Raph's Rants
Longtime TN reader and Second Life resident Kolby Granville points us to recent musings of Raph Koster on the subject of MMORPG design. Fine material from a top thinker.
Posted by Edward Castronova on March 1, 2006 | Permalink
« Leaky Faucets | Main | Far East News »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5074/4363752
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Raph's Rants:
» evolving virtual worlds from Tales of a Scorched Earth
In hindsight, David Sirlin's seemingly harsh remarks about what World of Warcraft offers the MMORPG scene could be considered flame bait - they certainly caused enough of a stir within the games community. I think the important point he brings... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 4, 2006 12:17:58 AM
» Dirk's 50 help Mavs take 3-2 lead on Suns from night, scoring
on the losing end of a 117-101 game. Nowitzki's 50 pts tied Kobe Bryant for this postseason's game [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 10, 2006 6:25:03 AM
» POLITICS: Government's Argument for Wiretapping So Airtight it's Circular! from says that because
operates, from the beginning it has searched to increase its own authority at the expense of that [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 12:30:59 PM
» Challenges To Improving Adolescent Nutrition In Bangladesh And Tanzania from has been conducted
research has been conducted on child and adult malnutrition in developing countries, there are only [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 1, 2006 11:26:35 PM
Comments
I think the MMOG he's talking about is this one:
http://pong.flash-gear.com/
Posted Mar 1, 2006 12:52:50 PM | link
"Lone heroes can’t slay dragons"
Noob, can't kite?
Sounds like a demand for more processing power than anything else.
Posted Mar 1, 2006 4:00:47 PM | link
I do find it somewhat ironic that this of all posts is the one that Terra Nova picks up on. :) Of course, it's been picked up everywhere else... but I would have rather seen discussion of recent posts like defining single-player vs multiplayer and what that means for MMOs, the lengthy essays on "trust" and what it means in a virtual setting, the disucssions of creativity versus iteration, and so on. You know, beardy stuff. ;)
Posted Mar 1, 2006 5:46:56 PM | link
That trust discussion was spectacular, Raph
Posted Mar 1, 2006 6:42:57 PM | link
I'll bite.
Sounds like a demand for more processing power than anything else.
Processing WHAT?
Posted Mar 1, 2006 7:36:22 PM | link
The beardy stuff takes effort, and for what? Just to have it dismissed in seconds as junk? I spent a month pounding this thing out of my skull and only three people will read it, and the only thing any of them will focus on is where they think I was obviously wrong?
Short and pithy statements fill the more popular need for simple answers. Right? Wrong? Who cares -- simple declarative statements are all that matter.
Sigh.
Sorry; it's just that sometimes I wish the beardy stuff were more respectable. I don't disagree at all with the content of Raph's "lessons of MMORPGs" essay (I agree strongly with most of those points), and if the chunked presentation helps those good ideas stick, great. There's room for simplicity.
I'd just like to see the deeper stuff get the attention it deserves, too. I don't always understand it, but what's wrong with having to work a little bit now and then? Why is anything intellectually serious automatically treated as suspect?
Ah, well. It's a world of Achievers and Manipulators, and we Explorers and Socializers just live in it as best we can.
--Bart
Posted Mar 1, 2006 7:53:33 PM | link
Bart,
There are those of us playing the role of RW "achievers" who truly respect those in the "explorer" role. We even truly enjoy reading their thought provoking works. Although we may not always express ourselves eloquently, and we have a bad tendency to simplify and practicalize (not to mention mangalize the language), we do understand that there would little worth achieving without the bold exploration which has gone before us.
--Randolph
Posted Mar 1, 2006 10:13:38 PM | link
Given that Raph is Chief Creative Officer at SOE, and that all his comments apply just as much to SOE's virtual worlds as to anyone else's, one of the following observations must be true:
1) We can expect the next wave of SOE virtual worlds to be original, immersive, believable and imaginative.
or:
2) SOE employs Raph primarily to stop someone else from employing him.
Richard
Posted Mar 2, 2006 7:33:55 AM | link
I'd love to comment on the trust essays, but you owe us another 3 or 4 before they're complete :)
Posted Mar 2, 2006 7:42:37 AM | link
WoW hits 6 million, SOE continues to go down in flames, and the MMO bloggers still find the time to worship at the altar of Raph Koster.
/bitch-slaps self
Nope.
Not dreaming.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 8:36:47 AM | link
Richard, Stormgaard, those who are stifled may use the net as an outlet for creativity. Their employers won’t benefit, but this community certainly does. That being said, no matter what one’s position in an organization, no disease is so tragic as slavery’s slow poisoning of the soul. I hope Raph, and all of us, avoid that.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 10:47:39 AM | link
There's only one more trust piece to come, and it's started, I just haven't finished it.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 1:06:59 PM | link
I'd love to comment on the trust essays, but you owe us another 3 or 4 before they're complete :)
He still hasn't talked about LambdaMOO...
Stormgaard's post
1) You know, an old friend of mine used that name... you wouldn't happen to be called Lisa, would you? No offense meant if you're not even female; I really did have such a friend.
2) I really cannot understand why people continue to persist in thinking that a single person remains responsible for Bad Things In The World. Nothing on the scale of a corporation is ever the fault of a single person; there are too many things involved.
Richard's post
Nowhere in that linked post did I see a recommendation for how a MMORPG should be.
It would be a really stupid MMORPG if the birds migrated to and fro Because Raph Said They Should. Or if military manuevers ambled at a casual pace across the landscape because people ZOMG have to stop and smell the roses... always! (My l33tspeak sucks...)
Posted Mar 2, 2006 1:16:20 PM | link
I read that.
Missed "You need a credit card."
Posted Mar 2, 2006 1:34:49 PM | link
Who's blaming Raph for everything? I just don't get the Koster worship.
I mean I DO and I don't.
I DO understand that there are a large number of people in the MMO industry that hate WoW because it's a traditional MMO. They resent it because they believe it's so successful it's going to "Hold back true revolutionaries" like Koster.
I don't understand the pointy-headed, myopic, navel-gazing that can't translate into anything of creative or commercial success. Sony buys up useless game, after useless game to make up for the fact they can't put anything decent out on their own - all the while their cheif creative director asks such burning questions as "Are MMORPG's Games" on his website.
OOooh!! My tummy's all in knots!! I can't wait to read the 2 hour circle-jerk that comes out of that mind-bender!
Posted Mar 2, 2006 1:57:13 PM | link
I guess I wonder whether even a Chief Creative Officer gets to make all the design or business decisions at a large entertainment corporation.
Who here is spending more time putting Raph on an altar -- those who think he makes some interesting design points on his personal blog, or those who describe him as personally responsible for every bad thing that happens to/at SOE?
--Bart
Posted Mar 2, 2006 3:34:31 PM | link
I think I appreciate the fact that Raph has a lot of experience in this arena and his opinions are interesting and therefore worthwhile to me.
The same can be said for the many other people here and in other forums who are deeply involved in this field.
Stormgaard, I LIKE reading what Raph and others have to "say". I don't necessarily agree with it all, and looking forward to their opinions on something does not mean that I "worship" them as you say.
In fact, I find some of the most interesting discussions occur when I DON'T agree with one or another poster.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 3:59:15 PM | link
"I'll bite.
Sounds like a demand for more processing power than anything else.
Processing WHAT?"
A quarter of the things he is lamenting is simply down to lack of computer power and resources. Tides going in and out, things going in season and out of season, things having families, birds migrating, having mobs invade cities, having extinguishable species, creating art in the world, having children, technological progress and species advancing, having different bodies.
Every coder and artist would love to include that stuff, but time processing power don;t really allow it.
I'd say another quarter of the lament is not pratical gameplay. THe rest is inaccurate in my experience and is quite a deliberately narrow view based on the players possibly limited and negative experience.
For instance there are always guilds who do not require reference or credentials, there are ways to accomplish big feats on your own. There are ways to earn respect in the community without being a killer. Inventing is completely possible. Everyone is not beautiful. Charity is not impossible. Robbing the dead is not the only way to make money.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 4:09:13 PM | link
Lol, okay so I just read more of his website and he doesnt limited experience. I take that back.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 4:15:30 PM | link
Why do people take MMORPGs so seriously? They are games with the required structures and rules to make them playable they are not simulations any more than Bridge.
So I drove into this town and talked to a man I had never met before. He said a family had moved into a house near the lake. They were fishing near his favorite spot. He offered me a pair of town jeans and $20 if I would kill them all and bring back their heads.
Of couse I took the deal.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 5:38:36 PM | link
I don't understand the pointy-headed, myopic, navel-gazing that can't translate into anything of creative or commercial success.
This is an academic field, newer than most, probably, but nevertheless like any other.
Just because it's being made important via money doesn't mean it has to translate into creative or commercial success to be worth doing. A lot of incredible breakthroughs began as a theory in the back of some vagrant's mind. He floats a kite up into the sky with a key attached to it... or there's this strange idea that a ruler's power derives from the consent of the ruled... or that, if nothing affecting something, it won't move...
I like Raph because he thinks about these things, talks about what he thinks, and then responds when people disagree with him. It makes it an educational experience to merely browse his site. If that's worship, then universities are temples.
A quarter of the things he is lamenting is simply down to lack of computer power and resources.
Which MMORPG tried it and got swamped with lag because they didn't have the power and resources to handle it?
Posted Mar 2, 2006 6:37:39 PM | link
A quarter of the things he is lamenting is simply down to lack of computer power and resources.
Which MMORPG tried it and got swamped with lag because they didn't have the power and resources to handle it?
Just because it hasn't been tried on such a scale does not mean the constraint is non existent. I have little doubt that these notions could be implemented. I also have little doubt that they are not economically justifiable at present. As discussed in previous threads, technology and technique are not yet to a point (in gaming at least) to enable such a dynamic world platform. The implied software design issues alone are significantly beyond the justifiable skillset cost for the industry.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 6:50:57 PM | link
Amazing how random threads can turn into referenda on, well, me.
I do have to point out that the myopic navel-gazing, on the titles I worked on, has led to, I dunno, maybe a half billion dollars in revenue. Small change, I realize, compared to what WoW is going to pull in. My bad. :P
Posted Mar 2, 2006 7:49:26 PM | link
I don't intend to attack you personally Raph - but you are the best example of what is basically a Cult of Personality in this industry.
You have a long resume, but no solid track record of success. Ultima online was a Garriot Brothers creation you helped transition to an online game, Star Wars Galaxies was a half-baked hodge-podge of all your theories put into one basket (now the game is completely dead), and there is zip, zero, nada on the horizon at SOE to give anyone the impression that there's still a place called hope. You have your position because the people at Sony have made the mistake of choosing heady, new-age, internet philosophy over genuine, God-given talent - and now they are paying for it. As much as you have made, you are now losing, and will continue to lose.
It's not about money either - I'm still waiting for something on the creative level of EVE Online or ATID to come out of these vacuous meanderings. There is nothing. There is essentially what is the MMO Gaming Industry's version of "Chicken Soup For the Soul". A lot of cute, pithy observations totally devoid of substance. It makes the people who follow you as an industry personality feel good, and smart, and special, and important - but that's about it. They have zero impact on the growth and evolution of MMORPG's or the marketplace.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 10:23:40 PM | link
Oof. I don't think there's anything I can really say in response to that, so I won't bother.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 10:33:41 PM | link
I understand full well how unaccustomed you are to hearing criticism. There's no point in my hammering my points any further.
We'll just sit back and see where you and SOE are in a few years. :-)
Posted Mar 2, 2006 10:53:56 PM | link
I'm not sure I'd use the wild success of WoW as a reason to invalidate Raph or his points.
Perhaps the lesson to take out of this is that many people often like what is bad for them, frequently indulging in bad things to excess.
But, wait, thats not exactly news about human nature is it?
I personally relish every recent news report that chocolate might actually not be that bad for me.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 11:05:36 PM | link
Oh, please. Now THAT really is ridiculous. Unaccustomed to hearing criticism?
No, I didn't reply because there isn't any way to reply without sounding bad. :P If you have actually looked at my track record objectively, and still think it's worthless, then there's nothing I can say to persuade you. *shrug*
Posted Mar 2, 2006 11:15:43 PM | link
Ultima online was a Garriot Brothers creation you helped transition to an online game
Lord knows I agree and disagree with Raph on a regular basis, but man, that's just not true. Or accurate. Or you know, nice. Raph (and many others) built UO on the Ultima foundation, but it was a far cry from any of the single-player Ultima games.
FWIW, I thought Raph's lament was perceptive, though it does sadden me that someone in his position has to say such things publicly rather than advancing the state of the art with games that don't fall prey to these old tropes. But maybe SOE will yet do so. Or maybe original IP of that level isn't for them and someone else will.
Two other comments: this is a strange industry with odd economics. It's not at all hit-driven as most people think -- most professional MMOs were (and continue to be) profitable long before WoW came along and made us all fashionable. As for cults of personality... yeah, our industry fosters that corrosive poison more than a little. Some handle it more gracefully than others.
Finally, it needs to be said: until you've been in the trenches doing this, you can't possibly know what's involved either for a small startup or a big corporation. Playing these games gives you as much knowledge of making them as sitting in seat 58B does of how to pilot a 747. Maybe less.
Posted Mar 2, 2006 11:28:47 PM | link
Look - if Raph can position himself to avoid taking any of the blame when SOE comes down like the Hindenburg good for him. I saw a couple statements to the effect of "You can't blame a single person for all the bad things in the world" and "Raph doesn't get to make all the decisions". He's obviously having some success maintaining his reputation in the professional community despite the fiasco that is SOE.
I'm a practical man. I understand basic human survival. If he can pull it off I applaud him. Just don't expect me to buy into the hype and keep from calling it when I see it.
As far as "What I know" or (more cynically as it's being put) "What I'm capable of knowing" - I do know this - I've been gaming all my life, and the older I get the more I realize that it's an art, not a science.
Take a step back from gaming for a moment. Stop thinking about games, as we have a tendency to do, in cold and rational terms. Think about something else which is much more emotionally accessible and interpretive. Think about music.
Let’s pick a band that almost everyone can agree is a “Good Band” even though there’s no accounting for taste. Consider the Beatles. Most people like The Beatles music. Even for those people who don’t, they will recognize a Beatles song almost immediately. It’s hard to argue that Lennon and McCartney didn’t have talent.
Now lets pick a band that most people would think sucks – the Back Street Boys for instance. Sure they can hold a tune – but talent? On the level of Lennon and McCartney? Nope. Not a chance.
From this point on Talent will be one of the biggest determining factors in the success of any given MMORPG. When you see a screenshot from WoW you know it’s WoW. When you see a screenshot from Eve Online you know it’s Eve Online. When you see a screenshot from Chronicles of Spellborn you know it’s Chronicles of Spellborn. You can’t create the artistic talent reflected in those games with polygons, pixel count, or realism. You can’t replace the musical talent in those games with a movie soundtrack. You can’t substitute the depth and beauty of the lore created for these games with player created events. In order for a MMORPG to be a true success it has to have genuinely talented and inspiring artists working together to bring it to life – just like in any other artistic endeavor.
And that’s exactly what MMORG’s are to a huge degree – artistic endeavors. Blizzard makes good games because they have God-given, genuine, creative talent. In the same way The Beatles made great music, Blizzard makes great games.
Koster, and others like him, can come up with all the laws, theories, platitudes, conjectures, and paradigms they want to - they'll never capture the magic the artists at Blizzard have.
It's called Talent. You either have it or you don't.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 12:00:06 AM | link
Richard Bartle wrote: Given that Raph is Chief Creative Officer at SOE, and that all his comments apply just as much to SOE's virtual worlds as to anyone else's, one of the following observations must be true:
1) We can expect the next wave of SOE virtual worlds to be original, immersive, believable and imaginative.
or:
2) SOE employs Raph primarily to stop someone else from employing him.
Or, 3) SOE has realized that research may be important to it in the future, and is effectively starting a MMORPG research group, much as AT&T (Bell Labs), IBM, and Microsoft have research groups. This doesn't necessarily mean that the research group has produced anything useful for SOE product groups, or that SOE product groups pay attention to the research group.
Stormguard wrote: I don't understand the pointy-headed, myopic, navel-gazing that can't translate into anything of creative or commercial success. Sony buys up useless game, after useless game to make up for the fact they can't put anything decent out on their own - all the while their cheif creative director asks such burning questions as "Are MMORPG's Games" on his website.
1) There is a strategic reason for "buying useless game after useless game". While I'll admit that many MMORPG companies are being very stupid, the decisions that SOE has been making have definite purpose behind them. I won't go into details here since you seem cynical enough that you won't believe what I have to say. Find a friendly MBA and (s)he will explain what SOE is doing. I suspect that many MMORPG companies (those that are thinking strategically) are watching SOE's acquisition of "useless games" closely and with some concern.
2) In the 70's/80's, gas (petrol) companies bought up a lot of solar/renweable energy technologies. There are two views for this: (a) It's a conspiracy to prevent solar/renewable power from taking off. (b) It reflects that gas companies didn't see themselves as gas companies, but as energy companies. When a MMORPG company asks, "Are MMORPGs really games?", it's like a gas company asking, "Are we a gas company? Or are we an energy company?" There's a big difference.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 12:55:33 AM | link
Mike Rozak>Or, 3) SOE has realized that research may be important to it in the future, and is effectively starting a MMORPG research group, much as AT&T (Bell Labs), IBM, and Microsoft have research groups.
I'd love to believe this, but how big is Raph's budget?
Richard
Posted Mar 3, 2006 5:08:38 AM | link
Stormgaard>I don't intend to attack you personally Raph - but you are the best example of what is basically a Cult of Personality in this industry.
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
If Raph's "personality cult" were the result of constant publicity or self-publicity, OK, that would be rather distasteful. If it were the result of the everyday, grinding masses looking for some role model to show that they, too, can aspire to greatness in this field, OK, well that would be understandable (albeit a little sad).
There's more to it than this, though. The thing is, Raph is held in esteem not only by people who may see him as a token of their dream future, but he's also rated as world class by his peers. In other words, other designers (myself included) hold him and his views in the greatest respect.
If you don't believe there's art in virtual world design, I guess you wouldn't really get why Raph is lauded at this level. If you are a designer, and you can read what a virtual world designer is saying through their designs, then Raph is just so obviously a great designer that there's no question he deserves his status. It's not a cult of personality, it's a recognition of talent. This is how all arts work: sure, people like Beethoven because of the melodies, but composers like Beethoven because, hot damn, it's brilliant the way his does that!
If there were a Society of Virtual World Designers, and it had a hall of fame, Raph would be its first inductee - not because of any cult of personality, but because he deserves it.
>Ultima online was a Garriot Brothers creation
Oh, so you're happy to believe cults of personality that come from self-publicity, rather than ones that come from merit? Maybe if this wasn't a public forum I'd explain how come one of UO's most crucial and popular, defining features came to be implemented in spite of, rather than because of, the Garriots' influence.
>you helped transition to an online game, Star Wars Galaxies was a half-baked hodge-podge of all your theories put into one basket
The design was sound. The problem was, SWG was launched 18 months too early, so much of what should have been there wasn't.
>You have your position because the people at Sony have made the mistake of choosing heady, new-age, internet philosophy over genuine, God-given talent - and now they are paying for it.
I think everyone else is paying for it, given that Sony appear content to use Raph as a figurehead. If someone were to give him $30m to develop what he wanted with, 5 years later you'd be eating humble pie. The Internet itself was created by heady, new-age philosophers, remember.
>A lot of cute, pithy observations totally devoid of substance.
There's a difference between pithy observations devoid of substance in an absolute sense, and pithy observations that are devoid of substance because you don't have the wit to understand what's being said.
Richard
Posted Mar 3, 2006 5:39:14 AM | link
Sheeeee-it Bartle! Look who just stepped off the smart-wagon! I can't possibly be educated enough to talk to you or even understand fancy stuff like this!
But I do understand results. World of Warcraft is more than just a game now, it's a world-wide phenomenon. More than that it's a traditional MMO - the kind you brilliant, witty people look down upon and villify. It's pretty plain by now who is getting their ass kicked and who isn't. It doesn't take an MBA to see that SOE is trying to fool the market into thinking it's still a powerhouse by buying up every toothless hooker on the block.
And Bartle, last time I checked it's been over 10 years since Raph's had any positive impact on the industry, he's probably see 30 million go under the bridge since then, and was handed the Star Wars license on a silver platter.
Oh, but I forgot... you can't blame one person for all the bad things in the world, and he can't make ALL the decisions at SOE can he?
Hot air may make you feel better and take up a lot of space on this blog Bartle, but it don't mean jack in RL. If anyone at SOE had any genuine talent SWG would be sitting where WoW is now. If Raph had any professional integrity he would have seen long ago what a bag of snake-oil salesmen the people at SOE were, and would have left on general principle for better people to work with.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 6:43:44 AM | link
And no the internet wasn't invented by philosophers - it was invented by the US Military.
Damn. And I'm the one who's dumb! :P
Posted Mar 3, 2006 7:38:58 AM | link
An observation from years of internet use: The constructive opinions of people who you may not agree with are more useful than flames and personal attacks.
Personally, I find a lot of Raph's comments and ideas on his site and elsewhere interesting as food for thought, and he produces them with consistency. He's already on my bookmarks list, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with SWG, SOE or any self promotion.
Anyway, I found the some of the points in the rant interesting, and they reminded me of some of the ideas I'd been toying with.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 8:19:43 AM | link
Oh please stop. Now on top of being dumb I'm just flaming.
Pointing out SOE's lack of creative and commercial success and suggesting that Raph's is partly to blame for their failure is an objective opinion backed up by facts and some pretty decent reasoning - it's not flaming.
But perhaps that IS why a traditional MMO like WoW is succeeding where so called "Progressive" models are not. You guys have spent so much time in your ivory tower reinforcing your own belief systems without any real criticism to deal with that you don't even recognize it when it approaches you.
Maybe if you got your hands dirty and paid a little more attention to facts on the ground you'd see some real "Progress".
Posted Mar 3, 2006 8:33:51 AM | link
I thought the list items about beauty were a pretty depressing insight into the MMO experience.
I read the list before reading the comments here... and I didn't know who the author was. Am I still part of the cult of personality? ...
Posted Mar 3, 2006 9:24:07 AM | link
"And no the internet wasn't invented by philosophers - it was invented by the US Military."
Id point out that the internet wasnt invented by the "millitary" but rather Vinton Cerf and ARPA. Was it funded by the Department of Defense? Yes. Invented by the millitary? Not so much. I appologzie in advance for providing details, as I understand they are of little interest to mouthy WoW fanbois.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 9:30:53 AM | link
Now on top of being dumb I'm just flaming.
Well yeah, you are pretty much just flaming. To put it bluntly, you're talking about things you appear to have no experience or knowledge of as if you do, offering no evidence for your opinions, and denigrating the accomplishments of others as well -- without, I think, having provided any of your own.
I'm not sure on what basis, for example, you say SOE is commercially unsuccessful. I'm not a huge fan of SOE or their games myself, but it's difficult to say that they're commercially unsuccessful. As for creativity, well, let me know when your game comes out.
You also keep comparing WoW to other games as if it was the only successful one, and for some reason assume that others here don't play it, enjoy it, or acknowledge it (if you read here a bit you'll see that that's hardly the case). WoW is a true breakthrough phenonemon in the market, no question. But its tremendous commercial success does not mean that other games were unsuccessful. As I said before, most professional MMOs have been profitable. And the profitability of these games has little to do with them being "progressive." Do you have examples of what you even mean by that, or how these "progressive models are not" succeeding? To my mind, we're sorely lacking in actual progressive MMOs, but that's a different topic. There are many factors in play for WoW's success ranging from the worldwide development of the market separate from any single game to Blizzard's design, art, and marketing decisions.
You seem to assume as well that all successful MMOGs from now on will follow WoW's market model, and anything else is unsuccessful. That's wrong on so many levels I don't have time or inclination to hit them all -- suffice it to say that MMOs as a combination of design, technology, service, and market are changing and expanding into new niches rapidly. But it's interesting and ironic to me that whereas a little over a year ago SOE's Everquest was the juggernaut of US-based games with its unbelievable 450,000 subscribers ($80M in annual revenue ain't chickenfeed), now with WoW's millions the putatitve success bar has been raised: before WoW's release many thought a million-selling MMO wasn't possible; now if you're below that you're somehow unsuccessful and untalented, at least when viewed from the cheap seats.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 9:37:06 AM | link
You guys aren't even bothering to read my posts now. Show me something Koster and/or SOE has had a hand in recently, or will have in the near future, that is a creative OR commercial success. Trying to change my argument to make me sound dumb isn't going to work either. There's nothing - not in the past few years or on the horizon.
The idea that WoW raised the bar is a nice one, but what's probably closer to the truth is that it exposed a pre-existing market that SOE was unable to capitalize on.
And using the argument that I because I don't make games I can't possibly have an opinion that is worth anything is a cop out. Try slinging sh*t at your computer monitor next time. It's just about as effective.
WoW Fanboy? Yeah I like WoW - but I hate what SOE is doing in the marketplace even more. They squander enormous resources, reward incompetance, and now - because they have failed so spectacularly of late - have the arrogance and audacity to go buying up a bunch of smaller games without regards to their quality or pontential in order to cover up that fact.
Take the red pill plz.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 9:53:14 AM | link
Do Not Feed The Energy Creatures.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 10:04:56 AM | link
Lol! It's like they're the damn Borg or something. Or some twisted version of Voltron. They can't compete directly with Blizzard so they are swallowing up a bunch of smaller games to try and build some big, conglomorate entity, add up all the numbers from that, and call it success.
You'd think their "Chief Creative Officer" would, oh, you know...
...simply come up with a "Good Game" to play.
That's too "Inside the Box" thinking for you guys though I know. I'll go back to eating my cheese burgers and watching my professional wrestling.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 10:06:01 AM | link
Stormgaard>Sheeeee-it Bartle! Look who just stepped off the smart-wagon!
Yes, that would be me.
>I can't possibly be educated enough to talk to you or even understand fancy stuff like this!
I don't have a background in music. I listen to music, and I know what I like, but I don't have the same kind of critical faculties that composers do from having worked at composing day in, day out, for years. It would be very naive of me to think that just because I listen to the results, I'm some kind of expert. I'm not - not compared to the composers, anyway.
This same peer recognition thing works across many industries. Those who are best at their job influence those who are up-and-coming, all the way down to the customer. Top chefs cook only for gastronomes who understand the vocabulary of cooking, whereas you and I only go for what we like the taste of, and yet what we buy in the microwave section at the supermarket is directly influenced by them. The same general principle applies to clothes, books, architecture, pop music, movies, computer games, ...
Being an expert player doesn't make you an expert designer. You can talk to designers about this, and you can make some effort to understand what designing is about. You can do some designing yourself. When you've done enough, you can then go and look at what Raph has said, in the light of your new knowledge, and you'll then perhaps understand why other designers listen to him.
>But I do understand results. World of Warcraft is more than just a game now, it's a world-wide phenomenon. More than that it's a traditional MMO - the kind you brilliant, witty people look down upon and villify.
Hey! When have I looked down on WoW? You just assume I do because you can't conceive that I wouldn't. I'm all in favour of WoW - it has some very nice design elements to it and they all fit together in a coherent whole. The way that classes hang together, if classes are what you want in a virtual world, is particularly sweet.
>And Bartle, last time I checked it's been over 10 years since Raph's had any positive impact on the industry
You must have checked over 10 years ago, then.
>Oh, but I forgot... you can't blame one person for all the bad things in the world, and he can't make ALL the decisions at SOE can he?
My concern is that he doesn't get to make many at all.
>If anyone at SOE had any genuine talent SWG would be sitting where WoW is now.
How refreshing it is to see such blind faith in the ability of creative people to get business managers to buy into their vision.
The suits who run these corporations are necessary, because where else are you going to get the money to develop a large-scale virtual world? Even if they keep out of the creative process, though, the developer has to work to their parameters. When EQ2 was greenlighted, the marketing types did their due dilligence and concluded that what they wanted was EQ1 with better graphics, better gameplay, a costly differentiator from potential competitors (which came in the form of hours of voice acting) and the EQ brand. This therefore set the business parameters within which the designers were set to work. The designers duly went about creating what they had been asked to create, and the project was delivered reasonably to spec. What SOE didn't know at the time, however, was that Blizzard was going to develop a visually more appealing product with clean gameplay set in a universe rich in story.
EQ2 had the second-best launch of any virtual world except WoW. If WoW hadn't been written, I don't think EQ2 would have got the 5 or 6 million players that WoW has, but I'd have expected it to break 2 million. It's not a bad game: it's very well engineered, but it lacks flair in the eyes of people who aren't steeped in EQ1 lore (which is most of us). WoW's flair is far more obvious.
There are some very talented people working on EQ2. My admiration for Scott Hartsman, for example, knows no bounds. Your assertion that "If anyone at SOE had any genuine talent SWG would be sitting where WoW is now" is like saying "If anyone in France had any genuine talent, France would be sitting where the USA is now". There are plenty of people in France with talent, but the USA has more of them and it doesn't weigh them down in beurocracy.
>If Raph had any professional integrity he would have seen long ago what a bag of snake-oil salesmen the people at SOE were, and would have left on general principle for better people to work with.
And right now, those better people would be whom?
Richard
Posted Mar 3, 2006 10:53:45 AM | link
>This same peer recognition thing works across many industries. Those who are best at their job influence those who are up-and-coming, all the way down to the customer. Top chefs cook only for gastronomes who understand the vocabulary of cooking, whereas you and I only go for what we like the taste of, and yet what we buy in the microwave section at the supermarket is directly influenced by them. The same general principle applies to clothes, books, architecture, pop music, movies, computer games, ...
My dear, sweet man - it is this sort of ivory-tower litism that has caused SOE to fail, keeps it from succeeding, and has allowed the truly practical, open-minded, and creative geniuses at Blizzard to detonate what is the equivalent of the Atomic Bomb in your Terra Nova. Personally I wouldn't keep putting much more faith in this quaint little world view you have.
Moreover the fact that all it takes is a simple gamer (like me) to spot the problems with Koster & SOE's approach is a testament to just how simple, basic, and fundamental their problems are.
>Hey! When have I looked down on WoW? You just assume I do because you can't conceive that I wouldn't.
Perhaps not YOU personally - but I can hit the broad side of a barn. It's no big secret that the traditional class/level/grind system isn't very popular with this set.
>How refreshing it is to see such blind faith in the ability of creative people to get business managers to buy into their vision.
Ahhh YES! It's all Big Business' fault! Burn the suits!!
Explain to me again how Blizz wound up with 6 million subscribers? Do they have better tailors?
>EQ2 had the second-best launch of any virtual world except WoW. If WoW hadn't been written, I don't think EQ2 would have got the 5 or 6 million players that WoW has, but I'd have expected it to break 2 million.
And exactly at what point do you stop making excuses for these people. It's obvious WoW unlocked a vast potential market SOE simply was unable to desite the EQ Franchise, The Star Wars name brand, and tons of captial and promotional ability. It's nice to think they could have been a contender - after so many years and so much money why aren't they?
Moreover why is it the Euro's - who you seem to be taking a stab at? - seem to be coming up with novel little indy titles like EVE Online and Chronicles of Spellborn that - in terms of creativity - wipe the floor with SOE.
I'm really having a hard time understanding where you're coming from. Unless your intent is just to make sure that no one's feelings get hurt there seems to be no genuine critique of the current state of the market place in your analysis.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 11:27:56 AM | link
Stormgaard, I think you're having a hard time understanding because you're not trying to understand. You have your opinions about the state of the art, and -- from where I sit -- your opinions are absolutely valid (and in a couple of cases I agree with you). However, you are being a bit snarky, no matter what is your cause.
I agree with some of your arguments, and while I think there's a rather more cordial way to say it, you are correct that "it is this sort of ivory-tower litism" that can get in the way of making a good product from the consumer's point of view. There are many things that can "get in the way" and if a product fails the blame falls on everyone involved in its production.
Also, please give us your definition of "genuine critique".
Posted Mar 3, 2006 12:51:00 PM | link
I am snarky - I'm not trying to flame. It's hard to talk honestly without getting colorful. It's the "Commoner" in me.
A genuine critique would acknowledge the mushroom cloud on the horizon.
With every advance in technology humans seem to go through a brief period of thinking that everything is now suddenly different because of it. Take birth control pills for example. When they were introduced in the middle of the 20th century it ushered in the sexual revolution. Everyone thought everything about society’s traditional sexual morays could be thrown out the window. You could sleep with anyone you wanted to, with as many people as you wanted to, free love, no responsibilities or attachments. None of that lasted. Sure birth control pills changed some of the ways we approach sex – but it sure as hell didn’t change everything. It didn’t change the essential human condition and the vast majority of values we had before the pill (monogamy, commitment, marriage) remain in place today.
Society went through something very similar to that in relation to the computer and internet revolutions of the 1990’s. Everybody thought that everything was now going to be different because of it. There would be no more grocery stores, no more banks, no more newspapers or magazines etc. We all know what that led to – the dot com bust. Did the internet change some aspects of our lives? Sure – but it didn’t change everything.
The entertainment industry was caught up in all of that too and went through the same sort of head trip. You heard all kinds of crazy things like people would vote on machines in movie theaters while they were watching them based on whether they wanted a happy or a sad ending. All of a sudden audience participation was going to turn everything on it’s head. Just perusing Wikipedia you get all kinds of weird ideas regarding entertainment that sound really interesting on paper – but as of yet have failed to materialize in reality to any significant degree. Passive entertainment isn’t going anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media
It was in this time frame that “Virtual Reality” and “Interactivity” became huge buzz words and everyone in every aspect of popular entertainment (Movies, TV, Games, Music) thought it would change everything. Only it hasn’t – Koster & Co. haven’t figured that out yet.
How many times do we need to hear that the traditional class/level/grind game model is at death’s door, only to see it used successfully time and time again. Indeed if this game model is so bad why does it continue to survive, and indeed thrive, in it’s paper and pencil incarnation of Dungeons and Dragons. They’ve had over 30 years to change that game if they wanted to – why haven’t they?
They haven’t changed it because it works, and is no where near as weak a model as many would suggest. WoW is as successful as it is because it is an improvement on EQ’s original model, which was an improvement on MUD’s, which were born from Dungeons and Dragons – which remains essentially unchanged to this day. What we are watching is growth and evolution take place.
What we are Not watching is a short-sighted, primitive, linear game model stumbling around the MMORPG marketplace like a bull in a china shop to the detriment of progressively thinking game developers everywhere. WoW is a stunning success and is a tremendous boon to anyone involved in making and playing MMORPG’s. This game model is no where near ready to die off and has only just opened the door to a huge potential future.
Nearly all of the ideas Koster harps on as being improvements on the existing MMORPG model are born of the faddish mindset I described above. People aren’t sitting in virtual taverns dreaming up heroic adventures because they actually want to BE on an heroic adventure. It’s a game, not a job.
While I agree that many aspects of a MMORPG should be customizable Koster makes the classic mistake of going overboard in this direction. A sandbox does not a MMORPG make. Quality story lines rely on familiar characters and places. People don’t re-read Lord of the Rings because it will have a different ending each time, they do it because they love the world Tolkein created. People don’t go to Disney World over and over again because it will be a new experience each time, they go because they love the rides that are already there. People don’t log into WoW and run the same quests again and again because it will be different monsters and treasure each time, they do it because they love the characters and places Blizzard has created.
~
Now THAT'S a critique.
And you could learn a thing or two from the commoners. I hit these blogs every day and I see all kinds of erudite questions - but you miss the most obvious. Here is the most important question everyone the MMO industry needs to be asking itself right now. Are you ready for it?
Why isn't there a decent Sci-Fi MMO counterpart to WoW?
That's it - plain and simple. Don't ask yourself why we have to have levels instead of skills, or why there aren't children in the games, or why it takes armies to slay dragons, or why walking is stupid.
EVERYONE I talk to says something along the lines of I would stab my mother in the neck with an garden shovel if they would only make a "World of Starcraft". Just a mention of the subject makes them pee their pants.
And if Blizz isn't making a top-notch Sci-Fi MMO, why the hell isn't SOE trying to make one like their G*d Damned lives depended on it?
Posted Mar 3, 2006 1:33:11 PM | link
Now THAT'S a critique.
Not really. As Wolfgang Pauli said, "it's not even wrong."
Onward.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 1:48:53 PM | link
Levity Break.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 1:52:00 PM | link
Like every developer, Blizzard came up with lots of ideas, narrowed them down to just the ones they could pull off, got some of them approved, and tried to implement them. And it worked very well this time. Blizzard is a competent and successful gaming company, but hardly the Neo of online games.
Logically criticizing SOE is one thing, and perfectly legitimate (some might say easy). Wasting time with ad hominems and insults is quite another. I would rather hear someone discuss what about WoW attracts customers that EQ2 and SWG fail to offer. From those I have talked to (granted this is anecdotal evidence, but I would say still valid), WoW's biggest attraction is that it has reduced the time cost of level-grinding, thus making an MMORPG more available to those who don't want to spend as much time on it. Any other thoughts?
Raph's post was designed to highlight the limited nature of current virtual worlds, presumably to open a dialogue about what could be done to successfully expand to fill these gaps. If you disagree with what he proposes, that's fine; please explain why. Otherwise you're just complaining about the dude you don't like.
Real discussion about how to improve MMOGs takes talent. You either have it or you don't. If you don't, please just sit back and see where Raph and SOE are in a few years.
Sounds pithy, doesn't it?
Posted Mar 3, 2006 1:55:13 PM | link
Damn dude. If your underpants get any tighter your head's gonna pop off!
Posted Mar 3, 2006 1:59:11 PM | link
So, that's a critique I can respond to.
First, I think you need to put the success of that model in perspective. Yes, it's a proven, functional model. It works very well. It does have flaws, and perhaps we dwell on them too much.
However, it is also a model with a fairly limited audience. First, drop all thoughts of 6 million from your mind -- too many distinct territories are involved. It's smarter to use a figure that applies to only the US, since it gives us something to compare against. The figure for the US is likely over a million, but I am guessing (I have no inside info on the matter) that it's less than 2m, based on the history of press releases and territory expansions by Blizzard.
For comparison, any given episode of SpongeBob Squarepants on Nick will achieve 3-4m concurrent viewers. A Seinfeld rerun will achieve 5.1m viewers. And Oprah in any given week will get more concurrent viewership (not regular viewership) than WoW has regular players worldwide.
If we want to dig into "new media," it's worth pointing out that MySpace, for example, has 54 million regular users. For that matter, virtual spaces such as Habbo Hotel have populations worldwide comparable to WoW's.
That, in a nutshell, is why things like user-content, less elves and hack n slash, and so on, are of great interest -- and not just to beardy academics. One thing we DO know is that the classes/levels/grind/fantasy thing does not cross over to larger markets except in truly rare circumstances -- you yourself cite the long history of these games.
In other words, the group of people who would stab their mother in the neck with a garden shovel for World of Starcraft is a group of a known size that would be insufficient to keep a typical bad sitcom on the air.
Now -- China's market is dominated by straightforward hack n slash games, because there's no tradition of roleplaying games there. And the amount of money that can be extracted from the hardcore gamer market (who are willing to pay quite a lot of money for their hobby) is significant, as Blizzard is demonstrating. There's definitely much to be said for refining one's approach to that market, and what Blizzard seems to have managed to do is capture a larger portion of the classic hardcore gamer market than others have.
But it's a little bit odd to be bashing attempts to discuss things beyond that market, don't you think? Leaving aside your personal opinion of me and the work I've done, do you really think that it's folly to be thinking about expanding the market?
This discussion, btw, is recapitulated writ large in terms of the game industry as a whole. It's common knowledge in the industry that reaching new markets is critical, and we see today efforts like those of the big console manufacturers (Sony included) to go beyond the current hardcore gaming market. They're all pursuing different strategies, but they're definitely all looking for ways to go outside of the levels/hack n slash/robots/elves ghetto.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 2:03:12 PM | link
Storm-
SOE may be the greatest thing since sliced bread or it may be the antichrist. The emperor may or may not have clothes.
Regardless, you are trolling at this point, intentionally or not. Take a day off, please.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 2:04:47 PM | link
Dimitri I think it's pretty obvious by now I'm not a troll. I speak in the vernacular of the peasantry, but I’m bringing some important points to the table. Even though I might call Raph a “Hippie” I think we can all agree I’m not cyber-stalking him.
Raph – in response to the first half of your response, it’s a global market-place nowadays and slicing up Blizzards subscribers into sub-regions doesn’t change the fact that it’s a revolutionary number of people. Is it “Oprah”? No. Measured against the scale of Television it’s only one small step for a MMORPG – but it’s a giant leap for MMORPG-kind.
> MySpace, for example, has 54 million regular users. For that matter, virtual spaces such as Habbo Hotel have populations worldwide comparable to WoW's.
Do either of these make as much money as WoW or Oprah? If so how can I buy shares?
> That, in a nutshell, is why things like user-content, less elves and hack n slash, and so on, are of great interest -- and not just to beardy academics. One thing we DO know is that the classes/levels/grind/fantasy thing does not cross over to larger markets except in truly rare circumstances -- you yourself cite the long history of these games.
Okay I’m lost here – first of all WoW IS crossing over into larger markets, and forgive me, but it seems like it’s doing it at a rate which suggests that this is no accident. It’s doing it at a rate which seems to imply that the market was there – ready, willing, and waiting – and Blizzard snatched it up before anyone else could.
The class/level/grind model works - that’s why D&D is still using it 30 years on. It’s accessible to a wide audience. People get it. It doesn’t take the stars aligning for this to occur. Your model - user-content, less elves and hack n slash, and so on – is the one that is the fluke. Take EVE Online for example. It’s an brilliant game but will never appeal to as many people as does WoW’s model.
Which begs the question – why hasn’t SOE come up with anything of commercial (WoW) or creative success (EVE Online). You guys are just sucking up mediocre games like the BORG. And given SOE’s track record of development and customer service I cringe to think of what you WILL do to these poor, helpless, unsuspecting saps.
> Now -- China's market is dominated by straightforward hack n slash games, because there's no tradition of role playing games there. And the amount of money that can be extracted from the hardcore gamer market (who are willing to pay quite a lot of money for their hobby) is significant, as Blizzard is demonstrating. There's definitely much to be said for refining one's approach to that market, and what Blizzard seems to have managed to do is capture a larger portion of the classic hardcore gamer market than others have.
Honestly I think this is cynical. You seem to be suggesting that people are too divided by culture for there to be any crossover. You seem to be saying that WoW has somehow “Suckered” these people in. Maybe they just get it too.
> But it's a little bit odd to be bashing attempts to discuss things beyond that market, don't you think?
Not when those things place more importance on peripheral issues, and ignore the core of what makes most RPG/MMORPG game models work for most people. You’re busy worrying power windows while the customer looking at the tires and the engine.
Again – not bashing the new age ideas here, but put it in perspective. They aren’t core to the MMORPG gaming experience for most people. If you were heading up an independent gaming coming up with something on par with EVE Online I’d have all the respect for you in the world – but you’re the Chief Creative Officer for SOE. Small fish ain’t your game.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 3:11:53 PM | link
> Raph – in response to the first half of your response, it’s a global market-place nowadays and slicing up Blizzards subscribers into sub-regions doesn’t change the fact that it’s a revolutionary number of people. Is it “Oprah”? No. Measured against the scale of Television it’s only one small step for a MMORPG – but it’s a giant leap for MMORPG-kind.
It's definitely a big step, and it's great for the whole industry. My point here is not to get confused by the aggregate numbers; looking at things territory by territory just puts a different perspective on things. The huge figures include China, but WoW's performance in China, while very good, is not astronomical or even #1. When added to the US & Europe, though, it makes for a very impressive figure.
Nor is that meant to minimize their achievement in breaking into that market, btw. That is a significant accomplishment.
>Do either of these make as much money as WoW or Oprah? If so how can I buy shares?
No idea. :)
>first of all WoW IS crossing over into larger markets, and forgive me, but it seems like it’s doing it at a rate which suggests that this is no accident. It’s doing it at a rate which seems to imply that the market was there – ready, willing, and waiting – and Blizzard snatched it up before anyone else could.
The only market where that's clearly evident is Europe, where there's a clear breaking into larger markets. In the US, however, it really isn't that clear how much growth there was, and from where it came. The best guess is that a huge amount of it came from gamers, not from truly new markets. So, new market, but a known one.
>why hasn’t SOE come up with anything of commercial (WoW) or creative success (EVE Online).
I think here you're just rewriting history. SOE has a solid track record of both, IMHO.
>You seem to be suggesting that people are too divided by culture for there to be any crossover. You seem to be saying that WoW has somehow “Suckered” these people in. Maybe they just get it too.
You're putting words in my mouth; I said neither.
There is definitely a cultural aspect to crossing over. Very few games have managed it to any degree (and I have to point out that for its time, UO was one of the ones that did manage some crossover). Succeeding isn't "suckering" someone in. But there does have to be an awareness of what the dominant modes are in given markets. A few years ago here PvP was regarded as a death knell for an MMO. Folks were out there using almost exactly the same words you are now, saying things like "people who want PvP don't get it -- it's a tiny niche market, nobody is interested, the current model is what is proven to work." History has shown that to be a shortsighted view. You use an engine versus power windows analogy -- from a design point of view, PvP is absolutely an engine-and-tires-level thing.
> not bashing the new age ideas here, but put it in perspective. They aren’t core to the MMORPG gaming experience for most people.
For most current people, is all I would say to that. A large part of my charter here at SOE is to explore frontiers. I quite agree that the home fires need tended too.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 5:33:11 PM | link
I hesitate to enter the fray here, but if I might add a bit of clarification, I believe that one of the problems here is that people are using the same word to describe two different things.
To whit, referring to "expanding the market", or "market success".
Very much like Nintendo's recent stance on "expanding the games market", Raph appears to be referring to lapsed gamers and non-gamers. How can MMO's (and virtual worlds in general) be modified to appeal to those who currently have no interest in them whatsoever? People like, for lack of a better example, your grandfather, or your milkman.
Many of these people have, for instance, no interest in violence, or perhaps no interest in progressing through numerical ranks whatsoever. Although a great many people (over 6 million, as has been cited above) _are_ interested in this, a great number may or may not be.
Stormgaard's view of "expanding the market" appears to be very similar to that of Microsoft's viewpoint, or even, if I may, to the "New Game Enhancements" of Star Wars Galaxies. These approaches seem to be more aimed towards achieving a larger number of those people who are currently interested in games in some way. The NGE offers more action and a simpler experience, perhaps allowing more action-oriented customers (likely a larger pool than stat-maximizers) to experience the product.
Similarly, the Xbox 360 controller was very similar to the existing PS2 controller, allowing many of the very large base of installed PS2 users to easily understand this new hardware. However, this does not allow users who were previously intimidated by the complexity of the existing hardware any greater access.
Note of course, that I'm not suggesting that anybody endorses any of the specific products I just described, I merely mention them to provide an example in a context that we are likely to share.
I feel that Raph's original post (and many of the responses listed here) describe what he would do to appeal to the milkmen and grandfathers. This does not imply a slander against those that are already playing existing products.
Finally, with regard to the usefulness of bearded-navel-gazing, I'd like to share a short anecdote I heard in a physics class a long time ago:
Imagine that Queen Elizabeth I called all her brightest scientists into a room and said to them, "The people seem nervous and unhappy. I'd like to set up a system whereby I could address every person in my kingdom simultaneously. I would like for them to be able to see my face, for the knowledge of the safety and calmness of their Queen would surely calm them. And I would like to be able to speak in such a way that every one of my subjects could hear me speak from their own homes."
Of course, no amount of work by her scientists, however motivated, could possibly have yielded such a system. Instead, it would take years of navel gazing, pointless thought from people like Maxwell to understand the nature of electromagnetism (for no particular reason) before this sort of this would be a possibility.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 6:06:30 PM | link
> It's definitely a big step, and it's great for the whole industry. My point here is not to get confused by the aggregate numbers; looking at things territory by territory just puts a different perspective on things.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Pie is pie, in pieces or whole as far as I’m concerned.
> The only market where that's clearly evident is Europe, where there's a clear breaking into larger markets. In the US, however, it really isn't that clear how much growth there was, and from where it came. The best guess is that a huge amount of it came from gamers, not from truly new markets. So, new market, but a known one.
You’re running a guess of 1 million domestic – even so that’s double what EQ 1 ever pulled in total. That’s still a new market even if it is gamers – it’s gamers that never wanted to play a MMORPG before.
> I think here you're just rewriting history. SOE has a solid track record of both, IMHO.
No no no Raph! You’re not gonna get away with that one! Your products may be making money but it’s embarrassing even when compared with snot-nosed start-ups like City of Heroes. In terms of creativity SWG was the closest you’ve ever come to making some of these new age ideas a reality, and EVE Online has done a much better job at it than you guys ever did.
> Succeeding isn't "suckering" someone in. But there does have to be an awareness of what the dominant modes are in given markets.
But what is more important is to have a Good Game to export. Better to be the best you can be and meet new people than it is to put on a false face in the hopes of making friends. Market studies only go so far. You have to have talented artists, musicians, and storytellers creating your world.
> PvP is absolutely an engine-and-tires-level thing.
No it isn’t. WoW could have been released with zero PvP whatsoever and it still would have millions of players. You don’t even need a study to figure that one out. Just log into the game – 90% of everyone you see is doing something other than PvP.
That’s not to say all those extra things aren’t important – but they aren’t core. Let’s talk about one core issue in particular.
Graphics in EQII are horrid. No man, really. HORRID
I saw things start going this direction in SWG – you guys going for pixel count and realism over true art. When I saw the first screens of EQII I slapped myself – it was SWG’s stiff, sterile style all over again Just another example of you guys believing you can “Think” your way out of having to rely on genuine talent.
You’re probably familiar with this phenomenon, but read it over if you want to know why a lot of people shudder when they see screens from EQII
You’re a big fan of all that “Interactive Community” sh*t right? Have you SEEN Blizzards fan art pages? They are amazing – and those people are inspired by WoW’s unique artistic style. But again – the horse came before the cart. Blizzard gave the customer some great artwork to look at while they played their games – and the players reciprocated. Your new age approach of having players “Create the Game” violates the rules of the relationship – the customer comes first. You be nice to them, and then they’ll be nice to you.
They’re like a woman – you have to chase them.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 6:19:46 PM | link
More Levity.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 6:40:00 PM | link
> You’re running a guess of 1 million domestic – even so that’s double what EQ 1 ever pulled in total. That’s still a new market even if it is gamers – it’s gamers that never wanted to play a MMORPG before.
Of course it is. And it's a huge achievement. But it's not really out of line with the history of the medium. It's right about where we would expect to be if you trendlined the market growth; each new #1 MMORPG game has in fact done a bit more than double the previous market leader.
> You’re not gonna get away with that one! Your products may be making money but it’s embarrassing even when compared with snot-nosed start-ups like City of Heroes.
*shrug* A matter of opinion, but I think the first MMOFPS counts for something, the first console MMORPG counts for something, the various innovations contained within the other games count for something... similarly, you state that SOE has no record of commercial success, which is just crazy to say.
> what is more important is to have a Good Game to export
Alas, history has shown this to be insufficient. Plenty of good games have failed to gain footholds in different territories.
> No it isn’t. WoW could have been released with zero PvP whatsoever and it still would have millions of players.
That's not my point; the point is that PvP had to be integrated into WoW at a very fundamental level. Everything in the game experience derives in some way off this choice: Horde vs Alliance is there from character creation on out, with all sorts of implications: parallel content paths, etc. Heck, as I have pointed out before, WoW's "non-PvP servers" are in fact what was called "PvP servers" until WoW came out -- very much like DAoC was considered a PvP game. In fact, they use something that is very much like a marriage between DAoC's realms and UO's PvP flagging system or SWG's TEFs.
Look, I feel like we are talking at crosspurposes here, exacerbated by your rather vitriolic initial posts. Let me state the following:
Of course a good game that looks great is the cornerstone. Of course making games for the current players and that are what current gamers want is important. Of course You have to listen to gamers. Of course you make a commitment to entertain them. Now that I agree with you on all those points, why do you see the initial post that triggered your comments as a problem? It seems to me that you feel that writing the above means less attention paid to these points. To which I can only say "they are not at all mutually exclusive."
Posted Mar 3, 2006 6:54:47 PM | link
What can I say that I haven't said already? You're getting by substituting phoney-baloney feel-good philosophy for genuine talent.
My advice? If you have any professional integrity at all ditch Sony and open up your own game studio. They are a bunch of empty, soulless suits when it comes down to it.
Spend a month looking at nothing but artwork. Pick the coolest shit you can find and hire the guy. Spend a month listening to music. Pick the coolest shit you can find and hire the guy. Spend a month reading every Sci-Fi novel you can get your hands on (if you haven't already). Pick the coolest shit you can find and hire the guy.
Then make your MMORPG. It's an artistic endeavor, not an intellectual one.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 7:41:17 PM | link
Starting a game studio is not for everyone, not by a long shot. I'd love to see what Raph could do if freed from corporate shackles, but this is life-changing decision.
And FWIW, the early concept development process is just nothing like what you've described. Maybe you should try starting your own studio sometime.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 7:58:56 PM | link
Here's some links to get started:
Posted Mar 3, 2006 8:44:18 PM | link
Good luck.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 8:54:09 PM | link
Raph wrote << shrug* A matter of opinion, but I think the first MMOFPS counts for something, the first console MMORPG counts for something, the various innovations contained within the other games count for something... similarly, you state that SOE has no record of commercial success, which is just crazy to say. >>
Going by Moby games, World War II Online, released in 2001, was the first ever MMOFPS, a full 2 years before Planetside.
Again, by Moby Games, Phantasy Star Online (as much an MMORPG as DDO or Guild Wars), released in 2000 for Dreamcast, was the first ever console MMORPG.
Sony did not have the first of either.
Posted Mar 3, 2006 9:01:50 PM | link
Oh, good point on WW2O.
PSO was not an MMO unless Diablo was...
Posted Mar 3, 2006 9:22:25 PM | link
Do you consider DDO and Guild Wars MMOs?
Posted Mar 3, 2006 10:02:50 PM | link
Stormgaard>I don't intend to attack you personally Raph - but you are the best example of what is basically a Cult of Personality in this industry.
You say that as though it's a bad thing.
If Raph's "personality cult" were the result of constant publicity or self-publicity, OK, that would be rather distasteful. If it were the result of the everyday, grinding masses looking for some role model to show that they, too, can aspire to greatness in this field, OK, well that would be understandable (albeit a little sad).
-----
I hear you. Now Ted Castronova: THERE is a cult of personality.
:D
-Jess
Posted Mar 4, 2006 2:08:30 AM | link
www.RaphKoster.com isn't self-publicity?
And if this is just a result of the masses looking for a role model, why is there no cult of personality around someone at Blizzard? Could it be because there's no www.WoWLeadDesigner.com?
Posted Mar 4, 2006 2:53:22 AM | link
>Stormgaard: Do either of these make as much money as WoW or Oprah? If so how can I buy shares?
That isn’t the correct question. The correct question should be: Do any of these make as much profit as WoW or Oprah? When you pull out the operating costs of Habbo (small) versus WoW (very large), they are probably much closer than you’d think.
>Stormgaard: Okay I’m lost here – first of all WoW IS crossing over into larger markets, and forgive me, but it seems like it’s doing it at a rate which suggests that this is no accident. It’s doing it at a rate which seems to imply that the market was there – ready, willing, and waiting – and Blizzard snatched it up before anyone else could.
> The class/level/grind model works - that’s why D&D is still using it 30 years on. It’s accessible to a wide audience. People get it. It doesn’t take the stars aligning for this to occur. Your model - user-content, less elves and hack n slash, and so on – is the one that is the fluke. Take EVE Online for example. It’s an brilliant game but will never appeal to as many people as does WoW’s model.
Blizzard crossed over into the moderate market, not the casual market. For that matter, they’ve had greater success in the West than in Asia, although their success there is nothing to sneer at, abut 2 million in the east compared to about 4 million in the west. However, the main driver for WoW in Asia is not the content, it is Blizzard’s reputation built on Starcraft and Warcraft, which were both huge hits in the East.
There are MMOs in China that have dipped down somewhat into the casual market that now have more subscribers than WoW and, when you factor in the operating costs, regional cost of living and currency exchange rates, actually make more profit, on a comparative basis, than WoW. Fantasy Westward Journey by Netease, for example.
The grind model is not accessible to a wide audience in this market, by the way, or we’d have at 10 million people playing MMOs in the West; that’s half the number of people that buy a D&D product every year, compared to 4 or 5 million total accounts, including duplicates and gold farmers, paying for MMOs in the West.
>Stormgaard: We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Pie is pie, in pieces or whole as far as I’m concerned.>
If you’re only talking about one pie, then this might be valid. However, the online gaming market is at least 3 pies, hard-core, moderate and casual, each with different needs, likes and dislikes. WoW is a well-crafted game that appeals greatly to the hard core and has an easier entry for the moderate, but the crossover of moderates into the market through WoW has been okay, but not great (in my opinion, your mileage may vary).
I have no problem with discussing what the other pies might want, so that we grab a piece of the casual pie and a larger piece of the moderate pie, which is what I read into Raph’s post, especially as the hard-core pie is the smallest of the three.
>Raph: Now that I agree with you on all those points, why do you see the initial post that triggered your comments as a problem?>
He wasn’t initially writing about your post, Raph; it all was about you, not the ideas. And it still is, frankly; obviously, anyone who doesn’t currently have the #1 game that was built on the new ideas, experience and results of 30+ years of commercial MMOs doesn’t deserve to have an opinion.
Oh yeah, by the way: You suck. Almost as much as anonymous snipers with a personal axe to grind.
Posted Mar 4, 2006 3:07:31 AM | link
Jessica you make my head hurt. You're just as bad about talking in circles, sounding smart, and not getting anywhere in the process as anyone else on this blog is. If you guys spent have as much time analyzing the marketplace and making excuses for Blizzards success as you did simply trying to make a good game you'd be where they are now.
It's only about "Raph" in that he's is the poster-boy in this industry for all the new-age thinking that is so much sugar sand under a pick-up truck's tires when it comes to genuine creativity - that plus the fact he has status at a company with enough money, power, and experience to know better.
I'm not anonymous, and I don't have a personal axe to grind with Raph - I have a personal axe to grind with A LOT OF YOU. Disagreeing with you and calling you on your bullsh*t doesn't make me a Troll. It's called criticism. Most of us in the real world have to deal with it - so deal with it.
And again - brilliant as you are - you try to change what I'm saying to make me sound dumb. I'll say this again for the hundred-billionth time for the sorcerers who didn't take the time to read through the whole debate in the first place.
If Raph were running an independent game company coming up with an indie title that was on par with the likes of EVE Online I would bow and worship at his altar too - but he's not. He's the Cheif Creative Officer for Sony.
Say this slowly Jessica so all of it fits into your head...
SMALL FISH AIN'T HIS GAME.
Posted Mar 4, 2006 9:32:49 AM | link
When you pull out the operating costs of Habbo (small) versus WoW (very large), they are probably much closer than you’d think.
I very much doubt it. Sulake (which owns Habbo) went through a VC round in early 2005 http://www.sulake.com/pressroom_releases_19012005_1.html
It is extremely unlikely the company is profitable--at least by much. Nor should it be, being in the early stages of the J-Curve. Benchmark doesn't invest in going-concerns that are operating at an efficient scale; they invest in early-stage ventures which have the potential for dramatic future growth (and liquidity for the VCs).
Blizzard is a Vivendi company, which we know is profitable from their 10K/10Q earnings releases.
Most costs related to running a MMO are not variable. They are fixed and fixed-variable. A minimum scale is necessary to reach sustained profitability above the implied discount rate (which is pretty high for game ventures given the implied risk).
Posted Mar 4, 2006 1:15:24 PM | link
So, Stormgaard, your wonderful constructive criticism can be summed up as such:
1) You (and we can apply this to anyone) suck.
2) You (probably just Raph, but it will probably be directed at anyone who hasn't) should start your own studio.
3) You (everyone but you, I'm guessing) should make a good game.
I'll wait for you to disagree before I continue. Oh, and since you're posting to Terra Nova, too, I suppose you should be taking that advice yourself?
Posted Mar 4, 2006 2:51:00 PM | link
You know for as high falootin' as you guys are I would expect some better come-backs than you guys are managing.
The best I've seen come from you guys (and it's not very good believe me) are that.
1) Blizzard isn't really all that successful because if you slice up their subscription numbers by region they look a lot less threatening in small, moderately sized chunks.
2) Stormgaard can't possibly know WTF he's talking about because he's a just a gamer – never mind the fact that 6 million OTHER gamers have decided that WoW is a much better product than anything SOE has put out and that those icky, hideous, peasanty gamers are the ones whose needs we should be keeping front-and-center to begin with.
3) Stormgaard isn't very nice to point out the fact that Raph hasn't got the mountain oysters to dump Sony and start his own game studio.
4) Stormgaard isn't very nice in general. And he's kind of peasanty.
Posted Mar 4, 2006 3:56:47 PM | link
And yes that was me. :-D
I'm the Juggernaut Bitch!!
Posted Mar 4, 2006 4:02:19 PM | link
Danked.
Posted Mar 4, 2006 4:25:58 PM | link
Dorked.
Posted Mar 4, 2006 4:37:13 PM | link
Is Stormgaard just hearing what he wants to hear? Does he not get that 99% of everyone on this site has a WoW account and likes the game?
Why is this kid trying to make it seem like everyone is cirklejerking against WoW and praising SOE? Doesn't this kid know how to read?
Posted Mar 4, 2006 6:11:44 PM | link
Lol! Yeah lots of people here coming out in defense of WoW's class/level/grind model but me.
Posted Mar 4, 2006 7:00:27 PM | link
Out of curiosity, does EVE Online have a class/level model? If they do, I haven't heard of it. But I haven't played it, either.
And I don't think WoW's class/level/grind model was the advertised perk that made everyone poof into their world. It was – get this – The Warcraft brand. The Blizzard name.
Of course, I do not know this for a fact, not having met the 4 million persons who hold WoW in abject adoration. (Though I have spoken to a fair number of people who have left WoW, because the hum-drum text MUDs were better.)
But I don't think you can disprove it. You are, naturally, welcome to try.
Or, more to the point, prove that your advice is sound. Show me your 4m subscriber game.
And consider, just consider, that the post linked at the very top of this page is equally a lament about SWG and UO as it is about any other MMORPG, like WoW.
Posted Mar 4, 2006 8:44:57 PM | link
>And I don't think WoW's class/level/grind model was the advertised perk that made everyone poof into their world.
I never said that was the selling point. Jesus you freaks don't listen. I said that was a reliable framework - a framework that gets bashed as primitive and backwards by the likes of Raph and Co. What makes it sell are the artists that created the world. You can't "Think" your way around that part of creating a MMORPG - no matter how progressive or revolutionary you think you are.
>It was – get this – The Warcraft brand. The Blizzard name.
Right. Like the Star Wars name wouldn't have done it.
> Or, more to the point, prove that your advice is sound. Show me your 4m subscriber game.
Come see the violence inherent in the system!!
Posted Mar 4, 2006 9:41:24 PM | link
Right. Like the Star Wars name wouldn't have done it.
It did. People wouldn't have been disappointed if it didn't. World of Warcraft sold on its name. And it followed through, whereas SWG never managed to. Because Blizzard had a better business model than SOE, and because Blizzard had a far better grasp of its brand than SOE and LA had on the Star Wars world. The name brought people in. The execution kept them there.
Again, I don't know this, but you seem to think you do.
Jesus you freaks don't listen.
Alright. How about we just agree you're a – pick a word – and I'm a freak? Reasonable compromise?
I'll throw out a bit of a crazy question:
What's your ideal MMO, Stormgaard? Describe it, please. If someone made available to you an infinite cash flow, if you would only make an MMO, what would it be like?
Posted Mar 4, 2006 10:08:53 PM | link