GDC: 10 Reasons NOT to Make MMOGs 266
Warrior-GS writes "Gordon Walton, who helped create such games as Ultima Online and the Sims Online, is at the Game Developers Conference giving a seminar on "Ten Reasons You Don't Want to Run a Massively Multiplayer Online Game". GameSpy has been providing coverage of GDC, with several game previews and several conference reports. They also have a hands-on report of the Nokia N-Gage from four of their editors, and a somewhat unorthodox report of the Game Developer Choice Awards, where Metroid Prime was named Game of the Year. The convention continues through Saturday."
and the #1 reason...... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and the #1 reason...... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you see his picture? (Score:5, Funny)
So like the story said (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a fan of online gaming but the stakes in the MMORPGs are too high. You feel like you're always behind. Where as in Neverwinter or Counter Strike you're only as good as the map and your skills.
Which mine have deminished significantly recently, where are you CS:Condition Zero?!?!?!?!
I'd comment on this... (Score:5, Funny)
Also see... (Score:5, Informative)
Brought to you by the letter "M" (Score:5, Funny)
Internet attracts
nitpickers with no money;
driving you to drink.
Re:Brought to you by the letter "M" (Score:2, Funny)
for witty reply to this;
lamer types, "me too"
Metroid Prime (Score:2, Interesting)
And, yes, Metroid Prime alone is worth buying a 'cube for (hey, super mario melee makes for an excellent side game, too).
Re:Metroid Prime (Score:2, Interesting)
I was worried they'd ruin it, but it still felt like metroid, with all the exploring and powerups. The graphics and sound were incredible with lots of variety, and the gameplay was smooth and easy to master.
It definately knocked Halo out of the 'best console FPS ever' position in my book.
So far I've liked my GCN better than PS2 or Xbox, so far as quality of the games at least.
Of course to say such is to start a goofy flamefest that noone wants to be involved in.
Re:Metroid Prime (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite the incredible production value, Prime just wasn't as challenging.
Re:Metroid Prime (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing I like about MP, that I liked about Super Metroid, is that you can beat it, or you can beat it
You will probably need to go through the game several times before you come close to even mastering it (or remembering where all the items are).
For the longest time I was dissapointed that they didnt release a Metroid for the N64, but now that I've played MP, I'm glad they waited. The game is truly stunning in looks, gameplay, and immersion.
Re:Metroid Prime (Score:4, Funny)
Sure you could create some bastardized atlas yourself on severla hundred pages of paper using nothing but fat Crayola markers, but really...I'd rather not go into the childhood trauma which was losing those maps.
Re:Metroid Prime (Score:2)
Wow. There were a lot of double negatives in that paragraph ;)
Hello, Mr Mod (Score:2)
Off topic my rear
EQ2 (Score:2, Interesting)
And his most compelling reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Please don't make them, because we don't want any more competition."
Re:And his most compelling reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And his most compelling reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And his most compelling reason... (Score:3, Funny)
To summarize (Score:4, Informative)
9: It Requires a Mastery of Too Many Disciplines
8: A Huge Team is Required
7: Getting a Credit Card from a Customer is Hard
6: The Online Industry is Counter-Intuitive to Packaged-Goods Company Management
5: Everything You Know about Single-Player Games is Wrong
4: The Internet Sucks as a Commercial Delivery Platform
3: Customer Service is Hard
2: There are Lots of Legal Issues
1: They Cost Too Much money to Build and Launch!
0: WHA WHA WHA!
Nick Powers
To explain (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, all those points are true.
It is like the list of 10 Reasons not to Develop a Newsreader, or How To Optimise: "Don't do it".
This list doesn't mean that one shouldn't do it. But probably you shouldn't do it. At least in the majority of the cases.
All those important issues are probably most often ignored or underestimated.
It is a good advice at his fellow developers to keep this list in mind, before they start on their (probable) odyssee.
And my opinion in point ten, he makes already clear that such a reminder is necessary.
Re:To summarize (Score:4, Interesting)
10: Too Many are Being Built
9: It Requires a Mastery of Too Many Disciplines
8: A Huge Team is Required
7: Getting a Credit Card from a Customer is Hard
6: The Online Industry is Counter-Intuitive to Packaged-Goods Company Management
5: Everything You Know about Single-Player Games is Wrong
4: The Internet Sucks as a Commercial Delivery Platform
3: Customer Service is Hard
2: There are Lots of Legal Issues
1: They Cost Too Much money to Build and Launch!
Multimedia? (Score:3, Funny)
It would be nicer to have just one focused, properly framed, and complimentary photo of the guy...
Re:Multimedia? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Multimedia? (Score:2)
Re:Multimedia? (Score:2, Funny)
*twitch!*
Electronic crack (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Electronic crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal responsibility!
Maybe you've heard of it. Your grades are slipping because you play too much EverCrack? Too bad, quit playing EverCrack. Can't quit playing EverCrack? Seek out addiction counseling, it's availabe, often for free. Your ass is getting fat because you've eaten too many cheeseburgers? Quit eating cheesburgers every day.
A little common sense and some personal responsibility seem to be sorely lacking in the populace today.
Re:Electronic crack (Score:4, Funny)
That's not my fault!
Re:Electronic crack (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to play EQ... a lot, an unhealthy amount.
At the high point in my addiction, I took a week off to fly out to L.A. for E3. I had never been addicted to anything in my life before, but I can tell you without a doubt I know what withdrawl feels like. I couldn't sleep well, I couldn't eat well, I was jittery and just desperately wanted to get back to the game. I was at E3, probably my favorite geek convention of all time, and I was miserable.
Yeah yeah, I was pretty pathetic. Everyone has their moments of weakness. That was mine. But my point is, EQ is a drug. It's a drug where there are no warning labels, no program during high school to tell you the consequences of becoming addicted. It just looked like a game, no one knew at the time that playing it would slowly entice you into a downward spiral.
The lack of education is the problem. You can bitch and moan that people should have personal responsibility all you want, but you can't blame them if they don't know. Nor can you blame people for wanting to put the word out on the street.
Designing a game where you psychologically induce people to play 40+ hours a week is akin to producing cigarettes. In fact, I would argue it's even worse in the MMOG industry because the public isn't educated about the psychological impact.
It's very easy for those of you who've never suffered from an addiction to sit on your high horse and say "Well, you should've just quit." You have no clue how much mental anguish one has to go through to make a break from something so addictive.
Where am I today? I graduated college and I have a nice job at a software company. I did manage to fix my life, but "personal responsibility" is what got me out of the hole. Don't use it to blame how people got there in the first place.
I'm not blaming Verant or Sony for my situation. Perhaps they didn't know any better either. But the important thing is, now that we DO know the effects of these kinds of games, the risks need to be made known, to the kids playing these games and their parents. If it takes government regulation to do that, perhaps it is needed.
I'm a libertarian and a card carrying member of the ACLU. I hate the idea of legislating morality, but in this case, I see it more of a case of legislating corporate responsibility.
God knows some people [microsoft.com] will take advantage of you anyway they can. Sometimes, unfortunately, the government does need to step in.
Re:Electronic crack (Score:2, Insightful)
Online games can only create emotional dependencies. Sure, when your emotions are wracked, you can have jitters and sweat, but it has everything to do with you and nothing to do with the game.
No, there is no warning on the game that it can become addictive. Yes, it can become addictive to some people. Of course, exercise (over exercise), dieting (over dieting), bird-watching, mountain climbing, car driving, gambling, TV watching, cloud watching can also all become addictive to some people.
We do NOT need warning labels on everything expressing the dangers that people who can't limit themselves face. If anything, there should be a warning sign as you are carried from the hospital after birth:
"Caution, life may be habit forming."
Re:Electronic crack (Score:3, Interesting)
And I played AC a lot. Quite an unhealthy amount also.
Yeah yeah, I was pretty pathetic. Everyone has their moments of weakness. That was mine. But my point is, EQ is a drug. It's a drug where there are no warning labels, no program during high school to tell you the consequences of becoming addicted. It just looked like a game, no one knew at the time that playing it would slowly entice you into a downward spiral.
Anything done in an unhealthy amount is bad. This is common knowledge. EQ is NOT a drug and neither is any game. Some people are susceptible to addiction. Some are alcoholics, others junkies, some can't control thier gambling and others can't step away from a game. These are common of people with this particular trait.
The lack of education is the problem. You can bitch and moan that people should have personal responsibility all you want, but you can't blame them if they don't know. Nor can you blame people for wanting to put the word out on the street.
You didn't know? People have been saying the SAME thing about MUDs for years. They said the same things about Ultima Oline. Again, doing anything to excess like playing EQ, is unhealthy. This is common knowledge.
Designing a game where you psychologically induce people to play 40+ hours a week is akin to producing cigarettes. In fact, I would argue it's even worse in the MMOG industry because the public isn't educated about the psychological impact.
The comparison doesn't hold a lot of water. There isn't a lot of public education about the troubles with gambling yet there are plenty of people that gamble responsibly and plenty of people that are addicted to gambling and can't control themselves.
It's very easy for those of you who've never suffered from an addiction to sit on your high horse and say "Well, you should've just quit." You have no clue how much mental anguish one has to go through to make a break from something so addictive.
Ah yes, the typical whining of the addict. You really should go read up on addiction and or get some couseling if you really feel this way. Addiction is a horrible thing. My father is an alcoholic, my step father is an alcoholic, my mother is classified as an enabler (or co-dependant). I've seen addiction and understand first hand some of it's consequences. My father didn't clean up his act, my step father did. I realize the difficulty, but the only way for it to happen is if the addicted person does something about it. Belive it or not that means JUST QUITTING! Maybe not without help, but that is what it boils down to.
Where am I today? I graduated college and I have a nice job at a software company. I did manage to fix my life, but "personal responsibility" is what got me out of the hole. Don't use it to blame how people got there in the first place.
Wait?!?! You are making my point for me. Personal responsibilty got you out of your hole. So, once you actually _started_ taking some personal responsibility you were able to retake control of your life. Wow, now if only more people would do the same.
I'm not blaming Verant or Sony for my situation. Perhaps they didn't know any better either. But the important thing is, now that we DO know the effects of these kinds of games, the risks need to be made known, to the kids playing these games and their parents. If it takes government regulation to do that, perhaps it is needed.
Verant and Sony are in the business of making money. The fact that you have a problem with addiction is not their problem (no really!), nor is it their fault. They provide a service that you were not forced to play. The same goes for an alcoholic. or drug addicts. You may have become phsycologically addicted to the game, but it is not Sonys or Verants responsiblity to solve that problem for you. The game isn't the problem, the behavior is. The government doesn't need to regulate gaming, players need to exhibit self control. Parents need to be involved in the lifes of thier children and set reasonable limits on how much time they play games like this. Government regulation is not the answer to all the worlds problems.
I'm a libertarian and a card carrying member of the ACLU. I hate the idea of legislating morality, but in this case, I see it more of a case of legislating corporate responsibility.
Once again, this corporations didn't force you to purchase or play the game. The game in and of itself isn't addicting. You exhibited an unhealthy behavior, and are probably predisposed to addiction, that isn't the corporations fault. Nor should they have to take responsibility for thier customers behaviors. ie: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
God knows some people will take advantage of you anyway they can. Sometimes, unfortunately, the government does need to step in.
You weren't taken advantage of. Though you may feel that way. I strongly recommend speaking to someone that specializes in addiction therapy.
Here is a small text from a wired interview done a while back that I like to use in these discussions about game addiction.
MIT's Games-To-Teach project studies how gaming technology can be incorporated into education.
The project's research manager, Kurt Squire, has found that games sharpen players' critical thinking, improve their social skills and increase their empathy (by choosing the opposite sex for their character's gender).
"The notion that games are powerful enough to ruin someone's life is just ridiculous," said Squire. "The main concern people have is that technology is overpowering people and making them helpless. That's happened with every new medium that has come along -- even books were once regarded with suspicion."
In the final analysis, almost anything can be called an addiction if it routinely interrupts life's basic components, including school, work and relationships, he said. The important thing is balance. So align your chakras -- and remember, it's just a game.
Re:Electronic crack (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn right, it's like that old joke:
Cute female student: I would do anything to pass this course.
Old professor: Anything?
Cute female student: Absolutely anything!
Old professor: Would you... study?
Re:Electronic crack (Score:2)
Re:Please please please usage based charging (Score:2)
Its like any other product! (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely the brightest minds in game development dont need someone standing up there telling them that massive online multiplayer games aren't as easy as single player ones?!
You'd think that... (Score:2)
Yes and no. I tbink the guy makes a compelling argument that a small shop can do a good job on a tightly written, possibly smallish, well-executed game. That won't work here. The point is that 1), marketing MMORPG's is quite different than marketing other shrink-wrap games, and 2) You can't make a small MMORPG at all (obviously).
Surely the brightest minds in game development dont need someone standing up there telling them that massive online multiplayer games aren't as easy as single player ones?!
No, but the dumbest game company exec in charge of development sure as hell does. Like he says, even the best MMORPG's have gotten a lot of core issues wrong at the start. Most of them suck at the beginning and only get better after constant tweaking, hopefully with consideration of player input. I think that says that game companies don't know how to make a MMORPG by ship date. The best ones are from the companies that are responsive enough to make the game better, and to care enough to fix it, after the ship date.
Two things: (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, and more seriously, he brings up valid points. I just started playing Asheron's Call 2 last month as part of a psychology experiment run by the University of Michigan. I found that the lower level game was very intense and packed with content, but as I gained levels over the course of a month, the content tapered off and turned into merely hack-and-slash. This makes sense, because the game is only a few months old and should thus have more content for low levels than high.
Unfortunately, high levels are relatively easy to attain. I played for 1 month, a few hours a night, and I'm currently at level 32, right where the content stops. But there are people who were level 50 only 3 weeks after the game was launched. What do they do now? They sit around, or create alternate characters until the 50 level cap is released.
Re:Two things: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Two things: (Score:2)
Re:Two things: (Score:3, Funny)
Roughly same thing bored gangs of kids do in real life. They hang out and greif innocent passers-by [gamespy.com].
One of the reasons: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One of the reasons: (Score:3, Interesting)
*Get 30 bullet-proof servers to run the games on.
*Make leveling such a baffling hard ordeal that it will take even the most dedicated player(barring PLing) years to get to the max level.
*Release expansions that take uber guilds a year to beat.
In other words, you make the end game so difficult to reach that that portion of content will always be just beyond your grasp. With that, people will pay and play forever.
Re:One of the reasons: (Score:2, Insightful)
I play the game to travel to cool places, each with their own feel. I play it to enjoy the risks and the rewards. Getting new stuff only makes overcoming said obstacles even more fun.
Thankfully, I'm not so drawn into the game that I can't have a social life. =)
They are successful (Score:2, Interesting)
As of being hard to impelement, or lots being around, that's where challenge comes, and the best only survives.
As of requiring you to pay, if someone wants to play the game they will find someway to "pay", and there are some of these games that are free online (at least for now!).
Putting secrets in the game might not be very useful, but that applies for both single and multiplayer games, if someone wants to find it, they will, and the fact that the game is played ONLINE does not have anything to do with its SECRETS being posted online, these are two irrelated things.
We need to be real people, if it wasn't successufl, more companies wouldn't have went for it.
Khalid
Re:They are successful (Score:2)
Mmm, not really. I think he's got a point. It's somewhat sad that we've lost this aspect of gaming forever. I remember games like Zork, Wasteland, and The Bard's Tale requiring some pretty sophisticated puzzle solving skills. Sometimes it would take days, or even weeks before the player came up with a solution. But after all the hair-pulling, and pacing back and forth in front of the computer, finding the solution(on your own, of with your friends) was exciting! It's an experience that the next generation of gamers won't get to have.
Nowadays if you're presented with a problem in a game, it's just a few steps away from being solved. You just goto Google, enter a few keywords, take 5-10 mins reading and bingo you've probably found the solution.
Most of us think of the internet as a beneficial and enabling technology, but in this case it's caused the end of an era.
Next up: BF1942 clones (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, like lemmings, there'll be a few dozen BF1942 clones, and most will die due to too much competition.
Game makers: go AWAY from what's suddenly popular.
Re:Next up: BF1942 clones (Score:4, Funny)
Really? There were lots of spinoffs, but I only remember one or two clones of Lemmings. [mobygames.com]
People required??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reason #11 (Score:2, Funny)
I agree with the guy (Score:4, Insightful)
This, I think, falls under that rarely used "constructive" branch of criticism.
Deer Hunter Online? Awesome! (Score:2)
As you kill more deer, elk, and evil hunters, you get better weapons. As you gain knowledge of the terrain, you can figure out better ways to hunt both game and people and get away with it. Or if you're a good person, you'll find out better ways to catch evil people.
This scenario will encourage people to hunt in groups. That way, if potential evil people approach and maim someone in your hunting party, you can easily catch the evil person and gain considerable skill. Lone hunters wouldn't be able to defend themselves for a period after being shot.
Potentially you can also have cabins to keep your weapons, which can get robbed, and bullet-proof vests, and hunting stores. The terrain would be variable, with rivers and mountains creating natural barriers for would-be escapers.
Anyway, if anyone knows how to develop games, feel free to take my idea...
Interesting points... (Score:4, Interesting)
What about a decentralized approach. A grid based or peer to peer for persistant worlds. You might have to increase the bandwith to double check nodes and the like to prevent hacking, but some of the problems (DOS, investment in infrastructure) would go away.
In the world we live in we can only see clearly and understand the world that is near by, that doesn't mean we have to be connected to a server that is one giant persistant world. There could be areas of the world hosted on several region peers. The client would be required to take on some function of the world and it could be totally decentralized.
Any thoughts comments?
Re:Interesting points... (Score:2)
6.06 Can I link my world to someone else's?
Yes. Servers can be linked through 'Portals'. Portals are created when one server operator requests a link and another server operator accepts. This will form a two-way transfer between the two servers, allowing players to travel between the two worlds simply by stepping through the Portal. Once a Portal is created, it remains until removed by one of the server operators. If the server on the other end is currently not operational, the Portal will appear closed. Players can view a wide variety of information about the server on the other end by inspecting the Portal. If the character does not meet the requirements of the new server, the player is not teleported and re-appears beside the original server's Portal. Servers can support multiple Portals.
6.07 What are some ways I can make use of Portals?
The implications of this Portal system are somewhat mind-boggling. By distributing the different areas and population load over a number of home computers with decent Internet connections, for instance, your game world can know no boundaries. On a smaller scale, two rival player guilds could agree to portal their guildworlds together to settle a dispute in battle. Freewheeling MUDs and MUSHes could also emerge where people cobble their different creations together into a larger, cosmopolitan world of adventure. Neverwinter Nights is all about getting people together and Portals allow that to happen on a grander, even more exciting scale.
---
Kinda over the top there at the end, but close to what you were proposing it seems.
The Big Point I Got... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like with FPS and RTS games there is this rush with the success of UO and EQ to make these MMOG persistent games by small companies. These games will more than likely fail due to the lack of resources. This is deluting the MMOG genre because everyone is promissing to be the next "EQ Killer" and failing to deliver in one way or another.
So if you have a company and are thinking about making some persistent world, stop and make damn sure you plan a lot of resource and time into it...then double it. If word of mouth can kill a stand alone game it will uttery destroy an online one.
MMOCR (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, these games need to be made so they have a real point, and so that people will not get so attached to them. I'm sick of seeing my friends drop out of classes because they'd rather wait two hours for an imaginary dragon to spawn so they can cast the same spell over and over again and after another half hour they die and sit around waiting for someone to resurrect them.
I have a friend who's 65th level on EQ. (Currently the highest possible so he says proudly). He's also a year behind in his studies, and has had bouts of depression and alchololism (due to his lack of social life) for the past three years.
Pardon the sudden rant, but why can't there be an actuall MMOG that people can spend, oh, 1-3 hours on a week instead of 10-30 hours a week and still have fun.
Re:MMOCR (Score:5, Insightful)
If you make it too "casual" however, and people can pop in and out at will, you lose some of the point of the game, the community and the relationships needed to succeed. In a game like this, they only groups you'd see doing things would be people that know each other from RL, so whats even the point of playing? Hey that sounds like Diablo 2, huh?
Re:MMOCR (Score:2)
Some people just take these games too seriously. They need to back off. It's not so much a problem of game design but people's attitudes. I know lots of casual gamers that thing MMORPGs are great. Hell, that covers most of my friends that play them.
Animal Crossing (Score:4, Interesting)
The game is basically The Sims, except from the perspective of a Sim rather than the perspective of God. The game takes place in realtime-- it works off the Gamecube's internal clock-- and even if you aren't there, stuff happens and changes in the town.
The reason the game is interesting is that after the 30-40 minute tutorialish session of setting up a new character, it is basically designed such to make you want to play it for about ten minutes every day-- however, after about ten minutes, there really won't be much to do. You basically sign on to see if anything changed in the town, see if you got any mail, check with your neighbors and see what's up, *maybe* do something to get some money to help toward eventually paying your mortgage and see what's new in the store. And then there really isn't much else to do, usually, unless you want to just sit around and fish. This is brilliant becuase it keeps you from getting sick of it. And, of course, every few days something will actually be *happening*, or every so often you'll decide to plant some trees, and you'll be playing for a couple hours maybe. But you generally won't overdose on it: you can't sit through and experience the entire game in one solid weeklong gaming session. The game *forces* you to take it in small bites, yet ensures there is something special worth signing on for every single day-- yet doesn't *penalize* you if you just stop playing for a month.
This is an example the MMORPG world would do well to follow. As you note, a system like this would lead to some community "issues", but it would make content creation, system maintenence, etc, an order of magnitude easier.
Interestingly, shigeru miyamotu is on record as saying that Animal Crossing 2 will have "network support". I assume this means internet support. As of now, it's possible to "take the train" to a friend's town with your character if you either borrow their memory card with their saved town on it, "take the boat" to an "island" if you plug in a GBA with the GBA version of animal crossing saved on it. I'm very curious how they'd implement internet features.. it could wind up being like a kind of p2p MMORPG.
(Note to everyone: make sure if you rent this game, you either have a spare memory card or rent it from somewhere that includes with the rental the memory card that came with the game. An animal crossing savefile takes up a full 57-block memory card.)
Motor City Online (Score:2)
IMHO, that game failed for reasons other than gameplay. The box was not clear enough about the $10/mo fee, and there were pissed people on the forums all the time complaining that they had just wasted $30 and they didn't even have a credit card, then they would warn all their friends not to buy it. The box also promised features that didn't make it into the game before I quit playing, which again made people angry. So with the PISSEd people talking it down instead of telling all their friends how great it was, it never achieved critical mass that would have allowed it to get profitable and keep adding content.
It was a good idea that was even executed pretty well, but was marketed wrong. Alas.
Re:MMOCR (Score:2)
Didn't the old Trade Wars BBS game have a daily limit? Maybe it was just the one I played, but I remember only having a certain number of moves per day, so that I'd have to come back 24 hours later to play again. This was probably because if someone on a dial-up decided to play 16 hours straight, that's 16 hours that no one else could use that connection.
Of course, if a game put in a limit like this, the hardcore guys would bitterly complain that they were only able to play 1 hour, 4 hours, or even 8 hours a day. And, of course, the company that sold the game would sell advanced accounts without the restrictions...
What about something like this: important events that last 1-2 hours, that everyone knows when they occur. For instance, a massive-multiplayer sci-fi game, where you play as troops attacking some alien stronghold, and you know your troop ship arrives at 10 PM Eastern Standard. If you want, you can log in early, grab a few other guys and go into the holodeck to try out moves, tactics, and qualify for advanded weapons, or just stay "in statis" (offline) and log in just before the real action occurs. You could reward the diehards with the occasional unplanned "real" action, like an encounter with an undetected alien ship, with the opportunity for aquiring cool weapons.
I don't see any reason why you couldn't somehow limit the time commitment, but I imagine its the people who like to play 10-30 hours a week that support the monthly subscription model.
Re:MMOCR (Score:5, Interesting)
With a good set of rules, I think its possible:
1.) Remove levels. Everything is based on attributes and skills.
2.) Put in aging (including death date from old age, character is gone forever).
3.) Allow players, on creation, to start from either a young age, middle age, or old age.
You're maniac 50+hours a week players will go for the young age, and can build up better skills when they reach a middle age than any player that starts at middle age. You're 'casual' players start at an older age, which includes a ton of skills, have fun, but don't have to worry about really working on skill development or getting thrashed by the maniac players.
And if maniacs stay maniacs, they'll eventually die.
Of course, this won't work well with games that require tons of monthly fees, because your maniacs give you your steady income, but its a great idea for free games like MUDs, etc...
Re:MMOCR (Score:2)
Learn from Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Learn from Sony (Score:3, Funny)
That's true. They even made a motivational poster [thinkgeek.com] for the program.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:howabout (Score:2)
Customer Support (Score:4, Insightful)
The old joke was this; "Verant changed the mean of CS; it now means 'Customers Suck'."
Re:Customer Support (Score:2)
Using the wrong business model?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely the answer then is to develop a new business model adapted to the new market?
Is this too blindingly obvious? (I would think he mentions this in the seminar although its not in the article)
"And don't call me Shirley!"
Re:Using the wrong business model?? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the Everquest has already figured out a good business model for MMORGsm the subscription.
Earth and Beyond (Score:4, Interesting)
The world is too static. I can imagine a space game like this one that allows people to travel all over the place, trying to find new things. Granted, it's impossible to allow an infinite amount of places to explore and stuff, but they simply have to start rotating servers, starting the exploration from zero again every once in a while...not let the game get stagnant as it seems to be now.
This follows exactly from what this guy says. To make a game world that's as dynamic and as exciting as I would want would require a huge amount of support, something a lot of people would like to see, but not something that a lot of people would like to pay for.
I guess that those ten reasons to not make an MMOG are simply those, but the more people that waste their time and money trying to make it better, eventually will bring along, not to use a silly pop-culture reference, 'the one' that brings it all together. Then we'll be rocking as everyone else will have to copy that one to make success for themselves.
well, here's hoping that afer the earth and beyond team moves they can start to juice up the sci-fi world they have created in such a way that they really impress people. I've got my fingers crossed.
Re:Earth and Beyond (Score:3, Insightful)
What I mean by "dynamic" game world is one where players can have a significant effect on the world's events.
An ideal example situation is as follows:
There is a zone highly populated with orc raiders. Within the zone is the orcs' lair, where the orc leader is. The elders of the nearby town are offering a huge reward to get rid of the orc leader.
A group manages to kill the orc leader. Instead of the orc leader respawning, the orc forces disperse in the zone as a result of the lack of leadership. Perhaps they will regroup in another zone at a later time. As a result of this, there are far less orc spawns in the zone, and the orc cave is now abandoned. Perhaps another type of creature will move in after things have settled down and people have forgotten the orc incident.
Of course, such a thing is VERY hard to do, while at the same time allowing other players a similar experience.
Re:Earth and Beyond (Score:2)
One problem with dynamic content is that only a few get to be the "hero" for that content. People don't play games so they can be the grunt soldiers, clearing out all of the regular orcs, just so someone else can come in an kill the orc leader (unless they are all in a guild or something, working together).
Re:Earth and Beyond (Score:3, Interesting)
EVERYONE wants to be able to kill enemy generals and get all the ph4t l3wt. People want dynamic worlds, but they also want a world in which everyone can be the hero.
Which leads to another problem of MMORPGs... EVERYONE in the world, with the exception of NPC Shopkeepers, is an adventurer. Walk around EQ and you'll notice that there are no "commoners."
When you play a D&D game with a similar "kill the orcs" plot, the members of your party are likely to be the only adventurers in town. Everyone else is a merchant, farmer, etc. and would get mowed down the moment they step into the orc lair. You are the ones who have to do it. The end experience is more rewarding for the players, and you don't really have to worry about other players, because there are none.
Re:Earth and Beyond (Score:2)
They do add new content once a month with the game patch, and things have been exciting again in the past week since the newest patch, but it does start to wear off more quickly now.
I keep wishing it had come with a universe like that implemented in the old game Elite II/Frontier. That universe went on forever. I guess it was generated with some sort of fractal algorithm. No end of exploration there =)
E&B is a good game, the first MMO i've tried. I'll stick with it for a while, but the developers definitely need to read this article =)
open it up (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly (rambling follows) (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a problem that you rarely saw with, say, MUDs, because most MUDs you had an average of maybe 30 people on at once, and if you wanted to make your own MUD, or MUSH, or MUCK, why then, you just had to get some hardware that could handle 30 heavy text connections at once, and type descriptions of an intricate world. You could easily play the GM if you wanted to, long as you owned hardware. And then with MUSHes, even a non-administrator player could play GM as long as they could learn a simplified version of Forth.
I think "There" has the best idea, at this point: they have an open-ended world with the ability to be extended by users, programatically. People can recreate the world in any way they want, and interact with it however they want, even in ways that the people who made the game never foresaw. The community can build itself and entertain itself without the company having to build 3d models for everything that happens. And, of course, it empowers the user.
People want to be able to tell their own stories, there are a *lot* of people with the technical and creative expertise to come up with perfectly entertaining content on their own (as long as someone gives them some stock art to work from..) and i think users are a lot happier with the traditional MUD two-admins-and-28-players ratio than the Everquest "log a complaint and we'll schedule you with an admin appointment in two days time, after the other 10,000 requests are dealt with" ratio.
What i think is going to be the killer app as far as MMORPGs go is when someone figures out how to make it is as easy to make an everquest-style "graphical MUD" as it is to set up a Diku MUD, and then somehow links together all the player-created worlds so that you can let characters drift between them. The only problem i see with this system is accountability-- if you can transfer characters between worlds, what's to stop someone from creating a "everyone immediately levels to 99" world? Most likely, some kind of system would have to be implemented whereby each world would just have policies as to what they will and won't allow, similar once again to traditional pen and paper RPGs-- like, you try to bring in your 50th level Godlike Jedi Master into a star wars game around here, and everyone will go "Um, no, here's a piece of paper. Everyone else in the game at the moment is at *about* level 10, dumb your stats down to level 10 or so and give us a backstory for a character of that experience."
Of course, the problem there is that then you start going less toward a persistent multiverse and more just toward a series of played-online pen and paper RPGs with some kind of associated community.. at which point you might have just as much fun with an *actual* play-by-email pen and paper rpg, or just finding some kind of database of active MUSHes. So i'm not sure how this would work out. But it's definitely something I think is worth experimenting with.
Also, i'm not quite sure how Yiffing would be implemented within such a system.
Any thoughts?
A big reason left out... (Score:5, Interesting)
A good example of this is Asheron's Call 2 vs. the original Asheron's Call. AC2 is a beautiful game that you can run through and just appreciate, while AC1's graphics are merely functional. AC2 has brand spanking new crafting and town building systems, while AC1 has the same old ones. AC2 offers individualized dungeons so groups can go hunting and questing without running into packed "camped" dungeons, and AC1 does not.
Which game has more subscribers and active players? AC1, by a wide margin, despite never having received anything in the way of advertising from Microsoft (as opposed to AC2 which was widely and aggressively marketed). AC1 simply has more content -- more stuff to do. It may not be eye candy like AC2, but the eye candy effect wears off after a week or two anyway. To catch up to AC1's three years of monthly (free) expansions, AC2 would have to -- well, be out three years. Or hire a MUCH larger content team (the AC2 content team is basically the old AC1 content team).
EQ2 will face the same problem compared to EQ1. People are going to buy EQ2, go "ooh, ahh", log in, appreciate New Freeport's amenities, walk outside and fight a couple of rats, and go back to their level 65 guys in EQ. Why would they want to level up on rats again in a game with 1/10 the content of EQ?
Games without the brand recognition of AC and EQ have it even worse off. Dark Age of Camelot somewhat sidestepped this phenomenon because they were the first "next generation" MMORPG out of the gate (Anarchy Online was too buggy at release, so doesn't count ;)), and got the disgruntled AC/EQ/UO players. The newer games, such as Shadowbane, have a LOT to live up to. Current MMORPG players will compare everything to their current game, and if the new game doesn't REALLY shine, they have no reason to leave. They have too much time invested in their characters. And The Sims Online's tepid sales show that the market isn't ready to expand much yet -- you're dealing with the same bundle of players that you have to lure away from their current addiction.
Re:A big reason left out... (Score:2)
I think Mythic did a decent job in that respect. They released an expansion which updated the graphics nicely and added a bunch of new content/classes, but it didn't caniblize their original DAoC game.
I believe in order to make a AC2 or EQ2 to work you need to move your player base from the original to the update and then shut down the original. I know it would be a logistical nightmare, but it is the only real way I see in doing a version two of a popular MMORPG.
Re:A big reason left out... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A big reason left out... (Score:4, Insightful)
Essentially the situation was that unless you were some no-life loser who spent 10 hours a day on the system you were doomed to slowly, very slowly slog, slog away watching that exp bar crawl up one pixel at a time. After an eternity you raise a level, learn a few new skills or spells and repeat. The process for the casual player (as in a few hours a night) was just an exercise in tedium. There was no 'balance' here - the game was tuned to make progress as slow and as painful as possible. Worse, it was tuned assuming folks were twinked with unfeasibly over powered armour and weapons. So unless you wasted a disproportionate amount of time raising funds to buy uber gear you stood no chance of progressing because the mobs would murder you in a second.
It wasn't just the game that was the problem. Patch after patch and expansion after expansion demonstrated beyond a doubt that Verant didn't give a shit about the casual player. Every single expansion without exception has been deliberately aimed at the high level player. Sure you might see some 'newbie' zones but by and large expansions were developed for 30+ players, i.e. those already 'hooked'.
So casual gamers could basically fuck off. If you weren't constantly running EQ fullscreen for 10 hours a day there was little chance of progress. After the abysmal Shadows of Luclin expansion followed by a price rise I dumped the damned thing and I'm glad I did. It was a wrench to be sure, no doubt from the Skinner box like reward model, but I'm happy to be rid of the bloody thing. I don't think short of some extraordinarily positive reviews I would ever touch an online game written by Sony or Verant again.
Now addressing your points of EQ / AC players moving back from version 2 to 1. I would not be surprised if Verant and Microsoft offered 'migration' paths that enable characters to upgrade from the old version to the new one. I would be extremely surprised if they offered a route in the other direction.
BBSs (Score:3, Interesting)
#11 (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting comment about shorter gameplay. (Score:5, Interesting)
MMORG Project Plan (Score:2)
2. Get capital
3. Create, huge, killer, dynamic world
4. Incorporate amazing gameplay
5.???
6. Profit!!!
Ode of the Terminally Uninformed (Score:4, Insightful)
But there are very, very few good ones.
9: It Requires a Mastery of Too Many Disciplines
Oooh, I thought that was half the fun. It's like saying "the tech tree is just too darned big!" in MoO3
8: A Huge Team is Required
But somebody is obviously making money off of it, so what's the problem again?
7: Getting a Credit Card from a Customer is Hard
Huh? Not from somebody who actually wants to play the game. Maybe you're talking about the whiny 15 year olds I hear on the XBox forums all the time.
6: The Online Industry is Counter-Intuitive to Packaged-Goods Company Management
So you look towards other examples of services that have succeeded with "24-hour operations, 365 days a year, with continuous customer support, etc, etc". Is this really a reason not to make an MMOMMOMMORPG? Sony obviously disagrees.
5: Everything You Know about Single-Player Games is Wrong
Um, not really. Plot? Interaction? The mastery of many disciplines????? Sure, there are radical difference in some areas, but a reason not to make a MMORPG? Pretty weak.
4: The Internet Sucks as a Commercial Delivery Platform
Dot bust, blahblahblah. Once again, where you complain, others have succeeded.
3: Customer Service is Hard
I'm sorry, but this man's "points" sound increasingly like whining. Customer service is a fact of life. Yes it's online. No, it's not crippling. DEAL WITH IT.
2: There are Lots of Legal Issues
Like ANY industry. He refers to Ultima misfortune. Last I heard, ultima was a good example of how not to handle an MMORPG. It was especially bad in it's opening years if I remember right. Customers were revolting in droves. So yeah, if you screw your fanbase over, I can see the potential legal issues.
1: They Cost Too Much money to Build and Launch!
Perhapse, but lets refer to point #10: Their are too many being built. Points #10 and #1 don't exactly share a happy coexistance with one another in why you shouldn't make an MMORPG. "My God! They cost too much, but everybody is building them anyway!" Huh? Either A) You're lying/Don't have a clue or B) There s enough profit potential inspite of reasons 1-10 to do it anyway.
If you said C) Both A and B, you get a star.
#9 correction (Score:2)
I REALLY hope developers take this to heart (Score:5, Interesting)
In truth, sony pours TONS of money into Everquest. Their bandwidth alone is huge. Add onto that that they have a full development team for dealing with the implimented game, (the live team: fixes bugs, etc), and then another whole development team that builds expansions and such to add content. They are contuiously changing the core code of the game, (such to add features not implimented in the original game such as 2 new user interfaces since the game was released).
They have 50ish servers compromising, (from what I understand), of roughly 30 computers per server, which means for every patch they are possibly updating around 1500. (Though it should be noted that I doubt they patch every computer every patch.) Also, these servers are located in both the United States and in Europe. And they are expected to have minor patches done in 2 hours, major patches, (for things such as expansions), done in 8. And no loss of any amount of data, (such as what character has which items), is tollerated in any way. Because of this their network administration must be near flawless.
Now lets look at what we have down the pipe. We have games that are being thrown together by people who come from single player games instead of MUDs and D&D. We have people who design games with out the backing of the enormious companies it takes to supply the capital required for a 4 to 5 year development cycle, implimentation of the enormious amount of hardware, the marketting, and the payroll for the support staff. We have people who don't realize that they must either be perfect at what they do, (see blizzard), or tap a previously untapped nitch, (Star Wars Galaxies) of MMoG potential. It would be wise that they make sure that the nitch exists and that the model for advancement in the game actually holds water first though (The Sims: Online).
In the end, we will have many companies that put 2/3rds of the work and money into making the games all competing with each other for a very small populace of people who are not already commited to as many games as they can afford time wise and monitarily. Most of them will die out, just like the dot-com bust.
But many games will pervail. Star Wars Galaxies will likely be as big, if not bigger than Everquest. Worlds of Warcraft shows amazing promise. Horizons seems to be a crowd favorite. And whatever product is being build by Sigil [sigilgames.com] will be one of the leading contenders. (For those who don't know, the company is run by the people who made the decisions about Everquests form and is funded by microsoft. They also have recruited alot of the senior staff that had previously worked for the Everquest team.)
But with the majority of the market for Online RPGs and D&D type worlds already accounted for through Everquest, (or soon to be picked up by the above mentioned games), Developers better have a spot for their game to fit and they better do a DAMN good job of designing it, populating it, and supporting it if they plan on recouping their losses.
Choice of Metroid is disappointing (Score:2)
I'm not knocking Metroid. It's a decently fun game, especially for the traditional "kids with lots of free time" market. But just because a movie is solid and safe doesn't mean it should win an Oscar for best picture.
Re:Choice of Metroid is disappointing (Score:2)
I think it captures the design and mechanics of the others in the series well, but I agree that it doesn't go in enough of its own directions. When I found the crashed frigate, I immediately thought "hey, am I playing a new game or a remake of Super Metroid?"
I also *really* wish that they'd spent some of the obviously high production budget on some better writing. For a game with literally no spoken dialogue, the written text that explains what's going on is kind of weak IMO. Maybe leaving it out entirely would have been best.
OTOH, it *is* a lot of fun to play, other than not having a way to turn down the difficulty of the bosses.
Ah, that answers the question... (Score:2)
Why is it that MMOG's charge a fee of 40-50 bucks just like any other game would and yet they also require a non-trivial monthly fee. I would expect a monthly fee game to at least be cheaper than others. So this answers it:
Right now, Walton theorizes, the model works in the United States because it's based off of a packaged goods model - people have already invested $40-50 to buy the box and take it home, so they're more willing to justify that expense by subscribing.
So that's it! I personally think that if they had incorporated the start-up fee into monthly subscription they would have far more customers. I know that I would probably try subscribing if it were so. When again, I value whatever social life I still have left, so maybe they have saved me :)
Let the users create (Score:3, Interesting)
Duh. That's why you don't try to build it yourself. Make a game in which the players build the world. And then encourage them to do so. I suppose this ties in with:
Everything You Know about Single-Player Games is Wrong
That's right Dave. One of the "wrong" things is the premise that the game creator creates the world. That doesn't work! The game creator has to create the rules of the universe and start the world. Then, if he expects to not be swamped, he has to sit back and let the players take it from there.
Independent Games Festival Winners (Score:2, Informative)
The festival included ten innovative and often offbeat titles, such as Teenage Lawnmower (a mowing simulation that manages to incorporates issues such as domestic violence, unplanned pregnancy and alcohol abuse) and Pontifex II (a game that lets you design your own dream bridge, and hope it doesn't collapse). The competition's grand prize was won by Wild Earth, a beautifully animated game that sends players on an African safari to take pictures of wildlife. (Wild Earth also won two awards in the IGF for Game Design and Visual Arts).
I'll tell you why they suck... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Recycled games themes; You get either Dungeon and Dragons or Future Space SciFi. No one is really breaking out of the box on this. Of the 100 games on the market, they fall into these two catagories.
2) Too restrictive, Narrow play. Stop making the game so static. Just make a world that has rules and let the players do the rest. Don't make it so you have to do missions to advance.
If players want to be in a clan that raids other clans, then let it be. You can make protection zones (No fighting in the zones), but once out of the zone, go at it. For exmaple, let players set the price of items by supply and demand.
I am still waiting for a Fallout (Post apocalyptic) style MMOG where I can be evil or nice or anything in between. Just create the world and let the players do the rest.
Maximum Charisma's Spectacular Online Game failure (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy has got this issue right on.
I worked for a computer gaming software development company called Maximum Charisma Studios in 2001-2002. I was the systems and network engineer, doing all of the production and corporate infrastructure -- desktops, servers, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, WAN and LAN networking.
Maximum Charisma actually produced their first software title called Fighting Legends to store shelves, which was a huge accomplishment considering that we were independent. We had Sony manufacture the CDs and a few other things, but we handled distribution. We outsourced some customer service agents for the anticipated needs of customers, but that was about it. The company consisted of about 30 people at it's height.
Fighting Legends was supposed to be a Multiplayer Online Real Time Strategy (MMORTS) game. It required a network connection that I metered out to be an average of something like 25Kbps bursting to 80Kbps per user for the persistent connection. Latency was a big issue, with the edge of enjoyment being about 250ms.
There was trouble with Fighting Legends. The big mistake was design. The game was designed poorly because the company was inexperienced. It lacked story, it lacked refinement of play, and it lacked fun. The game was not fun, so nobody played it. I know the actual statistics of how many players we had, how many at one time, etcetera, but I am not going to quote them. Instead I will just say that we didn't have enough.
The overhead to keep the company going without the subscription cost meeting the break even point is what killed the company. We could have gotten more money, we could have really cut down on spending, we could have probably made it for the second title if it was not for the overhead costs of Fighting Legends. It was the data center costs that were the killer -- $900 per month per cabinet, and about $5K+ per month for power data and other service costs.
Maximum Charisma took about 2.5 years of development time. The product was on the shelf on November 1st of 2001. The company called it quits on January 29th 2002, even though the servers stayed up for almost two months after.
Here are is a picture from Maximum Charisma Studios of our data cabinets. This is off of a 1.5Mbps VDSL line, so be wary. And don't even tell me about cable management. We got those 65 some odd servers out of box, software loaded, and in the rack within 72 hours. It was a break neck operation. As for the hardware costs of all of this equipment that you see, it was something like $450K -- I still have the receipts to prove it.
http://www.Opendreams.net/jesse/images/Maxim
Here is the Maximum Charisma death notice;
http://pc.ign.com/articles/354/354578p1.
Re:Maximum Charisma's Spectacular Online Game fail (Score:3, Funny)
Preaching to the choir? (Score:2)
But I'd have to agree with Walton on this one, the average user is still scared crapless about giving up a credit card. It's not that their paranoia is based in reality, but rather their perception thereof.
As well, as he mentioned in the article, this is a much more prevalent problem outside of north america.
Bottom line is he has the experiance to know whether this is really a problem or not, you can speculate all you like but I don't really think he's lying about this, what would the point be?
Re:credit cards are hard to get from customers? (Score:3, Funny)
so why code a virtual world full of monsters and quests just to get a credit card number?
sheesh. in my days, exploits used to be a few kilobytes each...
(My apologize to those who had their CC number stolen and for the humor impaired in general)
-------------
this message is quad-rot13 encrypted for your privacy