes from that design.  Actually I wonder how many of the 30-60 day "quiters" are the people who simply can't keep up and because of that (the nature of the design) the game becomes far more work than it is worth to continue.

Quite off the subject, but everyone seems to think that gear treadmills (use WoW as an example here, if you must) leave a gap where you'll never catch up - but the fact is that while you might not get the full set of "must have" endgame shit, you'll have enough of it, and soon enough, to cut the already small margin between you and the others using the the full setup. People only seem to think in terms of "max out or go home", and will never be content with their ability with say, 5/8 total pieces of the set... even if the other 3 add only a 1.7% difference overall (if that).

You point out the issue in your last paragraph. "People only seem to think in terms of "max out or go home"

If a player isn't personally bothered by that 1.7%, but can't get into groups for [content] because of it, then the player does have to catch up or not participate in that content.

So... you would have to have a full set to join in raids that are there, in the first place, to loot said set?

There is no real logic there, but I wouldn't doubt it's happened before.

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by GTwander

Originally posted by ghstwolf

I'd consider it a very minor factor in the grand scheme of things.

Solo play is kind of necessary in most current designs.  The same devices used to craft the experience also chop the population into very small blocks of players, at least until "endgame".  When a level or two, or a couple drops can put you well behind... nothing good comes from that design.  Actually I wonder how many of the 30-60 day "quiters" are the people who simply can't keep up and because of that (the nature of the design) the game becomes far more work than it is worth to continue.

Quite off the subject, but everyone seems to think that gear treadmills (use WoW as an example here, if you must) leave a gap where you'll never catch up - but the fact is that while you might not get the full set of "must have" endgame shit, you'll have enough of it, and soon enough, to cut the already small margin between you and the others using the the full setup. People only seem to think in terms of "max out or go home", and will never be content with their ability with say, 5/8 total pieces of the set... even if the other 3 add only a 1.7% difference overall (if that).

You point out the issue in your last paragraph. "People only seem to think in terms of "max out or go home"

If a player isn't personally bothered by that 1.7%, but can't get into groups for [content] because of it, then the player does have to catch up or not participate in that content.

So... you would have to have a full set to join in raids that are there, in the first place, to loot said set?

There is no real logic there, but I wouldn't doubt it's happened before.

Google 'gearscore'

Originally posted by GTwander

So... you would have to have a full set to join in raids that are there, in the first place, to loot said set?

There is no real logic there, but I wouldn't doubt it's happened before.

I've seen just that happen, although that isn't really the situation I was focusing on.  I was thinking more about the mid levels which are often awful unless you are leveling with friends at the same pace.

This is the downside of playing with other people.  While to you that 1.7% might not matter and for the encounter it might not matter (and most likely doesn't), it likely will to a substancial number of other players.  I don't agree with that mindset but it's out there.  In a way I can even understand it, the valuable drops can take several runs and making them as quickly and easily as possible is the prefered way to progress.  Once you've gotten that shiny little precious, it opens the door to the next "must have" piece (located elsewhere of course) and you likely are so sick of the instance that you never want to return.