I've written a rant-style article on Gamasutra which posits a theory that virtual world design is doomed because of the power of the newbie. I'll present a formal, academic version at the Other Players conference next month, but in the meantime feel free to berate me.
Cory Ondrejka has already mentioned to me that I missed out another possible hope for the future, in that independence from the traditional publisher/developer model allows for greater innovation. Say what you like about Puzzle Pirates, A Tale in the Desert and Second Life, you can't call them derivative.
Richard
"Pessimist" is a label given to visionaries by those that can't accept reality. :)
I have to say I largely agree with Richard's article. My experience as an independent virtual world developer matches almost exactly. Players scream for something different (usually under the rallying cry of "we want innovation!") then actively shun any developer that tries to offer it.
I often describe my job as a developer on M59 as balancing the short-term desires of the players with the long-term needs of my business and my interest in keeping M59 running for years to come. Unfortunately, players don't appreciate the long-term view. Unpopular changes are raged against, regardless of the potential long-term benefit. The game needs to be fun *NOW*, and any game that isn't 100% fun all the time means that the designers are failed human beings in some players' eyes.
Further, for many existing virtual world players the past is rose tinted. Richard is absolutely correct in that they demand what they had in their first online world, even though they hate it. We recently announced a free month-long trial of Meridian 59. One player, after playing the game for a bit, complained that the character creation process was too open ended. He made a reference to the classes and pre-made templates found in other games. This player had troubles accepting a game that offered more freedom that to be pidgeonholed into a specific class of the designer's choice. This person likes classes because it helps them make a character easier when they're new to the game (good in the short term), but don't realize that the class-based system locks them into a role they may not enjoy in the future (bad in the long term).
The real damage this does to design is to make it so that a developer can't effectively make a game. In order to market yourself effectively, you have to differentiate your game from others. If players refuse to accept any differentiation, then it's going to be damn near impossible to make a new game that isn't just "like game X but with more short-term thinking!"
I'll respectfully disagree with Cory about the new indie games counteracting this. Let's be honest here: ATITD, Puzzle Pirates, and Second Life aren't the successes they should be. EA has closed down online games with more subscribers than these games have put together. This isn't to insult the fine designers that work on these games; I actually respect every one of them for their hard work. But, let's be careful about congratulating ourselves for being innovative when we aren't attracting that many people, in all honesty.
I still have some hope; I'm still here and still working on my own game projects, but I'm realistic about how the market works. I've seen first-hand that Richard is right, unfortunately.
So, I think the more interesting question is: How do we get out of this situation? Is there a way that we can present new virtual worlds to players without falling into the problems Richard points out?
Let me start with my ideas: I personally think that online games have to reverse their trend. I honestly think the term "massive" is a conceit and that it's distracting us from the true goal. I think the future is in niche games. Trying to offer the most watered-down content in an effort to gain that mythical "million-subscriber" status is the wrong way to do this. Pandering to a large audience like that will only ensure that you end up making no one happy. But, if you focus on providing a focused experience will allow you to make people happier. There's plenty of underserved niches out there (dark fantasy, "retro" Sci-Fi, RP-enforced to name a few) that there are lots of games to make.
Of course, this concept of serving a niche is unappealing to both existing players and existing companies. Existing players hate this concept because it threatens the superb "all you can eat $10-15/month" deals they currently enjoy; niches will be more expensive given the nature of how markets work. Existing companies hate this because it's risky and they aren't set up to exploit niches rather than appeal to the "mass market".
Here's my rants in the early morning. Sorry for the lack of berating, Richard. Try being a bit less insightful and right next time, please? ;)
Have fun,
-Brian
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Nov 04, 2004 at 07:28
As an optimist, isn't the answer to find solutions that are good long-term and short-term?
Rather than having to sell tough love to players and trying to convince them that it's in their best interests, it's much easier to say "Try it, it's different, but you'll love it."
Don't say to players that they should put up with queuing and greifing because they might make a friend they wouldn't meet in an instance, find some way to make players sharing and interacting in a single world fun. They'll have fun and make friends and there's no bitter pill to swallow.
Having spoken to a number of publishers recently I don't think they are all as conservative and risk averse as people commonly think. If I came up with a fun way to avoid instancing I think I could sell it as a feature rather than just a risk.
The challenge is to come up with those short-term good, long-term good solutions.
Posted by: Jim Purbrick | Nov 04, 2004 at 08:04
I'd pretty much have to agree on most everything I read after mulling it over a bit. I do recommend not visiting Slashdot however where some people can't see beyond the short-term game, arguing with them is like arguing with a brick wall and trying to convince it to turn into Jello.
Anyway, what about changing your game over time into a game with good short-term design to a game with good lord term design? Taking your game and slowly over time changing it so that it fits your first visions but attracts initial offerings through bad design (but something the players love). Would that set up other games to be able to adopt good design initially?
Also, is there a big list somewhere I can peruse of what you think constitutes good design/bad design, good short term/bad long term, etc? Just a big summary sheet will do :)
Raph Koster's ideas and design articles are also something I peruesed quite a while back but I find overall he doesn't really practice what he preaches in his games. It seems there's good ideas there but nothing ever makes it into his games(UO or SWG). Is this another tradeoff of good short term/bad long term or is it another force? (publishers!)
Good article overall :)
Posted by: Lee Delarm | Nov 04, 2004 at 09:37
Hmmm ... can you reconcile those two? Shouldn't we congratulate those developers for trying to implement the very change you espouse?
That said, I don't think any specific gameplay element is per se a short/long term benefit/deteriment. One needs consider the element in the context of the overall design. It may well be that you can characterize a given design as generally implementing short term beneifts that are long term detriments, but I don't think you can persuasively argue that instantiation always provides a short term benefit and long term detriment.
I think it goes without saying that EQ is a very poor implementation of Richard's "ideal" virtual world. But I've enjoyed playing since Beta ...
Jeff Cole
Posted by: Jeff Cole | Nov 04, 2004 at 10:45
Spirited (and sometimes extremely clueless) commentary available on Slashdot Games.
I had no idea there were so many MUD players reading Slash before your article.
Posted by: Zonk | Nov 04, 2004 at 10:51
One point, especially towards the social virtual worlds that I don't believe Richard accounts for. Unless all the virtual world developers are only focused on attracting newbies from existing games/worlds, the largest market for newbies have never played any of these, they don't have any 'baggage' from past experiences and represent more potential members that all the current worlds combined.
I agree that people that have spend X time playing game/world Y also demand things they miss into the next game. That said, being a former EQ addict and slowly going through all those that followed and never rekindling the early days, I have grown past that phase and now enjoy my time in "There" looking to see a different approach to socialization and entertainment. Therefore Richard maybe not have to wait a quarter century to see people move past their original bias.
I no longer demand things I liked in the past, but try and demand things that will attract those with no on-line world experience as they are the future for growth and hopefully, some will be future friends. The challenge of course is how do you stay financially viable since it's much easier to attract people from other on-line products (therefore you have keep a portion of them happy) while you go after the larger market?
Meret
Posted by: Meret | Nov 04, 2004 at 11:35
Very pessimistic indeed - like a child who's hope for a favorite toy was cancelled by Santa Claus!
In any case, it is getting more obvious that mainstream virtual world projects are not yet in mainstream news. I've got a plan and a formula in process and it will work as long as intricate players seek deeper richness from their experience, and newbie participants do not feel the "EQ Factor" (isolationism).
The real issue lies here, and it's not a hella intricate problem to solve. Put simply as possible: "People need to feel like their effort makes a difference in the world around them. However, many leading MMOG's build a static world with extraneous interactivity potential. Exploration is limited, and role playing is defined as conforming to a level treadmill that requires hundreds of hours and down-time penalties before a player can feel like they make any difference at all. Alas, they go out to discover that their experience flat-lines with thousands of other players whom already attained the same goals. I am changing this trend. I can truly say that Frontier 1859 will present a different kind of dynamic. A dynamic based upon freewill initiative, survival, and growth opportunity (but only as much as the players are willing to risk/build)."
Projects such as "Tale in the Desert" have already modeled portions of virtual world alternatives to current mainstream design models, and Frontier 1859 will equip players with the freedom and the tools to author their own experience, guiding both Emigrants and Native Americans to focus on helping or hindering each other's survival in a very harsh environment, where nothing exists until players build it or haul it in.
By this fashion, players will create their own laws (or allow lawlessness) and enforce them (or not). Communities, both Native American and Emigrant Settler will be forced to work together in order to survive (and permadeath is our model).
This is simply the next step in the evolution/revolution process in MMORPG design.
There are others working on this as well. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but it is a valid feeling.
(Take a peek at our features), and know that new technologies are finally enabling environment interaction where static persistence once sat on the throne.
In order to rebound a bit of your former optimism, I invite you to take a look at the unkowns, and the next generation of virtual world pioneers. We are here, just not in the limelight, or getting much exposure by the media.
Keep up the thought provoking stuff! Ushering in change is good.
Posted by: DBM | Nov 04, 2004 at 12:10
Very pessimistic indeed - like a child who's hope for a favorite toy was cancelled by Santa Claus!
In any case, it is getting more obvious that mainstream virtual world projects are not yet in mainstream news. I've got a plan and a formula in process and it will work as long as intricate players seek deeper richness from their experience, and newbie participants do not feel the "EQ Factor" (isolationism).
The real issue lies here, and it's not a hella intricate problem to solve. Put simply as possible: "People need to feel like their effort makes a difference in the world around them. However, many leading MMOG's build a static world with extraneous interactivity potential. Exploration is limited, and role playing is defined as conforming to a level treadmill that requires hundreds of hours and down-time penalties before a player can feel like they make any difference at all. Alas, they go out to discover that their experience flat-lines with thousands of other players whom already attained the same goals. I am changing this trend. I can truly say that Frontier 1859 will present a different kind of dynamic. A dynamic based upon freewill initiative, survival, and growth opportunity (but only as much as the players are willing to risk/build)."
Projects such as "Tale in the Desert" have already modeled portions of virtual world alternatives to current mainstream design models, and Frontier 1859 will equip players with the freedom and the tools to author their own experience, guiding both Emigrants and Native Americans to focus on helping or hindering each other's survival in a very harsh environment, where nothing exists until players build it or haul it in.
By this fashion, players will create their own laws (or allow lawlessness) and enforce them (or not). Communities, both Native American and Emigrant Settler will be forced to work together in order to survive (and permadeath is our model).
This is simply the next step in the evolution/revolution process in MMORPG design.
There are others working on this as well. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but it is a valid feeling.
(Take a peek at our features), and know that new technologies are finally enabling environment interaction where static persistence once sat on the throne.
In order to rebound a bit of your former optimism, I invite you to take a look at the unkowns, and the next generation of virtual world pioneers. We are here, just not in the limelight, or getting much exposure by the media.
Keep up the thought provoking stuff! Change is good.
Posted by: DBM | Nov 04, 2004 at 12:12
DBM, Dark Zion tried that, and got no publisher. UO tried a fair amount of that (nowhere close to all) and had to remove a lot of it. It's not a recipe for large audiences. Enforcing laws is hard work, and most people do not come to entertainment for hard work.
Discussion here at SOE has been divided on the article. I agree with most of it, I think. One of the best counter-arguments brought up to it, however, is that the games are also limiting their take-up via too much complexity--and in the face of games like WoW and CoH, both of which make a point of greatly simplifying the game mechanics, it's hard to argue that point.
I don't see the two points as contradicting each other, however.
Far too much of the discussion centers on the permadeath example--I wish Richard hadn't used it. :) It isn't a black-and-white issue... particularly once commerce enters the equation.
As far as compromising on ideals--I had a great discussion with Cory and Jim at the AGC about this, over dinner. Right now, Cory is working outside the system and I'm working from within it. The end goals, however, are remarkably similar...
Posted by: Raph | Nov 04, 2004 at 12:56
Raph wrote:
DBM, Dark Zion tried that, and got no publisher. UO tried a fair amount of that (nowhere close to all) and had to remove a lot of it. It's not a recipe for large audiences. Enforcing laws is hard work, and most people do not come to entertainment for hard work.
Why are "large audiences" required? I'm not sure why we should expect the worlds that cater to the mainstream MUD/MMOG players to be anything but kind of watered down. You see it in all other forms of entertainment, from movies to books to music, but existing right along side the mainstream products are niche products that offer entirely different experiences. So what if Puzzle Pirates or ATITD doesn't have the kind of audience that Everquest does. I don't see how that's a slight on them, in the least.
The idea that success should be equated with a moving target pinned to the success levels of the biggest products is not one that makes much sense, in my opinion. If we're going to do that, then all this argument is about is how we define a product. You can say Puzzle Pirates is the most successful PMMOG (Puzzle MMOG) and you'd be right. Similarly, you could choose to say it's one of the least successful MMOGs that hasn't been cancelled, though only if you equate large numbers, regardless of profit margins, as success.
And, of course, you could say Everquest is the most successful Western MMOG, or you could choose to look at it as a 'software product' and look at it as a miserable failure because it is puny in comparison to Microsoft Office.
In short, I don't think saying, "Well, it hasn't achieved the audience that EQ has" has any inherent validity as a measuring stick for a particular kind of design. The Four Seasons hasn't achieved the same level of market penetration that Best Western has, but so what? I know where I'm staying given the choice.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Nov 04, 2004 at 13:18
I believe that the MMOG business is becoming much like the movie business. There are a few formulas that have been successful and they are resistant to try new things. Why is that? Is it a lack of desire to innovate from the developers? I propose that the "players" are reluctant to try new things, and the developers are just following the player bases' desires.
Second Life, There. I tried them and found the experience to be so different than what I expected, that I didn't spend more than a few days on either. They are so open ended that I didn't really find my place in that world from the beginning, which is a critical time when tying these worlds. Nothing hooked me right from the beginning, so I went back to UO instead, which was my first MMOG. I played EQ incessantly, AC1+2, AO, JumpGate, EnB, etc. but I always return to UO. I've bought virtual items on ebay, been there and done that.
I agree with Bartle that the first MMOG shapes your expectations going forward. However, I believe that the only way to break out of the cycle is to build the world as you wish, then be willing to stick with it and let the public absorb it. This takes significant time. If you're looking for the quick buck, there is none to be had being through significant innovation. The long term big money is definitely there, it requires patience. If the commercial game business cannot handle the timeframes that it takes to let these radically new designs sink in, then I guess it will become like the movie business where the mass market product is mostly garbage, and the independent films are the only ones breaking any new ground.
I suspect the best formula is slow change in the existing worlds over time. Human nature limits our ability to deal with sudden change effectively. I also believe that is why the existing worlds that have released several expansion packs over time have done pretty well. They basically achieved change over extended timefames and the players respond better to that.
Posted by: Adam Miller | Nov 04, 2004 at 13:29
Raph, were shallow simplified experiences rule, a new situations emerge, and visa versa. It is part of the law of cause and affect.
If I feared not finding a publisher, I would never had started to blaze a trail (nor opt. for a self publishing model). Again, the question to MMO OR NOT is not in the shadow of the almighty profiteers. It extends across an ever changing landscape where growth is opening the doors to new enterprise. Little, medium, and Big.
My target audience is a mere 80k from a world-wide territory base. Two years ago, my market was more obscure. However, people have joined our community because they like what we aim for. The kind of experience modeled after real life, so they can relate, but with teh notion of outrech to the people around them. A truly effective interaction model.
The permadeath model (I mentioned for our project) is "staged" and therefore isn't a sole mechanism of design consensus opportunity, but plays an important role in the suspence factor of a wilderness survival sim. Part of the situation that can make that happen involves lynch mobs (not unlike what you find roaming about some discussion groups) and player witness plays ( if they dare take them to a sherrif, or appear in court).
You will be amazed to see just how simple most of the solutions are to employ/play. The complexity, is in deisgning some of the templates for tribal communities to feel like they are a contributing member of a tribe without making them feel that way, and shying away from TV stereotypes in Native American Role play. All the mechanisms must be very subtle and yet I've been graced to have been given fun solutions as each challenge of "enormis impossibilitas" shook it's fist at me.
The community that has faithfully built around Frontier1859.com is now several years strong, very positive, and if you take a look at the forums - they have come from all over the world.
There is now a translated community in France, and Spain, and we get a lot of support and encouragement from the UK and Germany. I have not even begun to approach Asia. If you read the letters from people (Letters column on domain) whom have read our FAQ, you will find an incredible amount of positive outlook concerning the project. So there is no doubt in my mind, that I have approached the MMO market with the right blend, and I'm not going to go away (God willing) so I've got a niche, and an alternative virtual world. This is only the beginning. WHat is built from this foundation, will take playersthrough a multi-layered "TQ" Galactic role playing experience in the not too distant future. Suzuki said, never scoff at small beginnings, and an ancient manuscript
Some would use publishers (or not) to leverage fear and redirection from the little guy, or the "unkowns" in our industry. This old cat uses publishers to leverage knowledge about system implementations, and takes full opportunity of the chance to spend time with players, learning every inch of each world, and how players feel, both new, middle aged, and old.
Today, we are on the verge of billion dollar growth in broadband based entertainment. There will be alternatives, and some of those pioneers are right on time now. I've played "Coh," and many, many others. I've written their creators to commend their efforts. I've spent a lot of time in the trenches, and continue to do so. This is how I have been able to speak to a wide variety of player's language in many published articles and interviews. I'm always open and honest with them, and so they feel they have access to something real. This is how I am working towards not being another dissapointing world. Letting the community hash through all of the concept stuff has really helped fine tune the project. The old model of developing a project based upon the key designers thinking to themselves that "we have something cool here" is no longer motivationaly effective in MMO planning. Not for the team, investors, or public in today's information age.
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 04, 2004 at 13:49
Slashdot Games is about as clueless as Terra Nova is self-congratulating.
Posted by: blaze | Nov 04, 2004 at 15:10
It's the McDonald's effect: imagine a MMOG for the average person out there. Dwell on that for a minute - the average person. We often forget about how many other people there are out there. For example, it's hard for many New Yorkers and residents of places like, well, Europe, to imagine that there are so many Bush voters. But they are out there.
The deee-lightful MMOG for the average person is like McDonald's. That's why Ellickson was right to call/hope for diversity - if there's a variety of places, at least there's a chance there will be some good ones. (Go Frontier 1859!!)
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Nov 04, 2004 at 15:12
Perhaps I'll elaborate later about the topic but in general I don't agree on the perspective and in particular when the focus goes on MUDs and the two examples about permdeath and instancing.
Posted by: Abalieno | Nov 04, 2004 at 17:24
Nice to see that the art of constructive ranting hasn't been entirely lost. :-)
Speaking of a diversity of choices....
Richard's points supporting his conclusion that the virtual world development industry is doomed by its dependence on attracting a never-ending stream of newbies were:
> Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies.
> Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature they don't like.
> Point #3: Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one they first got into.
> Point #4: Many players will think some poor design choices are good.
One of John Gall's many interesting suggestions in _Systemantics_ is this: "If a problem seems intractable, consider that you may have a meta-problem."
With that in mind, perhaps these four points aren't just issues in and of themselves, but are symptoms of a deeper problem connected to some attribute that most virtual worlds have in common.
One obvious commonality is access: what choices do consumers (newbies and oldbies) have when looking for a virtual world with desirable features, and how can they exercise those choices?
Isn't that a question of publishing? More specifically, isn't it our current publishing model that drives each of Richard's four observations?
Point #1: Large, hit-based publishing houses can afford to rely on marketing.
Point #2: Large publishers can make big worlds with lots of popular major features.
Point #3: Hit-based publishing limits the breadth of initial experiences.
Point #4: Having few choices creates a short-term, zero-sum, "me first!" mindset.
A high cost of production means high risk, which consequently means offering only a few big, safe choices in virtual worlds and the features of those worlds. But who says virtual world publishing has to work this way?
The points Richard lists are similar to the kinds of problems Hollywood now endures in attracting moviegoers, and that's precisely because virtual world publishers have tried to copy the Hollywood studio model. All these effects flow from how consumers are given access to content. (Incidentally, I disagree with Richard that treating designers as artists would be a positive force for virtual world innovativeness. I think it's just the opposite; I believe this would accentuate the "designer as celebrity" effect already leading us down the road to transient star power counting for more than actual quality of work product.)
The alternative to the "you can have any color you want as long as it's black" Hollywood model is the path of the independent filmmakers. As the cost of prosumer digital A/V recording devices and editing tools has dropped, many more creative people have been able to produce their own films. The result is the growth of a highly innovative indie film industry, where individual content creators support each other's access to consumers.
Assuming a similar technology-driven increase in access to the technology for developing and hosting virtual worlds, an indie system for developing and publishing virtual worlds would probably offer similar benefits as its film cousin. In particular, I think the four points Richard made in his Gamasutra article would exercise much less influence over world designers.
As a designer in a publishing system of cooperating independent developers, you wouldn't spend so much of your time fighting against Point #1 by constantly trying to bring newbies to the same big old virtual world in which you have so much invested. Instead, you could rapidly create a series of new worlds, each of which could include some of the key features of the old. Then you can let oldbies and newbies alike decide which of these worlds they want to support.
Point #2 is also addressed by a publishing system that gives newbies more choices. If one world doesn't give them the major features they want, a system that promotes experimentation increases the odds that there'll be another virtual world that does offer those desirable features.
A publishing system that encourages more virtual worlds addresses Point #3 as well -- more initial choices and easier migration between choices eases the sense of being locked into a particular world. At worst, having more worlds available means it's more likely that a player whose initial world shuts down will be able to find another world similar to the one she left.
Finally, a "many worlds" publishing system minimizes the negative impact of Point #4. Having more worlds available means that poor design decisions made in one world affect fewer players (either because they're already in other virtual worlds, or because they can more easily move to other worlds if necessary). There'll always be players who can only understand selfish and short-term thinking. A many-worlds publishing system doesn't cure that problem, but it does circumvent it.
...
Moving to a low-cost, low-risk "niche world" publishing model is no panacea. One apparent problem is that you get fewer people in each world. Still, when nearly all interactions are local, how "massively multiplayer" does a world need to be for each player to feel that he or she is part of a living community?
Another problem is complexity -- as NASA learned, "smaller, faster, cheaper" means systems that can't do as much. On the other hand, smaller systems are a lot easier to debug and enhance. (Up to the point at which they become big systems, of course.) Do today's consumers prefer big worlds that take years to create and do many things moderately well, or small worlds rapidly created and modified that do a few things very well? From a film perspective, is it necessary for every product to be a blockbuster if you can have several products that do well enough?
Yet another problem is insuring that the people who might like your world can find it. That's an issue that a consortium of developers (as you might get even in an industry populated by independent developers) should be able to hash out (awareness campaigns, search tools, etc.).
...
In summary, Richard is probably right about the destination if the virtual world publishing industry continues down its current road. I'm more optimistic because I think there is another path that can be taken.
--Flatfingers
Posted by: Flatfingers | Nov 04, 2004 at 17:32
Slashdot Games is about as clueless as Terra Nova is self-congratulating.
Great post blaze! This is a really wonderful discussion! I'd just like to congratulate all the Terra Novans for not being clueless! ;-)
Posted by: Jim Purbrick | Nov 04, 2004 at 19:04
I am not dissing small audiences nor am I dissing Frontier 1859. I've been watching you guys from a distance almost since you started out, and I come from a small audience background originally myself. The last time I logged into a mud and spent several hours there was... last Sunday.
I do think that we want sustainable audiences, though. Reward for work done is a good model; doing things purely out of altruism is a tougher sell. I want the Brian Greens and Andy Teppers of the world to make more money so they can keep doing what they are doing and get a decent wage in the process.
I also think we want decently sized niches. If we can only garner 3000 folks to our worlds, we're falling short in some way, probably several ways--and many of the ways probably have nothing to do with the quality of the gameplay. If we're artists, we want the larger audiences because we have something to say to them.
Posted by: Raph | Nov 04, 2004 at 21:19
Raph wrote:
I also think we want decently sized niches. If we can only garner 3000 folks to our worlds, we're falling short in some way, probably several ways--and many of the ways probably have nothing to do with the quality of the gameplay. If we're artists, we want the larger audiences because we have something to say to them.
Are we necessarily falling short? Take the text MMOs for instance. 3000 players in a text MMO is pretty respectable given the niche-within-a-niche that they are. 3000 is also enough to produce very good returns and is easily sustainable. 3 of our 4 MUDs have less than 3000 players and all are profitable.
Would we like them to have more players? Sure. But then, so would Everquest. I mean, I get what you're saying and I appreciate it to some extent but I hold somewhat different views on art and accessibility. I'm also not really willing to say that Everquest is being run for the art of it rather than the money. On the other hand, hobbyist text muds are free to (and often do do!) whatever-the-hell their creators want. They are far more free to create good art, in my opinion, though I'll grant that the same hobbyist nature that gives them the freedom also often robs them of the motivation or denies them of the resources necessary to see their vision through.
I just don't buy that the goal of art has to be to be seen by as many people as possible I suppose, and I also think that, in the case of most commercial worlds, art is not the driving force behind the designs. It may be a force, but I don't see much evidence of it being the primary one.
I think that fundamentally I believe there's nothing wrong with the writer who writes and then locks his manuscripts up for nobody else to read or the writer who pimps his stuff to Jerry Bruckheimer. There are text MUD operators apparently happy to run MUDs that peak with 5 or 6 simultaneous players and there are graphical MUD operators who will go for the lowest common denominators in the likely audience. Just different approaches appropriate for different entities.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Nov 04, 2004 at 22:14
I feel some kind of flame brewing inside me here. Economics almost never allows us to make art. We can sit and whine about it or we can figure out what the economy will support and make that.
Easy for me to say, I suppose, since I imagine I'm the kind of player that Bartle doesn't like. I don't like movies with sad endings, I don't like character death (even in my tabletop RPG's), and this instancing thing sounds great! I rarely play online games--except chess, and that's because it's impossible to find a chess program that's dumb in the same way I am--because IMO the biggest problem with online games is those other people.
(So why am I even looking at this site, you wonder? Well, it is about games and all.)
Posted by: Jamie Fristrom | Nov 04, 2004 at 23:18
"We can sit and whine about it or we can figure out what the economy will support and make that."
Guess which forum this is! :)
Posted by: bruce rogers | Nov 05, 2004 at 00:11
Flatfingers
Instead, you could rapidly create a series of new worlds, each of which could include some of the key features of the old.
We've tried to design something like that. An "online adventures" kind of game, not MMORPG in its classic form. Main feature is finiteness of the adventure, you will eventually get "You win" or "You lose".
Technicaly it is series of rather small worlds designed for 16-1000 adventurers and 7~90 days of gameplay each. Story driven worlds, much like singleplayer RPG's, where you have story line, and your goal is NOT the treadmill but adventuring. Players are given new quests and puzzles as they together advance to a mighty dragon slaying, saving the world or whatever they do in particular world. Worlds are generating and starting as people fill the queue.
As they slay the dragon (or the dragon eats them all), adventurers feel very satisfied - they've finished this story. You've done it. You're cool. The End.
Then players could join the new world with same story going, or try some new worlds and stories. They choose worlds designed for different challenge levels, different play styles, players number limits, even servers for different Earth timezones.
We abandoned this idea. There are two great flaws in such concept when it comes to publishing:
- its MMORPG, yet NOT a MMORPG. Persistent, but finite. Massive, but for 16 players also. Insanely hard to advertise properly. Better sign up with EA or Ubisoft for marketing that kind of "game".
- "The End" means not only the satisfaction you get when completeing singleplayer game, or reading the book, but also complete and irreversible loss of your avatar. Avatar is lost. In MMORPG. Its not a classic MMORPG, yeah. Just explain that to the consumers...
Flatfingers
Having more worlds available means that poor design decisions made in one world affect fewer players
How that would help the players affected by poor design? Nothing is done to the switching cost to another world. Dividing the world into small chunks won't help alone, you also need to lower those transfering costs.
Posted by: Dmitry Nozhnin | Nov 05, 2004 at 03:01
The complaints somehow sound like a film-maker of artsy black & white movies, in French with subtitles, complaining about "Shrek 2" or "Spiderman 2" selling much better. Can we really say "game X is much better than the mainstream crap, too bad nobody plays it"?
Such a statement is based on the assumption that there is some invisible scale of quality, on which only the pundits are able to classify a game. While the average player, being stupid, rushes always into the low quality games.
Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Subscription numbers equal quality in games, because the whole purpose of a game is to entertain. This is not art. It *can* not be art, because too many people are involved in creating it, thus blurring all self-expression. A game is a simple business contract in which the developers promise to provide entertainment, in exchange for the money of the customers that wish to be entertained. If you create a game that is "innovative", but not entertaining, you failed your promise.
Posted by: Tobold | Nov 05, 2004 at 03:19
Lee Delarm>Anyway, what about changing your game over time into a game with good short-term design to a game with good lord term design?
Hmm, so you trick people into playing initially by giving them what they think they want, but over time change the virtual world so it gives them what they actually want?
Hmm, yes, I think that could work. It implies a degree of deceit and commitment that might be beyond most designers, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 05, 2004 at 07:09
Jeff Cole wrote:
"Hmmm ... can you reconcile those two [viewpoints]? Shouldn't we congratulate those developers for trying to implement the very change you espouse?"
Sure. The virtual worlds I mentioned were not originally designed to be small. I most of the developers of these worlds wanted to topple the existing games with their subscriber figures. I've talked to developers from each of the worlds and they had planned (and still do plan) on having more subscribers than they initially attracted. There's a difference between planning to have a smaller subscriber base and dealing with the fact that you do have a smaller subscriber base.
And, I'm just as guilty here. We had hoped to have more subscribers for Meridian 59 after we relaunched it as well. We were lucky in that our "break even" levels were fairly low. Of course, we've made shockingly low salaries in order to keep the business going.
Make no mistake: I respect these developers and what they're doing. I can't fault them for dreaming big just as I did. But, I think the future of the online game medium is in servicing niches.
When I talk about focusing on niches, I'm talking about making a game world and only expecting a few thousand people to want to play it. Building this type of world requires a radically different point of view than most designers have. Most of us are dreaming of becoming that first million-subscriber game that breaks all the barriers. I think this is a fool's errand, personally.
And, I don't think this is merely a case of sour grapes on my part, as is often said as people point to my "failed" game. I have a level of experience that only a handful of people here can boast. I've done spectacular things with limited budgets, schedules, and employees. I'm pretty sure I could profit handsomely by talking to nearly any large game publisher and offering my experience and knowledge. But, I don't do that because I think the better future lies in a direction they're not going. (Not to say that I won't eventually opt for the handsome profit in the place of the bohemian lifestyle if my debt finally does outweigh my personal conviction.)
One thing that really needs to change in order to support niches is a change in business models. The subscription-based model absolutely sucks for niches. But, let's see how Richard was right once again: Having alternative business models is good in the long term. However, it is terrible in the short term; players have been enjoying an incredible bargain by only paying $10-15/month to play these worlds. These types of games used to charge this much for a few hours of play before some game came along and fucked everything up with flat-rate pricing! (Er, wait....) Any alternative business model means that the cheap ride will come to an end. Even if people aren't required to pay more, some people will *gasp* be able to pay more in order to get more benefit! You think people react badly to the suggestion of permadeath, just wait until you see how the average big-name "MMORPG" player complains when you talk about a "pay for items" business model! These players will not gladly support alternative business models regardless of long-term benefits.
Daniel wrote:
"My target audience is a mere 80k from a world-wide territory base. Two years ago, my market was more obscure. However, people have joined our community because they like what we aim for."
I wish you all the best, and I think that the more independent developers we get, the better. But realize this: people are always happy before you commercially launch. You will attract the smartest and most helpful people during this time. Your game is full of possibilities because you have't had to commit to any specific decisions yet. But, once you have to let in the "other people" that pay the bills, you'll find that the level of friendliness will go down. You'll also find people becoming rather bitter and angry about the possibilities you had to ignore in order to actually finish and ship the game.
Good luck on your work, and I look forward to seeing the end result. But, realize that things won't stay sunshine and rainbows all the time.
Have fun,
-Brian
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Nov 05, 2004 at 07:18
Zonk>Spirited (and sometimes extremely clueless) commentary available on Slashdot Games.
Yes, it was reponsible for a flood of emails this morning...
>I had no idea there were so many MUD players reading Slash before your article.
A shame so few read of them the article.
I never post on Slashdot; it's like being attacked by a swarm of wasps. Much safer to keep my distance.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 05, 2004 at 07:23
Raph>Far too much of the discussion centers on the permadeath example--I wish Richard hadn't used it. :)
Well, it's proven convenient in that it gave those people who were always going to misunderstand the article something tangible about which to misunderstand it.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 05, 2004 at 07:47
Let me bring up an issue to prove I'm not just a mindless fan of Richard's. :)
One problem with his original article is that he makes a very common, very wrong assumption: that the market is uniform or even partially consistent in its desires. Players are not consistent in what they want. Take the treadmill as an example: some people honestly like the concept and play existing treadmill games. Most people don't care, really, but they might enjoy a bit more variety. But, there's the vocal few that hate the concept. They can't keep up, or they're tired of keeping up, or whatever. They're tired of people with more time being rewarded, usually because they can't put in that time. Yet, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They complain about it, and the complaints affect others. People dare to have fun playing a treadmill! THE HORRORS! Suddenly people who didn't care now join the fray and want something different, but not really. They're really apathetic about the treadmill, perhaps enjoying some other aspect of the game enough to put up with it. But, the vocal people are complaining, and it's fun to join in a protest.
This is one reason why I belive niches are the guide to the future. One can design a game that caters to the people that like a certain aspect of the game. One can actively shun people that don't like some aspect of your game because pandering to them means the game no longer serves the needs of the people that do like it. The trick is finding the right niches.
Some more fuel for the fire.
Have fun,
-Brian
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Nov 05, 2004 at 08:37
I am optimistic that innovation will save the industry. What I hope is that rapid development tools will be developed to enable small teams to quickly build and test their designs. If 1 in 100 turns out be oustanding and commercially viable, then perhaps we can overcome pattern inertia (e.g. qwerty keyboard layout).
Posted by: magicback | Nov 05, 2004 at 10:34
Brian wrote:
"Your game is full of possibilities because you have't had to commit to any specific decisions yet. But, once you have to let in the "other people" that pay the bills, you'll find that the level of friendliness will go down."
On the contray Brian, I've tracked all the press, and what we have said we would do, and some of that has been posted on other sites. For instance, Justice Loyd said "This could be THE GAME" on "More Than Caffeine" but because he quoted our "set apart" features. Several other key sites also did this. Such as "Zengamer, IGN, and MMORPGDot. Therefore, it is more important than it ever has been to stick to what we said we are going to do. (!!!)
That is the whole point, otherwise would be just plain foolish, and bad business. That is just the way it is - and should be always. Otherwise, don;t even dare to do it, and don't listen to the businessmen who would steer you away from truth and good business. Thanks for the 'good luck" though - appreciate that.
Tobold wrote:
"This is not art. It *can* not be art, because too many people are involved in creating it, thus blurring all self-expression. A game is a simple business contract in which the developers promise to provide entertainment, in exchange for the money of the customers that wish to be entertained."
This can be solved with a good director. It is called "One consistent vision." By giving each member of the team ownership over their contributions, but guiding it toward one consistent vision, the challenge you mention can (and is) overcome. This is not a new concept at all in either the film or game industry for that matter. However, MMOs, MMORPGs, and virtual worlds require more customer service/support than movies, (and some other kinds of games). As far as art is concerned, I've always said that this is "the marraige of art and technology under the roof of business." Today games are looking better (art) than ever, and running (technology) less buggy than expected. It's still up to the consumer whether or not they like it (business).
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 05, 2004 at 11:33
Tobold wrote:
It *can* not be art, because too many people are involved in creating it, thus blurring all self-expression.
Huh? The vast majority of MMORPGs are text-based hobbyist products, usually with a single individual at the helm.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Nov 05, 2004 at 14:23
Tobold may have stolen Richard's pessimism crown, it seems.
I think what we'll see is the black and white french subtitled games coming and dying (or living on, discretely), then having all their ideas stolen by someone with a bigger budget and higher production values, creating highly successful, and good, games. But again, this might be a 10 year wait... ah well... at least there'll be some good games around in time for my eventual retirement...
Posted by: Biggles | Nov 05, 2004 at 15:42
This is not art. It *can* not be art, because too many people are involved in creating it, thus blurring all self-expression.
That's ludicrous. Can film, theater, and symphonies not be art?
Posted by: Raph | Nov 05, 2004 at 16:55
Quick tangent re: the possibility of collaborative art- It's a bit cheesy to actually sit down and read, but the overall idea of Wagner's "Gesamptkunstwerk" (total artwork) really does apply well to virtual worlds. The important thing, which Daniel has already hit on here (and was brought up at various points in the recent auteurship discussion) is that every action of each contributor has to serve the uniting vision of the world as a whole. I believe worlds can and should have a message or ideology, and that essense being watered down (like almost happened to CoH with its rogue code etc) is one of the thing that contributes to a poor world design.
============
With regard to niches and player bases:
When reading about the ATITD "riot," I was consistently struck by the thought that the whole incident will likely serve to distill the player base into even more of a niche group. I've heard several players say that they've left over the recent events (or been tempted to), and I've heard just as many say that they've started playing it (or been tempted to) by the same events.
It's moot by now whether or not the whole situation was ideal, but Teppy as a niche designer certainly seems to prefer losing a few of a certain type of player to running things a different way. Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's certainly the mindset that can prevent virtual worlds from sliding down the slippery slope described in this article. Worlds that (willingly or unwillingly) maintain smaller user bases are the best hope right now to combat this newbie induction effect.
Hopefully we'll get some convention-subverting worlds moving in the circles of the big-time subscription bases soon, but at least all hope is not lost in the meantime.
Nice paper by the way, Richard. I'm looking forward to reading the "mortarboard" version after the Copenhagen conference.
ps. My condolences on the emails from slashdot readers. It's scary over there.
Posted by: mike darga | Nov 05, 2004 at 17:34
Mike Darga wrote:
I believe worlds can and should have a message or ideology
What the heck are you talking about? Is the real world not a 'good' world because it doesn't have a particular message or ideology? I'd say that the hallmark of a world is that it -doesn't- have a particular message or ideology. It is the canvas on which other messages or ideologies may be writ.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Nov 05, 2004 at 21:44
Daniel> Today games are looking better (art) than ever, and running (technology) less buggy than expected. It's still up to the consumer whether or not they like it (business).
"looking better" is craft, not art.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Nov 06, 2004 at 03:19
Brian 'Psychochild' Green>This is one reason why I belive niches are the guide to the future. One can design a game that caters to the people that like a certain aspect of the game.
Niches can be a great source of innovation (we still see it happening in text MUDs). The only thing is, they are (by definition) niches: they may be just what certain players are looking for, but they have to find those players and persuade them of the fact.
I think this could happen if we were to get a critical mass of niche worlds, so people could go to some kind of match-making site and find the world that best fits them. We're some way short of that, though, and it still implies a degree of maturity among players in the way they make their choices (eg. not "just like the game I played first").
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 06, 2004 at 07:46
Brian> I personally think that online games have to reverse their trend. I honestly think the term "massive" is a conceit and that it's distracting us from the true goal. I think the future is in niche games.<
I’d agree with Brian to an extent. I think my future is in niche games. I would rather see 100 new worlds each with 4000 subscribers, rather than one new world with 400,000 subscribers. I think that is getting more possible as the tools to build worlds get cheaper and easier to use. But I don’t think the large mass market worlds are going to be replaced by niche worlds. I do think however niche is where the innovation is. As I see it, innovation comes from passion, artistic vision, and the creative impulse. Plus enough business sense to stay solvent. The profit motive kicks in when the move to mass market takes place.
Tobold> A game is a simple business contract in which the developers promise to provide entertainment, in exchange for the money of the customers that wish to be entertained.<
That might be a good premise if your aim is to develop a “fun game”, but I don’t think it makes for an interesting VW. “None stop fun” is my idea of hell after a while. I look to VWs for some sense of Adventure, and that for me includes some setbacks, frustrations and occasional heavy slogging to round out the experience. I’m looking to VWs to expand the possibilities in my life, as well as provide the occasional mindless diversion. I’d agree though that my objective isn’t where the mass market is at.
Which brings up Richard’s point about finding the supply of newbies for your niche game. This seems to me to be a basic search problem. As long as newbies are pushed to your game by advertising and marketing, niche games won’t compete with the big guys. But I think the Net is gradually providing a pull model of finding customers, through search engines, blogs, word of mouth etc. “If you build it, they will come” wouldn’t work for a mass market VW, but may bring in enough people to sustain a niche VW. It seems to have worked for a lot of people on Ebay. All sorts of odd niches have become viable businesses when attached to a good search engine.
Posted by: Hellinar | Nov 06, 2004 at 18:28
While most of the observations made in this article are true, some of the conclusions seem sophistic at best, and some rethorical tricks come close to dishonesty in my eye.
Granted this is clearly stated as a soapbox exercise, and maybe shouldn't be discussed beyond it's parodical or ranting value, but if it is to be turned into any serious paper, I can see a few showstoppers.
First and foremost, the literal/relativistic use of "newbie" is a problem.
Stating that "newbies" will carry accross their prejudices about how a virtual gameworld should be from their prior VW experiences is self-contradictory unless you don't make a difference between "newbie to this VW" and newbies as in "first-timer in any VW", in which case you conveniently move a large fraction of your hypothetic usebase from the "newbie" to "vet/oldbie" group depending on the point you want to make.
Second, all the examples of short-term good / long-term bad features proposed here can be worked out/around (not to say some hypothetical others can't be exclusive, though) and as such are not inherently preventing succesful controversial features/innovation.
Permadeath: short-term bad, long term good. Offer PD as an option opening otherwise unavailable capabilities or game features (a simple and efficient way to do that would be to give support-style character designs (*healers*) huge incentives to take the PD option.
People can short-term play non-PD characters, and eventually opt to move on (be it with the same character or a new one) to PD, if -and only if - it suits their playstyle.
It doesn't even have to be a PD/non-PD switch, and could be graduated in a fashion than the more you are willing to risk high-penalty "death" the more extra abilities/features/content you gain access to.
Teleportation: likewise, teleportation-restricted areas can be easily implemented. Those could be harder to handle/access, and favor a more "serious" playstyle, and offer specific features/rewards, which may (or not) be reusable or beneficial in teleportation-able areas.
This could fit in nicely with the issue of Instancing content which is just - from a player perspective - areas with restricted access - and possibly customized content.
Throw in some randomness in the restriction of access and you get "instanciated content with PvP", by player's selection, where players see each other as monsters/hostiles/mobs (a la America's Army) but also can gain access to features/rewards/content not available in a non-PvP dungeon.
Classes are another classic strawman of designers standing for the "players don't want innovation" party line.
There's no need to exclusively choose between classe-based and open character design. One can have both if the game allows for open character design in first place ; in this case, classes are just character templates (including, if part of the feature set codependant or reinforcing skills/abilities).
There are many good answers to what are real issues, better ones than those above (which are just examples from the top of my head), but draping oneself in dignity and oversimplification by stating: "we are doomed because it's only black or white choices" is just intellectual and ethical lazyness under most circumstances.
Smaller worlds can be a good alternative, possibly using bundling mechanisms going beyond price plans, and also sharing common backend tools, servers and software among worlds, even to the point of creating multiverses accross which characters could translate/travel, both saving costs and pooling resources but also offering this feeling of unlimited playground that is inherently part of the "Massive" mythos and appeal.
Another lead would be to tray and cater to different audiauces, in terms of demographics, reaching out to the vast world or currently on players, instead of struggling to capture only the attention of this prejudice-ridden audience.
Newbie infestation is the disease of once-small successful games failing to scale up gracefully.
In fact, my perception is that the weight of belief-portage is heavy enough that most games nowadays suffer more from a diluted case of grognard syndrome rather than newbie infestation.
The main issue with many VW designs I can see is how linear and one-dimensional the gameplay is, but offering, say, a more tradeoffs-based design doesn't have to exclude some amount of semi-linear progress. If the spectrum of features encompasses both high-risk, high-reward and highly-predictable, limited rewards you can accommodate both "comfy" and "to the bone" playstyles, and even get some players to "grow-up" over time and gravitate toward more "mature" gameplay.
The very basic game design concept of tradeoffs can be applied not only at the feature level, but at the meta level, too, accomodating various playstyles from easy/predictable to demanding/risky, with the amount of involved multiplayer interaction as one of the deciding factors.
Overall, the whole thesis stands on the idea that "players don't get it", with the subtext that they are too dumb to know what's good for them while we (designers) know but are unable to save them from their own foolishness.
The key word here for me is "unable" as in "designers are unable".
One of the first things I learnt about communication is that usually when one explains and one don't get it, the fault (and burden of proof) lies on the one who tries (and fails) to teach.
It is even more true when it comes to commercial, wide-audience (for lack of a better word) cultural products.
While it may be convenient and cozy for designers to take a virtuous stance as true artists and assert that they're stuck with the dilemma of either dumbing down their work of stay out of reach of the unwashed masses, I contend the real issue is not about dumbing down but "smartening up" to the point high-quality work is bundled attractively enough to reach out to a wider audience and educate it if needed to more sophisticated and less instantly-gratifying pleasures.
I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, it is not my intention to minimize the reality of the challenge faced by designers of new VWs, or to belittle their merits, but rather to emphasize how the key to make both big, successful and interesting VWs lies in the way of embracing then shaping players expectations rather than mourning their current habits and expressed tastes/choices as doom of quality design.
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Nov 06, 2004 at 19:23
Enough typos in one paragraph above to make it barely legible.
Here's the fixed version.
"Another lead would be to try and cater to different audiences, in terms of demographics, reaching out to the vast world of currently non-players, instead of struggling to capture only the attention of this prejudice-ridden audience."
Sorry about this.
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Nov 06, 2004 at 21:28
Yaka St.Aise: Those are good points for translating this into a formal paper. The oldbie vs newbie distinction seems the most important.
I'm not so convinced about your arguments regarding the specifics, however. While there may be blended permadeath worlds, that is still not a permadeath world. If we can't make permadeath worlds due to this newbie selection phenonemon, we have lost something.
My take on the rant, however, was not so much a bemoaning of VWs, but a harsh reminder to _players_ that we should reexamine our behaviour.
I think we are all guilty of letting our first VW experience colour our perceptions.
To see this, instead of looking at obvious design issues like Player Death, perhaps look at something more design neutral, like being able to alt-tab out of the VW.
With Alt-Tabbing, it is unclear where it lies on the design spectrum.
One thing is clear is that players develop a strong attachment to one mode or the other. The debates about Alt-Tabbing were always very heated. Some claimed allowing alt-tabbing encouraged cheating and broke down the "You're in our world now". Other's would point out that it is there computer, not the game developers, and they expect to do with it as they wish.
I know I was always on the pro-Alt-Tabbing side. This, however, may be traceable to two things:
1) UO allowed alt-tabbing and was my first exposure.
2) I grew used to being able to do something else whilst waiting for people to show up.
Point #1 is the effect of being blinded by one's first world.
Point #2, however, is what I would have always argued as the virtue of alt-tabbing. What I refused to see was that I was taking for granted that in any other VW I'd have to spend time waiting for people to show up.
In other words, I made the same mistake that most anti-PermaDeath people make. They argue that because a high level character requires 100s of hours of tedious work, it is unacceptable to lose the character. The catch is, of course, that if one had a game with perma-death, one likely wouldn't have a game with the 100s of hours of tediuos work to get a high level character!
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Nov 07, 2004 at 00:12
I'd rather avoid further discussion of PD here, since it's a bit of a cliche unless examined under a very practical angle: how to implement it (or not) in a specific given design.
This seems to me like beyond the scope of TN discussions (correct me if I'm wrong).
Still, as a general rule, I don't think strict PD can work on a big-scale VW, unless characters are essentially throwaways, in which case death becomes meaningless and PD is a joke.
On small-scale (demographically speaking) VWs, PD can work and surely will prove one of the most effective newbie deterrents one can imagine (after interface clutter and text mode, of course).
Likewise, I tried to make clear in my previous post that most controversial/innovative features are an issue only when one wants to successfully run a "big" commercial VW.
For niche games, providing the designers manage to meet their audience, pretty much everything goes, as in any other hybrid medium when it comes to indie-type products.
Also, I was mostly addressing the specific examples Richard Bartle used to illustrate his point in his Gama article, without prejudice about other cases/circumstances:
"Second, all the examples of short-term good / long-term bad features proposed here can be worked out/around (not to say some hypothetical others can't be exclusive, though) and as such are not inherently preventing successful controversial features/innovation."
The alt-tab thing, like PD, is a very case-specific issue, and while generally favorable to alt-tabbing being allowed, I can see designs (RP heavy and/or short sessions) where its forbidding could be implemented with more benefits than hindrances.
But even then, there are ways to offer gradual implementations of such features.
Alt-tab could be allowed only when in-game / IC conditions make unlikely the player / character is suddendly required to pay attention an respond instantly: alt-tabbing could work only when a character is in AFK mode (washing dishes alone in a remote location), or at specific "safe spots" (hook-less trout fishing), etc.
Of course, if the game is NPC/DM-heavy those low intensity moments could be those the system/DM is most likely to use for an interesting event of some kind, in which case alt-tabbing could be problematic, unless one agrees the player is allowed to sometimes - horror - miss some content at her call.
I fully agree about the legacy of any player's gaming history weighing heavily on her perception of a new game, yet I seriously doubt the idea of players reexamining their behaviour is practical: it's a case of preaching to the choir where only those already aware of the issue are ready to hear about it.
Just try to translate this to black-and white subtitled movies and guess who is willing to "reexamine their behavior" to adjust to a different, unattractive (by their standards) experience.
On the other hand, if you start hiding neat stuff in the end titles of a movie, you'll find a subsection of the viewers actually read those...
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Nov 07, 2004 at 08:02
Yaka St. Rise wrote:
"I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, it is not my intention to minimize the reality of the challenge faced by designers of new VWs, or to belittle their merits, but rather to emphasize how the key to make both big, successful and interesting VWs lies in the way of embracing then shaping players expectations rather than mourning their current habits and expressed tastes/choices as doom of quality design."
Right on Yaka!!! Beleive it or not, that's how I've garnered a global based community without any actual product - or even screenshots yet! Take it one step further, and your where I am right now - take the shaping of their expectations, and then expose them to the public, in contrast to what exists on the market, and you are there!
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 07, 2004 at 21:14
Since virtual worlds are sometimes compared to architecture, I thought I'd illustrate a similar problem that architects (and builders) face when their customers unthinkingly limit themselves by preconceptions:
When I visited Washington DC, I noticed HUGE subdivisions being built with NEW houses that look like they were built in the late 1800's. To an architect this seems really bizarre, since houses from the late 1800's look the way they do because of technological limitations of the time. The most obvious example is the use of shutters and divided windows, both a result of glass-production technology in the late 1800's, where glass was fragile and couldn't be produced cheaply in large sheets.
At the same time, in Darwin (a tropical city), almost all housing is built in the same manner as Syndey, Adelaide, or Melbourne (temperate cities). To anyone who has lived in Darwin for awhile, such southern-style houses are silly because they are very uncomfortable to live in due to Darwin's heat. (Likewise, a tropical-style house would be very uncomfortable/cold in a temperate climate.)
Builders build these houses because their customers want them built in that style.
Customers want them built in a late-1800's style or souther-australian style because:
1) That's what they grew up in. (Most people in DC grew up in older homes. Most people moving to Darwin come from the southern cities.)
2) They are often cheaper to build, since it's old, well-known technology. (Note: No one uses real divided windows in new homes because they are more expensive to build than picture windows; they just use a picture window with fake mullions glued on.)
3) Because so many are built in 1800's style, as opposed to a more modern style, mass-production of bits (like doors, windows, etc.) often make the old-style even cheaper.
4) People buy a house with the intention to sell it in a few years. A house that looks like every other house is easier to sell than one that is unusual. (The lemming factor.)
5) Some city/town councils actually require a certain style of house in order to maintain the ambience of the area. (This reason actually makes some sense.)
As a result of consumers wanting the wrong-style houses, they don't take advantage of new technology...
a) A picture window is much nicer to look through than one with lites.
b) Large windows are nicer than small ones, but houses in the late 1800's had smaller windows, so too must their modern look-alikes. (This convention is often broken, but not often enough.)
c) Appropriate design is often more energy efficient. In the case of Darwin, a tropically-designed house doesn't require air conditioning, while a southern-style house absolutely requires it. That's a difference between $20/month electricity bill and $200/month.
d) A less-obvious effect: Does living in a house designed to look like it was built 100 years ago affect one's psychology? Perhaps one is less likely to accept other new-fangled ideas like non-Christian religions or using renewable energy?
Of course, the VW customer's poor choices illustrated in the rant don't exactly match, but there are plenty of similarities.
Does archtecture provide any solution?
I don't think architects have come up with a solution since they bemoan the situation more than Richard. Obviously, something gives after awhile, because people in Washington DC don't want houses that look like they were built in the 1700's, and people in Darwin don't want houses that look like they were transplanted from England.
10-20% of Darwin's new houses are tropical. This might imply that 10-20% of VW players will be willing to accept new ideas.
Posted by: Mike Rozak | Nov 08, 2004 at 19:24
(cut from paper)
Themis's researchers asked veterans of 3 or more virtual worlds how many months they'd spent in their first one and how many months they'd spent in their second one. Dividing the second figure by the first, we get these averages for time spent in the second virtual world compared to the first:
EverQuest 80%
Ultima Online 70%
Asheron's Call 70%
Dark Age of Camelot 55%
Anarchy Online 55%
Players spend considerably less time in their second virtual world than they do in their first. Why is this? Well, the first virtual world that someone gets into is very special to them. It's a magical, enchanting, never-to-be-repeated experience.
(/cut from paper)
My first reaction to the paper was *almost*, “Well that proves it! Capitalistic markets are doomed to fail because they prohibit the oligopolies and monopolies that attract the level of investment needed to make a quality product.” But, on second reflection, I realized, that's absurd. :-) But, I think the point of the paper is that purest should revolt now while they still have the chance, because this market is destined to go mainstream. I guess that's bad if you're a purest, good if you are one of the other millions of people on the planet that are going to be having fun in these in the upcoming years.
That said, I'd be very interested in the methodology used in asking the above quoted question. Is there a link to this report somewhere? It seems to me that depending on how the question was framed and defined, and due to the stage that the market is at today, we might expect these types of numbers. In fact, without closer analysis I would be hard pressed to say if these are even bad news or good.
For example, what is a “veteran of 3 or more virtual worlds”? What percentage of the market do they represent? Are they early adapters? Are they really representative of the core market growth that we see today? Are there other factors playing into this? How are we defining what is ‘Good’?
If we define a ‘veteran of 3 or more virtual worlds” as someone who has spent more than 1 year in 3 virtual worlds, just as a mater of logistical expectations, I would fully expect the second world to be less than then the first for a few reasons that have little to do with design and a lot to do with market growth.
1) The market is still very young
2) The market is growing very fast
I would be very interested in the % of these ‘veterans’ that started playing in the last 3-4 years. If the percentage is more that 30%, my first reaction would be, wow, is that all it takes to be a veteran in this market, 3-4 years of game-play? My second reaction would depend more on how the question was defined, but if we define a 'veteran' as someone who has been a major part of 3 communities in the last 3-4 years, then I would fully expect to find that this particular group of players spends less and less time in each community. In fact, in RL I think we might be more likely to classify this group as transients, than as community veterans.
(I would also like to note that I'm assuming that the veterans all 'left' the first or second virtual world before starting their next membership, otherwise, it would make perfect sense that the time in the second was less than the time in the first, but I'm assuming that this departure is implicit).
3) The number of consumer choices is growing exponentially.
The trend of spending less and less time with each choice as more and more choices are available in a market segment, is a trend that is present in almost every emerging market throughout history and especially in modern markets in general. From Reality TV to Economy Blogs to Cell Phones, it's the same. Ask someone who grew up in the early years of TV how long they owned their first TV or how often they listened to their first phonograph recording and you will see these same trends.
4) The core marketing model of our market is, “steal your customers from a competitor”.
Are we so sure the market isn’t just getting better at stealing customers from their competitors?
5) What is the goal for the market?
At the industry level, are we asserting that we prefer that people remain in a few select virtual worlds for many, many years without leaving, or participating in other worlds? If no, how can we say that these numbers are bad news (pessimistic) for the industry? On the other hand, if this is the goal, maybe we should start lobbying that only a small number of commercial licensees are given out to design studios that have passed some sort of Industrial Standards for Good Design, and not leave things to the whims of market forces. :-p
Call me a futurist, but I well prefer playing the games of today and tomorrow to playing the games of yesteryear. Sure, I played ms. pacman for countless hours, but in no way would I prefer to do so today over what’s available in the current market. I think the growth rate we are seeing also gives notice to the suggestion that not only do more and more people prefer today’s virtual worlds to what they had available previously, but they are also increasingly preferring them to anything else they could do with their time today (including text MUDs).
All that said, I think I would be hard-pressed to find a market where the early adapter purists were happy with the eventual mass-market outcomes, sorry Richard.
-bruce
Posted by: bruce boston | Nov 08, 2004 at 21:51
Daniel wrote:
"Beleive it or not, that's how I've garnered a global based community without any actual product - or even screenshots yet! Take it one step further, and your where I am right now - take the shaping of their expectations, and then expose them to the public, in contrast to what exists on the market, and you are there!"
I do believe it, actually: it's a good way to build a neat beta-grade player-base.
Now, unless I misunderstood you, you're currently not working using players expectations but the expression thereof without them having any actual experience of the product.
Not to say it isn't worthy material, but that's a totally different thing.
Try an informal poll in any VW community:
- Would you say you are a RP'er ?
- Would you say you sometimes display griefing behavior ?
No matter what the results are, comparison with observation of the actual in game behavior of the players will show a world of difference.
Furthermore - and stating the obvious - managing the demographic growth from beta to full-steam commercial exploitation raises a huge pile of messy signals between you and this not-that-homogenous-anymore and ever-changing set of expectations.
Yaka.
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Nov 09, 2004 at 10:27
Mike: I suspect there is actually more hope for innovation in VWs than there is for homeowner's architecture, on average.
While customers invest time - and to some extent money - in VWs, the perceived level of commitment is nothing like this of buying (much less building) a house ; closer I'd say to picking your next place of vacation, or maybe more accurately somewhere in between joining a gym or sport's club, or leasing a car.
There is 'some' level of foreseen commitment, and it can grow in time, but most players don't click the 'I agree' button feeling like they seal a defining element of their daily life for years ahead.
Because of that there may be some more room for manoeuver in VWs as far a consumer choices are concerned.
Given the development cycles and budget of these games (relative to the habits of the industry) I find the analogy about decision making / risk taking more akin to the building of an hotel/resort from the owner's perspective, with the customers judgement call coming down the road.
Yaka.
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Nov 09, 2004 at 10:33
I can think of no better, and more constructive method to cap off the "pessimist design by noob whine" than to announce, and offer opportunity for the talkers to get involved in the reality of a project.
I am looking for team players, with a serious heart to achieve the next generation of interactive environments with a player driven economy and player driven (npc assisted) judicial
system. We are in desperate need of a business minded "fund raiser" with a heart to contribute to
bringing a Great Basin wilderness survival sim to the world.
In being a part of this goal, you will:
-Preserve and edutain a world community through interdisciplinary content such as geography, geology, botony, and cultural history.
-Participate in pioneering constructive uses for cutting edge technology such as helping to heal the Native American/US cultural breech through a fun role playing experience that reveals their lifestyle and mythology through a first-hand role playing experience, as oppossed to the media and press tagging them as 'savages" and other stereo types portrayed in Hollywood movies over the last two centuries.
-Expand the knowledge of the history and geography of frontier life, and the challenges faced through a first-hand understanding of the backgrounds, skills, and motivations of entrepreneurs, hunters, miners, emigrant settlers, native americans, farmers, cowboys, militia, calvary, and ranchers.
-Take part in building the most interactive environment ever created for a virtual world.
-Help build an experience that develops decision-making, team-building and problem solving skills.
-Fashion a wilderness survival sim that is geared for family unit participation, and co-operative play, as well as enrich the suspence, and fear-factor that can only be associated with survival.
-Participate in the implmentation of the most dynamic player accountability system designed for a role playing experience in this decade.
-Did I fail to mention (other rewards) such as that the both the interest and market in Europe and Asia is very vast, and that we will at least garner our 80k subscriber base through all world territories? ;)
Only serious and interested pioneers with the courage to set new precedents, and put their passion into action need apply!
Thank you for a moment of your time.
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 09, 2004 at 15:19
Matt Mihaly:What the heck are you talking about? Is the real world not a 'good' world because it doesn't have a particular message or ideology? I'd say that the hallmark of a world is that it -doesn't- have a particular message or ideology. It is the canvas on which other messages or ideologies may be writ.
I've been turning this over in my mind, and decided that if I could edit my first post, I'd say that worlds DO have an ideology, not that they can and should. Rather than being without ideology, some badly designed worlds have ideologies that are unfocused or conflicting. Thanks to Betsy, I was able to read a much more articulate presentation of my opinion in one of the SOP transcripts.
from the SOPII Virtual World Identity Panel:
Artemesia/Celia: I think it is a mistake not to realize that all games already are social engineering. Every game has an ideology at its core whether the designers know it or not. So I think it's very interesting for example that Uru which was cooperative and which was about restoring a lost culture resulted in people who were ejected from the game trying to restore their own lost culture. The ideology transferred across game worlds and the values as well. EQ has a very distinct ideology which values competition, elitism and things like that, whereas SL values construction and free speech. I think we have to recognize these mechanisms are in each game from the get-go.
Matt:Is the real world not a 'good' world because it doesn't have a particular message or ideology?
Only if you think that the real world doesn't have one! I don't personally believe that the real world is simple enough to be expressed or defined by an ideology, but we humans certainly do try our best to ascribe ideologies to it. What are all the religions and philosophies of the world (and even some sciences)if not efforts to explain the world under a unifying purpose/message etc?
As a sometime Achaea player, I think many of it's design decisions are unified under a message/goal. If we were to hypothetically say that the ideology of Achaea is to promote social interaction first and foremost, some features we might cite as evidence are:
*the incredible selection of speech modifiers and emotes
*the fact that players cannot gain access to a class and it's abilities without joining its guild
*the deity system with real players playing the gods and real religions that exist around them (the most powerful game session I've spent in Achaea was spent debating fictional philosophy and dogma with my guild's patron goddess, expecting to be smited at any moment).
*the fact that some guilds are allowed to hold back players from learning new skills etc until they have fulfilled requirements of the guild, even dissallowing the player to spend skill points when they become available (my guild, the shamans, does this).
If we've built our idea of the games ideology on this evidence, finding out that the game allows players to pay real money for in game skill points might strike us as surprising. Of course it makes perfect sense to me why it is done, and especially in the case of a game like Achaea that is free! However it does seem to be out of place from an ideology point of view, as it seems like it caters to achievers.
My intent is not to nitpick Achaea's design, and as a low-level player I could not intelligently or thoroughly do so (and besides I think it's a great game/world and recommend it often). I just wanted to give an example from your own game to try and convince you that I'm not [completely] nuts =)
To my mind, a world trying to be a "blank slate" where players can create their own ideologies and messages has an ideology of it's own, since it provides a unifying goal to unite each design detail. Perhaps since we're talking about niche worlds, we might consider a niche world as a world with a more specific ideology than a world that tries to open itself up to any ideology to be painted on it. Though, I think I'd like to play that world too. Or, we can just agree to disagree.
Posted by: Mike Darga | Nov 09, 2004 at 18:00
Following Jessica Mulligan's advice, I've ran a search for "player-driven justice system" in Google. 4th was rather amusing article from Gamespot ( http://www.gamespot.com/features/6085963/p-10.html ) with an interesting poll "What is your view of permadeath?"
54%(1111 respondents) chose "It could be good if done well."
Perhaps, things are not so bad, after all?
Posted by: Andrew Zhilin | Nov 09, 2004 at 21:52
So, after a few days I managed to finish to write my comment. It didn't come out easily.
I don't paste it here because it's too long and, well, odd. If someone is interested it's here:
http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/376
My english isn't good and I'm a fool, but at least it's about a different perspective than what I read around here and on the other forums where the article is (was, I'm late) discussed.
Posted by: Abalieno | Nov 10, 2004 at 01:00
Your english isn't broken enough to save nails from being hit hard on the head. ;)
Definitely worth a read.
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Nov 10, 2004 at 13:24
Abalieno, the post you mention is very insightful and thought-provoking exemplification. I might comment, that in writing screenplays for instance, one would stress the "three act play" only if what they are writing is not working on its own. Not developing a story on its own. What is really happening here, is simply the birth pains of a new generation of game players. though it can be looked at as social science, it is not anything very new, other than everyone and their brother gets to have a say. The so called "intellectual elitists" have become part of the problem, because they can't put their action were their keyboard is. Endless books, endless papers, endless comments. Now I might have become part of the problem - but I am working to do something about it - to offer something different - something well rounded that was obviously slightly ahead of its time because now everyone (including the so called elitists are starting to talk about those features. A huge part of the scab is the attention that "big money" gets, when a few projects, such as "EQ" and "UO" set precedents. That smell of money attracted both outlaw and lawman. In the meantime, the "clampits" (common folk) had a button they could push called "send petition."
Then some new neighbors came up with their own ideas, after quietly learning from the landmarks and mistakes of others. During that whole time, the massive entertainment network let Joe and his mother give their opinion, and the sis and charley, and then Ivy and Coach Bill sat next to each other at the world series.
Thus, if publishers will always be formulating an approach to the growing online market (just as the commercial film industry). Therefore, the exploration and innovations built upon the expectations of the players will be a stepping stone process and thus a big portion of that will be in the hands of the indie VW developers.
I mean come on, did anyone who did the first "cop" show that was a major hit really think that all the programming should be "cop" shows when the "cop" show was a stint away from the 'soap opera?"
Embrace this growth and change. Let the ones who want to whine about it whine. many of us do not have to change our mechanics based upon public opinion. Especially if we have been open and up front about what we are really selling. For instance, learn from an mmo such as EVE that ushers in carebears for fodder to their PvP staple. That is just plain wrong. Market directly to the PvP crowd. Let them know how much blood they can sink their keypad into. Noone goes out to subscribe to the "Wall Street Journal" and is satisfied with "The K-mart shopper" when it arrives. ;)
Don't force the creation of a narrative, story, VW or character for that matter into a template (or formula) if it does not already have a life of it's own. Start over. Rethink the approach. Templates and formulas are applied sciences for the would be, not the natural.
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 10, 2004 at 14:40
That last line should better serve to read: "Templates and formulas are applied sciences for learning, but the naturally suited need not rely upon them."
Posted by: Daniel | Nov 10, 2004 at 14:46
Author's note: Sorry about the way I separate out comments. I have yet to figure out how to format text so as to set quotes apart...if anyone could email me letting me know how to put text in italics I'd be eternally grateful.
--------------------
Mike Darga wrote:
Only if you think that the real world doesn't have one!
----------------------
I am not a god-ist, so no, I don't believe there's a message or purpose in it.
-----------------
Mike Darga wrote:
As a sometime Achaea player, I think many of it's design decisions are unified under a message/goal. If we were to hypothetically say that the ideology of Achaea is to promote social interaction first and foremost, some features we might cite as evidence are:
*the incredible selection of speech modifiers and emotes
*the fact that players cannot gain access to a class and it's abilities without joining its guild
*the deity system with real players playing the gods and real religions that exist around them (the most powerful game session I've spent in Achaea was spent debating fictional philosophy and dogma with my guild's patron goddess, expecting to be smited at any moment).
*the fact that some guilds are allowed to hold back players from learning new skills etc until they have fulfilled requirements of the guild, even dissallowing the player to spend skill points when they become available (my guild, the shamans, does this).
-----------------
Yeah, you have me here in one sense, at least. There's no message there from me, but there is an ideology of sorts.
-----------------
Mike Darga wrote:
If we've built our idea of the games ideology on this evidence, finding out that the game allows players to pay real money for in game skill points might strike us as surprising. Of course it makes perfect sense to me why it is done, and especially in the case of a game like Achaea that is free! However it does seem to be out of place from an ideology point of view, as it seems like it caters to achievers.
-------------------
I don't really see much difference between bringing a greater level of, say, physical reflexes or free time into a virtual world and a greater level of financial resources. In all three cases, real-world resources give you an advantage. I, personally, won't even play long in achiever worlds where the EULA won't let me speed my advancement along with real-world dollars. (I won't knowingly violate EULAs that I have agreed to. My word is my bond and all that.)
Keep in mind that the overriding ideology of our games is to entertain players so that we can pay our bills. We just decided that having player interaction far beyond what the standard bashing game has is the way for us to carve out a niche. We also decided that subscriptions were not for us, so we went the retail route instead. There's not some overriding message or idelogy we're trying to shove down anyone's throat. A lot of what may be perceived as such is nothing more than successful evolution. In other words, we're still around, and maybe our designs have evolved in response to outside (market) forces rather than purely the intentions of the designers. (There's definitely some of both.)
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Nov 10, 2004 at 15:16
I've been offline at a conference for the past 4 days, during which time I received 4mb of email (mainly spam plus /. effect) that pushed me over my ISP-set quota. I've had to delete a bunch of log files (once I found ones my ISP let me eliminate) in order to get under quota enough for my web mail access to work again so I could clear it. Gawd knows how many emails sent me have bounced in the meantime...
Anyway, the upshot of this is that I've not been commenting on this thread (despite having started it). There are too many comments now for me to go through individually (just as well, "Big Bartle", what's that about?!) but I'll make some general comments anyway.
- This wasn't an article about PD or instancing, despite impressions to the contrary from the many slashdotters who kindly spent time writing to me justifying the very theory they were trying to undermine. [Note: there were some very good emails from /. readers, only they were swamped by the others; that's /. for you...]
- My overall point is that the market forces operating in virtual world development are skewed to favour a small segment of the population. The "invisible hand" is guided not in the direction of superior product, but in the direction of newbie expectations (which means superior from the point of view of newbies, of course, but they're not going to be newbies forever).
- I don't regard the term "newbie" as pejorative. I regard it as meaning "somone who has not played for very long yet".
- The article is more pessimistic than I am myself.
- The Other Players paper I'll be presenting doesn't have any more science behind it, it just says the same thing in somewhat less emotive terms.
I don't suppose that clears anything up much, but you never know.
I have to say that although I'm pleased to see that my article has sparked some genuine debate, the emotiveness of some of the responses has taken me completely by surprise. Some people seem to think I wrote the article as a personal attack on their world view. It certainly wasn't intended that way.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 11, 2004 at 03:11
Abalieno: there seems to be a problem with your site's comment system.
I posted a reply yesterday to your "Big Bartle" essay, and while it seemed to work ok, no comment show up for this entry.
(Apologies to the readers for posting this here, I couldn't find Abalieno's email on his site.)
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Nov 11, 2004 at 03:44
It's interesting that Richard ends up defining "newbie" as someone who's played other MMORPGs, but hasn't played your own MMORPGs. If you believe that, you believe that the MMORPG industry is fundamentally cannibalistic -- that obtaining players is primarily based on one's ability to lure players from their current, beloved games.
But Richard also points out something that should give designers hope, which is that players are passionately attached to that very first game. So you want to capture those "virgins" -- to be that first game, to forever influence the way those players think about such games.
My last round of consumer research into gaming (December 2003 survey) showed that 37% of US households have never played any kind of PC game online (42% of dial-up households, 31% of broadband households). The MMORPG audience is only a small fraction of those who do game online.
Look to Asia for the potential future of online gaming -- an enormous proliferation of games, many aimed at smaller audiences. This, I think, is the future, not the million-subscriber blockbuster. Believing that appeal to the mob is the only way to go is like believing that every film needs to be a Schwarzenegger extravaganza that involves lots of explosions.
The audience for a game like the Tale in the Desert or Puzzle Pirates or Second Life is very different from the Everquest audience, and games like that genuinely expand the market, rather than continuing to feed from the same trough.
Posted by: Amberyl | Nov 11, 2004 at 08:17
Amberyl>It's interesting that Richard ends up defining "newbie" as someone who's played other MMORPGs, but hasn't played your own MMORPGs.
I didn't quite say that.
There are two kinds of newbie: absolute and relative. An absolute newbie hasn't played any virtual world before, and this is the kind to which my article primarily refers. Relative newbies are new to your virtual world but not new to virtual worlds in general; my article does include them in the induction step, but it's the other kind of newbie I mean in the title, not this kind.
>Believing that appeal to the mob is the only way to go is like believing that every film needs to be a Schwarzenegger extravaganza that involves lots of explosions.
I agree, but movies are at an advantage. With movies, if people don't like X then they don't watch new X-like movies, so the market gives its verdict: less X please. With virtual worlds, if people don't like Y then they go off and play new Y-like worlds, giving a false message: more Y please.
Similarly, with movies if you like X then you go off and watch more X-like movies when they appear, thereby encouraging makers of X-like movies to create more. With virtual worlds, if you like Y then you just stay playing the same virtual world with Y in it - you don't go off and reward other virtual worlds with Y in them as you've no reason to leave the one you're in.
>The audience for a game like the Tale in the Desert or Puzzle Pirates or Second Life is very different from the Everquest audience, and games like that genuinely expand the market, rather than continuing to feed from the same trough.
One day, everyone will have their own virtual world.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 11, 2004 at 09:06
Richard> My overall point is that the market forces operating in virtual world development are skewed to favour a small segment of the population. The "invisible hand" is guided not in the direction of superior product, but in the direction of newbie expectations (which means superior from the point of view of newbies, of course, but they're not going to be newbies forever).
And, I think my first response would be So What? (which may be a question too infrequently asked here on TerraNova)
(I guess I should also note here that the following comments are extremely bias, in that, I’m hopelessly ‘Optimistic’ about the current momentum in this market. And for reasons which include, that the play in some of the current MMOs is the most fun I have ever had in my many years of playing and gaming. In fact if anyone isn’t having tons of fun these days maybe that’s a sign of a bigger problem)
Back to the topic at hand: So what?
I would agree that the market mechanism of the ‘invisible hand’ doesn’t always strive for every last person's definition of ‘highest quality goods ever produced’, but neither does Darwinism or Government Regulated Development Planning or any other methodology dabbled with by humankind through the short stint of our existence. So what?
On the other invisible hand, I think it’s safe to say that this market mechanism has a pretty darn good track record in deciding what the most number of people want bad enough to go out and work for it. I hate to preach to the Preacher here, but if what you want isn’t getting built, get off your duff and Go Build It!
In the meantime, I think that instead of pessimistically sulking that the invisible hand is playing newbie favorites, maybe it would be better to ask Why is that? I’m not sure the answer is all that complicated, who knows maybe it is. But, most likely there is a need, or set of perceived needs in the market that is in higher demand than higher quality games. My recommendation is that if you would like to encourage your version of higher quality game development, that you might have a higher probability of doing so by connecting the dots between higher game quality and this set of perceived needs, or maybe another perceived need in high demand in the current market.
Again, it is pretty common for a market at this stage to favor systems that ‘Scale’ over ‘high quality design’, and frankly I’m not that concerned because shortly after the point of critical mass, there will be a huge demand for high quality design. I also think critics have several options at this point, including building their own place and waiting while the market matures a few hundred million players.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Nov 11, 2004 at 16:04
Bruce Boston>And, I think my first response would be So What? (which may be a question too infrequently asked here on TerraNova)
It's answered even less frequently than it's asked..!
>On the other invisible hand, I think it’s safe to say that this market mechanism has a pretty darn good track record in deciding what the most number of people want bad enough to go out and work for it.
The thing is, though, that what people want when they start playing virtual worlds isn't what they want 3 months down the line. The invisible hand doesn't know that, though, and rewards only those virtual worlds that give people what they want to start with. This means that for individuals, 3 months down the line they want something else. Actually, that's not true: what they want is for what they already have to become the something else.
>I hate to preach to the Preacher here, but if what you want isn’t getting built, get off your duff and Go Build It!
As I pointed out in my article, though, newbies aren't going to play it unless it also has what they want, which may not be reconcilable with what I (or non-newbies) want.
Perhaps Psychochild is right, and we're heading for a myriad of niche worlds...
>most likely there is a need, or set of perceived needs in the market that is in higher demand than higher quality games.
It's not that the demand for the perceived needs is higher; rather, it's that the demand is higher among newbies. Across all players, it may be that there's an overwhelming demand for a certain feature to be present (or not to be present), but it's the newbie demand that counts.
>I also think critics have several options at this point, including building their own place and waiting while the market matures a few hundred million players.
This is the "time will heal" argument, isn't it? Oh well, I don't plan on dying ever, so I'll just wait.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Nov 12, 2004 at 10:33
"Perhaps Psychochild is right, and we're heading for a myriad of niche worlds..."
Maybe. I'm of the opposite opinion. I think we're going to see a few big winners in the MMO space and lots of losers -- at least from a commercial standpoint.
It's going to be harder and harder for niche MMOs to compete with the big guns. There's going to be a certain level of quailty MMO players will come to expect that will be difficult for smaller MMOs to achieve.
Niche games will also feel pressure from below, from the free MUDS and free MMO mods of games like Neverwinter Nights.
Posted by: Mark Asher | Nov 13, 2004 at 00:19