Making An MMOG For The Masses 45
Thanks to GameSpy for their article exploring whether massively multiplayer games can ever break into the mainstream. The piece starts by contrasting EverQuest's 460,000 subscribers with other media, saying: "What EverQuest is not, however, is a mass-market success. J.K. Rowling sold over nine million copies of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix this summer. Michael Jackson sold 25 million copies of 'Thriller.'" It goes on to analyze mass-market MMOG attempts such as the still-profitable, but disappointing The Sims Online, which Sims creator Will Wright says "...was the poster child for massively multiplayer games going wrong with the mass market", and Richard Garriott also comments: "...though the high concept was fabulous, [The Sims Online] suffocated under its own development weight."
The masses ... (Score:1)
The masses are not going to sit around and play MMORPG's all day, and shut out the rest of the world.
But then again, nobody would have thought in 1910 that the nation would be a land of overweight couch potatos either.
Re:The masses ... (Score:2)
Daniel
Re:The masses ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no head-shrinker, but it appears to me that playing an MMORPG, at least as it has been defined so far, requires somewhat of an obsessive-compulsive personality. Yes, I've played them...UO, EQ, AC, DaoC...It is simply not a casual experience, and although people who play them appear to get some sort of satisfaction, I wouldn't call them 'entertaining' or 'fun'. They demand dedication and endurance to participate even partially.
Take for example Star Trek, another piece of popular media that has attracted the obsessive (go to a convention to verify my assertion). Star Trek can be enjoyed by a casual participant (My mother), but also has provided a fertile ground for an astonishing array of fan community participation (fan porn stories..both gay and straight, conventions, the klingon alphabet, you name it)
With Star Trek, the difference is that the provided experience is the same for everybody, designed for casual consumption, and people do with it what they will. With MMORPG, the provided experience is targeted at the most dedicated fans, and most sane people simply don't have the level of interest required to keep up with what that requires. I cannot imagine my mother (or myself) watching Star Trek if she had to wear some pointy ears or glue something to her forehead to successfully watch it.
Re:The masses ... (Score:2)
I'm now officially scared.
Re:The masses ... (Score:2)
For a fixed amount (say, $10/month), you get all-you-can-eat online gaming. If you are on 100 hours/month (possible for some people), then that is $0.10/hour. This is a decidedly good deal for entertainment.
Somebody like me, who would like to play something like EverCrack, cannot spend much time on something like this due to obligations (wife, 2 children, work, church, household repairs, etc.). I might be able to play around 5 hours/month
Re:The masses ... (Score:2)
Think sports. To go see a game, people pay $30+ for a couple hours of entertainment. These couple of hours are typically just as enjoyable by the people who go once or twice a year as they are for the people who go all the time. In fact, they are probably more enjoyable for the occasional participant, because it's a special occasion.
I could not imagine playing an MMRPG for a couple hours a week. with that, you just get the drudge, since it takes so long
Re:The masses ... (Score:1)
Make a MMORPG that's better than anything you can possibly get on TV (lots and lots and lots of sex and violence), add ubiquitous broadband, and you'll probably get a good-sized chunk of "the masses".
Remember Barnum: there's a sucker born every minute.
BattleMaster (Score:2, Interesting)
Takes a little getting used to, so stick it out for at least a few days, and you'll be hooked.
Re:BattleMaster (Score:1, Funny)
Sounds like a friendly bunch.
Holy ridiculous comparisons Batman! (Score:4, Insightful)
Harry Potter and Thriller are extreme examples of successful products. Most books/albums don't sell as many copies.
I'm not going to research this but just for the sake of argument, let's say EverQuest sold half a million copies at $40 per copy. That's $20m. Monthly subscription is $10 approx isn't it? So those 460,000 subscribers are paying $4.6m per month. For one year that's a total of $75.2m.
The majority of movies would be lucky to make that much money from ticket sales, sell-through and TV rights combined. I'd be surprised if any book has ever made that much.
Re:Holy ridiculous comparisons Batman! (Score:1)
Re:Holy ridiculous comparisons Batman! (Score:1)
Technically... (Score:2)
Re:Technically... (Score:2)
"For the masses" means that average Joes and Janes should find the product appealing. The masses want to see the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars movies. The masses do not want to spend several hours each week pretending to be i
Re:Technically... (Score:2)
So basically, MMOGs are made to be lowest common denominator (from many aspects) to attract subscribers. Otherwise they'd boutique design it so that 4 people in the world that think it's brilliant play it until the end of time.
Re:Technically... (Score:2)
In a certain sense, i'm sure you're right that these games are made for the lowest comon denominator. It's just that it's the LCD for their target audience, and right now that target audience is relatively narrow. When they really do go for mass market appeal
comparing apples to oranges. (Score:3, Insightful)
for MMOG usage, it would be more useful to compare it to cable pay channel subscriptions, or something similar. they even use the same word, churn, to describe the turnover of subscribers.
at least with cable tv, (and i can't speak authoritatively for the current market with dish tv etc.) there used to a certain point at which the growth curve would basically almost flatten for pay services, and then you would just watch *who* was subscribed change- churn.
there is always going to be that psychological barrier to monthly service cost, i think. it somehow seems more of a fact than paying a once yearly fee, ala the xbox live setup.
furthering the difficulty of comparison is the fact that new MMOGs do come out further diluting the percentages. and you're also competing with the market for the largest MMOG setup there is, live chat in myriad guises. (and for some people it's even a RPG. heh)
all in all, especially when you take into account the top level of subscribership that exists in places like Korea, i would think the market is pretty healthy, and even if it doesn't double, it's still pretty substantial for interactive entertainment.
Poor comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
1) People like convenience. Pick it up, put it down, easy access, portable. CDs and books qualify under all of these, games decidedly don't.
2) People have such differing social desires at different times. I may want to play a single player game now, a MUD/Massively Multiplayer game later, then finish off with some PvP Starcraft with my roommate. Music and movies offer this kind of multilateral socialism, a single game usually doesn't.
3) Access...let's face it, computers are still pricey and not widely available. A CD (as outrageously priced as they are) is less than half of a new game, not including the monthly subscription that comes with many commercial MMORPGs. A book is similar. Both have user interfaces that an 8 year old can figure out on his first attempt. Computers aren't like that.
It's an unfair comparison. Though, I will say, I played the Sims Online for about 3 months and thought that with a few tweaks it would be the closest thing we had to a universally accepted game. It drew it guys, girls, kids, adults, seniors. Something for everyone, from decorating to competition to sociallizing. It just got old eventually, and I'm not sure I could suggest what they needed to add.
MMORPGs are more problematic because developers inherently want a theme and a role for the character to play, but in doing so they alienate a good portion of the population.
--trb
Level the field (Score:1)
However, if one were designed such that the time spent was not as critical for the enjoyment of the game, I would expect it to appeal t
what will it take? (Score:2)
I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and I still haven't even tried one of these MMOG's. WHile I'm sure that the experience is rewarding, there just isn't
The Real MMRPG (Score:1)
The idea of a game which requires you to spend countless hours with only moderate rewards in order to progress your avatar slowly along a path with no real end whilst building useful skills and friends along the way, that reminds me of another "MM-RPG" the mass markets already engage in droves: Real Life!
Who can afford a monthly fee for games? (Score:1)
Re:Who can afford a monthly fee for games? (Score:2)
Time-wise, however, is a completely different story, and I'd agree. I don't have the time or the energy to devote to a MMORPG like I used to (I had a character on Everquest with over 90 *days* playtime. I know that's not "hardcore", but that is still a lot of time). More importantly, after seeing how many bugs the game had (mostly in quests), and seeing that none of them were fixed after repeated
"Mass-Market" means "Fun for Casual Players" (Score:1)
For one thing, it takes a significant investment of time to move up from stabbing rabbits or whatever to doing anything remotely interesting. What's up with that? Why should I have invest ten hours in a game before I can start having fun? I want to have fun right now. Even if it's cosmet
Re:Sims Online and the /. crowd (Score:1)
what is the mainstream? (Score:3, Interesting)
What's really odd is that they even mention NC Soft and their billing methods for an upcoming game. But no mention of the game that has a subscriber base an order of magnitude larger than Everquest... guess that would go against the hypothesis and require an actual analysis of how and why the Korean market is different than the western/American market.
Reasons masses don't want MMOG (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think of lots of reasons EQ-style games don't enjoy wider appeal...
I could ramble on, but I think I've made my point. For people with a lot of time, few interruptions, a good attention span, and a desire for a strongly immersive game, MMOG are good. But for the masses, I don't see one gaining that much appeal, unless it deviates drastically from the EQ formula for success.
Re:Reasons masses don't want MMOG (Score:1)
What they really want... (Score:1)
Remember Planetarion? (Score:1)
Oh well... Nostalgia. I for one love MMOGs, especially MMORPGs--but don't devote my life to them...
The Sims Online (Score:2)