SWTOR

[UnSub]

I wouldn't be surprised if WoW goes towards F2P, but probably not until it really starts its downward decent or Blizzard has its second MMO ready. It's still too good a cash cow and the cash shop doesn't have enough on offer.

[WindupAtheist]

Didn't the noise leading up to the battlenet conversion make reference to being able to send cross-realm messages eventually? Would make sense in light of the new dungeon system.

Also, LOL at the idea of a game with millions of paying subscribers going F2P. LOL indeed. WoW could shed 50% of its users overnight and they'd still be flaming morons to give up all that guaranteed monthly cash.

[Stabs]

F2P is a somewhat misleading word.

Think of it as switching from eat all you want for $15 to pay as you go while sounding to innumerate people like you're doing them a favour. I'm sure we all know high disposable income low impulse control WoW fans.

F2P is not free, it just sounds like it is.

Basically I just wanted to air the notion that MMO launches depend to some extent on how successful the publishers are at blind-siding Blizzard. Launches have varied from the sublime (Darkfall went from "probably vapourware" to "live" in a week catching everyone by surprise at a time when WoW players were bored of Naxx) to the ridiculous (Warhammer launched just before WotLK forcing most players to choose one or the other).

[Xuri]

To say that the launch of Darkfall caught everyone by surprise might be a bit of an overstatement? :P

[eldaec]

F2P is a somewhat misleading word.

Think of it as switching from eat all you want for $15 to pay as you go while sounding to innumerate people like you're doing them a favour. I'm sure we all know high disposable income low impulse control WoW fans.

Yeah, no.

WUA's post applies even if they added real money microtransactions.

Basically I just wanted to air the notion that MMO launches depend to some extent on how successful the publishers are at blind-siding Blizzard. Launches have varied from the sublime (Darkfall went from "probably vapourware" to "live" in a week catching everyone by surprise at a time when WoW players were bored of Naxx) to the ridiculous (Warhammer launched just before WotLK forcing most players to choose one or the other).

 

[Lantyssa]

Also, LOL at the idea of a game with millions of paying subscribers going F2P. LOL indeed. WoW could shed 50% of its users overnight and they'd still be flaming morons to give up all that guaranteed monthly cash.

It did.  China.

[Venkman]

Basically I just wanted to air the notion that MMO launches depend to some extent on how successful the publishers are at blind-siding Blizzard. Launches have varied from the sublime (Darkfall went from "probably vapourware" to "live" in a week catching everyone by surprise at a time when WoW players were bored of Naxx) to the ridiculous (Warhammer launched just before WotLK forcing most players to choose one or the other).

No. This is why so many have failed to achieve their potential. This is not a Hollywood summer blockbuster genre where you make your money back in the first few weeks then hope for gravy from DVD/bluray sales. For an MMO to be successful, they need to capture and keep people. The biggest launches all had their subs fall off a cliff after a few months. And that happening was the worst sort of advertising the games could get, nothing any amount of TV commercials could offset.

This entire genre has a bigger feedback loop between players, non-players, developers and publishers than almost anything else I can think of in existence. Every game that is coming is well known ahead of time, and by the time launch is three or less weeks away, pretty much everything anyone wants to know about the game is well known. STO will be no different in a few weeks.

WAR and DF didn't catch anyone by surprise. All the features and failures were well known ahead of time. DF was a niche title too small for any publisher to be concerned by. WAR's problems were well known in beta, and they had a LOT of people in beta blabbing about it towards the end. So basically, in both cases, Blizzard (and NC, and SOE, etc) didn't care because they didn't need to.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I know quite a few people who went into warhammer based solely on the IP and who knew next to nothing pre-launch. Even though were diehard warhammer players, they just couldnt stand it and quite about a month or two after I did, eventually going back to wow.  These were players who would have stuck with that game through a lot, ignored a lot of glitches and bugs just to play in that game world. Warhammer was so bad it even drove those people off.

[Count Nerfedalot]

I know quite a few people who went into warhammer based solely on the IP and who knew next to nothing pre-launch. Even though were diehard warhammer players, they just couldnt stand it and quite about a month or two after I did, eventually going back to wow.  These were players who would have stuck with that game through a lot, ignored a lot of glitches and bugs just to play in that game world. Warhammer was so bad it even drove those people off.

Expect the same results from STO.  Darniaq's description of the feedback loop and advanced knowledge of these games is only true for the core existing playerbase of MMO veterans.  That (vocal) core does exert a huge impact in the long-term growth of a game if it's expectations are met (WoW, and even EVE after a lot of work).  But it doesn't inhibit very many of the uninformed non-MMOers who might be tempted by a new IP, nor does it seem to provide a significant damper on the number of wishful thinking MMOers looking for a new game from giving each next new shiny a try (witness AoC, WAR and CO).  In that vein, the depth and deliberateness of Cryptic's current cynical approach to MMO development (crank out bareley playable shovelware deceptively marketed as a long-term MMORPG like other deeper games, rake in the box sales, then abandon the suckers for the next big release)  is breathtaking in its greed and short-sightedness.  Cryptic has decided that they are not willing to spend the money to make a GOOD game, so they are pulling out every marketing trick and monetization scheme that they can think of to milk each new half-assed release for every dime they can get BEFORE the word-of-mouth from the early adopters confirms the dire predictions of the cranky grognards and both subs and new sales fall through the floor.  The sad thing is it will probably work several more times before enough people get burned enough times to no longer be willing to buy those boxes on release day. 

SWTOR looks like it will fail in a completely new and different fashion - by marketing a massively multiplayer game but delivering a game which only plays well in a small fixed group.  At least the title will then be able to claim some innovation! 

[Stabs]

by marketing a massively multiplayer game but delivering a game which only plays well in a small fixed group.

Seems to be working well for WoW.

I think perhaps you're not being cynical enough. The problem SWTOR may have is it might be a MMO that only plays well when you solo.

[Nebu]

The problem SWTOR may have is it might be a MMO that only plays well when you solo.

Problem?  I think a game that plays well solo would be a wonderful addition to the market.

[Draegan]

SWTOR will have all the story you want, and you can run it eight times with each class.  The only difference between KOTOR and SWTOR will be that the world you're running around will have other people doing stuff in it also except for the instanced parts so there is no waiting on spawns to complete your quest.

I have not heard anything that references what you can do with a character after your storyline ends other than a vague reference to raiding and other "large group events".

[Malakili]

The problem SWTOR may have is it might be a MMO that only plays well when you solo.

Problem?  I think a game that plays well solo would be a wonderful addition to the market.

I have a bunch of games like this, they are called single player games.  Its a pretty small niche genre, but definitely work checking out.

[UnSub]

In that vein, the depth and deliberateness of Cryptic's current cynical approach to MMO development (crank out bareley playable shovelware deceptively marketed as a long-term MMORPG like other deeper games, rake in the box sales, then abandon the suckers for the next big release)  is breathtaking in its greed and short-sightedness.  Cryptic has decided that they are not willing to spend the money to make a GOOD game, so they are pulling out every marketing trick and monetization scheme that they can think of to milk each new half-assed release for every dime they can get BEFORE the word-of-mouth from the early adopters confirms the dire predictions of the cranky grognards and both subs and new sales fall through the floor.  The sad thing is it will probably work several more times before enough people get burned enough times to no longer be willing to buy those boxes on release day. 

As I said elsewhere, I think Cryptic / Atari sets a budget for the next MMO and that's what they have to work to, but it also means their MMOs can be profitable off a lower player base. It's a little early to say how deserted any of their titles are - underdelivered, sure, but not yet abandoned.

There are rumours that STO absolutely has to come out on Feb 2 in order to meet certain contractual agreements, but those are internet rumours and I'm not sure if it is Cryptic going for its performance bonus or some kind of contractual deadline with Paramount.

[Lakov_Sanite]

SWTOR will have all the story you want, and you can run it eight times with each class.  The only difference between KOTOR and SWTOR will be that the world you're running around will have other people doing stuff in it also except for the instanced parts so there is no waiting on spawns to complete your quest.

I have not heard anything that references what you can do with a character after your storyline ends other than a vague reference to raiding and other "large group events".

You live in a very special world.

[Draegan]

Not sure what you're inferring.  I'm only going by what they've said in interviews.  Unique storylines for each class.  Some sort of shared space World that you run around in.  Instanced parts for other storyline elements.

What am I missing here?

[Lantyssa]

You're not making wild speculations and telling us how those will doom the game forever.

[Draegan]

My only doom and gloom, as I said a few pages ago is that there isn't anything here that warrants a subscription.  It looks like a really cool single player game with a multi player option.

[Nebu]

I have a bunch of games like this, they are called single player games.  Its a pretty small niche genre, but definitely work checking out.

Do we have to go through this again?  There is a HUGE difference between playing a single player game and playing a multiplayer game as a single player.  This is why I prefer to play MMO's.  They offer aspects that just can't be duplicated by single player titles. 

[eldaec]

My only doom and gloom, as I said a few pages ago is that there isn't anything here that warrants a subscription.  It looks like a really cool single player game with a multi player option.

What makes it look like a cool single player game?
Would kotor/dragon age/mass effect really be as interesting with only a main character and no save/reload function?


I'm completely with you that if it stands on its own as a single player game it may be worth looking at. I just don't understand why I'd get as excited about this as about ME3 and DA2. I'm completely lost on why I'm supposed to be interested in the multiplayer aspect.

[Malakili]

I have a bunch of games like this, they are called single player games.  Its a pretty small niche genre, but definitely work checking out.

Do we have to go through this again?  There is a HUGE difference between playing a single player game and playing a multiplayer game as a single player.  This is why I prefer to play MMO's.  They offer aspects that just can't be duplicated by single player titles. 

I understand that you think that, I am just completely unable to relate to it, in that no MMO I have ever played "single player" has ever been close to as good as a single player game of the same genre.

[Sky]

So don't play a game that favors solo play. You only have the entire rest of the genre to choose from.

[Zane0]

So don't play a game that favors solo play. You only have the entire rest of the genre to choose from.

One significant problem these days, which a lot of the criticism here implicitly bemoans, I think, is that much of the "entire rest" of the genre seems to be gravitating towards this same kind of singleplayer-MMO compromise that is neither compelling enough as an SRPG nor sufficiently engaging as a virtual world. This inevitable "mushy middle" has very little of the innovation, agency, challenge, wonder, or risk, that drew many core enthusiasts to rpgs in the first place.

[Velorath]

My only doom and gloom, as I said a few pages ago is that there isn't anything here that warrants a subscription.  It looks like a really cool single player game with a multi player option.

What makes it look like a cool single player game?
Would kotor/dragon age/mass effect really be as interesting with only a main character and no save/reload function?


I'm completely with you that if it stands on its own as a single player game it may be worth looking at. I just don't understand why I'd get as excited about this as about ME3 and DA2. I'm completely lost on why I'm supposed to be interested in the multiplayer aspect.

You posted pretty much this exact same thing already less than a week ago.  We get it already.  You aren't interested in the game and can't understand why other people are.  You're also somewhat misinformed with the "only a main character" part.

[Montague]

So don't play a game that favors solo play. You only have the entire rest of the genre to choose from.

One significant problem these days, which a lot of the criticism here implicitly bemoans, I think, is that much of the "entire rest" of the genre seems to be gravitating towards this same kind of singleplayer-MMO compromise that is neither compelling enough as an SRPG nor sufficiently engaging as a virtual world. This inevitable "mushy middle" has very little of the innovation, agency, challenge, wonder, or risk, that drew many core enthusiasts to rpgs in the first place.

Core enthusiasts aren't the ones paying Blizzard hundreds of millions every year.

Now innovation = "reinventing the wheel", agency = "forced grouping", challenge = "cockblocking", wonder = "Lorelol", and risk = "being cockpunched". We're our own worst enemy because despite what we say, the mushy middle is what we end up paying for.

[eldaec]

You're also somewhat misinformed with the "only a main character" part.

...but keen to be corrected, since I actually think that if they nail the writing/atmosphere of a Bioware Edmonton game, this is their biggest mechanical problem (on the grounds that the companion stories are usually the most interesting use of the writing).

[Venkman]

Darniaq's description of the feedback loop and advanced knowledge of these games is only true for the core existing playerbase of MMO veterans.  That (vocal) core does exert a huge impact in the long-term growth of a game if it's expectations are met (WoW, and even EVE after a lot of work).  But it doesn't inhibit very many of the uninformed non-MMOers who might be tempted by a new IP, nor does it seem to provide a significant damper on the number of wishful thinking MMOers looking for a new game from giving each next new shiny a try (witness AoC, WAR and CO).

Your attempted counterpoint lists the very games that support my point. You can always get the uninformed to buy a box. That's marketing 101: convincing people they want something they didn't think they wanted in the first place. And that's fine for most genres that rely entirely on the one time sale. The business model of that game doesn't even require the player keep playing it.

But an MMO needs to be good at keeping them paying, by keeping them interested in playing. AoC, WAR and CO have not done this. These aren't just hardcore nutjobs fleeing back to WoW raiding. Close to a million units sold of WAR and AoC and, what, maybe 10% of those people still paying? That's where "falling off the cliff" came from.

Yes, these people are not part of that feedback loop on the forums and blogs. But they are the most important bit of feedback to publishers, because their lack of money is a big black hole not offsetting the costs of support and service needed to keep the game alive.

I am just completely unable to relate to it, in that no MMO I have ever played "single player" has ever been close to as good as a single player game of the same genre.

If you're soloing an MMO, it's because you enjoy the light interaction of the combat grind and the opportunity to socialize, and appreciate that you're not being forced to do it. These qualities are not comparable to other genres. You don't compare something like Dragon Age and WoW on the merits of the combat mechanics any more than you would MW2 and WoW, because you're not choosing to games of the same ilk. You're preferring (at the moment) an entirely different genre and type of experience.

Core enthusiasts aren't the ones paying Blizzard hundreds of millions every year

Err, five years on and so many at level 80 (soon 85) is the very essence of "core enthusiasts". They're not attracting millions of new players every year outside of the spambots.

[UnSub]

We'd have to know what WoW's churn rate is to know how many core enthusiasts have been playing for the full 5 years. However, the point stands that these weren't core enthusiasts 5 years ago. WoW brought a lot of people into the MMO market and these people aren't willing to take a downwards step in quality on the grounds that the MMO might be fun in 6 months' time.

[Ingmar]

A day or two spent in the sub-level 80 random dungeons will answer all the questions you may have about WoW still attracting new players. The answer is yes, and rather a lot of them. Probably close to half the people I've grouped with in those situations have been on their first character, which is pretty astonishing for a 5 year old game.

[Count Nerfedalot]

Darniaq's description of the feedback loop and advanced knowledge of these games is only true for the core existing playerbase of MMO veterans.  That (vocal) core does exert a huge impact in the long-term growth of a game if it's expectations are met (WoW, and even EVE after a lot of work).  But it doesn't inhibit very many of the uninformed non-MMOers who might be tempted by a new IP, nor does it seem to provide a significant damper on the number of wishful thinking MMOers looking for a new game from giving each next new shiny a try (witness AoC, WAR and CO).

Your attempted counterpoint lists the very games that support my point. You can always get the uninformed to buy a box. That's marketing 101: convincing people they want something they didn't think they wanted in the first place. And that's fine for most genres that rely entirely on the one time sale. The business model of that game doesn't even require the player keep playing it.

But an MMO needs to be good at keeping them paying, by keeping them interested in playing. AoC, WAR and CO have not done this. These aren't just hardcore nutjobs fleeing back to WoW raiding. Close to a million units sold of WAR and AoC and, what, maybe 10% of those people still paying? That's where "falling off the cliff" came from.

Yes, these people are not part of that feedback loop on the forums and blogs. But they are the most important bit of feedback to publishers, because their lack of money is a big black hole not offsetting the costs of support and service needed to keep the game alive.

I wasn't looking to pick a fight with you, I think we agree on almost all points. 

Rather than argue with your strawman argument, let me just attempt to clarify MY point which is that there is a delay in the feedback loop, allowing many many boxes to be sold to people who will soon abandon the game in disappointment. This in spite of the fact that all of the information those disappointed buyers needed to avoid choosing poorly will be available to them prior to purchasing the game.  And the outrageous part is that Cryptic are cynically taking advantage of this to profit off of shovelware. 

btw, you drastically weaken your point by going from the bold insight that

"This entire genre has a bigger feedback loop ... than almost anything else I can think of in existence"

to the Rick Romero-worthy obvious

"You can always get the uninformed to buy a box  ...  these people are not part of that feedback loop ... But they are the most important bit of feedback to publishers".

   

Hopefully I'm just misunderstanding what you are saying, or how the parts of what you said that I clipped out somehow made it make more sense.

[Numtini]

We'd have to know what WoW's churn rate is to know how many core enthusiasts have been playing for the full 5 years.

I haven't had enough coffee to start googling, but didn't a dev just reveal that recently? (And wasn't it something almost farcically good?)

[Nebu]

I'd expect a number of the WoW core to have stayed a long time.  Think about it... what has there been worth leaving WoW for if you're an MMO enthusiast?

[Numtini]

I'd expect a number of the WoW core to have stayed a long time.  Think about it... what has there been worth leaving WoW for if you're an MMO enthusiast?

EQ2 or LOTRO.

[Nebu]

I'd expect a number of the WoW core to have stayed a long time.  Think about it... what has there been worth leaving WoW for if you're an MMO enthusiast?

EQ2 or LOTRO.

EQ2 came before WoW and had a poor initial showing.  LotRO lacks the polish of WoW and really appeals only to more mature gamers that have affection for the backdrop.  Neither has enough draw to pull significant numbers from WoW and this shows in their subscriber numbers. 

[Malakili]

I'd expect a number of the WoW core to have stayed a long time.  Think about it... what has there been worth leaving WoW for if you're an MMO enthusiast?

EQ2 or LOTRO.

EQ2 came before WoW and had a poor initial showing.  LotRO lacks the polish of WoW and really appeals only to more mature gamers that have affection for the backdrop.  Neither has enough draw to pull significant numbers from WoW and this shows in their subscriber numbers. 

Not that I really feel iike getting into this discussion, but I feel like LotRO is quite polished.  Anyway, thats not my point.  You are quite right that regardless of similar mechanics, the loot grinding meta game is much more refined in WoW, and I think the majority of WoW players would probably play lotro and say something along the lines of "This is like WoW, but worse."

I don't know if I am a "more mature" gamer, but I do have an affection for the backdrop.