Preview Weekend In Review - From Mark J

[Nebu]

In my mind, the chickening means they are going to have to constantly add to the top end of the game, as no one will ever be able to "go back" to lower levels.

No.  Provide a fun endgame experience and you don't need to add to it.  My DAoC play for many years changed little... log on, RvR some, 8v8 some, 1v1 some, log off.  It was precisely when they added to DAoC's endgame that they fucked it up. 

Chess hasn't changed for centuries and people still play it.  If a game is well crafted, people will stay. 

[Ingmar]

Chickening isn't great, but I'm not sure the alternatives are better. Deleveling might have the effect of moving too much population out of higher tier RVR for example.

Since when spreading out the players and keep low levels areas "alive" and populated is bad?

When you end up with 50 people in endgame RVR, and 500 people in the low level battlegrounds, that is bad, yes.

[Mrbloodworth]

In my mind, the chickening means they are going to have to constantly add to the top end of the game, as no one will ever be able to "go back" to lower levels.

No.  Provide a fun endgame experience and you don't need to add to it.  My DAoC play for many years changed little... log on, RvR some, 8v8 some, 1v1 some, log off.  It was precisely when they added to DAoC's endgame that they fucked it up. 

Chess hasn't changed for centuries and people still play it.  If a game is well crafted, people will stay. 

Chess doesn't require an "endgame". What your talking about is dynamic game play, the type created by other players. I agree a good PvP will last forever, but i also believe MMO's and required "Endgame" is a flaw in its self.

That, and i was mostly speaking of the PvE part of the game. 

[tazelbain]

Obviously any game that ends doesn't need an endgame.  CoH shows the MMOs with no endgame have serious retention problems.

[Ingmar]

Obviously any game that ends doesn't need an endgame.  CoH shows the MMOs with no endgame have serious retention problems.

It does? CoH has had fairly static numbers for ages - they're retaining their base very, very well. They're losing people slowly as the months go by, sure, but any non-WoW/Eve game that old does. To put it another way, the number of subscribers they had in January (I think that's the last time we saw numbers?) is the same number of subscribers they had in 2005. They never had one of those shoot-up-to-500k-then-everyone-quits things. They're like 60k off their high water mark.

[Nebu]

TR and Vanguard wish they had CoH-like numbers.  .

[Trippy]

Obviously any game that ends doesn't need an endgame.  CoH shows the MMOs with no endgame have serious retention problems.

Chart!

[tazelbain]

First 60k is a lot for CoH.  Second, I think CoH maintains its numbers with new players not old players.  Since I can't prove that I'll go another tact.  Not having an endgame, makes you niche.  When someone asks the question "What do you do when max your character out?", they never want to hear "Make a new character" in response like CoH.  Most players want something to do with that character they built up.  Not having a endgame limits your market.

[Evildrider]

I'm really surprised if those numbers for CoX's subscribers is correct.  I resubbed last month just to see what was up and the server I was on was always pretty empty, where it used to be at decent numbers.  There's only one server that ever goes above light load on the server screen anymore.

[Nebu]

I'm really surprised if those numbers for CoX's subscribers is correct.  I resubbed last month just to see what was up and the server I was on was always pretty empty, where it used to be at decent numbers.  There's only one server that ever goes above light load on the server screen anymore.

I play 5 nights a week and there are always two servers that are yellow for load.  During events, these servers go to red and a number go to yellow.  I think the sub numbers get inflated by double xp events and by people that keep subs open when not playing.  I play on a low pop server and I've always found people to group with in any level range, so they are obviously playing still.

[Abelian75]

Chess doesn't require an "endgame".

While your point still sort of applies (though it's a kind of meaningless comparison since the games are so utterly different), chess not only has an endgame, I think the term probably originated there.

[Trippy]

I'm really surprised if those numbers for CoX's subscribers is correct.  I resubbed last month just to see what was up and the server I was on was always pretty empty, where it used to be at decent numbers.  There's only one server that ever goes above light load on the server screen anymore.

It does depend a lot on what server you are on. Freedom is the most populated and that's the one that's consistently yellow in prime time weekday hours. Virtue is next most populated. There are a handful of others that have a reasonable amount of people (e.g. Justice) and the rest are basically dead with a stready stream of those players moving their characters to Freedom or Virtue (I moved from Victory to Virtue at the beginning of the year).

BTW those numbers are from NCsoft itself so they are correct unless you think they are lying about their financials (they are a public company and include their sub numbers as part of their quarterly earning reports).

[Goreschach]

Chess doesn't require an "endgame".

While your point still sort of applies (though it's a kind of meaningless comparison since the games are so utterly different), chess not only has an endgame, I think the term probably originated there.

Although endgame may have originally been used in chess, I doubt mmo gamers brought the term over. It was probably just reinvented. The endgame in chess isn't the same kind of endgame as in an mmo, but I'll assume you know this and so I won't bother explaining why.

And his statement isn't meaningless just because the two games are different. It isn't true just for chess and MMOs. The point is that if a game is fun, people will keep playing it. People stop playing MMOs because they stop being fun.

[Abelian75]

Although endgame may have originally been used in chess, I doubt mmo gamers brought the term over. It was probably just reinvented. The endgame in chess isn't the same kind of endgame as in an mmo, but I'll assume you know this and so I won't bother explaining why.

It's not even just a chess term, it's an actual term people use in, like, ordinary life.  The endgame of a war, the endgame of a business deal, whatever.  It clearly did come from the same place, as it does mean the same thing.  The final stages of a game, contest, whatever.

I only brought this up because I roll my eyes every time I see people try to make up words like "elder game" or whatever, as though the term endgame offends them, even though it's a preexisting word that does in fact nicely describe an MMO "endgame."  It's the final stages of a player's experience in the game.

Edit:  The reason I said the comparison was meaningless is because while chess is truly a "game" in the most basic sense, an MMO isn't.  An MMO is actually lots and lots of games connected together.  Comparing chess to a particular Battleground or something would make more sense, but comparing it to the game as a whole is kinda comparing apples and oranges imho.  Or apples and... uh, an apple tree.  Or like, a single really awesome apple to a tree full of half-rotted apples.  Which is better?  I guess that depends how hungry you are.

[cevik]

Chess hasn't changed for centuries and people still play it.  If a game is well crafted, people will stay. 

But people don't pay a fee to play it, and while it has a large audience, you can bet the number of people regularly playing WoW greatly exceeds the number of people that regularly play chess.

It's simple, there has to be a mechanic at the level cap, called whatever the fuck you assholes want to call it, that keeps people logging in to play or they will cancel their subscriptions.  If they want the game to have mass appeal, whatever mechanic exists at the level cap to keep people playing better have mass appeal, or retention will suck no matter how fun the "leveling up" part of the game is.

[Goreschach]

It's simple, there has to be a mechanic at the level cap, called whatever the fuck you assholes want to call it, that keeps people logging in to play or they will cancel their subscriptions.  If they want the game to have mass appeal, whatever mechanic exists at the level cap to keep people playing better have mass appeal, or retention will suck no matter how fun the "leveling up" part of the game is.

I don't think this is strictly true. For WAR, yes. And for all current and forseeable MMOs, yes. But if an MMO had a leveling up part that was fun enough, an 'endgame' wouldn't even be needed, as people would just keep rolling alts.

[tazelbain]

Ya, once I roll out my Infinite Fun Content Generator there will be no need for a endgame ever again.

[Nebu]

It's simple, there has to be a mechanic at the level cap, called whatever the fuck you assholes want to call it, that keeps people logging in to play or they will cancel their subscriptions. 

My point (using chess as a poor example) was that the only mechanic you need at the endgame is fun. Ok, maybe fun + variety.  If people have fun playing with their maxxed out toon, they will continue to log on.  I played DAoC a LONG time without changing my character much at all.  Get to 50, make a template, go rvr.  There were enough different sandboxes to RvR in that I always had variety in what to do without the actual mechanic of the game changing much.  Maybe poker is a better example.  The game doesn't change, yet people play for years and years.  The game has enough built-in gameplay options that the experience changes organically every time you play.  

[cevik]

My point (using chess as a porr example) was that the only mechanic you need at the endgame is fun. Ok, maybe fun + variety.  If people have fun playing with their maxxed out toon, they will continue to log on.  I played DAoC a LONG time without changing my character much at all.  Get to 50, make a template, go rvr.  There were enough different sandboxes to RvR in that I always had variety in what to do without the actual mechanic of the game changing much.  Maybe poker is a better example.  The game doesn't change, yet people play for years and years.  The game has enough built-in gameplay options that the experience changes organically every time you play.  

Just for the record, we are in complete agreement.  I was only taking umbrage over the silly argument of whether or not it's called an "endgame".

There has to be something at the end, for the maxed out character to do, in order to keep people logging in and playing those maxed out characters.  That something has to be fun enough for them to keep doing it.  Whether it's new gearz every so often, or some other "fun" thing at the end, there has to be something there or else you'll have horrible retention, and by extension you'll lose players in the earlier parts of the game as well, because they'll see no reason to level up a character.

[Vinadil]

If we are looking for game comparisons... I think something like Football comes close.  Look at the NFL and the amount of money people are willing to pay just to WATCH a game, much less play it.  One of the things that has always bothered me with MMOs is that the Hardcore people seem to be hated by the Casuals and vice versa.  This is exactly the opposite of every professional sport in America.  The hardcore are worshipped by the casuals and paid millions of dollars to be Hardcore... all because the casuals are entertained by watching them perform.  Maybe it is the subscription vs. free thing... but I don't think so.  I think people have still just missed the ingredient of making a FUN game.  Fun to play, fun to watch, fun to talk about at work or on the way home from lunch.  WoW got this to some degree.  I think it is the first MMO that has made it into the larger culture.  But, even IT is a drop in the bucket compared to Sports gaming.

[UnsGub]

 Look at the NFL and the amount of money people are willing to pay just to WATCH a game, much less play it.

But look at what they do while watching the game.  Look at the amount of content it provides used in stories\opinion with friends the next day and fantasy games.  Many people are also watching the game to see the outcome of their gambling on the game.  They may not be playing on the field but they are playing in multiple other games.

[UnSub]

Obviously any game that ends doesn't need an endgame.  CoH shows the MMOs with no endgame have serious retention problems.

According to Jack Emmert, CoH/V has a retention rate of about 90%.

As shown, player numbers have been only slightly declining for a while now and last quarter they actually went up.

A lot of players probably cycle through CoH/V - sign up, play a month or two, unsub - but the important thing is they come back.

I'd also argue that players looking for an explicit endgame aren't playing CoH/V. Those who love rolling alts, crafting out a character with IOs or collecting badges probably stay. Also, there are a couple of repeatable max level task / strike forces and a few trial-esque bits of content if you are looking for that (but it's not the main deal at lvl 50).

[cevik]

I'd also argue that players looking for an explicit endgame aren't playing CoH/V. Those who love rolling alts, crafting out a character with IOs or collecting badges probably stay. Also, there are a couple of repeatable max level task / strike forces and a few trial-esque bits of content if you are looking for that (but it's not the main deal at lvl 50).

This is exactly what I was alluding to above.  If you want a mainstream following then you need a mainstream end game.  It's perfectly fine to create a niche game with a niche end game like CoH, in fact it's probably the smart move to make considering you should be able to create it cheaper, run it cheaper, and thus make more profit in the long run.  But if your goal is not niche, then you better have a game that appeals to more than just a niche following.

[Vinadil]

 Look at the NFL and the amount of money people are willing to pay just to WATCH a game, much less play it.

But look at what they do while watching the game.  Look at the amount of content it provides used in stories\opinion with friends the next day and fantasy games.  Many people are also watching the game to see the outcome of their gambling on the game.  They may not be playing on the field but they are playing in multiple other games.

Right, that is why I think Football makes a good comparison to an MMO.  It is not just a single game (like chess), it is really a subset of Minigames that make the whole thing work.  That is why we don't sit around watching Chess tournaments on Sunday afternoon (in America anyway).  EVE gives a little insight into this.  I stayed subbed to that game for months a while back just because READING about the "WAR" in the EVE threads was interesting.  I remained connected to the game almost as a "fan" to be able to watch in and out of game what was going on.

I remember back in DAoC times that I could log in from work and see what was happening in the realms... kind of.  The whole idea of Spectator-friendly gaming is not new, FPS seems to do it quite a bit, and RTS in certain cultures.  MMOs still have not done much with it, but could I believe.  And, it does not have to be OUT of game spectating.  The point is that a well-crafted Gaming experience has room for a LOT of different player-types.  The game itself does not have to change much at all; it just has to remain interesting when it is replayed.

[Ingmar]

I'd also argue that players looking for an explicit endgame aren't playing CoH/V. Those who love rolling alts, crafting out a character with IOs or collecting badges probably stay. Also, there are a couple of repeatable max level task / strike forces and a few trial-esque bits of content if you are looking for that (but it's not the main deal at lvl 50).

This is exactly what I was alluding to above.  If you want a mainstream following then you need a mainstream end game.  It's perfectly fine to create a niche game with a niche end game like CoH, in fact it's probably the smart move to make considering you should be able to create it cheaper, run it cheaper, and thus make more profit in the long run.  But if your goal is not niche, then you better have a game that appeals to more than just a niche following.

Remember, though, CoH came out before WoW. The definition of niche was a lot different back then. In terms of the pre-WoW MMO market, CoH *is* a mainstream success. I'm not sure there's good evidence to support the idea that a title that threw WoW-like resources at a model that didn't include a hardcore endgame would automatically fail. There's too many other factors of shittyness muddying up the waters with Conan to let us say "yes, the reason it failed was because the endgame PVP is bad."

[Slayerik]

Right, that is why I think Football makes a good comparison to an MMO.  It is not just a single game (like chess), it is really a subset of Minigames that make the whole thing work.  That is why we don't sit around watching Chess tournaments on Sunday afternoon (in America anyway).  EVE gives a little insight into this.  I stayed subbed to that game for months a while back just because READING about the "WAR" in the EVE threads was interesting.  I remained connected to the game almost as a "fan" to be able to watch in and out of game what was going on.

Eve also had a pretty sweet alliance tournament this year that they posted in 'you-tube' fashion. They had commentators that did a solid job of keeping it fairly interesting. There was pre- and post-game analysis' ... felt like a Sunday football show in many ways.  Some of the fights were pretty cool to watch as well, especially since I had alliance-mates that were the runners-up in the entire thing. I was impressed at the entire thing.

Edit: and you could watch it via a live Eve-TV stream.... so our alliance was going nuts during the matches in alliance chat. Very cool.

[Vinadil]

Yep, I was thinking about that too while writing... I just did not get to see any of it.  But, I think it is a step in the right direction for retaining customers and gaining new ones.  I mean, who did not enjoy watching some of the EPIC FAIL WoW raids with the TS/Vent voiceovers?  That kind of stuff is a great way to both entertain people and help them to see content that they may not have seen before.  Do it more professionally with a bit more appeal and less spoilers... seems like there could be some benefit there.

[UnSub]

I'd also argue that players looking for an explicit endgame aren't playing CoH/V. Those who love rolling alts, crafting out a character with IOs or collecting badges probably stay. Also, there are a couple of repeatable max level task / strike forces and a few trial-esque bits of content if you are looking for that (but it's not the main deal at lvl 50).

This is exactly what I was alluding to above.  If you want a mainstream following then you need a mainstream end game.  It's perfectly fine to create a niche game with a niche end game like CoH, in fact it's probably the smart move to make considering you should be able to create it cheaper, run it cheaper, and thus make more profit in the long run.  But if your goal is not niche, then you better have a game that appeals to more than just a niche following.

Remember, though, CoH came out before WoW. The definition of niche was a lot different back then. In terms of the pre-WoW MMO market, CoH *is* a mainstream success. I'm not sure there's good evidence to support the idea that a title that threw WoW-like resources at a model that didn't include a hardcore endgame would automatically fail. There's too many other factors of shittyness muddying up the waters with Conan to let us say "yes, the reason it failed was because the endgame PVP is bad."

If you take WoW as the baseline, every other MMO is niche. Except for perhaps MapleStory.

'Endgame' is whatever you do once you've maxed out in-game character development. It could be starting a new character. It could be buying new costume pieces. It could be hanging out with friends. It could be high-end PvP. It could be high-end RP. Hell, it could be player created content (of which PvP is really the most easy to implement sub-set).

[Trippy]

If you take WoW as the baseline, every other MMO is niche. Except for perhaps MapleStory.

There are subscription/timecard-based MMORPGs that are roughly comparable to WoW in size. You just don't hear about them here cause they are only in Asia. E.g. Fantasy Westward Journey hit 1.66 million peak concurrent users earlier this year which is bigger than WoW in China (at 1 million PCU).

Edit: hear here

[Evildrider]

But all those games from Asia are crazy.. they don't count!   

[UnSub]

But all those games from Asia are crazy.. they don't count!   

According to this, Club Penguin has between 6.7 million and 12 million players. (I'm also blown away by the in-game newspaper getting 30 000 submissions a day.)

I know, I know - different payment models. But yeah, apparently kids are crazy too! 

And to argue definitions: MMOs aren't genres or media. They are a category. It's a category that stretches from WoW to Urban Dead to Second Life to Club Penguin to Audition to Planetside et al. It's key points: it's massively multiplayer (i.e. hundreds if not thousands of simultaneous connections to the one world) and online.

From there it splits into MMOG and MMONG (massively multiplayer online non-game; look ma, I made myself an acronym!  ) and things then fall out from there.

It's not a genre because it can be across multiple genres / environments settings.

It's not a medium because there is no one way (or limited ways) to deliver the content from it to players.

[schild]

Though no one would suggest that the Club Penguin Times provides Pulitzer Prize-worthy coverage, it nonetheless attracts 30,000 daily submissions from children, who pose questions to Dear Abby-inspired "Aunt Arctic," compose verse for the poetry corner, tell a joke or review a party or event.

Goddamn kids can be cute sometimes.

[UnsGub]

It's simple, there has to be a mechanic at the level cap, called whatever the fuck you assholes want to call it, that keeps people logging in to play or they will cancel their subscriptions.

Its called remaining on top. Why did Lance race the Tour after he won his first one? In sports once a person gets to the top they generally stay there for as long as they can. Sure some retire at the top of the game, but most ride it out as long as they can.  "Repeat" in sports is common term for a reason.

[UnsGub]

 MMOs still have not done much with it, but could I believe.

So true.  Just look at the limited people that actually were in an event in the Olympics and the amount of content that was created and consumed as a result.  It mostly took writing and cameras which are tools around long before the computer.

I can watch TV shows of other people playing computer games but not do so for an MMO yet.  Why is there not a "White Dwarf" for every MMO?  The list is nearly endless of content that could be created and consumed beyond the initial live event.  Fantasy game about a computer game is not much different then a Fantasy game about a live sporting event (it is converted into numbers for the Fantasy game) for example.  When is a game company going to leverage their content like the rest of the entertainment industry?

[Lakov_Sanite]

It's simple, there has to be a mechanic at the level cap, called whatever the fuck you assholes want to call it, that keeps people logging in to play or they will cancel their subscriptions.

Its called remaining on top. Why did Lance race the Tour after he won his first one? In sports once a person gets to the top they generally stay there for as long as they can. Sure some retire at the top of the game, but most ride it out as long as they can.  "Repeat" in sports is common term for a reason.

Lance armstrong alsoe MAKES a lot of money for racing, even more when he wins, as opposed to paying to play win or lose and winning in game items. There's tons of incentive beyond simply being number one and it's also just a horrible analogy and you are a horrible person for using it.

Next time compare warhammer to fantasy football/baseball and you will have a decent argument.