Post by Morreion on Apr 23, 2010 8:44:09 GMT -5
The State of the MMO in 2010 (Eurogamer)
Good article- read the whole thing.
Future of MMOs Overview (MMORPG.com)
The basic issue with evaluating the state of MMOs is one of breadth: the MMO moniker can now be attached to a vast array of possible experiences, from the enormous complexities of the subscription-funded epics of World Of Warcraft and EVE Online, through a host of online experiments, down to the asynchronous, essentially non-multiplayer casual games such as FarmVille. The PAX East panel didn't recognise the existence of sports MMOs - not because they'd not heard of the games, but perhaps because they didn't fit the template of what people there thought MMOs should be. They are not games built in the likeness of EverQuest or Ultima Online. They are not part of that conversation.
Nevertheless, much of what worries the MMO folks right now is the success of the quasi-MMO areas such as FarmVille, or the free-to-play or MMOs such as MapleStory which now boast millions of players. It seems as if the market is moving away from the subscription-based MMO and into a place where the model is quite different: a model of giving things away for free and then trying to persuade the player to give you any money at all, a.k.a. "micro-payments". Could it be that the internet is making everyone want everything for free? People are starting to mutter about the end of MMOs.
Nevertheless, much of what worries the MMO folks right now is the success of the quasi-MMO areas such as FarmVille, or the free-to-play or MMOs such as MapleStory which now boast millions of players. It seems as if the market is moving away from the subscription-based MMO and into a place where the model is quite different: a model of giving things away for free and then trying to persuade the player to give you any money at all, a.k.a. "micro-payments". Could it be that the internet is making everyone want everything for free? People are starting to mutter about the end of MMOs.
This point in the history of games - the era in which, if Barnett is right, "MMO" is becoming a meaningless badge - could be the start of significant change. Experimentation has already lead back to revolutions within the business model. When the most fundamental barrier to MMOs has always been that monthly sub, it makes sense to play with ways of getting around it. We're starting to see that experimentation mature: APB isn't going to have a subscription. Allods Online just landed a pretty well-developed MMO in the market for no pennies. It's going to make MMOs even more diverse, and that acronym even less precise.
Dwans suggests that these changes are going to be about diversity, too, rather than straight-up competition. "I don't think it's too much of a threat to our direct subscribers because so far the free-to-play stuff isn't quite hitting the same audience, or the same market," he says. "None of them, so far, do the same kind thing that we're doing. I also think of free-to-play games as supplementary. Since they're free, you don't have to drop your subscription to play them, you can play them in addition to the game you are paying for." But there could, Dwans believes, be another consequence of the free-to-play game: a change in player tastes and expectations.
Dwans suggests that these changes are going to be about diversity, too, rather than straight-up competition. "I don't think it's too much of a threat to our direct subscribers because so far the free-to-play stuff isn't quite hitting the same audience, or the same market," he says. "None of them, so far, do the same kind thing that we're doing. I also think of free-to-play games as supplementary. Since they're free, you don't have to drop your subscription to play them, you can play them in addition to the game you are paying for." But there could, Dwans believes, be another consequence of the free-to-play game: a change in player tastes and expectations.
Good article- read the whole thing.
Future of MMOs Overview (MMORPG.com)
Curt disagrees with the basic premise that there is such a thing as a "Free to Play" game, instead he explains that they are only "Free to Start." To Curt, it certainly makes sense from a business perspective, after all, "would you want $15 a month from 150,000 consumers, or would you rather have access to three million credit cards?" However, Curt argues it's a slippery slope and you have to know what you're doing when you design the game, as a game can be entirely ruined by an improperly executed business model. Bob added that Free to Play games are more akin to "Free to Pay" games, and that they are essentially like malls, "You don't pay to go into a mall, but once you're in there, you're coming out with bags."
Again, Paul pokes some fun at this issue, recounting the days when we paid by the minute for these types of games, and noting that we eventually went to an all-you-can eat buffet model of $15 a month. Now we're seeing the appearance of a "Vegas system," with Free to Play games, "where some people spend some money, and some people spend a lot of money." In the end, Paul feels that we'll see MMOs with business models that come in different flavors, some will be free to play, some will cost you a minimal fee, and some where "if you've got the money, and you can give it now, you can indeed buy an enormous spaceship with a big pink hat."
Following up on the F2P vs. P2P question is the sticky issue of whether what is available for purchase should be restricted to convenience items or whether players should be able to essentially buy their way through a game. Curt argues the Western MMO gamer point of view, that gamers like to be able to look at a guy decked out in Tier 9 in World of Warcraft and know he earned it. Paul disagrees, offering an example to disprove Curt's point with Tiger Woods Online. EA offered the ability for players to basically unlock everything in the game for a price, but they would be forced to wear embarrassing bunny ears on their head to denote that they took the shortcut. Instead of dissuading players from the purchase, they received feedback stating that players would gladly pay twice the amount to be rid of the bunny ears.
Again, Paul pokes some fun at this issue, recounting the days when we paid by the minute for these types of games, and noting that we eventually went to an all-you-can eat buffet model of $15 a month. Now we're seeing the appearance of a "Vegas system," with Free to Play games, "where some people spend some money, and some people spend a lot of money." In the end, Paul feels that we'll see MMOs with business models that come in different flavors, some will be free to play, some will cost you a minimal fee, and some where "if you've got the money, and you can give it now, you can indeed buy an enormous spaceship with a big pink hat."
Following up on the F2P vs. P2P question is the sticky issue of whether what is available for purchase should be restricted to convenience items or whether players should be able to essentially buy their way through a game. Curt argues the Western MMO gamer point of view, that gamers like to be able to look at a guy decked out in Tier 9 in World of Warcraft and know he earned it. Paul disagrees, offering an example to disprove Curt's point with Tiger Woods Online. EA offered the ability for players to basically unlock everything in the game for a price, but they would be forced to wear embarrassing bunny ears on their head to denote that they took the shortcut. Instead of dissuading players from the purchase, they received feedback stating that players would gladly pay twice the amount to be rid of the bunny ears.
