Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

Planned Obsolescence and MMORPGs 43

Posted by simoniker from the everquest-version-pi-point-seven dept.
Thanks to Stratics for their column discussing the concept of 'planned obsolescence' as it relates to MMORPG expansion packs. The author explains: "Planned obsolescence is, at its root, a strategy to get you to buy more... a design mechanism that would encourage additional purchases by creating the impression that a product had been improved over its early - though still perfectly functional - incarnation." He argues that expansions for MMO titles are controversial because "MMOs are service-based products [and] it is difficult to justify this double charging of the customer for development", and ends on a cautionary note: "While a full sequel... certainly merits an additional purchase, I fear that the practice of planning obsolescence into MMOs by subtly out-moding earlier releases of a given title will ultimately undermine the genre and, therefore, the industry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Planned Obsolescence and MMORPGs More

Planned Obsolescence and MMORPGs

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe I don't get it.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope@gmail. c o m> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @03:10AM (#7151254) Journal
    I don't play MMORPGs because I dislike paying for a game that I may not play during a given month. That aside, this practice is insane. Go pick up any Blizzard game. $30 max for any one right now (check pricewatch.com if you don't believe me). Not only do you get the full game, but as much online time on their battle.net server included in the purchase cost. When I buy an expansion to a Blizzard game, I get the same deal.

    If Blizzard can charge only once up front for a product with online play AND remain profitable, why do Sony and Microsoft not only charge for their products, but for a subscription as well?

    (I realize there are centralization issues, but a monthly fee from 20 players (at $20/month) could easily buy a new machine to serve them for the rest of the year if they were logged in 24/7).

    Bottom Line: MMORPGs cost too much for a little Skinner box you experience with other people.
    • Because most of battle.net is just handing off IPs.
      With Diablo as the exception, all Battle.net does is tell you who else is playing so you can join their game (atleast, this is how it used to be, I may be mistaken.)

      Of course, Blizzard is generally a better company, but thats why you vote with your wallet.
      My only real complaint with Blizzard is their copy protection. My copy of Diablo2 has to be the hardest game to get working I've ever tried. All it takes is a little smudge on your cdrom or a buggy cdrom
    • and MMOG programmers take a centralized approach to that persistence. They have lots and lots of centralized servers and for every player they have to add more resources. As such, the game gets suckier and suckier the more players are added. Not only because they need more servers minds you, but because each player need to be a certain distance from the other players in the game world. That distance costs money! The world has to get bigger and bigger or players will be standing on top of each other, an
      • A good MMOG would use the machines of the players to distribute the load of persistence.

        How would you handle cheating that way?

        When trusting the client with anything but handling input/showing world, you will get a game plagued with cheaters...

        With EQ(and probably others) you have stuff like ShowEQ, so you can see anything that goes on in the world - if you distributed load to the clients, the possibility of cheating would be endless...

        • voting (Score:3, Insightful)

          by QuantumG ( 50515 )
          Turning a PC into a thin client is not how to stop cheating, in fact, why don't we just use streaming video? After all, you can't trust the player's video card, they might be using a hacked driver! There are plenty of ways to maintain a consistent distributed database with assumed hostile nodes. One of them is voting. The load which is distributed amongst the nodes is done so redundantly and all nodes must be in agreement. When a disagreement occurs, each node votes for what computation was correct.
        • Actually, you could. It would be complex, but not impossible. All you need is a system of distributed checks and balances along with trust metrics. As long as the majority of the users are using legit clients, this system can work even with no centralised authority whatsoever. This would be difficult for non-persistent games like HL & co, but for persistent stuff it works like a charm.

          Daniel
          • Hmm - I have a hard time to see how it would work in realtime with a game like Everquest(Just so we have an example)

            Do you know if anyone have written a paper and tried it IRL? Could be fun to read something from people that actually tried it! :)

            But I kind of like the idea - but I am not really convinced it would work as long as most players dont have 10 ms lag...
            • The lag is irrelevant, so long as the communications get through. The trick is you don't necessarily want to prevent people from doing something bad immediately, but rather to punish them once you see a pattern of invalid actions. ie, whenever a client reacts in a "bad" way, the clients around it should automatically log that and put a bad mark towards this client. With a centralised server it's trivial from here - the server periodically queries clients (eg when they log off/on), and when a client has too
        • What's wrong with redundant?

          Say 5% (or even 100%) of the work goes to two or more machines.

          If your box keeps saying that Admiral Wigglebottom is in the Star Fortress, floor 16, but two different users insist he's in Paraguay, that might force a client reset or a penalty

      • A good MMOG would use the machines of the players to distribute the load of persistence.

        Distributing the persistence load amongst client machines is all well and good. The trouble is that most of the people playing these games are really not going to want to leave their machines on all the time, so bang goes your persistence.

        Building the world should be part of the game!

        Again, open to debate. This can work, I've played muds. But with big commerical games most people don't want to world build, and a lo
    • Untill recently, I had never played a MMO. Let me try and share my answers to your questions.

      First, if you are not playing in any given month, don't pay for that month. I have a DAoC and Ragnarok account that I play, on and off, throughout the year.

      Second, of those games (I play a few more, but those are the main ones), one of those is free, the other is $18. Of course, monthly fees apply. The experience on a pay-per-month MMO is slightly better than a free MMO. People tend to be more community-orien
    • Hi, I was a hardcore Diablo 2 fan for years and recently jumped to a MMORPG and have no desire to look back.

      Let's just say you get what you pay for. If you are the kind of person who plays strictly with friends, then D2 isn't so bad. If you like to meet new people and play in open games, then you start to see where Blizzard fails. D2 is arguably as hacked as D1 ever was and in my view a joke of what it was promised to be. I do not enjoy hacked or duped items, and I do not enjoy hacks that nullify the po

  • Ok, lets look at the HBO example from the article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MerlynEmrys67 ( 583469 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @03:10AM (#7151256)
    Ok, I guess sometimes it is OK to RTFA on slashdot... so here is someone making an agruement that he shouldn't pay extra to HBO to watch it other than his monthly payment (he doesn't want to buy the expansion pack - plus pay a monthly service charge)
    There's nothing wrong with an expansion pack for a video game. End-product games, that is, games that are single item purchases, need to be able to provide extended value to both the gamer and those responsible for bringing it to the store shelf (the developer and publisher). Multiplayer modes of gameplay are one method of extending the value of the game. Expansion packs are another. Expansions sell for less money because the core technology and a large portion of the artwork have already been developed. However, they are still sold because many man-hours are spent creating the new experience upon these existing assets. This is a different case than with MMO expansion packs for one simple reason: the gamer is already paying, each and every month. Since MMOs are service-based products, it is difficult to justify this double charging of the customer for development. After all, I'm already paying for the service, right? I like to use cable television as another analogy for these types of examples. I subscribe to HBO because I enjoy watching The Sopranos. I pay my monthly fee, because I feel that it's worth it. One of the things that make it worth it to me is the knowledge that a new season of The Sopranos is currently being filmed for my enjoyment. In addition, HBO offers a variety of other entertainment formats, from more shows to movies to boxing, etc. The point, however, is that when that new season of The Sopranos starts next year, I won't be receiving a bill from HBO for an additional $30. My monthly subscription has helped pay for the development already.
    So what he appears to be suggesting - is that instead of everyone paying 20 bucks a month and getting different content based on the expansion packs that have been bought - Everyone pays 50 up front, then pay more each month for the extra cost of service (just like HBO is an extra feature to my cable - I pay extra) so some people will pay 20 a month, those with expansion 1 will pay 25 a month - and so on.

    I am sure that isn't what he was intending - but his annalogy can sure be built that way.

    Also if you drive his arguement to where it finally ends up - why should I buy the game at all. After all - I will be paying 20 a month for the game, why kick out 50 for the game to start with. I buy cable and EVERYONE gives free installation (and many months free too sometimes). So why buy the game, give it to me free for download from your website when I give you my credit card for monthly service fees

    • If you want me to pay $20 a month I think you can foot the bill for a piece of plastic and an overnight delivery..
    • Of course, there are other options. Rubies of Eventide [rubiesofeventide.com] is a MMORPG that distributes the game software for free. You pay $15/month (or $120 yearly, if you want) to play and get all updates, expansions, etc for free. Basically, they've applied the cable-tv business model to their game, and it works.

      I refused to play Evercrack and the like for exactly the reasons in the article (buying the game then paying $whatever a month for the priviledge of playing it). With Rubies, you're simply paying the monthly

    • There's a basic flaw with his HBO example: The content developers (TV studios) are not selling directly to the end-viewer (TV audience). They are really selling to the distributer, who in turn sells you access to the content.

      So when a new season of The Sopranos comes out it is sold to the cable channels, who *do* have to pay for it again. But they absorb the cost because they are already making hefty margins on all the $30/month subscribers.

      So his HBO example is more like if you have a little brother

  • This is the Problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cyan ( 370 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @03:13AM (#7151262) Homepage Journal
    This is just the problem with MMORPG's, no matter how hard you try, and unless you have absolutely no life, no job, and don't mind going a few days without a shower, there's absolutely no way you can expect to complete any MMORPG in any satisfying amount of time. In fact, they'll usually take years to complete even if you *do* spend obscene amounts of time working on it.

    Then, in about ten years from now, it'll be gone. Unlike the other games on your shelf, which you can play for nostalgic purposes whenever you like, the MMORPG won't be available for you to play. At least now I can still check out my old Final Fantasy IV games, or play through again in a matter of 30 hours or so. MMORPG's don't offer that, and nobody will be saying "hey, let's check out Everquest" 10 or 20 years from now.

    This is all notwithstanding that most MMORPG's are boring click-a-thons, of course. Click, watch your character go *hrf* over and over, and then watch as you gain a fraction of a percentage to advance to the next level. Yay.

    Strangely, MUDs still retain their appeal for me even after these MMORPG's have emerged. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I need to fork out nothing as opposed to a bill for an MMORPG that rivals my power bill? Who knows.
      • This is just the problem with MMORPG's, no matter how hard you try, and unless you have absolutely no life, no job, and don't mind going a few days without a shower, there's absolutely no way you can expect to complete any MMORPG in any satisfying amount of time. In fact, they'll usually take years to complete even if you *do* spend obscene amounts of time working on it.

      Actually, I believe this is the flaw with players, merely stimulated by the level treadmill and projection of play styles from other t

  • MMORPG: gold mine or the very next broken dream? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by imperator_mundi ( 527413 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @03:34AM (#7151318)
    On a businness model point of view MMORPG are just a wonder: develop once cash forever, as long as people continue to play.

    Is a matter of fact that the occasional players can't stand a chance against the pro who spend tenth of hours a month online, so I suppose that a dramatic explosion of the number of players isn't likely to be expected, as long as people are used to also do other things in their lives.

    The key of making money with MMORPG is that the customers/players pay for the service, but once the server is installed and runs in what does the service consists? I mean there's no need to be a fortune 500 to set up a machine and play with friends online more or less the way people gather to play paper & pen RPG.

    Of course home brew server could difficulty manage hundreds of thousands of players (as long as distributed system are not developped), but as MMORPG player tend to buy them homes and settle down I am likely to think that in to the long run there's the tendency to play almost "locally" and to become part of a quite small community.

  • Not only them! (Score:3)

    by Martigan80 ( 305400 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @03:38AM (#7151328) Journal
    Hey I bought Civ III and thought it would be great to have more automation in the workers, and more tribes...but behold a little later the expansion pack has all the items the original seemed to lack. This is a new tactic by software developers to squeeze more money out of us. Look at Neverwinter Nights, with two new expansions, but what is in them? A new module, which can be done for free, and a collection of_fan_made tiles and hacks. I like the above mentioned games, but I'm getting teed about the expansion syndrome.
    • Actually, the additional feats and skills are probably the most desired part of the NWN additions. Prestige classes, sorta, but not really. Everything else can be made/found.

    • Team17 do this too.

      Worms 2, Worms Armageddon and Worms World Party use exactly the same engine. The only difference is the front end graphics which are not worth the extra &#163;30 each time. They even carried some of the bugs over with each incarnation.

      New publisher equals new front end graphics and new packaging. Tried and tested many years ago.
    • new tactic?

      it's old as hell, old as ms itself is in other software too. don't make updates, make upgrades.. works for games just as well(seemingly).

      in the old days when you could buy shareware by episodes at least they were honest about it...

    • Re:Not only them! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by renuncln ( 643649 )
      You are definitely wrong about the _fan_ made tiles and hacks since the tiles and hacks that you get in the expansions are made by Bioware. The expansions have also added prestige classes, which are not available as a fan made extension, and many new creatures, which arguably can be made by fans. The next expansion for NWN will also be including epic levels which are once again not available as a fan made hack. Perhaps you should check your information before you deride a game. I personally have very li
  • How am I supposed to play my Arcane Archer in a NWN LAN game if not everyone has bought the expansion pack that adds that prestige class? How can everyone play nice in the same virtual world if everyone doesn't support the exact same set of world rules?

  • Madness (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aggrazel ( 13616 ) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:41AM (#7152040) Journal
    I very much agree with this sentiment and have argued it myself. I don't like the concept of forced upgrades. In EQ, their expansions pretty much ruin the game for you if you don't buy them, lets say you're a level 50 monk, best FD puller around, suddenly Kunark comes out and its either buy it so you can get 10 more levels to keep on top of your game or shelve your character because no one would want a level 50 monk anymore, even in the old world zones that you used to pull. Then another expansion comes out and you HAVE to buy it, then another, then another...

    The thing about non MMORPG expansions ... well ... consider Morrowind. Morrowind is one of my favorite single player RPGs. I own the Tribunal expansion pack and I love it. The thing is, the original game I bought is still playable. My old morrowind characters weren't obsoleted by the new expansion. I didn't HAVE to buy it .. I wanted to.

    I still own warcraft 3, and I don't have the frozen throne, and I can go play an online War3 game without the expansion with other people who don't have it if I want to. I am not crippled in any way.

    Back when I played EQ I didn't WANT to buy kunark. And in fact, I didn't. So I left the game. It wasn't about a $40 (at the time) expansion pack. It was about a $40 expansion pack this year, another one the next year, and another, and another, and another, all of which were "pay up or quit" type upgrades.

    DAoC:SI (Dark age of camelot: Shrouded Isles) in my opinion was a good expansion pack for a MMORPG because it didn't force me to upgrade. My wife's account didn't have SI on it for the longest time, but she could still compete in the old world with every other person weather they had bought the new expansion or not, in Realm vs. Realm combat she could hold her own ground. Sure, she couldn't make one of the new SI classes, nor could she alt-tab ( a feature "added" with SI ), but the game she bought back in October 2001 still worked.

    Almost everyone who plays DAoC that I know bought SI even though it was not (in my opinion) a forced upgrade.

    In my opinion MMORPG expansions should add good content without going so far as to breaking the dynamics and balance of the game. Game balancing and dynamic changes should always be free updates that retroactively apply back to the original client that the company sold. After all, the people with the original game are the ones who paid $10-$15 per month every month while the new expansion was being made. I was very glad when DAoC made the housing expansion work for the classic client and made it free. Arguably housing changed a lot of dynamics. But it was free, so it was fine. SI didn't change much. SI added new zones, new items, new places to explore, new classes, new races, and better graphics. If you wanted none of those things you could stick with classic and be just fine.

    But I still believe the best way to ruin the mmorpg experience is to force people to buy new software. The guy hit the nail on the head dead on when he said, "But is this the goal, to maintain profit margins in spite of the customer, rather than because of them?"

  • Rip off (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 )
    Even without expansion-packs they are already double-charging as they are service-based product. They should either: * sell the software and give away server time (Unreal Tournament etc.) OR * Give away the software but charge for connection time (AOL etc.) Until they do that, only hardcore enthusiasts will buy MMORPGs so through their over-greed they are bringing on their own failure. I am happy playing UT2003 for free. I'll never buy a MMORPG until they change theire marketing model.

  • no expansions = no ongoing publicity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shepuk ( 588339 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @08:23AM (#7152369)
    "A Tale in the Desert" [atitd.com] is an MMORPG that charges people *just* the way I think it should be done. You don't pay for the client. You don't pay an initial connection charge. You don't even have to pony up any credit card details until you've finished your trial period... All you pay is a monthly subscription *after* you've made the decision to keep playing.

    Where other games put out "expansion packs", the developers add new content to the game on an ongoing basis - new stuff seems to appear every few days (and all client patching is done seamlessly while you're actually playing) ...which from the players point of view is great stuff...

    BUT...

    According to the developers, not releasing expansion packs is actually *hurting* their PR! The thing is, each time the likes of Anarchy Online brings out something like "Shadowlands", they suddenly get big spreads in glossy magazines, headlines on all the news sites, and a new boost of publicity. Expansions that are given away for free, on an ongoing drip-feed basis, just don't blip on the gaming press radar. It's actually becoming a problem for the ATITD people; they're adding new (and pretty revolutionary) content to the game all the time, but the gaming press won't touch them because they assume the game is the same thing it was back at launch, and therefore old news... Seems they're just not interested in revisiting games unless there's a new shrinkwrapped box on the shop shelves... and, of course, no publicity = no new customers.

    Sadly, it seems that this is one MMORPG company that's suffering by using a payment model that treats it's subscribers the "right" way :(

    • They don't get those glossy spreads and reams of publicity for free, you know.

      There's a huge advertising cost that's associated with each expansion pack, which of course is (hopefully) a lot less than the sales that get generated.

      But you are right about the gaming press -- they wan't new cover art, new titles, new new new new new. This is because they haven't been trained to cover "stories" like regular journalists have been -- they've been trained to generate buzz (and sometimes useful reviews) which

    • The first Asheron's Call suffered alot from the same effect. Free monthly content updates (not really free, but included in subscription cost) changed the game unrecognisably over a year or so, but didn't hit the news. They took the decision to release the Dark Majesty expansion pack, which got new people to come into the game, and had a free subscription month built in (which made it effectively free to existing players).

      Personally, though, I think they should have stuck to the month on month updates: the

  • That's one way... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by inkless1 ( 1269 )
    "What this amounts to is having the customer pay for the development of the new content twice: once while it's being developed, and again when it's ready for prime time. Huh?"

    And then there is the SOE model - pay before it's ready for prime time, and then pay while it's being developed. Genius!
  • If you read his whole article, his argument boils down to this sentance in the end: "If this service model continues to be developed and rammed down the throats of the game-buying public, eventually, people will tire and walk away from the genre."

    Given that this doesn't seem to be happening (people don't seem to be walking away), I have to question the logic behind the rest of the article. Color me simple, but I think capitalism will decide this in the end: as long as the game is priced to the tastes of t

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close