Post by Morreion on Nov 27, 2009 10:27:32 GMT -5
MMORPG.com - Victor Wachter: The Failed Game
This is an excellent article that discusses the reasons for MMOs that fail or do not succeed- and that is most of the games released in the last several years. Worth reading.
So very true- years and years of development, then running out of money and a rushed release? WTF!
Agree 100%.
Very interesting...never thought about that before.
Sounds a lot like many player's reaction to DAoC's Trials of Atlantis expansion- they took the basic successful DAoC game and made it more complex, dividing up the player community and changing the direction of the game. Many saw this as the beginning of the end of DAoC. I enjoyed the Master Levels and the various things to do in Atlantis, but it did fragment the community, which was ultimately bad. There always is a tension between keeping an MMO going and growing, and what the veteran players like about the game versus how the devs seek changes to draw others in. SWG is the ultimate disaster example of that- the NGE totally drove the core of veteran fans away and ruined the game.
Agree 110% with that!
Read the comments to the article as well, lots of good discussion there. Examples:
This is an excellent article that discusses the reasons for MMOs that fail or do not succeed- and that is most of the games released in the last several years. Worth reading.
Some games were released just plain broken as a result of bad development. Vanguard and Tabula Rasa's launches were just befuddled messes. In these cases, developers bemoan their release dates and wish for three to six months to really polish it off. To translate, they failed at project planning to identify risks and issues early and spent all of their venture capital before the game was done. They needed a cash infusion to pay salaries that they should have planned for but didn't, so they launched their broken game. One has to ask how they spent the previous five to seven years if a few months would have made such a difference.
So very true- years and years of development, then running out of money and a rushed release? WTF!
Even a good game has to struggle to succeed. To this day, I maintain that PlanetSide was one of the best things that SOE ever released. But the market didn't understand it. As one of the first massively-multiplayer FPS games, people couldn't justify paying a subscription fee when Counter-Strike servers were free. The game offered little to role-playing gamers, who we already knew were willing to pay a subscription fee. Its major design flaw was longevity. It was the best online game you ever played for 30 days, but you eventually reached a point where you had done everything and it became repetitive.
Agree 100%.
Something that doomed two of the higher profile closed games was a change in service. Both AC2 and MxO transitioned from one publisher to another and lost customers in the switch. Something that we don't often reveal in the world of subscription MMOs is that we rely on the passive customer. The best customer is the one who never logs in. They require no service and take no toll on server capacity. For whatever reason, whether they simply don't check their credit card balance closely or there is a game-related reason to stay subscribed, such as veteran rewards.
Very interesting...never thought about that before.
Can a game come back from the brink? Yes, and some have done it. EVE Online launched to mediocre subscription numbers and lingered at sub-100K subscription levels for two years, to later become one of the top MMO populations out there. Dungeons & Dragons Online recently revamped its business model to one based on a combination of traditional subscriptions or a free-to-play option with microtransactions to generate revenue. I'm not privy to the numbers behind this move, but if you can judge a population by (link: www.quantcast.com/ddo.com) web traffic stats, the game is resuscitating nicely.
But turning a game around isn't easy, and some may stand on the cusp of making a difference and still fail. I had the chance to be a part of a game revival that ultimately didn't take. In 2004, PlanetSide was struggling with its population. The game had one of the most committed communities I've ever encountered, but its subscription numbers weren't to the expectations held on the business end. However, the remaining team knew that we had something special on our hands. We dug in and did everything we could to sustain the population. Where the game's subscriptions were expected to slide continuously throughout the year, they held steady. The community even helped us through their own guerilla marketing campaigns, which didn't make the population explode, but certainly helped us stay even.
This didn't escape the notice of SOE management, and we were given another chance. Development commenced on the game's biggest update up to that time, which would be released in conjunction with the Aftershock compilation. That update contained the Battlefield Robotics (BFR's, or Big F'ing Robots), which did wonders for our press but were a source of controversy for our population. We made the mistake of introducing a mechanic that changed our game, rather than enhancing what was already special about it (and I'll be the first to say that there was a lot of goodness to check out in PS). Whether the whole idea was flawed or simply aspects of its implementation are for another debate. The end result didn't re-energize the game and brought negativity where we needed nearly universal good karma to succeed.
But turning a game around isn't easy, and some may stand on the cusp of making a difference and still fail. I had the chance to be a part of a game revival that ultimately didn't take. In 2004, PlanetSide was struggling with its population. The game had one of the most committed communities I've ever encountered, but its subscription numbers weren't to the expectations held on the business end. However, the remaining team knew that we had something special on our hands. We dug in and did everything we could to sustain the population. Where the game's subscriptions were expected to slide continuously throughout the year, they held steady. The community even helped us through their own guerilla marketing campaigns, which didn't make the population explode, but certainly helped us stay even.
This didn't escape the notice of SOE management, and we were given another chance. Development commenced on the game's biggest update up to that time, which would be released in conjunction with the Aftershock compilation. That update contained the Battlefield Robotics (BFR's, or Big F'ing Robots), which did wonders for our press but were a source of controversy for our population. We made the mistake of introducing a mechanic that changed our game, rather than enhancing what was already special about it (and I'll be the first to say that there was a lot of goodness to check out in PS). Whether the whole idea was flawed or simply aspects of its implementation are for another debate. The end result didn't re-energize the game and brought negativity where we needed nearly universal good karma to succeed.
Sounds a lot like many player's reaction to DAoC's Trials of Atlantis expansion- they took the basic successful DAoC game and made it more complex, dividing up the player community and changing the direction of the game. Many saw this as the beginning of the end of DAoC. I enjoyed the Master Levels and the various things to do in Atlantis, but it did fragment the community, which was ultimately bad. There always is a tension between keeping an MMO going and growing, and what the veteran players like about the game versus how the devs seek changes to draw others in. SWG is the ultimate disaster example of that- the NGE totally drove the core of veteran fans away and ruined the game.
Lord of the Rings Online launched in April of 2007 and as far as I am concerned, it was the last successful triple-A MMORPG launched (I think Free Realms is a good game too, but it's kind of playing a different ballgame). That means that we're coming up on three years before another MMO succeeds and we're placing a lot of hope in Star Wars: The Old Republic and DC Universe Online to bring us back to a place where we can feel good about a major game release. But I'm also hoping that past failures don't scare developers from innovating. I'd love to see another stab at an MMOFPS (which SOE has made mentions of, yay!) or even a new sandbox style fantasy game like Ultima Online back in the day.
Agree 110% with that!
Read the comments to the article as well, lots of good discussion there. Examples:
To make a long story short, I think the easiest road to success for any game is to have a successful launch. Deliver on all your advertised features on day 1. Have the hardware ready to deal with the rush of players and do not shove out huge game changing patches within the first week. The first 30 days of play will make or break the subscription base.
It's one reason why I think community relation positions should be hired when the game is announced and still in it's planning stages. Community Managers have the ability to tune into the desires of the community around the game and determine if the gamer's core expectations are matching the developer's core vision of the game. If it's not and the developers want to stick to their unique approach, serious communications with the community needs to determine if this alternate approach is going to be viable and accepted, or if it's too radical and won't float. Obviously the developer doesn't want to give away their ideas, yet at the same time they need to be sure their ideas will be accepted. If you don't want to announce this publicly then get the Community Manager to select key individuals from the community who seem to be well spoken within it. Let them alpha test your ideas and provide valuable feedback on your development. All said and done, you need your community involvement in one form or another.
