| 12 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Daddy, Daddy, lookz, I haz a new theory! XD But seriously. It is something that spooked around my mind for a long time, so I thought to present it to you. One thing we all here have been through over and over is: we follow a new MMO's development and then after launch we see the slow-motion trainwreck. We wonder, how could these experienced game developers let this happen? Now sure, most time we gamers are bashed and blamed: it's all our fault, why were we so silly to fall to the hype! Still, I think this falls short, simply because one question remains unanswered in that approach, why so game and generally experienced game developers all make so basic mistakes in their games? So here comes the BETA VS LAUNCH PARADOX (tm) The common theory and perception, especially among game developer is: beta gamers are an especially viscious, critical and harsh audience, while at launch the "common" gamers, being the presumed target audience, is going to be more welcoming. Now when a game developer crew gathers and starts making concepts for their new MMO, it all begins with a "vision". Over time this vision is made more detailled and then set in stone. Being game developers, they are, like all software folks, very sure of themselves. Everyone who ever worked in software industry knows that. It's the "Queen Principle": all programmers and designers in software industry are "Queens", generelly putting their reason above all else. Now in THEIR perception, when the first audience, the beta players hit the reality of the game, they expect a harsh, acidic, malicious audience. They think, beta gamers are bored people with way too much time, they don't *really* play, they are not the actual target audience. The reality is, however, the very opposite. In real, a lot of beta gamers are passionate fans, and way more forgiving than launch players. They know the game is in beta, they know, they see only a part of the game, and usually they are grateful to even be in the game for free. "Don't complain, you play for free!" is a common phrase you hear in betas from fellow testers. Now in reality due to the mechanics how beta testers are chosen, and what sort of people are willing to beta test a particular game, the beta testers contain way more fans and have way higher tolerance and patience with the game. Now this leads to a deep misconception from the developers. THEY expect that beta testers are more critical than the normal player later, so they listen only very filtered to beta testers, while in reality the testers are more tolerant and only some will be really as vocal as players after launch. Now when a game launches, the developers usually have heard only a few critical voices from testers, the majority is silent or "expects all will be great" (being no trained tester, but only an average dude), and with devs in filter mode, they expect the launch audience, as their aimed target audience will be WAY more embracing their "vision". The handful beta naysayers are usually ignored as people "who want the game to fail". That is the common perception both devs and fans have on the critique. Now at launch, the very opposite of what devs expect happens. Not fans and less critical people come, but MORE critical people are suddenly here and MANY more. So from their perspective it looks like this: in beta all (who mattered) applauded us, and suddenly with launch hordes of viscious critics surface! But since their very thinking is wrong, they don't see it as a sign. After all, in beta so many agreed with the devs "vision"! So it must be right, or so they think, and produce tons of new content, all "more of the same". And of course it shoots all the other way than the critical customers want. But for the devs, for said reasons, they only see them as "people who want our game to fail" or "people who are not our target audience".
A basic isssue also is: game companies work after strict economic schematics. They don't think they need to analyze the rationality of a written critique. That matters not to them. They read that beta critique only to see areas of issues in general, and then go to statistics. They test how much time and how often players do something. It is a method where devs use cold numbers. What they don't realize is, that numbers say little about quality. And most important, looking at singular features with statistic reveals nothing about synergies which rise over time when people "play for real". That would only surface if they listened to the rationality of the critique, which they don't. They think they have their statistics and numbers don't lie. The problem is, many people do things in a MMO, and still don't like it. Many don't even have the insight to say outright, what the issue was with something. They just grow a nagging feeling of unhappyness, and then someday leave.
It is both the hubris game developers have and their very wrong concept about us gamers which leads to the ever repeated cycle of trainwrecking MMOs.
|
|
|
1/19/12 6:47:54 AM#2
I think it more comes back to "we will lose X amount of dollars if this game doesn't release by this date." And what may seem like an easy fix in theory could be a lot harder to code than most realize. So they try to listen to complaints in beta but it's really only there to make sure the game is somewhat stable (and even that fails sometimes). That and beta now means free-trial to too many people and instead of trying to report bugs they just use it to demo the game (TOR comes to mind). But I mostly would agree with that theory |
|
|
1/19/12 6:52:08 AM#3
Originally posted by Elikal I think any explanation that attempts to assign "blame" completely to the developers or the gamers is inadequate. Too old for this, am I. |
|
|
1/19/12 6:56:17 AM#4
The problem is mainly with developers regularily ignoring beta testers feedback in large closed and open betas. Essentially testers are treated as a statistics tool.
Paid testers that are hired by QA are different but those people are not enough to test mmo games, because 200 ppaid beta testers wont be able to simulate a real massive online game environment.
In fact i think publishers should hire known gold-farmers for beta, those guys know how to manipulate and break your game.
|
|
Originally posted by Icewhite Indeed, but in the end, the developers are in charge. They decide. So it IS their responsibility. That gamers influence the process is right and nice, but only the developers decide. They push the button.
It is the same process I have had the dubious honor to be part of for the many years I am in this forum. During beta, gamers are very forgiving and lenient. The handful of critics are flamed as haters, and at best get answers like "its beta, wait until launch!", "it will be good later". During beta, 90% are fans and a small minority of maybe 10% keeps warning about what is a big issue. They are yelled down. About 2-3 weeks after launch this turns upside down. Many, many people start critizsing and those who were fans for years of development suddenly sing the same tune of critique those 10% had said right from the start! It's like some weird magic! To bring it to a more personal note: I have seen this so often, that I critizised a game in beta, was flamed as hater, and SUDDENLY when the game launches, all those people got silence and resurfaced a short time later saying the EXACTLY same things I had said for years. And I am NOT writing this to get any applaud. I really can live without that. Beta testers are way too easy lulled and believing. It is a charming naivety. But it comes at a high price. MAYBE next time, boys, you really, really start to look at a critique and NOT flame him as hater and evildoer who wants a game failed. But due to these mechanisms and false concepts, MMOs all too often fail.
|
|
|
1/19/12 7:39:03 AM#6
Originally posted by Elikal MAYBE next time, boys, you really, really start to look at a critique and NOT flame him as hater and evildoer who wants a game failed. But due to these mechanisms and false concepts, MMOs all too often fail. A critique from a beta tester is inappropriate. There are channels for reporting issues, message boards are not one of those. We won't even mentioning the NDA. The proper way to collect data and report is obvious. Confirming it through the involvement of other testers, recommended. Then its in the company's hands. The "omg I reported this ten times, and nothing changed!!one!" is also hubris. Too old for this, am I. |
|
|
1/19/12 9:54:09 AM#7
Interesting OP. Though you describe three problems, not just one "paradox", isn't it ? And you will have to convince me the seperation(s) you make between the builders, the testers and the players is really "that" obvious.I think they ressemble more to one another. Developpers are usually gamers themselves. It is only human to be selfcentered and they will make games "they" like. But other things play an important role. They are a team and they have to be practical. Costs could be a factor and the financial responsables could have an influence. I find the partial seclusion and the secrecy of the building team more relevant to the detachment of the devs and their losing grip with the feedback then their being "queens". Getting usable feedback on a MMO is a demi-god task. If anyone would need to be convinced of that, just look at this site and you'll notice. And beta testing is been used for more then just how it is "received" by a smaller group before the big crowd is able to play. It is used to find the most obvious bugs. Does the client crashes ? How is the relay doing ? Does the engine reacts as it should ? It could be just a stress test "how are our servers holding out ?". And sometimes they already know the bugs, sometimes they weren't in their wildest dreams ( or nightmares then ). Launching a game, in spite of all the fuz, is just putting a sign "for sale" and that is it. In fact you get a whole number of more beta-testers, only they aren't called tester anymore and sometimes they have to pay handsomely to get access. Which brings us to the third thing you mentioned: the most worldly one. Companies maybe have strict "schematics", it all depence on their policy and strategy. And there could be a huge difference between them. How, what or if they survey is less then clear. It is even more obscure how they will be interpreting what is less then clear. I don't think something usefull can be noticed here except the obvious: if the costs rises above the profit for a longer period, then everything will end. All I am saying is this "between beta and launch" is more then just one "problem" it is a whole bunch of them. Maybe you should "elaborate" a bit more. Rated M for Mature - May contain content inappropriate for children |
|
|
1/19/12 9:59:32 AM#8
I think the biggest problem in the current MMORPG genre is the 5-6 year development time. After a few years in, it's really hard to change course and go a new direction. After 5-6 years, that direction you've been building your game towards might be completely worn out, used up, and players clammering for change and new ideas. The problem as I see it, is that MMOs have become so content heavy, they are more like building 3-4 single player games at the same time. Players burn through the content quickly, within a month or so usually, then they are left with shallow, incomplete "end game" and expected to pay a sub? MMORPG's used to be about systems, about features, and about emergant content. Devs spend SO much time creating and tweaking and balancing content, they completely disregard many of the features/systems that defined the early MMORPG genre. This also makes games take forever to build because they have to have multiple singler-player game's worth of content.
We need leaner, faster, more feature/system heavy MMO games that are released faster and also cheaper to make.
"You'll find a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our point of view." |
|
|
1/19/12 10:06:12 AM#9
Originally posted by BadSpock released faster and also cheaper to make. And at the same time we're constantly taking other features from other games to be added and constantly raising the bar on what "minimal acceptable release content" means. And we're doing all of this at the same time. Bigger, faster, cheaper. Too old for this, am I. |
|
|
1/19/12 10:12:14 AM#10
Originally posted by Icewhite
I simply mean to say that I believe they need to focus more on features and systems than on disposable, one time use content (as well as repeatable content) and go back to focusing on emergant game play through systems/features. "You'll find a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our point of view." |
|
Originally posted by Naucano One of the core problems from developer side is: gaming is a young medium. In writing novels and making movies there exist a few core rules what to make and what to avoid. Take writing. I know many people are very creative and have cool ideas. But having a cool idea and writing a good book are two VERY different things. There are "writing techniques" and golden rules. But even so, we get tons of bad books and bad movies, since some think they are above it. Take the first SW trilogy vs the prequels. The old trilogy was very good movie making in most aspects. Back then Lucas worked in a team, and he had people around him who disagreed and compensated for his weaknesses. Lucas is great in inventing realities, worlds asf and he has a great visual thinking ability. But in the small things, he is lacking. That is why others contributed to the Old Trilogy and it was great. But the prequels were made with a team where nobody dared to question him anymore. And games are not so different. There are those "insider legends" who made so many great and succesful games, like the lead developers in Bioware. And they reached the same point, where they are no longer questioned as much internally. And it was the same with many of these MMOs, Warhammer, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard. All made by famous and formerly succesful lead devs, writers and designers. For me the core of why MMOs fail all hinges on mechanisms that makes the lead developers immune to critique, and that is a process on several levels. It's not that they are dumb or evil or what, they misjudge their audience fundamentally, and they put themselves into a position where they are only surrounded by yes-sayers. It just never dawns to them, that something is not wrong in a small detail, but in the "vision" itself! Like there is a huge elephant in the room, and they still manage to overlook it.
|
|
|
1/19/12 11:13:56 AM#12
Good thing you trademarked the thread! lol You have some very excellent points made. I can only say for my own beta experience (not being great by any stretch), but my comments are usually only bug related. I rarely give feedback on gameplay. I try to see what the dev's vision is and not try to change it. That being said, I can see how that can negatively affect a game. How will the developers know if nothing is said in beta? On the other hand, once a game is out in beta, many things about the game are already set in stone. Suggesting a different type of combat is probably out of the question, for example. Overall, I see beta testing as a job of quality assurance. I may or not may not even like the game. If it is terribly awful, I will leave, but give my reasons why. As a non-beta paying player, I am MUCH more critical. The "no complaints if playing for free" attitude is true with me. Once I buy, though, I am vocal. A good write-up about the relationship between developers, beta testers, and customers :) - Al |
|
