Jon Wood: Would We?
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood writes his column this week on some of the ideas that have been mentioned to bring sandbox MMOS back to development and whether or not players would actually be willing to accept the results.
Column By Jon Wood on March 04, 2010
We've spent a lot of time here at MMORPG.com, both official contributors and forum goers alike, attacking the current crop of MMORPGs out there. We've talked about what's wrong with the current crop of games, and we've talked about what could be done to fix them.
But in the end, I'm left wondering if we would really be willing to accept these alternative games and game design suggestions any more than we do the current trend toward linear, theme park style games, or would be complain all the louder at the realities that some of these new ideas (or in some cases old ideas) would bring.
Instead of sitting here and giving you answers that I know half of you wouldn't agree with anyway, I decided to use my column this week to ask you all to think about the answers yourselves and hopefully let us know on the forums, like you always do, what you think:
Would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
I heard it said recently, and a number of people agreed with it, that if only a game company would develop the deep, sandbox experience game that so many veteran MMOers were asking for that they would gladly pay an elevated monthly fee for the privilege of playing it. The idea being that if we aren't as large a market as the theme park crowd, we'd make up for it in terms of a higher fee.
In the end though, is that really what we'd want, or would such a game be held to such an impossibly high standard that mid-way through development, the fans who pledged their support and extra money would be crying foul?
Would it be possible for any developer to please enough fans to actually count on enough revenue generated even from a $40 or $50 a month subscription fee, or at the end of the day would there be a resounding chorus of: "WoW only costs $15 a month, how dare they charge this much?"
Would we accept minimal developer content?
One of the biggest complaints that we hear on a daily basis about just about any newly launched MMO is that it doesn't have enough content. In fact, I can't remember a recent release that wasn't plagued by that particular phrase.
Now, a sandbox, by its very nature, and the fact that so much development time has gone into creating the world and the systems with which the players will, theoretically, entertain themselves, that there isn't likely to be enough in the way of developer made content, at least in the beginning, to keep many players from saying: 'There's nothing to do, this game is incomplete."
Would we accept a "slow build?"
When discussion of a commercially viable, sandbox MMO comes to the forefront, it is an absolute guarantee that someone out there is going to point to EVE Online as the shining example of a sandbox MMO, with lots to do that's got over 300,000 subscribers.
What people often forget is that EVE Online was a very slow building game. The game that players are in today is almost incomparable to the game that originally released. One of EVE Online's greatest strengths has been its ability to continue to grow and add significantly to their game over time.
I often wonder if players who are looking for a similar game experience would be willing to accept that the game that launched wouldn't be as "complete" as they might like.
It's easy to get on board with a solution that sounds reasonable at first. Heck, I do it all the time. What's more difficult is to try to look at those suggestions objectively and ask yourself whether it's really something that would work or whether it's something you'd like to see work so badly that you'd get behind it.
More Jon Wood Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
Point 1, I wouldn't do that anyway.
Point 2, Content is important if we aren't given tools to make our own fun, lack of things to do would mean no fun, at least to me.
Point 3, Yes i would support a game, as long as i could see the devs cared about their game, it was fun to play as is and that there was clear scope for addition and improvement.
In regards to raising the standard 15$ monthly fee, it wouldn't be the best choice; in the developer's eyes or the consumer's. WalMart/CostCo has already proven that lower prices with a mass market consumers generate the most revenue. This is not something new to developers and money is what it all boils down to. HOWEVER, if there were this hypothetical game that was developed, published, then released at a higher monthly price I don't think it would fail. It's just that it wouldn't make as much money. Consider WoW (as we always do), if they raised their monthly price to 20$/month they would surely lose some of their consumers (players) to the "I can't believe they raised the prices! I'm done! rant rant rant rant". That percentage of player loss would be partially covered due to the 5$ increase but not entirely. Not until a massive paradigm shift occurs will the higher monthly fee "catch on".
As for the slow gameplay? I think there's always a market for anything. Like Jon said, EVE had a bloodcurdlingly slow progression when it was first released. EVE still managed to hang on and gather players despite the slow progression because it was a great game.
Minimal developer content? That's a hard line to sell because, where do you end the line with developer content? Is it just at quests and lore? Or is it with scenery and rich views and character customization?
On that note, good read.
1. For Europe, EVE online is asking a higher monthly than other European publishers. CCP charges €15 where others charge €13. Since I play EVE at times, I would, because the game is worth it. If you ask if I would pay more than €15 a month, the answer is NO.
2. Think you've seen my reply about the STo content. Clearly NO. The argument about the sandbox is void IMO. Even a sandbox can be filled or empty. SecondLife is a somewhat empty sandbox, but the players have filled it. EVE is a full sandbox. Then again, a sandbox is all about what you make of the game ;)
3. In the past I'd say no, but right now I say yes. Reason is that I'm now playing Fallen Earth, and that's still in development. Cap is right now 46 and Icarus aims for a cap of 90. There's also talk of 2 more sectors (there are 3 right now). But after playing around 70 hours, I'm still only level 11 and haven't even explored half of the 1st sector. So I'm not really bothered that Fallen Earth is not yet finished and under development...
With all those caveats, the game would have to be precisely what I want in order for me to sub. I might sub for a gritty "Game of Thrones" style fantasy world, for example, but not a goofy Warcraft style world. I might sub for a science fiction / space opera game, but not an Old West game... or even a science fiction / cyberpunk game.
As an aside, I don't mind higher subscription rates, but I think the price point you suggested is too high to be practical. $40-$50 a month is what I pay for my utilities, not my entertainment. (Before you ask, I don't have cable, and that's 1.5-2x what I pay for my broadband). I'd be much more likely to consider something in the range of $20-30 a month.
1. I would not pay more than 15$. I think even 15$ is to high in current economic crisis. In fact I think subscription should be 10$ judged from today point of view
2. New games lack content because they are built around content (quests). That is the one and only thing they offer. And if only thing they offer is not enough to fill the box. Than they are selling half product.
Solution is simple. Make truly interactive game where content is in living breathing world that is created by players -> Like EVE for example. Or Ultima for that mater. Nobody complains that EVE is lacking content.
But when the game based around fixed story & quests, suddenly has a HOLE from lvl 40-50. Thats faulty design
3. Again. Problem is not in the content. You could serve game with barely any content if it was organic virtual world.
Problem is that todays games are based on content. Its like buying book that is only half written and rest of pages are blank.
But if it was let say civilisation game. Than nobody would mind if let say you have only europe and america is not yet finished.
I've talked about this a few other places so I'll keep it short.
Next big MMO will be a sandbox with a good themepark built into it. Games limit themselves by doing one or the other. It also will not be FFA PVP or will offer two server types one FFA PVP and one not. Games limit themselves by doing one or the other.
If you got time on your hands the _long_ version of this post is here. I think its worth the read if you're interested in hearing my thoughts on what the next big MMO will look like with some ideas laid out for the features it will have.
1. Well I think the old-fashioned (Western market) pay for a box on a shelf + monthly subscription is pretty much a dead model. Some companies are still desperately holding onto it, but really... Something else is needed.
2. There needs to be some kind of basic framework at least to get people started. Some good newbie content to educate people on the particulars of the in-game systems. Beyind that there must be good tools for the players to then create their world.
3. If "slow" means the various train-wrecks we see lately (full of apologist fanboi's saying "Trust them", "They know what they're doing" [Don't people understand Trust is always a earned thing, not given])... These people slit their own throats launching things that are just broken. Basic systems that don't work no, that's just plain unacceptable.
Oh... And for 40-50 a month the game better be doing my dishes and scrubbing my bathroom floor. That being said I would pay that much for an MMO but it would pretty much have to be everything I ever wanted in an MMO and be perfectly implemented.
1) I wouldn't pay 50 dollars per month or any computer game, regardless of what type or how good. I can't imagine ANYONE spending 700 dollars a YEAR on one computer game. Would theme park mmo fans even pay that? It seems like a pretty ludicrous number to come up with. Would you ask the same of movies? Say, paying 30 dollars to go see an Oscar Nominated movie instead of 10 dollars to see Transformers 2? No, I doubt it would ever be put that way.
Now, something reasonable, like 17-20 dollars per month, would make one have to think. Would you pay "slightly more" than standard price for a product that has LESS than the standard features? Tough call. As long as I could demo it, read unbiased reviews, and know that the publisher/marketing guys aren't going to fudge around with price right after they get my money, then yeah, I'd probably pay a little more for a product that I REALLY wanted that seemed well produced, even if it didn't equate to the standard expectations.
2) I'm fine with less content. I'm tired of developers directing our gameplay anyway. Spend more time on giving PLAYERS the tools to make/create content (mission generators, NPC use, story creation, webpages, rewards to offer, fun social areas), and put more money into a Live Events Team so that the world is fresh as opposed to static, and I'd be happy as a clam. The less fed ex and kill ten rats the better, I always say.
3) This one is tricky, IMO. I'm okay with some slowness to the games development, but I readily admit, I get impatient with companies that take "too long" to improve the world. Really, it goes back to the monthly fee. If I'm paying "every month", then somewhere, deep down, I believe that work should be getting done every month to make the game fresh and exciting. I know that's not really the case, but its just an instinct that I have as a game player. MMO's shouldn't be "static". If solo player PC games can get updates out quicker than an mmo, then somethings wrong.
But some of answer two would resolve that. If they put in as many tools as possible for player generated content, and if they had a viable Live Event system working, then waiting for a "big update" wouldn't really be such a priority. I'd see where my money is going...or, wouldn't care, because I'd be too busy doing new stuff every once in a while anyway.
Still...the third one is the toughest one for me. If they could fill my time and communicate clearly/regularly (like showing us the development pipeline), then I can hang on for longer. Eventually, though, my patience will likely probably get thin.
The problem though, IMO, is most companies seem to WANT to charge you more, WANT to direct your path through the game, don't WANT to innovate, and WANT to take their damned time doing it. Which is why this genre is going to be in serious trouble if Facebook games continue on their current path. They seem to be doing it cheaper, faster, and with more excitement than many mmo makers right now. If Sid, Raph, and Garriot all find success there, than these questions and answers may be moot anyway.
Number 1, no probably not, maybe a couple bucks more but that's it.
Number 2, maybe but unlikely.
Number 3, most certainly. I think Asheron's Call did the right approach with this by doing monthly content updates (for 10 1/2 years now over 113 I believe). So it started off as a big sandbox and they added new features/content/stroylines/changes on a MONTHLY timeline. You couldn't do a slow build if you did quartley updates, it would be too far apart to hold on to players.
Amen, $50 a month for a game? Yeah that's never gonna happen, $20 maybe
First I will speek of monthly fee's. 15.99 is just right for most games as most of them are in what I call maintenance. I would have to be something special for me to pay a higher price.
Second a slower build, if it is done right and the game comes of with no hitches is what we all want. Instead were all getting the same old stink rag of a game with different names, with the rush to market attitude.
Third, we should expect more, instead of the crap we had to put up with for the past 5 years. MMO gaming on a hole is going down the drain.
Its hard to answer these questions cause there is a diffrence between P2P and F2P when it comes to these things.
Will I pay more ? Yes in both cases.
Will I be fine with less content at launch ? Yes... but Im not ready to pay more for it in a P2P - and neither am I willing to pay a 44.99 for the box.
Will I pay extra for slow development... no - Will I play a slow development game ? F2P version I probably would if its worth the time.
Basicly - I am willing to play a none boxed version game that has limited content at release (as long as the quality is there). I then would be glad to pay in some form IF the game had a decent progression and further development speed. That means it would stay up to the same standard as the trend of other MMOs are doing when it comes to releasing content.
Will I pay for a boxed version of a MMO any time soon ? No - not the next 1-2 years. The genre has created a monster in sucking in money from ppl - long before the game has released. I will not support that kind of game development. Be that from the way Funcom is going full out again with TPW (just like with AOC) or from Bioware with their Star Wars title. I will be looking for a downloadble games to enjoy for short periods of time. And if they actually offer something worth paying for... then I will. I will pay alot more than a sub as long as the game deserves it - in my opinion ofc !
Would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
Yes, I am one of those people who support this.
Why?
Well lets put it this way. I spend $50-100 a month in entertainment, when I don't play a MMORPG.
If I can find a MMORPG which takes all my free time, then I will be willing to spend a big chunk of my entertainment budget on it and I would save myself some money too.................it make sense.
See the concept of modern MMORPG today is wrong, that's why I complain so much about the latest shallow MMORPG, and that s why they are all failing.
MMORPGs in my view are timesink by default. The latest MMORPG though are so casual that people lose interest pretty soon.
MMORPGs needs to become timesinks again, and I am willing to pay extra for a MMO that can hook me like UO and EQ did.
Darkfall is doing it for me at the moment, but it has lots of margin for improvement.
Would we accept minimal developer content?
In a sandbox yes, definetly.
As long there are enough features that make you interact with others, that would be enough.
I do not need 1 million quests or thousands of different mobs to have fun
Would we accept a "slow build?
Probably not.
I believe this is not realistic.
Even people who love the concept of a game will want fun now, not tomorrow.
What will always happen is people coming back later to check if the game got better.
But if the game feel incomplete or not fun, people will leave it.
I did this with many games, the latest is Darkfall.
I played it at launch, found it disappointing, but I came back 6 months later and now I am an happy player.
And yes..............I would play DF even if it costs $40 a month.
"would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
I could pay more if the game was really everything that I wanted. I could pay up to $50 or $60 dollars but again, it would have to be the game that I got into mmo's for. Which was essentially a mix of morrowind and neverwinter nights. Or essentially a large explorable world with a lot of hidden or yet to be discovered content but in 3rd person view. Most people probably wouldn't be willing to pay more.
"Would we accept minimal developer content?"
That all depends. I could accept minimal content but some people really are into the whole theme park thing. I don't think this is a bad thing nor do I think it's because these people don't have imaginations. But there is a difference between people who want to enter these games to be in a world and people who want to enter these games to be entertained. It's just a different way of approaching what one wants from the game.
The average person most likely wants to be entertained. They are not interested in discovering a 2nd online life.
"Would we accept a "slow build?"
I think a good many games could move along with a slow build but the problem here is that some game devs just can't see beyond what they are currently working on.
One example was Lineage 2. Each update just added but there really wasn't a sense of a coherent whole. I think players wanting a more sandbox experience would be more amenable to a slow build over someone who just wanted to log in and enjoy themselves for an hour or two.
I donnt get it.
Why do they need more money per month,
when games like WoW did everything with only 15 dollars a month?
Even Everquest and DAoC.
So I dont see that as an excuse.
I don't think that's a fair assessment.
If Everquest at launch or DAoC at launcher were to launch tomorrow my guess is that there would be quite a lot of complaints. The mmo market has grown a bit and they don't seem to be fine with lacking content, bugs or no polish.
As far as wow, look at what wow did at launch in comparison to what was out at the time. All I know is that I got into the wow beta while I was playing Lineage 2 which was my first game and I have to say that it felt far more polished in that beta than my released L2.
Also, though it didn't have the amount of content it has now it did offer a different experience from what other games were offering. Less travel for quests, more streamlined play, decent art design/graphics, easy to find quests, not a lot of waiting for quest mobs to spawn, etc.
Besides the fact that Blizzard was a very successful company in its own right and could afford to release it when they thought it was ready.
But in the post wow world people who play games are going to expect full polish, massive amounts of content, a better experience than they found before.
Now, I'm not saying that throwing money at the problem will solve it. But it seems that with many of these games they do have to release before they are finished. More than likely because the publishers gave them x amount of money to make the game in y amount of time.
So if a dev says to me "I can give you exactly what you want with lots of content and extreme polish but I need to charge $30 a month to do it but it WILL be done" and they can actually give me what I want then I'll do it.
Because in the end what that means is that I'm actually getting what I am paying for and I am paying for what I want. I have no problem paying for my entertainment as I don't have problems paying top dollar for theater, concerts, etc, in real life.
Otherwise I feel what i'm paying for now are "ok" games that have varying degrees of what I want, varying degrees of polish and in some cases not enough to really keep me playing for years and years to come.
" 1. Well I think the old-fashioned (Western market) pay for a box on a shelf + monthly subscription is pretty much a dead model. Some companies are still desperately holding onto it"
if it wasn't for the ten's of millions of gamers that disprove that statement on a monthly basis I might not have laughed so hard.
To the OP, 15-20 would be my limit. I have no problem paying 15 bucks a month and would probably move a little up for a much better game than we are seeing today, but I don;t think that's going to happen because too many people are of the wait and see mentality any more. The better question with this kind of offering is would the devs be ok with a slow build in profits under this model?
1. I don't think the payment model is going to change all too drastically. 50-60$ USD box price + 15$ USD monthly fee works, most gamers have no problem with it.
If anything I'd expect it to grow, as in with a single company like Blizzard having two MMOs on the market and charging 25$ for both or 15$ for one kind of thing. Or if (oh my do I PRAY) one day we get a good console MMO you pay your 5.95$ / mo for Xbox Live and then like 8.99 for the specific MMO, so you get all the MMO plus everything else XBL has to offer.
F2P just has so many negative conotations to most Western gamers, I don't expect a massive shift anywhere in the near future. Besides, charging more per month does NOT a good game make. A game is made or broken, literally, before it ever hits the store shelves. Paying the devs 15 a month or 50 doesn't matter, it's how much money and time and TALENT was put in before the game went live that measures the quality of a product.
The gaming industry is like the movie industry, you don't pay 6.99 to go to a theater and watch.. I dunno... some new Disney animated film and 15.99 to go watch James Cameron's latest epic you pay the same price.
2. The problem with sandbox games and "lacking" developer created content is usually that the tools given to the players are always the same. You can gather stuff, craft stuff, maybe build stuff (structures, towns etc.) and you can kill stuff, be that either players or NPC's. You can dress it up in a variety of ways, but harvesting is still finding a resource and clicking on it, and killing NPC's / Mob's is still just grinding.
The quests are nothing more then a somewhat clever way to disguise that grind by telling you what to go grind on or where to go, and then giving you a little extra reward to speed up the grind.
Not until developers realize that the loot/reward oriented, linear grind progression systems are incredibly outdated and instead give us motivation to ENJOY the game and stories for the sake of their fun / value not the rewards will we ever move away from this model and truly see the first "next generation" MMORPG.
3. Maybe I'm old fashion but I think games should release completed. Now let me explain that one. You can still be "missing content" and have a completed game if the game is inherently fun and gives you reason to play beyond simple reward.
If your game runs on quests/developer content, then you need a full experience with no gaps to be complete, for a TRUE sandbox game, not the crap we see these days or even the past pseudo-sandbox games, as long as the SYSTEMS and features are in place and complete and give you the proper tool set you don't need ANY developer content to still be a "complete" game.
That being said, it is realistic to have some bugs but it is NOT acceptable to have broken systems or completely unfunctional or missing pieces. If you advertise a quest progression system, all the quests have to work as intended for it to be complete. I can forgive a few gramatical or spelling errors, not missing NPC's / mobs or quest rewards.
If you have a more open game then all of your systems and features need to be in and working at 100% at launch. Period.
Right now, there's a lot of pressure on MMOs to "be the next WOW." What that really means is, they have to make buttloads of money fast, globally.
This is a little like going to an author and saying, "We won't publish your book unless you write something that performs exactly like the Harry Potter. So get divorced if you're married, get a sex change if you're male, and start writing about a wizard school in a coffeeshop."
The fact is that there are LOTS of kid's book authors that achieve crossover and write amazing stuff -- and make good money without being Rowling.
The elephant in the room here is the force behind the market pressure on MMOs -- and that market pressure is often exerted by publishers, whose only focus is on growth profits.
This puts MMOs into a dying category -- the hit-driven entertainment media business. We can't all be Rowling or James Cameron, or WOW, and we shouldn't have to be. We are on the cusp, soon I should think, of seeing WOW fading and there being a vacuum that will be filled by a more diverse landscape of games, many indy.
Look at CCP. Eve Online was the first MMO I ever bought by digital distribution. I am not sure I've ever *seen* Eve in a box, although I understand it exists. Eve is a sandbox, a niche game, working a genre which popular wisdom in the industry tells us is risky at least (SF/space MMO). Eve requires MATH SKILLS. It's like chess or an old fashioned zillion counter wargame, but in real-time with awesome explosion effects and Hubble landscapes.
Obviously Eve should be an incredible failure. It has none of the attributes of a successful MMO (if you ask publishers).
And there's the rub. So long as games are funded by publishers, games like Eve will never see the light of day.
So back to the questions:
Would I accept a higher monthly fee?
I have often flamed on these virtual pages that existing games should establish role-playing servers that charge 2x-5x the normal subscription fee. This supports the higher staffing required, some events, and keeps out the casual griefers that plague RP servers. I am 50 years old, and the CEO of a game company. I am not flinching at $15/mo. I pay a few times that for my freaking iPhone, and I get less enjoyment from it.
Would I accept minimal dev content?
I play SecondLife. I rather like creating my own game, and even my own victory conditions. I play Eve. Give me good tools and the critical mass of a creative community, and I will amuse mountains (moving mountains, in a virtual world, is much easier).
Would I accept a slow build?
See previous answer.
Here's my unabashedly elitist attitude: I am willing to pay more for more. I am sorry that some folks wouldn't be able to do this. But you know, not everyone can afford tickets to a live rock show, the opera, or a resort in Tahiti. What you find when you go to these venues, though, is that the people with somewhat limited means *who really care* manage to make it. To me, this is a positive filter. The people who care will make for a great community, and a great community will create great content.
Bro Jon, please throw me in that sandbox!
yrs,
Shava
Tough questions...
Interesting answers.
For my 2c, on point 1, would I pay more? Yes, I probably would. How much more is the crux here. I'd happily pay up to $10 a month more for a game I enjoy, that gets me to half of the putative $50. So $25 is ok by me. The trouble here is that (along with things like high system demands) amping up the price can do developers out of subscribers. It's better, after all to have 30k people paying $15 a month to play than to have 10k willing to fork out $20. You can argue that the cash gating would keep the community in check, but consider the other side of that. You have 10k subs who play $20 a month to play, you introduce something in a patch that makes 500 of them /ragequit. That's $10k a month you've just lost. Ouchy. Players paying a higher price would probably also feel a sense of entitlement with regard to being listened to, more than they already do that is ; )
That can only spell trouble, since no group of players will ever reach a consensus on the direction their game of the moment should be taking.
On point 2: Nope, not really. Sorry. I like to know I can log in and find quests if I want to do them. I'm more fond of a quasi-sandbox where I'm not led around on rails, but it's easy to find stuff to do wherever I wander to. Different days, different moods - spend a day scavenging and crafting, spend another exploring and another questing, spend time solo and spend time grouped. I don't want to be entirely reliant on other players to create my fun for me. A bare-bones sandbox would kind of give me the heebie-jeebies. I'm probably in a minority there though.
Point 3: Slow progression? I'm all for it. I've never quite gotten the thing about racing to endgame (is it because I'm a girl and have no e-peen?), since I enjoy exploring all corners of a game. I take my time, learn my skills and get to know the world and the players in it. No point in hitting max-level 3 weeks post-release and finding yourself with precious little to do, I'd rather take my time and enjoy the game. 'Cause leveling up is part of the game too, however much some folks like to burn through it with blinkers on. Each to his/her own, but I enjoy a game that encourages me to take my time and enjoy the scenery.
Fascinating article. That having been said, I suspect that the answers to the questions you pose are more complex than many people would be comfortable with. The many people in question would include the investors/money types. Absent an eccentric billionaire type, who in their right mind is going to fund such a game, without having some highly detailed(and reliable) answers to those questions?
While many of the demographic might claim they would support such prices, I suspect that reality would shrink those numbers rather dramatically. $20-25 per month MIGHT be possible, but even that might well be pushing the limits. I really can't see a significant number of people paying $40-50 per month. Yes, I know that solo PC games run $50-60 each, but those are one offs, and not month after month expenses.
Content wise, I suspect there would be serious problems. If its a real "sand box" game, then its very likely to become a haven for gankers and griefers. Imposing limitations would have the gankers/griefers howling like banshees. But not imposing such limitations would damage or destroy the business model that keeps the game profitable. You mentioned Eve in your example. I direct your attention to the evolution of Concord(and other high sec systems) as an example of the actions necessary to protect ones business model in a modern profitable sand box game.
The reality is, that the modern demographic massively favors theme park games like World of Warcraft and other such. Unless, or until that changes, I don't see more than a limited niche market for sand box type games. Couple that with resistance to significantly higher prices, and I don't see how a real sand box game would get funded in the current economic situation.
<Sigh> I want my sandbox back. You know the one that was part of some ol' worn out moisture farmers experiance and not his punk kid nephew. I would be crafting air speeders in Cloud City by now if they didn't care so much for capturing a new audiance instead of just fixing the dang game.
sorry, I'll shut up. :(
I think content content content, I myself I like deep story driven content, and action, if cost me a few extra dollars for deeper content and lasting play I would pay it.. As far as slow building games, I have patients, but the average gamer today seems to be short of them, if the game does not have erything at launch including the kitchen sink the game is an epic fail to them, if game like EQ or UO even DAOC were launched post mmo easy mode they would never had made it for very long, even stand slone games these days are short on content, I enjoyed Dragan Age, evenwith the adventure packs I was able to complete in a short amount of time.
Mmo's should be ever growing and evoloving, I hate the term end game, there should never be one. I play one mmo for years at as time, I have made friends that I keep in contact with from EQ beta, :)
I always find it funny that there are hundreds upon hundreds of voices calling out for an MMO that is not like WoW, and when they get it, they complain it does not live up to their standards or their expectations.
Only to find out that the game elements, mechanics, and functions that they actually want would make it fairly identical to WoW.
"Slow build"... well, that could mean different things.
If a game would build slowly in a vertical sense (there is no upper content and you have to wait for months to do something new, i.e. you get 5 more levels and content per 6 months, and you finish the content in 1 month, and you have nothing to do 'till more content is added) i wouldn't play. (Any theme park game's case: you get 5-10 levels per year and that's it. More of the same.)
If a game builds slowly but horizontally (i.e. there is enough stuff to do, and additions give new gameplay, new ways to interact with stuff, new ways to scam and grie... er... do social things etc.), then i'd definitely play it. (Eve Online: you get new toys, and new ways to combine 'em, not the usual "bigger wtfpwnall stuff equal as last year's one but with +10000dps")
Would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
It depends. Does the quality of the game warrant a higher monthly fee?
The current crop of MMOs - including WoW, which I play - does not warrant more than $15 bucks a month from me. They're barely worth that. If developers and publishers make a game that captivates my attention so fully that I want to play the game out of a sincere desire to do so, then oh yeah, I'd pay as much as $30 a month. For example: Dragon Age was so well done (despite some of the annoyances it did have) that I literally could not wait to play the next bit of it to see what would happen. I could not wait to play through again as a different character and make different choices to see how those choices would affect the overall gameplay and story - and DA:O wasn't even an MMO! It was a single-player, ride-the-rails game that didn't give me a whole lot of room to explore, but the story was brilliant. Take that kind of writing and give me a chance to level a character, explore freely, craft, and have interactions with/parties made up of other players instead of NPCs and I would be a happy camper. I can tolerate bugs, so long as they are fixed. I can tolerate a lot of things in a game, so long as the game is imaginative - it doesn't have to be a "breath of fresh air" or do anything exotic and new. It can use what already exists and do something interesting and compelling with what already exists...but it does need to at least do something interesting and compelling...something that many designers and publishers seem to have forgotten in this insatiable quest to "be the next World of Warcraft."
Would we accept minimal developer content?
Provided that players are given enough tools to create their own content, yes. SOE may be Satan incarnate in a lot of things, but there are some things they do well in terms of this. Both MxO and SWG had decent tools (SWG is definitely the better of the two in this regard) that were brilliant in terms of allowing players a great deal of latitude in terms of RP. SWG's recent implementations have gone far further than anything MxO ever had in that, as I understand it (I never got too far into it during my brief recent return to SWG to check out the GCW update), players can create all kinds of new things, including certain kinds of missions if I understand the system properly. Considering that we are talking about Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, and considering that RP (as in, playing an actual character, not playing a person who engages in conduct best left to those who call a 1-900 number) is a major part of my enjoyment of a game, I don't need a developer scripting my content the entire time I am logged into a game and I actually tend to resent a developer telling me that killing ten rats is the only possible way for me to develop my character.
Would we accept a "slow build?
Dear sweet Baby Jesus, my most favorite of all the Jesuses, yes!!! Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times, yes!!!! I would much rather developers take their time and get things in their game right before they release it than release an unfinished, buggy, broken product that is a frustrating nightmare for the players.
Publishers need to get this through their thick, money-grubbing skulls (this means you, Atari and EA): if it isn't ready to ship, if something is broken, if there are more bugs than an entomology exhibit at the San Diego Zoo, for the love of God, do not force the developers to ship it before it is finished! You are creating ill will and a PR nightmare! If you will wait until it is no longer broken but a smooth, polished, complete product, you will make more money and garner far more respect for your company. A few pissed off people in the short run is really worth the long term respect for your company name and the reputation for high quality that holding back on a product until it is actually ready for the market will bring to you, I promise.
I wouldn't accept all 3 at the same time. Well, I probably would if a game was truly great, but I'd prefer just paying more. I do see the need for compromises, though. After all, if a game had everything I wanted, it would severely limit the number of potential customers. Consider this simplified model for how to make a profit out of an MMO:
xy = A + By + C/12Yy + D * floor(y/N)
where:
x = monthly subscription price
y = number of players
A = cost of running a server with no players
B = cost directly related to increasing number of players by one
C = total development costs
D = cost of increasing number of servers by one
Y = expected lifespan of game in years
N = total number of players each server can hold
Obviously, for a game to be profitable, the left side of the equation has to be greater than the right side. The ceiling for number of players, y, goes down as the target audience gets narrower. The only way to compensate for this, without affecting the quality of the game, is to increase the monthly price. Let's consider the alternatives, though.
B is fairly insignificant for a niche game. Obviously x must be greater than B, but cost per player (bandwidth, customer support etc) is dwarfed by the other costs until number of players reaches hundreds of thousands, or even millions of players.
Hardware costs matter more. A is the entire cost for running the game's servers if there is just one cluster. D is the cost of increasing number of servers (or expanding the capacity of existing ones) each time number of players increases by a multiple N. This cost is important to consider when saying you can just reduce the price, attract more players, and profit. Each time you reach enough players to get cost D, you need to get enough of a boost in population to cover this cost in addition to covering the loss from lowering the price. Actually lowering the fixed server costs is, of course, possible, but only if you know exactly how many players you are going to get, or are willing to lower the quality of the product.
And so we are left with C. Development costs have to be covered somehow. You can subtract box-sales directly from this, but most of it has to be covered by subscription fees over the lifespan of the game. If C is high, xy has to be high. In other words, to cover hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs with just a few thousand players just isn't possible. Increasing the expected lifespan of the game, is also not something that is easily done. If the game is still going strong after initial development costs are covered, this has to be seen as a bonus, and of course the total cost goes up somewhat over the years with additional content and patches. For a niche game, C has the biggest impact on the range in which you can vary monthly subscription fees while keeping the game profitable.
The way I see it, we end up with 3 options for pricing a niche MMO while keeping it profitable.
Most new niche games go with option 2. Players are not happy with this since it is easy to compare the production quality with similarly priced games. I'd personally prefer option 1, but I know $15/month is already at, or near the limit of what most people are willing to pay per month, and the price would have to be quite a lot higher for it to make a difference. I guess all in all, finding ways to lower development costs by delivering a limited product at release is the safest way to give us the games we want and actually keep them going, One of the advantages of an MMO is that it's under constant development, and the costs of additional content and polish can be inserted into to the equation after the important variables are known and/or have increased enough to cover the costs.
About the slow build, that is exactly what I'm doing with Fallen Earth. I play the game slowly so that I'm constantly getting more and more impressed as patches go by, rather than sprint to endgame and have to wait for it. I see this game being much improved in just the few months it has been out.
1) I would be willing to pay a slight increase to say $17 -20 per month if it was a decent game, but $40 - 50 dollars per month is insane; the only company I know of that tried that amount was S.O.E. back in the original EQ, and the primary point of that special server was that you were supposed to actually get decent customer service (something other companies tried to give for the standard price).
2) I don't have a special love affair with sandbox style games like a lot seem to have; while I have nothing against them, I do like having enough content so that I can reach the endgame and be able to make an alt that follows a different path. I think Eve hung on so long because there was multiple paths to follow and it took forever to level up just one character (even longer if you tried to split development time between multiple characters). I'm not entirely sure how well a sandbox game might do today if it is severely lacking content; while RP and other player driven activities can fill in for a lot, you do need something else to do (especially at high levels). If the game launches with the levelling speed and sparse content as one of Cryptic's two new games, then forget it.
3) As far as the slow build, once again it needs to have enough content to keep me busy; as above, Eve worked because it took a long time to level up (something on the order of a year and a half or more of real time). If a game has a slow levelling time like that, and enough initial content, then I could see it working. It's not going to be wildly popular (at first anyway), but if it has a solid foundation then I could see it succeeding and it could very well be the game I fall in love with. Unfortunately, the current trend has been to shove things out the door with gaping holes in content; as a result players are a lot less tolerant now, and a slow building game that has significant holes in content might not be able to weather the initial storm of criticism.
I doubt many people would want a slow build especially when many on these very forums seem to lack the patience to allow anything like an MMORPG to develop before dismissing it as "poor quality".
It's heavily reflected on the popularly shared view that the industry is on some kind of decline despite the fact that it's continuing to turn greater and greater profits. Oh of course, its the quality that declining not the money, well, for those that want to argue this...please define quality to me. I'm sure you'll get thousands of conflicting responses.
Despite EVE's success, it is still ultimately a niche game and whoever it caters to, it does it well, but its definitely not for everyone and I want to point at the slow pace of the game as the reason why. We are living in this instant gratification society and everyone wants everything now. There is no satisfaction for these people so I firmly believe that with all your points brought up, they would continue to cry and complain about the realities they would bring.
Ultimately, outspoken minority will never be satisfied for the most part because there will always be this perceived, there's something wrong with game X or game Y because it never matched their vision of what the game should of been.
Mmm i think game hoppers will hop no matter what, might be the best game ever, but they'd get the itch to hop around and see whats out there, they may come back for periods of time though.
Of course we would. Not all of course, but some would. Enough to make a game viable/profitable.
But given the current MMO environment, dominated by publishers and investors who demand profit without risk, the question should be "Would they?" Would any AAA Publishing company be willing to put up the money in the hopes it'll pay off in a couple of years? I don't think so. The current trend is to make as much as possible off of box sales, driven by using an established IP, heavy marketing, and deals of questionable value (I'm looking at you Cryptic/FunCom).
Independents will try but they rarely have the money to produce a product that has the kind of polish to attract a player base. And when I say polish I'm simply referring to the client.
So yeah, I would. But I'm not holding my breath.
The short answer:
Yes.
The long answer:
Yessireebob.
The small, ad hoc list that you have generated screams one common theme: maturity.
Are the players mature enough to pledge RL assets higher than the norm if their tastes are more selective than the norm? By pledging, investing?, there would be the pressure to follow through. If the game releases with minimal content, but there is obvious effort shown by devs to make the game expansive with time, and timely, periodic releases of content continuously stream out of the devs' stronghold... absolutely.
There's more to it, obviously, that what has been said here. But it gets me thinking: would this bring 'community' back to MMORPGs? With the exception of EVE and a flailing FFXI (both of whom, ironically?, have been the only AAA titles that have stayed 'true to form' since their releases), communities have been on the decline (subjective, subjective but let's not: there's enough word fodder on this topic to emperically conclude, at the least).
Would terms that call for the gamer to be mature about their gaming bring back the *ESSENCE* of what MMORPGs were birthed around?
Point 1. No, I think that would be a really poor business model as MMO pricing is pretty much a standard acrross the board, double your prices you will alienate way more than half of your potential customers, for an MMO to be worth more than a standard subscription fee it would have to offer something as yet unseen.
Point 2. I think that "Here's an empty world, go kill each other coz that's all that there will ever be for this game" again alienates everone who isn't a 100% pvp player which is a very small portion of the population, if you want to get more people into the sandbox, give them more to do than hit each other with rocks. The other extreme is the kill 1000 rats and you can't move you the next zone (to kill 1000 wolves) until you have killed them all. Neither interest me at all really.
Point 3. Playing a slow build game is a risk, you are playing a game on the promise than things will slowly improve with subscriptions funding further content until the game snowballs into something recognisable as a complete game. It is a model I would be willing to attempt, assuming I can see the game has a vision and the devs are actually aiming towards it, rather than churning out something incomplete and leaving it to fester having recouped there money through preorder box sales. This is a perfect model for a small indie company, if a larger company tried this is would be seriously suspicious that it was simply a money grab. I think the trick to a slow build game is to offer a unique experience to begin with, but with a limited scope. A good example is what Xsyon is pushing out, (Assuming that there is something behind the promises) There has been a LOT of radical features announced, yet the scope of the game to begin with will be small (Limited land space, very limited tech) this way they can hopefully generate interest without breaking their initial budget and rolling out new tech and more land mass is a lot more believable that promises of completely radical gameplay.
In a sandbox the players create the environment, if that environment is conducive to people quitting in the first month, you will have a small game. If you want more people to join you in the sandbox, perhaps you should examine the people who think it's fun to crap in it. Low numbers are as much to do with the environment as the "FFA pvp" tag.
I think a big issue why "sandbox" games haven't done so well has been they were soley targetted at the 100% pvp crowd. It's my impression that these game offer little else apart from pvp with some mobs to train your skills up on. I think this image is what has restricted the popularity of these games. Together with the demographics of these games that attract the frenzied pvp crowd and especially griefers. Create an ecosystem consisting of 80% wolves and 20% sheep and in 6 months you'll end up with nothing but a hungry pack of wolves turning on each other. Turn that into a 90% sheep 10% wolves and overall the sheep get on with life, yes it's dangerous but overall safety in numbers means they aren't too worried, and there is plenty of scope for fun for the wolves too.
I'm not saying the sheep are those who avoid pvp at all costs, more that the wolves are those whose sole purpose in the game is to hunt people down, the less challenge the better. If the game doesn't offer areas of "relative" safety people get fed up of "oh! one shot again"
Games where on day 1 or 2 of logging into a game and you are faced with players that go out of their way to basically make new/low level players lives a misery (yes, there are players like that out there who play full loot FFA pvp because it means they can pick this no risk combat) and retention rates will be low. If the environment isn't conducive to fthe game being mostly fun the chances of the game growing is minimal. Most people don't find being repeatedly one shot by a guy going out of his was to harrass as "fun". My personal experience of FFA pvp can be summed up as frustrating and not fun in any way, I was driven away from the game before I even got a chance to participate in pvp, unless you can count being one shot by max level griefers as participating. I won't say never again, but certainly never again in that format that allows/encourages griefing without little consequence.
In reality the whole Sandbox/Theme Park thing is a grey area, you can have a level based game with enough content and choices about how you want to play that it doesn't really resemble a theme park at all. I certainly wouldn't regard VG as a themepark from levels 1-50, everything SOE introduced afterward has been incredibly linear and repetitive, but the initial vision was giving the players a lot of freedom. Other games it feels like you are on rails and can't even turn you head levelling is so controlled. Level or Skill based I don't actually mind, just give me enough freedom over my character and how I play it to make me feel part of the world.
I suppose my ideal game is one than gives a good deal of freedom of how to play, offers plenty to do outside pvp, and offers a deal of depth to the world. It's my impression that some of these FFA pvp sandboxes are incredibly shallow with the only draw being the FFA pvp. It's fairly obvious that the smaller the scope of the game the less audience it will appeal to.
Would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
I would - I've said so here and elsewhere. The 14.99/mo sub fee was established how long ago? And how much have prices risen since then? By rights we should be paying 25.00 a month for the same quality of game as back then, never mind the huge improvements in game technology we have now.
This static situation is exactly why microtransactions even exist. Prices have gone up, development costs have gone up, the product has improved, but our costs to get so much more than we used to get have not gone up due to some popular delusion that "nobody would play if it weren't 14.99 or less". This delusion is imposing an artificial barrier on the progress of the entire industry and forcing dreck models like sub + RMTs.
Fix the price fixing, and the industry will fix itself real quick. Prices will rise until companies can create the best quality games they can and maintain them for long-term play, instead of the current boom and bust model, then competition will flatten the pricing again.
Oh, and it doesn't have to be our Utopian sandbox either. Such a thing does not exist and will not exist, ever. You can give me any quality game for 20 or even 25.00/month, keep the RMT crap out of it, and keep it supported and GM'd so that it works as intended, and I'll be as happy a camper as the gameplay lets me be.
Make it Planetside circa 2004-2006 and I'll be freakin' ecstatic.
How do you tell a slow build from no build? If I put money on the table, a company will gladly take it, but once they have the money, how do I ensure they they actually do follow through on their implied promises to improve the game? No, I think as a game consumer, I have to have finite patience, I have to be willing to walk away if the say-do ratio drops too low or if the game simply isn't fun. As much as I'd like to pick one game and stay with it forever, there simply aren't any market mechanisms that can guarantee that loyalty will translate into continued improvement. You can only see successful slow burns in hindsight.
Ok, Good post and I will try to field these questions in order.
1) Yes, I would accept a higher monthly fee for a game. I have incidentally payed higher than the traditional $15 fee a few times. Whether it be from a cash shop or monthly fee plus some services, I rarely just pay $15 a month for the entire lifespan of my relationship to the game.
If you factor in buying expansions for certain games (wow) it averages out to more than 15 bucks. But not many look at it that way.
2) Yes, I would and normally do. I rarely feel the pinch of lack of content. Granted, if I started playing a game with NO CONTENT such as been the case with Mortal Online, it would bore me. But if I liked the game itself I would give the devs a chance to "gel" I understand there are many challenges of being a new mmorpg developer. Not everyone is going to be 100%, 100% of the time.
I'm willing to overlook some things, and some things I just won't. Lack of customer service is one of the BIG dealbreakers for me.
3) Yes, as I stated above I would give them time to grow into lets say a "CCP". Most times I just tend to sit back and wait to see how they handle the growth process, making changes to the game as they go along. Sometimes I don't watch the game as much as the company.
For example: Funcom. They have some such a long way and made such strides to improve AoC. I do not like AoC, its not the game I like to play. But it doesn't mean I didn't like Anarchy or I'm not going to play Secret World. I am pulling for them because I have seen a great effort from them in improvements. They have a good grasp on community matters and good customer service. I can see that over the years working in the industry they have "gelled" but haven't seen the success that some other co's have had.
So to sum this all up. If The Secret World was released, hypothetically it was a sandbox game with a realistic economy. It had EVE's time based skillpoint system or Darkfalls repetitive use skill system. It had all the things I want in an MMO, because the list is longer and getting longer every day. I would pay WELL OVER 15 smackaroos to play it and have the ultimate MMO experience "FOR ME".
I know I'm long winded, but it was a topic that stirred some thought.
Really nice post above. It makes several good points.
I would deffinately have to say "no way" to a higher priced subscription fee. For several reasons, the main reason being... MMORPGs are very much so, an economy of scale. What that (basically) means is, initially, when sub numbers are low, the cost of reimbursement for initial investment, the cost of daily ongoing costs to run the game and the cost of present and future development takes up a very large portion of the subscription payment. However, once the sub numbers go up, the costs of running the game are spread out over more players, meaning that only a smaller portion of each subscription fee goes to "paying the bills".
Eventually, if they have done things right, they will get to a point where, like in the case of WoW, with so many subs, the cost of running the game barely makes up a fraction of a percent of the total subscription fee. Meaning everything else is simply pure and total profit. While I do not in any way, shape, or form, have a problem with the generation of profits, I do have a HUGE problem with games and developers like Blizzard, who feel the need to charge for game expansions, when they are making so much money per subscription fee already.
The reason why? Simple, and it leads me to the second reason why I would not support a higher subscription fee. Developers like CCP and their game, EVE Online, have shown me and the world that you can run a successful game, at a standard $15 a month fee, and never, ever, EVER charge "extra" for the expansions they put out, and yet still remain profitable and successful. Nor do they use or support any frivilous Cash Shop or RMT services. Yes, they do have the standard extra fees for character changes and stuff like that. They also have the pay cash for time cards, thus selling them to other players for in-game money feature. I would not classify either of those in the same realm as these other Cash Shop / Sub+ RMT scams the current developers are trying to get away with.
I've gone on long enough, just on the higher subscription fee thing. I will have to get back later on the other two points asked. I'm sure someone somewhere needs a break from my ramblings.
No
Yes
Yes
Fallen Earth developers seem to go the EVE route in the way that they carefully plan the content release (lvl cap is 46atm and is supposed to be 150 in the end), while at the same time taking the time to listen to the playerbase.
Untill now, their contentupdates have been very good and they also keep adressing bugs every few patches in between the content updates. They have a very good balance between releasing content, fixing bugs and listening to player suggestions.
On top of that if you consider that they are an Indie company, they show that you dont even need a major MMO producer for this as long as you carefully plan the development.
1. Yeah, easily. And you would too if you had your dream game releasing tomorrow, teasing you with features you've waited years for. I consider the ~£10 I pay on a single subscription fee already very low, considering all the hours of entertainment I get for it a month.
2. (answer based on the assumption that content = quests, raids, instances, etc) Yes, that's the definition of a sandbox. It doesn't need 'rides' to keep me entertained.
3. No. I'm too inclined to say 'I'll come back in X months when Y problems are solved'. That only really works if everyone else doesn't do the same though... or those who do stick it out and keep paying end up shaping the game into something I don't want to play anymore, as the developers rightly try to keep their paying customers happy.
Well, since I'm certainly in the group you are pointing at with this topic, here goes:
Would we accept a higher Monthly fee for "our" game?
Damn skippy. Pardon my french. Jon, you bring up the point of some folks supposedly on board at first and then jumping ship mid way through development. Valid concern, for sure, and one than can easily be countered by the developer, oh, being up front with total game design and what elements and features they are going to put in and, most importantly, sticking to that list. As Jennings wrote in his recent article the developer would have to ditch publishers so that they would have the freedom and time to make a quality game. I just don't believe anymore that game companies aren't revealing their systems because they are afraid someone else will pick them up. I now think it's more of they have no freaking idea of how they are going to do it in the first place until a week before they "reveal" it. Such "down the road" revelations are cause for people to jump off the bandwagon as it may be a system they don't like.
So yes, it's be nice to see MMO companies actually, oh, sit down and think about what systems they want in the game sum total, outline how they interact with each other, announce them and then not launch until they get them all in. Perception currently is they are throwing all of the cake ingredients into the stove before reading directions and doing initial preparation.
Would we accept minimal developer content?
Seriously, though.The people you hear complaining about no content are in my opinion the themepark warriors. Those folks love developer directed content and consume it faster than a speeding bullet. If you have heard a sandbox gamer of the like you are addressing hear state such things it because a) it's true, b) we got no other modern sandbox games to go to so we have to get our MMO gaming fix in these themeparks and c) the game doesn't have any detailed tools through which sandboxers can invent their own content.
If a sandbox game has wide ranging and intertwined toolsets through which players can build/create items with which to forge stories, they keep themselves occupied. If a developer provides such an exhaustive set of tools as a skeleton the players will fill that skeleton with mass.
Would we accept a "slow build"?
I think that many of us asking for such a sandbox game would accept it. That said I don't agree that it has to be a slow build. In fact I think if all the developer had to worry about was the interaction of the various game systems (tools) and coming up with new ways for them to interact it'd less of a pain than trying to come up with new story ideas and quests and testing the new quests and raids, etc. The world would develop as fast as the players made it happen, building settlements, etc.
Anyway, I truly think it would work. If a company actually threw as much money as they had toward, say WAR or AoC, at a game where they only had to put in game systems that were tools for the players to build with and not worry about traditional themepark content, I think it'd work well. It'd certainly carry over 250,000 subs world wide if visually it looked like a serious effort. That and I know there are at least that many of us "old farts" as one poster likes to call us in another thread out there who would love to have the story-telling and world building back in our hands as opposed to picking lines of dialogue and having a story told to us.
I won't pay more but the rest, if the game is good enough I would easily tolerate and maybe even enjoy if done correctly.
Well as long as I don't have to face this stupid Wow+ community again, I would be willing to pay more but according to that wanting a clear stated destination for the game. Playing Darkfall right now and yes I accept a slow build.
So all in all if done right, I would accept all of the stated options. I think playing a "privilege" REAL MMORPG would also lead to a much better community, mabe something like 1999!
To add my own views on this, I must say that the answer is highly dependent on the type of game in offer. Working with the assumption that we are talking about each individual's dream game, then I could provide a provisional YES. More specifically, my onw dream game could be (only very very briefly) described as a full, deep sandbox design, in an open interactive world with no artificial restrictions (save those that can be loosely described as realistic), based around a dark fantasy setting- something along the lines of Micheal Moorcock's Mutliverse/ Eternal Champion creations, or a horror fiction setting (think World of darkness) or even a science fiction theme along the line of the Shadowrun RPG. In addition there would need to be a strong emphasis, or I should rather say that the game will be designed around, a proper role-playing experience, and by that I do not mean having a set of numerical values that in one way or another increase over-time. I simply mean deep immersion and support in acting out your character's persona.
With the above premises in mind :
Would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
Granted that the above criteria are sufficiently met I would accept and higher monthly fee in the area of 20 to 25$. Anything higher I don't think is viable, nor, personally, acceptable.
Would we accept minimal developer content?
Player driven content >>>>>>>> developer drive content. Personally a quest driven game of the traditional variety is a big no.
Therefore and big yes here. A well thought (and built of course) sandbox game needs the bare minimum in terms of content of the usual sort.
But... and it is a big one.. if we are talking about lack of tools for creating player driven content, lack of areas to explore, or lack o depth in lore and the game world itself, then the answer must be NO.
And while on this subject, I rather have more depth and less breadth to start with than the other way around - and then building slowly upon that stable basis. For instance I would rather be given a relatively small area to start with, gone with care and loving attention to detail, rather than lots of place to visit that lack depth and purpose.
Would we accept a "slow build?"
I think I probably just answered this. Quick answer: YES. The crucial condition, as described earlier is that developers pay attention to detail and try to bring the game world alive, start small and build on that. And I hold a similar view as far as subscribers/costumer base is concerned. Focus on your most fundamental player base and build on and around that. I am of the opinion that (unless you are WoW) a loyal player base is the best long term investment for any MMO that pans on being around for long. They will support you, provide free marketing and advertising by talking to their friends about it, give valuable input to developers, just as long as you treat them with respect.
But then again... what are the chances of something like that happening?
What might be interesting if there was an opportunity for players to add content themselves.
After building the builder, content could then be provided by the community itself. A bit LPMud-like.
How open world/sandbox would this be and it might even be economically feasible...
Its funny you should mention that, I was just about to post my thoughts in a similar vein.
First, though, what people need to bear in mind is that what most folks consider "niche" games are not. WoW is an outlier/aberration, and trying to fit the industry into the you don't have X million subscribers is a poor way of looking at things. When looking at true subscriptions numbers and dropping your outliers (highest/lowest) most games fall into an average grouping of subscriptions. No game developer is going to recreate WoW. Even Blizzard won't recreate WoW with their in development game, it was the perfect storm at the perfect time (simple, easy to grasp, you could pretty much run it on a Commodore 64 etc.). Talking about how a sandbox game would be a niche game is actually an incorrect moniker . Or one could say that every single MMO out there that isn't WoW is a niche game. Whatever semantic argument you want to make it doesn't really change the outcome.
With regards to the questions:
1. Would I pay more?
Somewhat more yes. $40-50/month however is impractical. Not from a standpoint that the price may or may not be too high, but simply that the average consumer is not going to be swayed by that when other games, inferior or not, have a much lower monthly subscription fee. I also don't think its necessary as ongoing development costs can be kept fairly low
2. The sandbox
A sandbox relies on players to make the content happen. It can have an overarching theme but it isn't reliant on the developer to provide content for it to function. This frees up developers to work on the game mechanics, system stability etc. Splitting developer focus with fixed resources (i.e. budget) and financially required deadlines is exactly why most MMOs are released with a multitude of bugs and a lack of content.
However, there's an opportunity that can be done in a sandbox game that would also free up developer time (and hence keep developer costs low) and that is user generated content. We can pull inspiration from offline single player games such as Oblivion or offline/online multiplayer games like the NeverWinter Nights franchise its easy to see that there are a great many very talented player/fans who enjoy making content, for no payment other than the enjoyment of doing so and the gratitude of other players. It should be fairly easy to leverage those content developers. They're there and they love doing so.
As such what a developer could do would be to provide the worldbuilding kit for these player developers to generate quests/missions and other content. While some safeguards would need to be in place, likely with regards to loot, such that they couldn't make a hidden quest to kill a rat for a billion coins, such a system could work. An editor or two for this content would also be required prior to it being activated to ensure it wouldn't be imbalancing and also to ensure that there are no copyright violations for existing IPs. These quests could also be aged out, both to not overly populate the world (or servers) with unused content as well as to keep the game world dynamic. While in such a system quality would obviously be hit or miss, the same can be said for theme park games with developer provided content
3. The slow burn
Allowing players to develop much of the content with the appropriate tools would also involve the slow burn buildup as like any of the games that allow this type of world building initial content is often small and simple as the player developers are learning the system, but often grows to very in depth and involved content.
Providing tools like that would, in my mind keep developer costs low, and as a result keep monthly fees lower. It would allow for a truly dynamic world when combined with the more traditional sandbox elements such that the players can live in a virtual world and not return to their starting city five years later in real time to see Fippy charging headlong to Qeynos yet again. Finally it would invigorate the player base with continuously flowing content, and remove the grind aspects that all Themepark games degenerate into due to lack of content (because no matter how you want to look at it, no matter how slowly you play to end game, eventually in a theme park game you reach it and its oh boy a new expansion now we have 1 new raid we can do every Saturday night until we all get our new gear to wait for the next expansion).
Eve Online and Second Life seem to be succeeding at this in very different ways.
yrs,
Shava
I concur with that mostly.
Point 1: How much I would pay depends on the games state of course and my own financial situation. But it isn't uncommon that (adult) mmo fans buy 2 or 3 accounts not just because they play them but because they want to support the game. Quite some of my guildies in EQ2 are running several accounts for that reason ... This is why the istaria model of family accounts you can add additional keys to makes so much sense in my opinion: it means you can individually close a keys abo or leave it AND play them in parallel if you want to. Much more convinient than having to create an account for each key individually telling you than you need another mail etc.
Point 2: I think the differentiation between "engine generated content" and "users ability to be busy or create content himself" is missing in the article too. Ryzom Ring for example, the user-mod-system for the MMO Ryzom was not exactly "content" itself but a mod system hosted by the company for instanced user generated quests and such. People loved it AND it ment a very polished quest generation engine for the GMs too. So the focus on content generation tools and handing them to players too if the world isn't interactive by itself (sandbox systems) is the point here, not pre-packaged content. If there is interactivity with the world or user-mod systems it is offering a lot of content and I pay for it for sure.
Simple example: the tiny MMO Wurm, it has an engine where you can literally shape the world. Take a shovel and start digging, it creates a hole. Put the soil somewhere else, it gives a hill. One day when I was with some people who had built a small village (the world is empty and there is decay, player have to built everything and keep it in repair) the leader suggested we get a road connection to the main traffic road some distance away. So we started building a road, travel was faster on those. When we hit a lake we started building right through it. That took a while filling enough soil into the lake so we had a narrow road through it... ;)
But building around would have cost the same time and make a much longer way too. So we had a lot of "content" even if not in the general way. Wurm had city like ruins all over the world hidden somewhere, something Machu Pichu like in the mountains too - all remains of players. I just left Wurm finally as it had back than only male avatars and no animation. THAT was even too little for me. :D Meanwhile they've evolved a lot but I just have no more time to fill lakes with soil to built roads and I know I would be drawn back into that, shaping the world my way is just too intriguing.
Point 3: Slow but steady development is fine, I don't care about this a lot. Customer-oriented development is what I care about. I've been with Horizons/Istaria for 1.5 years and paid several more month I had quit playing because I wanted them to succeed. The problem with it for me turned out that the extreme grind of the game concept is totally unfit for my play style and the little spare time I have. I don't mind if you need to work to get your rewards. But thousands of kenaf plants harvesting to get your 10 levels to the next tiers which means thousands of xyz to rinse and repeat and there is mostly no market to sell it but engine pawns ... that is not work (work is meaningful), that is wasting my spare time. And I paid for Vanguard a long time too after I had given up already on playing (grind once more) as I wanted to support it, turn around the development direction to less RAID/grind oriented game play and more diplomacy and crafting oriented features. Didn't happen, so I cancelled the account.
What I believe MMOs quite often stumble inside is the trap of not defining specifically what auditory you want to focus at and if that auditory is big enough to sustain your game. Market research is the issue here. I look at MO for example and while I'm still fascinated by the idea to make UO 3D come alive again I experience the beta and think to myself "guys, have you never learned from failures of others or why do you decided on that feature???". At night it is pitch black - newbie players start at a pitch black spot outside of a city and on the way in they ... fall to death. If they make it as ghost to a priest who usually is outside of a city they face the same problem ... pitch black. If they started in well lit cities that would be a start but hey ... at night cities are literally crowded with thiefs standing at the vendors and bank. Thiefs are only hidden criminals (not attacked by guards) as long as they are not attacked by someone whom they snooped. Now if a player manages to realize in time he got stolen from, he needs thus to attack a thief before the guards attack and kill him. That means unfortunatelly that you need to run after the thief (no names over peoples heads, you need to click at them, pretty much everyone looks the same) and once you draw your weapons to attack ... you get a slow down malus. Awesome design huh? You bet. Of course it is amazingly clever game design to have a design where you reproduce the old UO thief problem where it plain isn't a good idea to walk to a vendor or banker and start doing something as long as someone stands close by. The auditory attracted to this type of game design is marginal, ask Felluca/Trammel vets. So Jon Wood, ask again, is it a matter of players not willing to play THEIR game or is it a matter of naive (sorry) game design?
I think Xsyon is going to answer the second and third question shortly. When the game is a success the answer will have been yes on both accounts.
Hmm, already answered this, but something came to mind.
Why would you pay a higher price for an MMO if 'the standard" was 14.99/month? What possible benefits could there be that would justify a few more bucks a month?
Well, let's look at how it might play out if there were tiers to the pricing and game experience.
1. 14.99 /month gets you a WoWlike game experience. A themepark, item-driven treadmill "RPG" loaded with kiddies and amateurs, and you have to join an elite guild to get good groupmates (which means you have to be fairly 1337 yourself, so you're hangin' with the kiddies for some months). There's no moderation to speak of so there's always foul language and random garbage in the chat channels. Crafting is present but basic to medium interesting. Additional content is generally for-pay too at higher rates - 19.99-29.99 or more.
2. 19.99/month gets you a more "mature" game experience (can't name a game atm, but I guess LOTRO would be the bottom of this range). You have a more mature, respectful game community with rapid moderation (LOTRO is a good example for this), you have good features like in-depth crafting, wide-ranging exploration, grouping / guilds is reasonably supported, and generally you feel like you're accomplishing something when you play. Bugs are openly discussed and scheduled for patching at regular intervals, and additonal content comes out regularly and is free or low-pay (9.99 -19.99).
3. 24.99/month gets you the premium game. There ain't no garbage in the chat channels, the game is rich, deep and exciting, you've got full grouping / clan abilities and content, you've got good player housing and possession management, and crafting is deep and varied. You could live in this game if you so chose ;) And additional content is always free - you pay for this every month.
Putting it this way, what would most people choose to pony up for? For me, I would be choosing my games from the top or middle tier. 5 bucks a month more is the same as not buying 1 pizza every 3 months. 10/month is two pizzas every quarter year. That's got to be affordable for pretty much everyone.
The reason Jon asked that question (I think, if not Jon can jump in and correct me) is not because of additional features as you get into. It's because there is this perception out there by game makers (and many in the gaming media) that such a sandbox game as being discussed here would not draw as big a crowd as the themepark games being pumped out. So, to offset what is assumed to be a smaller gaming crowd it is proposed an increase in sub fee so that it can be on par with the themeparks in subscription numbers.
That said I'd like to see a good faith clause added onto such a game. This clause would state that if the game maintains a playerbase of 100,000 subscriptions or more than they charge the industry standard of $14.99/month as their fears have been incorrect and the game is drawing a crowd on par with recently released themeparks after they have settled down. If the game has subscritptions of 99,999 or less then they can charge the$5 or $10 higher fee that they deemed necessary due do the assumption that this type of game wouldn't draw TP numbers.
I have been saying much the same thing for awhile now. What is needed to advance the genre to the next level is a true hybrid of game styles. Of course an animal such as that would require a lot more money to develop than the typical theme park or sandbox as it would be two in one. Investors would likely shy away from this increased expense in favour of the fast buck that todays games offer; get in, grab the profit and get out with no concern over what happens to the game after that.
The problem with this mentality among investors and publishers is that it is slowly but surely killing the genre and once the golden goose has flown they can wave goodbye to any further income from that direction. Theme parks have the ability to draw in the initial crop of players and to satisfy that quick fix feeling. Sanboxes however have longevity with the potential to continue for a very long time indeed providing they are supported and updated when needed, EvE being a case in point. The money men need to remove those short distance blinkers and take a wider, more long range view before the genre can evolve as it needs to.
I have been saying much the same thing for awhile now. What is needed to advance the genre to the next level is a true hybrid of game styles. Of course an animal such as that would require a lot more money to develop than the typical theme park or sandbox as it would be two in one. Investors would likely shy away from this increased expense in favour of the fast buck that todays games offer; get in, grab the profit and get out with no concern over what happens to the game after that.
The problem with this mentality among investors and publishers is that it is slowly but surely killing the genre and once the golden goose has flown they can wave goodbye to any further income from that direction. Theme parks have the ability to draw in the initial crop of players and to satisfy that quick fix feeling. Sanboxes however have longevity with the potential to continue for a very long time indeed providing they are supported and updated when needed, EvE being a case in point. The money men need to remove those short distance blinkers and take a wider, more long range view before the genre can evolve as it needs to.
In your first you make some good points. But given that the typical AAA class MMO takes 3-4 years to develop already, most investors are unlikely to fund an even longer development time. But I must disagree that well designed theme parks are killing anything. WoW has been around for more than 5 years now, and has brought millions of new players into the market. Sand box games to this point have not demonstrated an appeal to the majority of the modern demographic. In all too many cases they become havens for gankers and griefers, which drives many players away. The Dev's then end up imposing more and more rules to protect their business model(one example of this is the evolution of Concord in Eve online). Its highly unlikely that a real sand box game is going to attract sufficient numbers (in the west) to produce a good ROI that can be shown to the investor types.
Would I pay a higher monthly price for a game? Yes, I would. I'm playing a game right now that offers me such incredible entertainment value that I would gladly play twice the current subscription fee. I'd rather pay $20 a month for a game and instead of comparing them to WoW, have them come up with this mission statement, right on their home page - or something to this effect:
"Yes, we charge $29.95 a month. Yes, you can play World of Warcraft for $15 a month. There's a difference with us - we offer no cash shop, period. All updates to the game will be free. (You may or may not want to include expansions here.) We'll give you a fair number of character slots, access to good (read: a real person on the phone) customer support, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as well as in game. You're paying more because we offer more - and we refuse to ever open a cash shop. No RMT's. Instant bans for those caught using hacks or bots, with a sensible appeal process for the inevitable mistakes made. In short, we're offering excellent customer service and a promise that we'll just raise the price for everyone if we have to cover operating costs as opposing to offering a different game experience to those that can pay more $$$ than their neighbor."
As I always like I say, when I play chess with my friends - richer or poorer - sometimes I have an advantage because I've played a lot of chess. My lifestyle allows, and allowed, for me to both have ample playtime and excellent partners. Now, should I allow a person who plays me to purchase, say, 3 extra pawns for $5 because he or she feels it "evens the field" between us? Allowing these kind of cash transactions kills the spirit of the game. Fallen Earth is a game I love to death - I've devoted many, many hours to playing and I am quite attached to my guild.
If they started offering paid services beyond, say, a server move IF they had multiple servers - I'd leave. In a heartbeat.
I'd pay $29.95 a month for peace of mind knowing that it won't ever be an issue with Icarus or Fallen Earth, honestly.
Someone mentioned that the Walmarts always do best - yes, mass market appeal does make McDonalds widely economically successful through the laws of volume economics and the rule of large numbers. That having been said, there will always be a niche for the really expensive steak restaurants and, indeed, even the mid-priced joints my wife and I go to when we eat out. We don't "do" McDonalds; we eat out at a few nice Thai places, a nice Greek place, etc. We've lived in this city a combined total of 30 years between the two of us, and we know it well. The restaurants we go to can charge a premium because their customers are willing to pay for things that McDonalds doesn't offer:
* lack of screaming kids (or... say... a more mature player base?)
* better customer service (say, GM's on staff 24 hours that respond to problems promptly? professionalism in the forums? freedom to complain if you are an unhappy paying customer without your threads being shut down?)
* better food (say, steak over that Big Mac)
So... yes. Even though McDonalds offers a burger for under a dollar, I still prefer to go down to this little place I know of where they grill the burgers with red wine and onions, and while they cost a lot more, they don't leave me with a stomach ache the next day, either.
Let people "grow up" on their F2P games and games with cash shops and then perhaps offer the more mature gamer with more disposable income a different experience - the premium $30 a month game -, as is done with *many* products in real life from service industry to retail.
Well here is my little contribution :)
1 - Higher Monthly fee - Well as some others have mentioned before, I think when a game starts to be on par with a service, such as mobile phone or other bills then perhaps I would think again. I know that I have been put off by Eve's £12ish a month, when WoW was just shy of £9. However I am aware that the content of the game and the level of exictement/enjoyment I got from it did not feel like that.
2 - Minimal Developer content - If the sandbox game/s can provide me with an environment and tools for create my own experience then I am all for it. Let me build my world, destroy it (or have it destroyed by others) and rebuild it anew all along side good friends and while fighting worthy opponents.
The Existential issues that arise from this topic are ones for each of us to spend time thinking about what we want from games in general. There is something to be said for being told where to go and what to kill however, I did my obligitory WoW stint. Do I want the responsibility for creating my own enjoyment? I think the answer is Yes, after a long time of having games that guide me along a pre-determined path.
3 - Slow Build - Hmm.. I suppose for me that is all to do with communication and the goals of the developers. If the developers are open and show a good link between community needs and what is being produced then I would be happy. I just want to know that improvements are on the way and those issues which hold back the open and fun sandbox experience I am after, are being dealt with.
Well thats just my opinion :) Big thanks to Mr Wood, was good to spend sometime thinking about it all. :)
Take care all!
I would pay more for a game developed more to my playstyle (along the old school sandbox lines) assuming it was delivered in good quality and well designed.
I agree, at launch content might be lacking, but if the core is solid and fun, I can wait for expansions to flesh out the world more.
Monthy fee depends on lot on what I get out of the game.
I've had 3x SWG accounts for a few years, buiding up from 1 to 2 to 3... because I wanted more characters and wanted to experience new things without changing my existing characters. Thats $45.00/month already, and I am SURE I am not the only player who has multiple accounts on a MMO game. So, if a new Sandbox game came along, offered 6 character slots for $40.00.. and was fun to play.. I would probably be interested.
Personally, I am divided a bit on total player driven stories/economy vs. mixed instance stories. Some devs are better at making fun stories than players. Most player-driven economies are all about the mighty dollar.. like a 2nd job... not something I am looking for at this late stage in my life (wife, kids, full time professional job, other hobbies that does not involve a monitor). Sometimes, I would rathre play a prepared story line than wait for 8 other players to all decide to do the same thing at the same time. Player-driven content is player-dependant... and I am sure we've all experienced that shortage in our MMO experience. Certain things should be player driven... economy, crafting, housing.. but there are times where an instance quest is just more fun.
And yes, if a game slowly builds up, I am absolutely fine with being part of that process.. with being patient (imagine that), and exploring/mastering what the game offers.
New content does NOT always = more fun things to do. Some parts simply are of no interest. The core game is important... having variety is important.. having a way to interact with other players in a variety of ways (not just combat) is important.
Ultimately, MMO virtual worlds is not about the account fee, sandbox or quest, or having every system under the sun. The biggest qualification is... its is FUN? Do I enjoy the time I spend while online.
And honestly, I don't expect to be a long term subcriber of ANY MMO... its still a game, it still gets boring, interests change as you age and as your life shifts focus. So the 5 years it takes for a MMO Producer to make a game might be the same lifespan it has for MY account. $45/month x 12 months x 5 years = $2,700 investment. How many players like me are out there willing do do that... and how many does a MMO producer need to bother with the million dollar price tag to make & sustain the game.
The question really is.. which title/IP/Developer has deep enough pockets to take the risk to find out?
Would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
I used to be subscribed to EQ's Legends server. I believe it was 29.99. So, yes, I would. I also, am subscribed to DDO, and I use the shop. Again, yes, when I find a fun game I support it. Sadly, DDO is a much better game at lower-mid level than at high, but I digress.
Would we accept minimal developer content?
Hmm, No, I wouldn't accept this. Not sure, why you feel a sandbox shouldn't be an evolving world. Isn't EVE always upgrading? DAoC back in its prime released SI, and always had good update.
Would we accept a "slow build?"
Every MMO that is released is like this. The first few months the game struggles to find its real identity. Look at EQ2, DDO, AoC, Vanguard, WAR. All had massive changes for the better. There are two games that I can think of that were flawless, and didn't change much; WoW and LoTRO.
Sign Me Up Now :D
Would we pay more for a sandbox game?
Tbh, I don't think that's the right question, and here's why: sandbox games do not rely on linear content that must continuously be provided by the developers. In fact, you highlight this in your second point. Why should this cost more? Simple answer: it shouldn't. To make a sandbox game cost more than a linear, quest-based game, you have to be doing something very wrong.
Would we be okay with less developer content?
The funnest content I ever enjoyed in any game was the player-created Galactic Civil War of the original StarWars MMO. Professions had interdependent roles to claim territory, build bases, hold them, take out enemy bases etc.. There were land battles with hundreds of people, and massive space-battles with squadrons of starfighters on each side. Most of us were on ventrilo, and I tell ya, it felt like we were living the StarWars trilogy. Those that didn't get hooked on the original GCW really missed out on something special. The player-driven economy was also pivotal in equipping each side for battle. We needed guns, armour, medical kits for use in the field, mines, speeders, buffs and healing. Pretty much all the professions got in on the action, each playing its own complementary role.
So, yeah, I'd be totally cool with less developer content, if the devs gave us an immersive world, working game-mechanics, and all the tools we would need to generate our own enjoyable content. This was Koster's vision for SWG, by the way. Imo it was wrecked when the game was pushed out the door with numerous missing and broken tools. It needed to be less ambitious or have more time in incubation in order for it to be successful. Awesome vision, very poorly managed imo.
Would we be okay with a slow build?
Damn straight I would. What do we have now? Slow death, in most cases. Games release amidst great fanfare. Initial box-sales are huge due to all the hype, and then they start bleeding from an artery because they're broken and incomplete. No thanks. Start off with something smaller, functional, enjoyable, and user-generated; then grow baby grow--just like EVE seems to have done.
People point to the rise of WoW, and how quickly this happened. Why? It's been said numerous times by people who know MMOs better than me: polish, polish, polish. This damn game actually worked. People who were playing competitors' products were awe-struck by the polish of WoW. They switched games in a heart-beat, and I don't blame them. Then WoW had fantastic ad campaigns and trials to draw people in by the millions.
Here's the important point though that so many other games fail at: when people were drawn into WoW, they liked what they found. Why? Back to polish. Like I said before, this damn game actually worked. So, you have all the immersion and adventure of a global online community in a fun fantasy land without all the bugs, issues and customer service hassles of pretty much every other MMO on the market. That's a friggin gold mine is what that is, and the fact that it has linear quests isn't the issue. Remember: polish. That's what makes the MMO world go around...or not; there are more examples of the latter I'm afraid, and incidentally most of those are not sandbox games.
In short...yes, I would.
If specificity and exclusivity equate to price, then charge me a premium and deliver.
Sign Me Up Now :D
See, I knew I couldn't be the only *adult* with disposable income waiting for this niche market to come along and sweep me off my feet...
We're out here, guys! We were the nerds playing D&D in High School and we're in our 30's now, most of us married and very gainfully employed with plenty of cash to blow. Give us a game we can call home, charge more, and keep the McDonalds of games (i.e., WoW) around for the newbies to get their feet wet until one day they, too, mature and want a more evolved gaming experience - even if it costs more.
I play two games now. Warhammer Online is definitely not a "mature" game but I enjoy the PvP experience it offers, so I play it. Fallen Earth is a game slanted towards a more mature, sandbox-style of gameplay, and I absolutely love that game. I just wish a company would come along and try that $30 a month model, offering more. I know I would have jumped at the chance. I'm sure it would be interesting to see the kind of community it generates alone.
As someone said before, I think EQ provided a "premium" service at one point. Maybe it will be one of the big companies that comes along to fill this niche market, not a small indie player. Who knows. All I know is that it exists to be filled, and marketing hates a vacuum. ;)
I would never pay that much monthly, i can afford it but the game would have to be the holy grail of mmo witch wont happen.