Garrett Fuller: Over-Marketing and The Beta Effect
MMORPG.com's Garrett Fuller uses his column this week to take a look at the over-marketing of MMORPGs and the problems that it can cause, including what Fuller describes as "The Beta Effect".
Column By Garrett Fuller on October 14, 2009
I had a good friend write to me for the Reader Mail Blog this week asking why games are so overhyped before they come out. It was such a good question that I decided to focus my column on not only answering that question, but to finding solutions as well. What is the hype machine, how did it happen and how the heck did it get so out of control?
My old boss used to talk about "managing expectations" all the time. It's really just a fancy term for making sure you give people what they expect. Right now, for whatever reason, MMOs as a collective are failing at this. Expectations for nearly every new release are simply too high.
The reality is that these games take an eternity to develop, and even once you launch a game you suddenly are thrown in the thick of it with patches, fixes, and updates. Why MMO companies start setting their fans' expectations three or four years before they are ready is baffling.
By the time players actually go to the store and buy an MMO, they already know every single feature, every character, every quest, even end boss content. Gamers are passionate about information that will make them better gamers. So if that information is out there we will find it, use it, and memorize it before you can blink an eye and it gets committed to memory. If you begin putting this information out early you begin setting expectations on your MMO. If your game is just a demo and a few zones with two character types, does talking about it this early make sense? Does locking in your designs and making promises this early really help in any way?
I know that from a game development perspective this is hard to do because you have to show investors that there is an interest in the game, the IP, and the design. The problem is that this is done at the expense of allowing players to respond to your game as it will actually be, forcing them to get excited about ideas that might get left on the cutting room floor. If you let your marketing and PR people loose with info on the game too early, there can and will be consequences:
;)
It just ain't what
it's supposed to be
The most obvious of those consequences I like to call, "The Beta Effect.":
Originally, beta tests were meant as a time for developers to put their games in the hands of players for testing. It was, and always has been, a crucial process in the design of a game and should allow for companies to make the changes needed that will help the player experience. The problem is that this isn't what beta tests are about anymore. Do you think players actually fight for Beta keys because they want to help you? Probably not. They want betas to play the game because they have to wait three to four years for it to actually launch. After that amount of time, they just want to try it out. They want to get a head start. We, as gamers, want beta keys so we can learn your game before anyone so when it comes out we are already masters. I know people will disagree with me on this, but I'm sorry, by and large, it's true. This, is "The Beta Effect."
Marketing created the beta test effect and, quite frankly, it's a mess right now. Players rush for beta keys to try out games to see if they are any good. If the beta test goes badly, if there is an attempt by the developers to actually use beta as a testing pahse, complete with balance problems and bugs, good luck selling your game. You are dead in the water. The true reason for testing is completely lost in this model. Sorry marketing, you f-ed this one up on your own.
It would be nice to be able to sit here and point a finger at one company in particular, but in the end every company out there is responsible for Frankenstein's hype monster. All of this happens because companies seem to need long gaps between announcement and release. I can name a dozen games off the top of my head that announced way too early.
Setting expectations is great, but then you have to manage them. How many MMO companies have we died in the last few years because of mistakes in managing the expectations on their games? How many more will follow?
;)
Listen to the hat.
The hat is wise.
So what are the answers to managing expectations? Both players and marketing divisions can play a role in rolling back the damage that is caused by early over-hype. I will start with the players:
Keep in mind that game companies are really trying to make the best game they can, or at least the developers are. Remember that almost every developer out there is also a gamer at heart and that they want to make games they like to play. So as a player stick with them, trust them. I am not talking about trusting the corporate monsters, business people, or investors. I am talking about trusting your developers. Also if you are lucky enough to get into a beta test early on, take it seriously. Give as much feedback as you can. Use your beta key to help make a better game. Okay, they may not listen, but you do have their ear with a beta key, hopefully they will.
As for marketing and public relations, I'll start by saying that gamers want good games. If you see the team down or are unsure on what to release, remember that for gamers, it is all about their character, good game play, and most of all a fun experience. Also play the game yourself. If you work in marketing or P.R. in this business and do not actually play video games, move to another industry. I am serious. If you come across someone who is trying to promote a product they do not understand, there is going to be a train wreck. It's a guarantee. The people representing their games to the press and to fans should know the game inside and out, they are the ones who have to sell it.
In the end I think the hype machine and the consequences it brings, creates itself. Expectations are too high, announcements come too early and fans have become so hardened on MMOs that we are way too critical sometimes. Heck just read our forums. Hopefully in the future the hype will die down and we will see better games made and less overhyped junk.
More Garrett Fuller Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
His column appears here every Wednesday.
It's all becoming clear now. The reason that all the recent games are so much alike is because they keep choosing the same beta testers over and over again, lol. I have to agree with you, the pre-order special edition beta key gimmicks have gotten way out of hand. But like you said, it's all about the investors, and many of them want to see results before the game is released to the public. And the "beta testers" to a large degree enjoy the upper hand once the release goes public. It's not really fair to anyone in my opinion.
I think the inevitable cleanup of the hype and industry is already happening naturally. There are only going to be so many multimillion dollar MMO's that tank before moronic investors start being more careful with their money in this industry. Today, they see the kind of money WoW pulls down, and they think anyone can do it. It seriously freaks me out how ignorant some investors and corporations are about the people they are selling these games to and what we expect from a modern MMO. In the case of MMOs, more competition has not caused better value or quality to emerge. All we are seeing here is garbage game after garbage game.
MMOs are evolving at a snail's pace both visually and in game play. When was the last time we saw a significant jump in the complexity of AI or any other game feature? It's no wonder so many of us are bored. These lame companies continue to just play it safe and crank out clones using the same old ideas and 'standards'.
wout it be in bad taste to mention the MMO i'm developing and hope to beta in 2020 ?
((fyi i 'm semi serious)
Where is the part where the player also should learn to take some responsibility? Didn't see any of that, all I saw was blaming something else. Not saying it's cool of developers to just promise many things and unable to keep that promise as sure that's a bad thing, but just because certain people will enter a beta to just see if the game is right for them, does not mean beta is not meant for testing or some marketing trick as even if people only decide to just play and not test the game the way it is intended it is still being tested in many way's, just a simple thing like server load can already be tested without the "beta tester" doing anything else then just play the game, obvious and luckely I know plenty of beta testers that do indeed test, some of us even beta test games we have no intention of playing at release but are glad to be of help with the testing, they actual testing, yes I know we are a minority and sure it's true that I also feel the majority only uses beta test to see if the game is right for them. But still I believe that players at some point should take some responsibility.
Let's take a look at rl commercials, tell me, are you able to handle any situation in rl when you drink Coca Cola Zero? Are waves of woman flocking at your feet when you use AXE? How about seeing the food on a picture and then seeing what you ordered on your plate?
What also could help is not follow a game to closely if the game looks intrested to get on release, I would even say if a game looks very intresting ignore a beta test and just develop some patients to when the game is released.
Who cares about over-marketing and betas when companies don't even have anough money to finish their game. Classic examples would be AOC and Warhammer, both majorly over-marketed, over-hyped and both failed miserably.
Learn 2 Read
So what are the answers to managing expectations? Both players and marketing divisions can play a role in rolling back the damage that is caused by early over-hype. I will start with the players:
Keep in mind that game companies are really trying to make the best game they can, or at least the developers are. Remember that almost every developer out there is also a gamer at heart and that they want to make games they like to play. So as a player stick with them, trust them. I am not talking about trusting the corporate monsters, business people, or investors. I am talking about trusting your developers. Also if you are lucky enough to get into a beta test early on, take it seriously. Give as much feedback as you can. Use your beta key to help make a better game. Okay, they may not listen, but you do have their ear with a beta key, hopefully they will.
Right at the beginning of the article the writer says that managing expectations is making sure you give people what they expect. That is sort of a minor misinterpretation of the idea. Managing expectations is, more specifically, ensuring that expecations are the same as the delivered product, or the delivered product could even be better than what was expected. The best way to manage expectations is to under promise and over deliver. The reverse effect is what happens in the MMO world, heck the sales & marketing world as whole, and people are tired of being sold crap with a pretty package.
I just fell for it again recently with an MMO release that wil remain nameless for this post. I followed it through development and believed all that the publisher was telling me about how great it would be. I got a hold of a beta key and found that the beta version was full of trouble right up until release day. The publisher went ahaead and released the game inspite of the many, many bugs and problems that were reported by the beta test community. The beta testing period was simply not long enough to address all the issues, and the game did not meet the expectations created in my mind by the publishers marketing team. So they got my $50.00 but I cancelled my monthly sub, as did many other players who felt the same way. I'm not sure why this keeps happening with MMOs. The monthly sub is the bread and butter and they get it back from me after 3-4 months of play time. Why don't they value that more highly than my retail purchase dollars? I played one MMO for 4 years on 3 month recurring subs, thats aprox. $770.00 just in monthly subs! the retail cash is a pitance in comparison.
I agree that beta keys and games in general are totally over hyped prior to launch but do understand the need to create a buzz in order to generate big launch day sales, and build a subscriber base in order to begin generating the risiduals. I think this could be done better by simply putting a paid ad on a big network like Fox for say 3 weeks prior to launch, rather than years of hyping, over promising and under delivering.
Consumers in ALL markets are becoming savvy to the marketing ploy of telling them that a product is fabulous and then selling them a pretty looking piece of crap. I work in sales/ marketing. What seems to be the best approach for repeat business, and I would say that MMO subs are definitely a good example of a highly competative repeat business market, the right way to secure business is all about one thing. Excellent honest customer service where the customer service representative does a whole lot more listening that talking. A smart marketer listens to what the customer or market is asking for and attempts to fill a need based on customer majority feedback. In alot of cases the listening to the needs of the customer is the part of the process that is overlooked, and is IMHO the most important factor to the success of an MMO, or an appliance, or a car, or a swimming pool manufacturer for that matter. When you get people what they need/ want they tend to place a higher value on it, and tend to want to pay more for it, and/or become extremely happy with what they did or will pay for it as they see a great deal of value in a product so closely tailored to their needs and desires.
Listen to the customer and give them a little more than they ask for and you and your Financial Analysts will be happy at the end of the fiscal year.
I dont think a customer should ever take responsibility for the quality of a product they purchase. that responsiblity lies solely with the supplier of the goods or service. the most a customer can do is get the facts from the seller of the product and compare it to other similars. But if the competitors all give you the same line of bull "It's F***ing great, buy it!" how does one make an educated choice? Once you open a video game you've bought it. Most game sotres don't allow returns of opened software. I don't how you'd even begin to try and get your cash back on an online downloaded game.
If a publisher gives out 10,000 beta keys as a marketing gimmick through some online game-zine site to boost the buzz of their upcoming release then they are not so much concerned with actuall beta testing as they are with looking for cheap promotion of their upcoming release.
I agree that TV ads are out to lunch with the way they over promise and under deliver on the end user product.
Very well done. I approve of this!
ya most corporate only see potential revenue
they dont understand that blizzard is popular because they are the davincy of todays mmo
from lore to raid
blizzard lost some luster since activision baught them ,even lot of gamer saw it and lot of them left
if you dont have the money to support a team of dev for 4 year dont start a mmo start a chess game instead
True. A good article!
Garrett Fuller wrote:
> Okay, they may not listen, but you do have their ear with a beta key, hopefully they will.
Maybe this topic is worth an extra article. How betas can take the wind out of the sailboat Hype. A thing I have seen repeatedly done wrong is taking the beta players not serious, giving them no feedback or even ignoring them.
Yes, it may be true that there are a lot of players who actually don't want to test, but on the other hand my experience with beta tests showed me that there is still a huge amount left that actually invest a lot of time in thinking about improvements and writing them down in the forums.
But what follows is often like a massacre!
In the forum there is no person with grounded knowledge about the game and how to moderate who cares for the forum. Only forum moderators that hardly know a tiny bit more than the casual player and have no experience in leading discussions or giving feedback that satisfies the beta testers needs in getting acknowledged and taken serious.
Why massacre? Because this mixture leads to anarchic discussions that are very frustrating for the person who has invested his time in thinking about improvements. He doesn't get his needs fulfilled, moderators try to act as though they know more than they actually do and become easily irritated when someone actually looks through their mask and other players start to throw in flames and empty phrases that go contrary against all principles of a constructive discussion.
This happens again and again and players start to doubt the quality of developers that allow such an unprofessional forum and lack in communication to its testers. And they are not that wrong. How tests are organized and actually done shadows to a degree the professionalism of the developing organization. Not everyone might share this opinion, but reading a book about software engineering would easily teach them for the better.
The mentioned doubts start to leak through the whole community and lead to a more careful investment in the game. Who wants to invest in a game with developers that are under suspicion to not get bugs fixed and features implemented that are highly demand by the players, and during a beta there is still a lot to do for the development team. But this is the message that a frustrated beta tester gets when there is no serious reply to it's idea. This is born out of thoughts like: I'm ignored, nobody cares about what I write, my ideas will never reach the developers, they'll do whatever they want without listening to the fan base, maybe there are not even enough developers to actually improve the game because there is nobody willing to invest money in it, the whole beta is a farce maybe the game will too...
Garrett, if you want to take the hype out of a game, this is the easiest way. No, I'm just kidding. This actually proves your point! The players have high expectations and in a lot of game development projects they start falling out of the sky as soon as the beta starts. Of course there are a lot of other failures you can do to trip over the hype and make a nightmare out of it, this is only one very common example!
This site is also a contributor to the hype AND relies on hype - it feeds on and is fed by hype.
For myself I don't come here for games once they are released - other sites are much better for information and community on released games.
96.32% of the time that I am here is to find out about coming games. And I suspect if this site only covered released games traffic would be down substantially.
lol do you follow a sport ,say football ,49 ers annouce x player for their team this season
they know that monster alone will mean full seat good for that stadium
now the same marketing guy that sold the publicity for 49 ers is trying to use same strategy for AOC
sorry it just doesnt work that way ,ho you ll get curious for the first week but you better hope EAor BLIZZARD boss
and marketing guys tested the game because if they didnt ,you ll see thosde game go with the pile of flop game that were lunched after wow
and we all know there are hundreds of those lol
Should I get these patients from the ICU or the psychiatric ward?
this whole system has gone outta whack. players want to be testers cause they think its fun amd a faster way to get to play a game. when the hell did testing become fun? i remeber sitting on the same screen/ area for 2 hours walking up and down the map loookin for bugs then writing a report then starting the whole prossess over again. beta has somehow become some kinda glamorious thing everyone wants to do. thats the problem with the hype machine. with so many people testing and leaking information you pretty much know everything about a game before its ever released. i say make betas work again and we wont have all these crap cookie cutter games coming at us.
What I got from this article, is that more MMO companies should be like ArenaNet. For instance, most people that have been following the Guild Wars franchise have known about GW2 for nearly two and half years (about 4 months before the release of Eye of the North) and yet we know very little about the game. I know so little, I probably would use only hand to count the significant official info: 1) the game takes place 200 or more years later, 2) there are dragons, 3) there's now z-axis, 4) PvP will have a persistent area, 5) there are more playable races. And thats about all I know of significance (sure there's more minor details in-between, but those are subordinate to the other info). And thats just the view from outside the company; from what I know of the company (from reading the wiki entries, Facebook, etc) the PR is done from within the development team, so the PR person not only is completely in the know, but is also (as Garrett said: the developers are gamers at heart, and by extrapolation) a gamer. And this is just for GW2. As far as I can remember, the PR strategy for the original was also a departure from the modern MMO PR hype train: instead of hyping particulars of the game, they touted the credentials of the development team that was making the game and also touted their marketing scheme.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that I agree with Garrett's conclusion of the article. There needs to be some changes with PR strategies (and the methods used by A-net are prime examples of what can be used effectively without creating hype that breaks the game), and Beta players need to be responsible.
two thumbs up
Good article and great question. It seems pretty simple to me:
Hope relates to hype. It sure seems like there are a LOT of folks hoping for something new...
There are different tactics that could be used by the game companies. You could "hype" a game by releasing bits of lore and describing (w/ screenshots) a zone, faction or important figure in the game. Such a tactic has advantages over talking about features if the game has an interesting world. Making it about the game's world likely make a stronger, more lasting impression (if the world is worth a damn) than the typical method we see today. It's also a method that can be sustained over a long time.
Use this as your main "hype" tactic for the year or two before beta. Occasionally do the more familiar stuff (features), doing these more often as you approach open beta/ launch.
The gaming sites and magazines hold a tremendous amount of responsibility--as they are the direct conduit from the game companies to the gamers.
Gaming sites and magazines make money by telling the public about the hype coming from the gaming companies so it's hard to imagine these sites and magazines setting forth a set of standards and expectations for information from the gaming companies that does much to ensure accountability and accuracy, and to quell the premature explosion of information.
And until then, this issue will assuredly be left unchecked.
To be frank, you cant un-make this development anymore. Its a one-way street. Or rather, it would take so much time, and a lot of failing MMOs, messy betas and remarkably wise and selfless business decisions for the good of the industry to undo the damage done already, before people change their now-confirmed views.
Which nobody will do.
The best way to fix it is to go ahead, take the current situation, and build on it.
As an example, screw the whole "alpha, beta, open beta, closed beta, internal beta, pre-alpha" terminology, at least for your marketing purposes. Have the current style of "beta" as a free demo, which it already is, and put a lengthy ALPHA before it, where people can join in small numbers to selectively test certain features..... you know, like a beta used to be.
By re-inventing the alpha as a process open to the playerbase, you can set the rules, and test your unfinished, buggy product, without losing the hype of the beta.
Also, about marketing and hype, the problem is that very likely the interest of those putting money on the table are not long-term. They MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer, as anyone with a bit of experience in finance can tell you and probably quickly explain, a big launch, fat payday, and then get the hell out before the ship starts sinking. The shorter the wait for the pay-off, the better. Those who profit from longevity are the company itself (which is just a vehicle to get more money for most investors) and the people working there.
However, reality today demands that its virtually unavoidable to lose a lot of control over your game if you want to make a big MMORPG, simply because you need so much external funding, which comes from people with different aims.
There have been people who got rich on Age of Conan, who got rich on WAR, and who got out in time. They would do the same thing again with the next game they can jump on, most likely. These games are not failures, financially speaking, for those who got out in time.
Learn 2 Read
So what are the answers to managing expectations? Both players and marketing divisions can play a role in rolling back the damage that is caused by early over-hype. I will start with the players:
Keep in mind that game companies are really trying to make the best game they can, or at least the developers are. Remember that almost every developer out there is also a gamer at heart and that they want to make games they like to play. So as a player stick with them, trust them. I am not talking about trusting the corporate monsters, business people, or investors. I am talking about trusting your developers. Also if you are lucky enough to get into a beta test early on, take it seriously. Give as much feedback as you can. Use your beta key to help make a better game. Okay, they may not listen, but you do have their ear with a beta key, hopefully they will.
Thanks. but don't need to learn to read, but should have read it better.
Because if games werent hyped we wouldnt make any money as Gaming journalist perhaps?
Nice topic GFuller!!
And therein lies the problem - game journalism is mostly limited to following the hype and act as a mere extension of the industry. Articles like this as well as the rest of the columns are, imho, a good step towards countering the 'traditional' status of gaming journalism, although they need to follow the arguments a bit deeper. Like this article, for example, opened a good topic of discussion but I felt it could've said quite a lot more, and after a solid introduction it sort of suddenly fell quiet.
It's OK to point fingers and all, you know. Like what Cryptic did with the Lifetime membership of Champions: offer betas for a game (Star Trek) surely to make an impact on the gaming community (sections of which might not necessarily be geeky) and make a profit based on the new idea that beta test is basically "play the game early" and no longer a real test. I know of a lot of people who bought the lifetime sub to Champs just because of the Star Trek thing, and not because of the game per se. Beta, turned into a noun and no longer an adjective of 'test', has become a marketing aspect, but the problem with it is that it seems that no one has told the developers of games themselves yet, and they continue to treat it as test, tweaking things and changing the gameplay oftentimes considerably to the detriment of those silly people who were just in to try the game out for free, who, usually, complain to no end in forums like these. What they need to do is create a sort of 'limited-time free trial' just after launch to appeal to all those people while at the same time being more careful about their tests.
Following that same example, people, including reviewers, therefore tend to fall into the trap and violently react to any wide change made to the game during beta test in the silliest manners possible; the Gamespy review of Champions was riddled with stuff only those 'I'm playing the game early' people would be concerned over, like the launch day patch that made mobs harder. Instead of giving a decent overview of the game, its aims, the design choices, the possible meaning it might all have in your life ('will I become addicted to boredom and play 5 hours a day even when I don't like it, like WoW?'), the review was just kind of a short rant about a before that didn't even EXIST for players who bought the game when it launched and an after that is actually the more realistic standard measure for an evaluation.
Gaming journalism is almost an oxymoron. A lot of the sites live off revenue from the very games they are reviewing make it almost impossible to get an unbiased opinion. They don't spend enough time with the game, rarely seem to write about release day bugs that everyone else manages to run into within a couple of hours, completely gloss over DRM issues (obviously not an issue with MMOs), and hardly ever talk about prince. Gaming corp. has set prices and for some reason, gaming journalist gobble it up without question. (obviously there are exceptions, especially the sites that don't advertise as heavily as say IGN and Gamespot).
I think the real problem with MMO hypes though is that at the beginning, publishers/developers list all these features that are supposed to make their game so much different from all the other games already out there, and then the beta comes and most of those features are removed giving you the same cookie cutter game that is already out there. If you are going too base your entire game on wars between realms, you better make sure that that feature actually works. I don't think it is a failing on the player side to expect that a primary feature of a game actually be implemented and work on day one. Or how about actually listening to beta testers. I've been in a handful of beta's. None of those games listen much to feedback and you see the exact same bugs that showed up months ago in the beta months later after release day.
And therein lies the problem - game journalism is mostly limited to following the hype and act as a mere extension of the industry. Articles like this as well as the rest of the columns are, imho, a good step towards countering the 'traditional' status of gaming journalism, although they need to follow the arguments a bit deeper. Like this article, for example, opened a good topic of discussion but I felt it could've said quite a lot more, and after a solid introduction it sort of suddenly fell quiet.
It's OK to point fingers and all, you know. Like what Cryptic did with the Lifetime membership of Champions: offer betas for a game (Star Trek) surely to make an impact on the gaming community (sections of which might not necessarily be geeky) and make a profit based on the new idea that beta test is basically "play the game early" and no longer a real test. I know of a lot of people who bought the lifetime sub to Champs just because of the Star Trek thing, and not because of the game per se. Beta, turned into a noun and no longer an adjective of 'test', has become a marketing aspect, but the problem with it is that it seems that no one has told the developers of games themselves yet, and they continue to treat it as test, tweaking things and changing the gameplay oftentimes considerably to the detriment of those silly people who were just in to try the game out for free, who, usually, complain to no end in forums like these. What they need to do is create a sort of 'limited-time free trial' just after launch to appeal to all those people while at the same time being more careful about their tests.
Following that same example, people, including reviewers, therefore tend to fall into the trap and violently react to any wide change made to the game during beta test in the silliest manners possible; the Gamespy review of Champions was riddled with stuff only those 'I'm playing the game early' people would be concerned over, like the launch day patch that made mobs harder. Instead of giving a decent overview of the game, its aims, the design choices, the possible meaning it might all have in your life ('will I become addicted to boredom and play 5 hours a day even when I don't like it, like WoW?'), the review was just kind of a short rant about a before that didn't even EXIST for players who bought the game when it launched and an after that is actually the more realistic standard measure for an evaluation.
It still sucked after launch day.
That's why so many people demanded their money back, and why MMORPG.com has it rated so much lower than it's competition. (7.3 vs. 8.5)
The game was simply launched to early period.
Champions is a perfect example of the OPs point of Beta Hype.
Besides this was not supposed to be a "Lets defend Champions" thread. It was supposed to be about how MMOs are currently marketed and how that is affecting the consumers.
Say, did you happen to read the whole article? Like the part where he addressed this specifically?
Say, did you happen to read the whole article? Like the part where he addressed this specifically?
Did you happen to read the whole thread where he was already corrected?
I agree! Thanks for the post!
This is an excellent article. It covers and explains some from the investors and gaming companies. The developers work hard to create a game that is what it should be but ultimately it is the company and investors who truely make the decisiions.
On the other hand it is also pointed out why people rush for the beta test and what they should be doing. I for one have beta tested a few games in the past. First you have to keep in mind that it is beta testing and thus there are going to be bugs and unfinished content. The developer needs to know what is working and what the players are liking and not liking in order to improve. I have many times heard in forums and within a game being beta tested how the game sucks due to bugs, incomplete content , etc. Or this sucks and that sucks blah blah blah. Hello it is beta testing and if you are testing a game in beta you should be reporting issues you find whatever they are so the dev's can be looking at and fixing what needs to be fixed. People that beta test and bash a game from the get go do serious harm and it is unfairly done because it is beta not the finished product.
I do agree with the author there are many games out there that push those expectations up with too much info in order to plan ahead for the sales. However, this can also be very crushing if in the end the flood of expectations aren't met for whatever reasons. Gamers don't like to be lead on. I also agree if the investors and big wigs played and were gamers things might be a bit different.
The truth is gamers want to know but at the same time if you tell them too much and don't deliver you have lost them. So it is a catch 22 and should be approached carefully.
Excellent article. Cheers to the author.
The gaming sites and magazines hold a tremendous amount of responsibility--as they are the direct conduit from the game companies to the gamers.
Gaming sites and magazines make money by telling the public about the hype coming from the gaming companies so it's hard to imagine these sites and magazines setting forth a set of standards and expectations for information from the gaming companies that does much to ensure accountability and accuracy, and to quell the premature explosion of information.
And until then, this issue will assuredly be left unchecked.
Agreed, however....
keep in mind the decision to release game information rests on the managers and marketing directors of game companies. Not with us.
Yes it is our job to report it, but not our decision to release it.
If a game company came to us and asked them to help with their marketing plan....of course we would set some standards...
that would mean they would actually have to listen to us....which they do...in Bizzaro world.
Oh and sorry...
KRAIDEN IN THE HOUSE!!!
Quote: Expectations for nearly every new release are simply too high.
I dont think that is the only Problem. Imho the problem is, there isn't realy something new. I am playing MMOs since Meridian 59 and i remember the jump to Anarchy Online as it came out, it was simply amacing, all the new posibillitys, you could have pets, all the possibiltys of pinping and so on . Nowadays its just the grafic that is a bit better.
I dont realy want to know how many times WoW has been cloned yet. Its allways the same. The only interesting news i heard about since SWG, is that you can fight flying in Aion. But that is still nothing that blows me off of my Chair.
If i shall speek for me, i wished they would implement more posibilities: (more) houses and crafting like in SWG, the charachter customacation and the varity of items like in AO (maybe also some dieferent vehicles if SciFi), the possibility to create own Spells like in Ryzom, and so on. What right now is Online is imho all rubbish. Sorry.
My Opinion.
The point was that the reviewer on that site used arguments that were not relevant to why the game sucked after launch. He or she (I don't recall) was using a previous experience that the public at large didn't have and couldn't compare by themselves. That's why I agree with MMORPG's review of the game, because it focuses on the actual content and problems of it, instead of building a narrative of tragedy around it to make an evaluation. The people who read MMORPG's review and get the game anyway know what they're going into in a way that is fair to them and to the game, which isn't the case with the other review.
It seems you missed my point entirely, so let me explain: the article could have used some examples, and the Champions release was the first one that came to my mind. The problem with generalizations, "MMOs do that", is that it's a safe place for the writer and for the companies - he's not compromising and at the same time the individual companies are freed from most responsibility. I believe that if the writer took a bunch of examples and pointed them out, the article would be a lot more effective, and people that don't know about the workings of the industry in that sense could become aware of what they're buying into when publishers offer them beta keys, and the publishers themselves could then face the consequences a lot more consciously and maturely than what they're currently doing (remember that interview with one of WAR's designers in which he, in a fit of anger after all the complaints and whines about the game's release, said something like "LET THEIR CREDIT CARDS SPEAK!"? That's just handling the situation in a completely unprofessional manner, thanks to them over-hyping and over-promoting their Beta as a game preview...).
So I'm just saying that if the article would be more confrontational, I think it would be a lot more effective than what it currently is.
Great topic and article! Too much hype, too much pressure for ROI.
Ken
I've done alot of beta testing, in fact I love to beta test. And no it's not just to see the game first. Finding bugs for me is just fun. In fact I've beta tested some titles and then not played them. Some because they failed to listen to the beta testers and fix or tweak some things in the game. Some others I decided not to play just because the player communities that came to fruition on launch weren't my cup of tea.
The game companies are pushed by their investors to hype up the games way in advance this is most definately the wrong approach as some games are found to be so buggy during testing that either the investors pull the plug, or tell the developers to shop elsewhere for monetary backing. Often times the development cycle is far enough along that no other company will even venture to touch it. I believe the Gods and Heroes MMO had this problem.
Some games are so buggy in fact that they push a release ahead of time and then the investors pull the plug leaving the game as an utter failure unless another company picks that game up. Most notable of this is Vanguard. Since SOE's purchase of Vanguard there have been notable improvements and the player base that had dwindled to almost nil is slowly but surely increasing in number.
MMOs unlike other game genres have a harder time meeting player expectations upon release. They are often unfairly compared to the progenitors of the genre UO, EverQuest, WoW.
As a beta tester it behooves us to make sure that the games we test stand or fail on their own merits. Yes, using some of the things that the other game companies do right is smart, but we shouldn't unfairly compare something a game does differently and say it's wrong.
That being said most games shouldn't be heavily marketed until the last wave or two of closed beta testers have had a crack at it.
Most people don't like SOE but one thing they do right is they allow a select player base of their current titles to beta all of their projected new releases, and any additional add-ons to their game. They are very smart in how they select their player base for these tests as well, they always at least attempt to make sure that the high end raider, questor, tradeskiller, and solo player have their hands in the testing stages so that when release day comes they aren't back tracking and adding in content that doesn't really match the feel of the rest of the world because a portion of their player base is upset. There are alot of potential game producers, developers, and investors that could learn alot from their methodology.
Also, game companies should share info amongst eachother as to who they consider are valuable beta testers which would allow for more bugs being found and fixes being done more quickly, consequently allowing for an earlier release.
I don't see hype as a big problem really. It's just a way to get people interested, but when you start telling people about things that don't actually end up in the game you are jumping the gun and people lose respect for your game and your company.
The biggest problem with games today is releasing a beta when you really don't have the game fundamentals nailed down and in a very good playable state. Why do you want to show people a game that is full of terribly frustrating bugs when you don't even have your combat system nailed down and balanced and no real fun factor to speak of in quests or group content like raiding and pvp? It makes little business sense to show a product to the consumer before the product is in a state that a consumer would consider worthy of there time and money. It is suicide!
No one likes to be ripped off and they go out of their way to make sure everyone they can tell hears about how you gave them the shaft and pushed a game out the door that was obviously not ready and not fun.
I think a lot of it has to do with under estimating the cost and amount of time that a dev team requires to make a fun game because no one sets out to make a crappy game. The dev team needs proper support in their endeavor to make a great game and that means allowing them time to work things out properly before you lock them into a hard release date. Video games are a type of art and you at least have to make art pleasing before people consider paying money for it and hanging it up for their guests to enjoy. If it's boring and ugly art you are not going to make any money off it.
The devs should play their game, they should play the hell out of it and they should balance and kill bugs and focus test (devs can do a lot of bug testing and balancing without us and they should do what they can to spare us testing something that has obvious bugs and balance issues) and then when they have it in a fun stable state bring in the community, but don't go to beta before it is at least fun; and certainly never release a crappy retail version that makes you feel like you just payed for a beta version.
We'd probably see better games if companies cut their marketing and PR departments down in size and put the money they save from that in development. The thing about MMOs is that you can't hype a game, pull the wool over everyone's eyes with that hype and expect box sales to cover the costs and run away with everyone's money.
You need a system that will provide a consistently enjoyable experience for your players or you are out of luck.
I totally agree with this article. Even if it's find for a developer to gain public before the game is finished by creating this hype, 100% of time ends up with dissapointment from this public.
In other article, the motto was: " allow the game to grow".
Players to need to be patienc. Pick a project and stick with it, help the devolepers giving feedback and wait some months before talking crap about a game, since nowdays no company is delivering a 100% polished game with perfect gameplay and no bugs.
A good example of little to no hype: Fallen Earth
A good example of too much hype and an open beta used as a marketing play to sell Fileplanet accounts: Champions Online
Take a look at the current status of both of those games. Which one of this is currently playable and fun and which one is a mess that is constantly getting patched and retcons given out to compensate for the sweeping changes?
Well spoken.
I've said it before... but the last MMORPG-like games I bought were Tabula Rasa and Hellgate: London. Tested both in beta... and both felt like beta garbage on "final release"... that they wanted and expected people to pay for. Hell even Hellgate: London had a kickass LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP option! I know a guy who bought that deal, and I laughed at the thought of remembering him when I found out the game was going to be canceled just ONE YEAR later... and the same damned thing happened to Tabula Rasa too.
Both had SUPER DUPER ULTRA SNAZZY EPIC trailers to them too to help both of those games lash together a massive hype golem. Seriously, go check out the trailers of Tabula Rasa, and the Mini Story of Hellgate:London, right now. They even got Mila Jovovich to do the voice for the main chick in Tabula Rasa. They even did NUDE PICS of the main characters for release in PLAYBOY for fucks sake. But nothing could save them from the biggest problem, themselves.
Early on, there were no major "expectations" because it was a pioneering field, most of us "(M)MORPG vets" have a lot of game time under our belts and have seen what works and what doesn't... and even despite all our collective differences... Casual/Hardcore, PvE Carebears/PvP Elitists, Persistant Sandbox/Quest driven Themeparks, the BIGGEST thing we're getting sick of are the games are not fully functional or not doing what they "promised" on release, and being fed bullshit ideas that "If you pay us enough in the next coming months, we promise to please you... maybe" bribery pertaining to new games.
Megacorps are going to run what we love about MMO idealism into the goddamned ground like a catapulted condensed ball of flaming shit, just because they all want cash cows like WoW, and they want them as FAST as possible! Because let's face it, executives have expensive taste, and they have a lot of shit they want to buy.
If people want to act like they have some sense... do the genre a favor. STOP... FUCKING... PRE ORDERING. Every one of you know MMO's are fubard the first 30 days+ anyways, and every one of you know that "beta is not a representative of final release".. just ask those who are butthurt about Champions Online. Everyone knows that a CG trailer is not representative of actual game footage, and even if it is you have no idea what your 55 bucks is going to buy you in the end, and you don't know until 3 months later after they sorted some of the gamestopping bugs and fixed some balancing and exploits do you really know what is in store for the long run.
Vote with your dollar (currency) and get execs off of developers backs to make cash cows.
The point was that the reviewer on that site used arguments that were not relevant to why the game sucked after launch. He or she (I don't recall) was using a previous experience that the public at large didn't have and couldn't compare by themselves. That's why I agree with MMORPG's review of the game, because it focuses on the actual content and problems of it, instead of building a narrative of tragedy around it to make an evaluation. The people who read MMORPG's review and get the game anyway know what they're going into in a way that is fair to them and to the game, which isn't the case with the other review.
It seems you missed my point entirely, so let me explain: the article could have used some examples, and the Champions release was the first one that came to my mind. The problem with generalizations, "MMOs do that", is that it's a safe place for the writer and for the companies - he's not compromising and at the same time the individual companies are freed from most responsibility. I believe that if the writer took a bunch of examples and pointed them out, the article would be a lot more effective, and people that don't know about the workings of the industry in that sense could become aware of what they're buying into when publishers offer them beta keys, and the publishers themselves could then face the consequences a lot more consciously and maturely than what they're currently doing (remember that interview with one of WAR's designers in which he, in a fit of anger after all the complaints and whines about the game's release, said something like "LET THEIR CREDIT CARDS SPEAK!"? That's just handling the situation in a completely unprofessional manner, thanks to them over-hyping and over-promoting their Beta as a game preview...).
So I'm just saying that if the article would be more confrontational, I think it would be a lot more effective than what it currently is.
Your right I misinterpreted you completely.
My apologies.
In fact I agree with you 100%.
Garret couldnt have used too many specific examples though for fear of pissing of the publishers that make him privy to inside info about launches that other sites like this might get if he started trashing specific games. After all the marketing departments of these games are what feed industry news sites like this.
I totally agree with you though guess I just read your original post the wrong way. Im still a little feisty over the CO launch fiasco.
sorry dood :)
Well written.
Particulary the part about marketing people who isn't gamers themselves.
He didn't mention the fact that overmarketting your next game years before it releases also can hurt the sales of your current game ("Wgy would I start playing Warquest now when Warquest 2 will be so much better once it releases"?).
And the way the use betatests now really upsets me, it seems like an empty marketing trick where many companies doesn't even want feedback.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
In one sense you can’t blame PR, they are just doing there job. If the MMO company decides to set up the PR department side too early, then the people employed in marketing need to justify their existence. They do that by putting out any sort of crap to create a buzz, a buzz which then hits the developers in the face. So it is down to company executives, they initiate the PR staff selection, they know the issues it can cause.
I was surprised about the references to managing expectations and marketing. The two don’t really go together, ME is a tool mostly used by managers with employees or say community liaison staff with the community of a MMO. But marketing wants to put expectation through the roof, that is what they are paid to do. The best way they can do this is to promise a MMO heaven without giving out specifics. Unfortunately what happens is that specifics start to be mentioned, which then bind developers to ideas that are still in a early stage of evolution. So ME and PR do not mix, they are like oil and water.
Yes pre ordering is a joke, come on players wake up and wait till launch at least before you buy. Sorting out the beta's is easy, just review every beta player after their first week. Have they put in two decent tickets? If not there beta account is rescinded.
Oh can I have a "Kill the Hype" hat please! :)
Amen.
+1 to that.
A company that manages MMO's should have a clearly defined "hype" plan for it BEFORE it starts to attract investors. The investors do not care about the company as it is, and do not care if the MMO fails, as long as it sells more then X number of copies.
By redesigning the Alpha/Beta terminology one can actually manage the hype and only release small sneakpeaks in the Alpha rather then the whole game which would contribute to the hype but not overhype it. Then, shortly before release one could test the servers load by an en-masse open Beta demo on a nearly finished product. This way the final release wouldbe tested under maximum strain.
SF
I definitely believe that marketing agency's are going to put people on the front lines for video games that have little to no experience with video games at all. This is because there are so few people with Internet based marketing skills so what inevitably happens is you get someone who has broadcast media experience just spilling out press release after press release via forums and website interviews.
Internet fans are ravenous and your job as a marketing professional is to generate hype not define each class. The way I see it right now most games have a stream of information about them prior to release. This is very bad. What the Internet consumer needs to truly build HYPE is the ability to speculate and generate considerable conversations on the subject.
Information about a future product needs to be released not in a constant flow or even a trickle but a slow yet steady drip.
As much as I have a loathing for the corporate types over at Funcom you really have to admit their Secret World campaign is awesome.
Nicely written article. I think part of the problem is that too many PR/Marketing Departments (and frankly Company Execs) don't understand basic business rules, nor the basic realities of product design.
The reality of product design (and this goes for most products...not just MMO's) is that is IMPOSSIBLE to design a product that appeals to everyone. That is because people are different and have wildy different and often contradictory perspectives of what makes a product appealing. The broader the category of people you try to reach with your product, the more difficult said product is to design. Smart designers and smart companies recognize this reality and try to pick target audiences for thier products that are broad enough that the product will be profitable to sell but narrow enough that the product can actualy be designed well given the available resources. That is a very difficult tight-rope to walk...and many companies fail right there. Either picking a market that is too small to be profitable given the resources put into the project....or more often trying to design to an audiance that is so broad and widely divergent that the design cannot possibly be made to work well.
However, even when designers/companies pick the scope right for the product...things can still go awry when Marketing/PR departments get involved. Many marketers see it as thier mission to try to sell the product to "as many customers as possible". This is what they see as thier goal....and their metric for success is the simple number of bodies they have managed to cram through the door. Many executives also fall for this lure as well. Unfortunately this actualy can be counter-productive to the LONG TERM health and financial success of the company/product. It's a pretty standard axiom in business that repeat business is FAR CHEAPER to acquire the new business. Companies obviously need a certain amount of new business to be successfull.... but many companies can go bankrupt by having TOO MUCH new business. That is because new business can be so expensive to acquire that the profit margin on it does not cover the overhead to serve it.
Too many marketers and frankly executive fail to realize this basic reality. They don't see the forest for the trees. The most effecient use of marketing is to gain as much of the TARGET AUDIENCE (i.e. the people who's needs the product is designed to meet well) as possible....and NO ONE ELSE. Unfortunately too many marketers (and executives) don't understand that important distinction and try to present the product AS IF IT WOULD APPEAL TO EVERYONE (including people who's tastes are contradictory to it's design). This results in wasted resources (too many one time sales), damage to the product/companies brand (in disatisified customers/bad reviews) and the companies future ability to do business (since a company can always release different products designed to meet different target audiences in future....but if that target audience was ALREADY jilted by the purchase of a previous product....they aren't likely to try a new one).
This is the real danger of the hype machine....not talking up the things the product is designed to meet well....but talking up the things it ISN'T.
VERY VERY TRUE!
I happen to be in marketing, and am an account executive and would have to agree with you.
Our company unlike many, focuses on what a customer needs vs. what we think we can get away with pushing out the door.
If more companies listened to their customers and filled the needs of majority groups rather than creating "the everything for everyone product" they would find themselves with very sustainable growth, happy customers and long time repeat business.
Couple this idea with good customer service and you have a successful business.
I happen to be in marketing, and am an account executive and would have to agree with you.
Our company unlike many, focuses on what a customer needs vs. what we think we can get away with pushing out the door.
If more companies listened to their customers and filled the needs of majority groups rather than creating "the everything for everyone product" they would find themselves with very sustainable growth, happy customers and long time repeat business.
Couple this idea with good customer service and you have a successful business.
Well put on both accounts. This applies to gaming as well as other areas. It is a basic that all companies should follow and it would improve their sales and repeats.
Customer Service is another touchy area as well. The customer is not always right, however, it is important to find a happy medium that soothes it over as much as possible without costing the company too much or loosing too many customers. Again You Can Not Please Everyone No Matter What You Do! This is a fact and even giving a customer everything they think they should have is no guarantee they will return or they will leave happy.
Solution for the 'useless beta' problem: call it an alpha test.
Solution for overhyped marketing: corporate attitude that focuses on long term (>2 months) revenue, actually has people in it who read game forums and realises that sometimes it takes investing €1 to get back €2. So many games were released with critical bugs that killed revenue, when all it would have taken was 2 months to fix everything.
Solution for developers having to explain every € they spend and facing budget cuts on pesky stuff like bugtesting that can't be advertised: your fault for burning so much money. Games can be made for cheaper than you've been doing. You only need 500,000 square km of landmass because you failed to make the gameplay interesting enough to attract people without the biggest ingame universe in history.
What about the video game media? They are innocent in this?
I don't think the investors are as moronic as many would think. They invest short-term, that's why companies like Funcom already had MMOs in development while another one was being released. The market has become "Quantity > Quality". Why should I, as an investor, wait (say) 5yrs to see profit when I can see it in 3months (or when ever the company starts pre-orders). I can, with 80% certainty, say the major investors in any MMO have their money AND profit within the first month of the game going live.
Unfortunantly, the investors are constantly looking for a new source since due to the rushed nature of the game the Primary Company (i.e Funcom, Blizzard, & NCsoft) ends up with a bad rap. Raise your hands if you will buy Secret World (Funcom's next MMO); very few will raise their hands because of how AoC was handled. This is probably the reason mega-MMO Companies like Blizzard and NCsoft still release high(er) quality MMOs; Aion was a hit in the Asian market, NCsoft just wanted to see how much more they could get in the Western Market. They generally don't bother/want out-side investment that will be demanding on release dates.
On a side note, the reason so many MMOs are tanking is the fact that so many are being made. Car accidents have gone up since the 'Car' was created...does that mean drivers have gotten clumsy? or is it just that now there's more cars in existence and so statistically there are more accidents. We didn't see many MMOs in the early 20xx because there wasn't that many out: EQ/EQ2, WoW, Lineage/Lineage2 (maybe 4 more that i can't think of)
-The MMO Industry has become a game of Russian Roulette; feeling lucky?
I completely agree with most of the points stated in this article. Very dissapointing how MMORPG's are overhyped now-a-days. I recently CBTed for warhammer BEFORE they let the zerg of people in and generally the community was very active, healthy, and helpful to the developing team. I believe they had every intention of making the game into this awesome huge battle game, like something you would see in the movies, but i think they weren't able to deliver the end-game content in-time with the demands of the publisher(EA).
Now that being said i believe that the MMO's need to get back into the process of player created end-game content. Most every single MMO game i have played in a while has consisted of good leveling content, good story line, and good class makeup. The only thing they are lacking really is end-game content that they do not have time to squeeze in before release. Remember back in the good 'ol days when pvp was just bragging rights? I am mainly talking about ultima online and other general early FPS games (quake, ut2004, etc..)
I am very excited though because global agenda is basing their end-game system off of this "player created end-game content" idea and looks very promising. I won't over shoot my expectations like i did for warhammer because as this article has preached, stop the hype!
The question we should be asking ourselves is, "What needs to change so our hopes aren't dashed with every single release?"
What titles slated for release in the next year are already over hyped?
I think the new start wars/star trek mmos are going to be waaaaaaaay over hyped. One reason why i didnt touch aion was because of the huge expectations everyone had for it to be the "next WoW"
I agree with the OP. Furthermore, what I think the mmo genre needs is a small but solid base with not too many features and build up from there.
Still we will always have WoW, as a blessing and as a curse. Blessing, because it expanded the genre in numbers. Curse, because of the large influx of players into every new mmo, expecting alot of content and good polish.
Then again, games like Fallen Earth and Lord of the Rings Online seem to have managed to keep expectations in check and improve their game from a solid base.
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
I didnt like this game... This is not a good game and moreover the people over here are crazy...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
Last friday i didnt saw the news of garrett fuller...
Actually i was testing it and this editor's failed my test case... :)
Good article!!
About the over-marketing i completely agree.
About the Beta effect:
Excellent article. The over hype is definitely out of hand at the moment. I don't see a solution in sight.
The problem is lately that the testors mostly get to see, at best, alpha releases and early beta becomes the release. Many of these small companies don't have a budget for QA and expect the players to do it for them.
The majority of people playing beta are not intentionally testing the game but just intent on playing it and figuring out how to get an edge when the game releases.