The MMO Brand Goes Bad?

It’s easy to look at the graphs of MMO growth over the last few years and think that it’s a game category that will continue to grow exponentially.  In fact, I have often said that since games have always been largely social (and single player gaming an anomaly that resulted largely from technological limitations), that once people have a taste of gaming with others few will choose to go back to solo play.  And I do believe that.  Other players represent that sort of super sophisticated AI that no NPC can begin to approach.  And for me, the only thing that makes the average MMO grind at all fun, for instance, is the chaos and uncertainty brought forth by other random players.  Social structures make games more complex and interesting, to be sure.  But is that always a good thing?

I think we are at an interesting crossroads with regard to the continuing appeal of the types of MMOs we are currently seeing in the marketplace.  If there isn't some significant diversification soon, I fear that the whole MMO category is in jeopardy of plateauing or even seeing numbers drop off, due to various negative impressions that are circulating about the game environments and the ongoing commitments (financial, social and time) necessary to experience them.  Marketers often refer to negative brand equity to describe what happens when a product (or category) develops a reputation that is not desired.  For instance, no one involved in its development or distribution wanted people to think of the Yugo as a crappy car from some obscure country in Eastern Europe.  However it didn’t take long for stories (worse yet, jokes!) to emerge that belied whatever messages the marketers were concocting. 

Similarly, I think MMOs, at least in the West, are developing some seriously negative brand equity.

I’ve had the opportunity to talk to some non-MMO gamers about why they haven’t been bitten by the MMO bug and have been surprised by how passionately some of them feel that MMOs aren’t for them.  Here are some of the reasons that have been cited:
 

- Some people simply refuse to play a monthly fee on top of paying for a game.  This seems to be a matter of principle for many, but is often related to the fact that they feel trapped into one game environment if they are paying the fee.  They don’t feel that they can pick up a game, drop it for a while, then pick it up again later if the mood strikes them.  (the Asian predilection for item-supported models, etc. seems to be a decent way to deal with this issue)

- The second most common thing I hear is that people don’t feel like they have the time for an MMO, even if they spend lots of time playing videogames otherwise.  The perception that one has to play upwards of 30 hours a week in order to play properly is a huge barrier to a lot of people who perceive themselves as more casual gamers.  (Jim Rossignol wrote a great piece about this in a recent issue of the Escapist).

- Tied to the previous issue is the idea that one’s time is not one’s own in an MMO.  For a lot of people, having to adhere to a guild’s schedule or priorities is a responsibility they are unwilling to take on.  They hear stories about mandatory raids and other prescribed activity and think (rightly so, perhaps) that it sounds an awful lot like a job.  And unless you don't have a job already (the core MMO audience of university students, it would seem), then who needs a job that doesn't pay some real cash?

- A lot of people complain that it is too hard to just jump into an MMO and start playing.  There are complex social rules to be learned, grouping can be tricky and time-consuming, and navigating huge worlds can take a ton of time just in terms of travel.  I have heard lots of stories about people logging on at lunchtime to play, but not even being able to prep and find playmates in that time.  And I have heard other stories about people joining a game to play with friends, yet being unable to meet up with them in a reasonable timeframe.

- Although it’s appealing to play with others, it is a double-edged sword in a level-based system where people have to play at a similar rate in order to be able to continue to play with each other.  WoW is particularly problematic in this regard (to the point that people have to work hard to synchronize quest chains, etc.), but CoX is somewhat better with its side-kicking/exemplaring system.  Still, it’s a big problem for those buddies who want to invest significantly different amounts of time in the game.

- Many standard videogame players, especially those attracted to adventure/RPG genres, perceive that MMO gameplay  is extremely non-linear with too few concrete goals (yes, yes, even with WoW's linear questing system - just having more than one path or option, or a whole world that one could explore, is overwhelming to the gamer brought up in the Myst-like box-to-box environment progression).  For them, there is too much freedom of choice, making play difficult and diminishing the satisfaction of progress (aside from leveling, which while pleasurable in that Skinnerian/dopamine unleashing sense, may not be so appealing to those who look for more complex challenges).

- A LOT of people fear becoming addicted, even people I work with in the game industry. Nearly every person I have talked to has some terrible story to tell of someone they know who knows someone who locked themselves in their room for a year or two and completely forgot the real world after getting sucked in by some MMO.  And then there are the stories of silly Koreans falling over dead or Chinese gamers killing each other for virtual swords which make people think that MMOs are like some kind of crack that makes completely normal people go crazy (not to mention the possibly apocryphal stories about people wearing Depends so they don't have to afk for their bio breaks).

- Finally, many non-MMO gamers think that MMOs mean, by definition, PvP, or more accuratel,y open PK-ing.  And no one wants to pop into a game world a n00b and get killed right off the bat. (this happened to me, btw – I played UO very briefly back in the beginning, was repeatedly ganked within 5 minutes of entering the game, and as a result I didn’t play another MMO for years).

So what does this all mean for the burgeoning (?) MMO marketplace?  Is there still an untapped audience for MMOs?  Maybe, but maybe just about everyone who might be compelled to play an MMO has already been tapped by WoW?  And if so, what effects are those experiences having on both those gamers and those who observe their infatuation?  It seems to me that MMOs frighten a lot of people, even relatively hard core gamers - and that can't be a good thing.

Parodies like the recent South Park episode inspired by WoW have alerted mainstream non-gamers to the darker side of the MMO compulsion (at least those who watch South Park – your Grandma is still probably in the dark about this, unless she reads Slate or the NY Times regularly…).  In fact, the Everquest Widows list was in a gleeful frenzy after the episode: they viewed it as a sort of unintentional PSA for the perils of online gaming.  Yet it’s easy to look at that sort of thing and think, wow, MMOs have really arrived.  They’ve been parodied on South Park, written up in the mainstream media -- all we need is Britney Spears to write a song about her hawt night elf and we’ll know that the tipping point is nigh. 

But we could be wrong. 

The thing is that WoW could well be an aberration, a red herring that makes us think that MMOs are really taking off when it might in fact be the only MMO that several million of those players ever play.  For a lot of people (in the U.S. anyway- I'm painfully aware that Asia is a whole different ball of wax), WoW is their first MMO – and the reason they started playing was either a) they simply thought it was the next installment in the Warcraft franchise and didn’t give much thought to the MMO aspect or b) they got nagged by friends to play it and flocked to it in the same way they all rushed to set up their MySpace pages (and as uncommitted Web 2.0 types will all follow sheeplike the inevitable diaspora, as well).  They may  decide that the investment/pay-off equation just doesn’t add up, or just experience boredom with the whole repetitive experience (WoW-nnui, as our own Mike Sellers calls it) – not all of us can possibly find the grind to be a delightful experience in Zen, after all. 

So my question is this… how can MMOs evolve to combat these perception problems and barriers to entry/continued participation?  Or will they continue to remain a niche activity for those who have the time and inclination to make the necessary investments? 

Comments

[Mike Sellers]

1.

So what does this all mean for the burgeoning (?) MMO marketplace? Is there still an untapped audience for MMOs? Maybe, but maybe just about everyone who might be compelled to play an MMO has already been tapped by WoW?

Mark Jacobs has talked about this in the past as have I and others. Every year -- every single year -- since 1996 some smart person with years of experience in games has predicted that the MMO market has peaked. Senior execs at multi-billion dollar game companies have told me in no uncertain terms that they didn't think there were more than 500,000 MMO players on the planet. Perceptive venture capitalists have told me this same sort of thing multiple times (one was just a couple of days before WoW launched, when they said the MMO market had topped out).

The thing is that WoW could well be an aberration, a red herring that makes us think that MMOs are really taking off when it might in fact be the only MMO that several million of those players ever play.

It's useful to remember that a whole two years ago, pre-WoW (and setting Lineage and its ill-defined ilk aside), EQ was the 800-pound gorilla of western MMOs and had a staggering 450,000 players. That was amazing (and monstrously profitable). TSO and SWG were candidates to break a million users, but neither came close (though SWG at least did creditably in the market). Now of course, WoW has almost 20x EQ's old high, growing to over 7,000,000 paying users in less than two years.

And yet we're still worried that the market may have peaked?

I'm not. I am, as I've said here multiple times, concerned about the narrowing niche in which we place ourselves as MMO developers -- I think Lisa's point is excellent in that regard. This growing market is ours to kill.

So my question is this… how can MMOs evolve to combat these perception problems and barriers to entry/continued participation? Or will they continue to remain a niche activity for those who have the time and inclination to make the necessary investments?

Expand design horizons. Do not give in to the comfortable gameplay tropes of the past ten years. Find something new. Doing so takes care of most of the concerns in your list (and they're valid concerns).

Coupled with that is the need to find publishers/investors willing to participate in this vision, realizing that over 70% of all professional MMOs released up through WoW have been significantly profitable (compare to the ~7% in the single-player retail market). We can afford some risk here -- even with stinkers like Majestic, Motor City Online, Earth & Beyond, The Sims Online, Anarchy Online, and Auto Assault behind us.

What we can't afford are any more men in tights games. Really. Their time will come again, but for now, WoW's shadow is too deep and too long. I hope for the best for DDO, LOTRO, and Vanguard (if only for their teams' sake), but I'm highly skeptical that they'll see a groundswell of people trying these out as their first MMO or moving off of WoW and saying, "what I want is more elves and dwarves!"

MMOs will remain a niche only so long as we continue to design for, develop with, and sell to people just like us. In doing so we only dig our niche narrower and deeper, which is not a great way to grow a market. A little creativity and courage will go a long way to breaking out of this niche and seeing how far we can grow.

[JenD]

2.

I definitely agree that MMOs suffer some level of negative branding. The real question for me is, as designers fix the problems that you list, will that be enough to change attitudes toward MMOs as a genre?

I do actually believe that there is a huge market of gamers (or would-be gamers) out there that would be willing to try an MMO that has clearly moved beyond the darker side of WoW. I think Guild Wars is a great example of a game that was marketed as “something different” enough to draw in players that avoided more “traditional” MMOs.

I do wonder if there will ever be another perfect storm of factors that has created the WoW phenomenon (brand name, burgeoning market, time and money dedicated by Blizzard, etc). Who else will ever have an IP already so strong with existing gamers combined with the insane amount of time and money that created WoW? Maybe I should pitch a Halo MMO…..

[Arnold Hendrick]

3.

Similar concerns have been raised, both inside and outside the industry, about every successful game genre to date. Formulaic RPG, FPS and RTS games were all the rage at various times. I don't doubt that the vast sums of "stupid money" chasing dreams of gold mountains at the end of the WoW-like rainbows will create a host of "stinker" MMORPGs.

It is also true that the business model and gameplay demands in MMORPGs reduce the number of successful side-by-side competitors who can co-exist. However, Sir Bruce has been studying that issue for years, and saw his original concerns about saturation and cannibalization proven false. Even as WoW has triumphed worldwide, EQ, EQ2, L2 and DAoC were all doing brisk business despite aging platforms (especially EQ and DAoC). This proves that there IS room for competitive products in this space.

In addition, there is even more room when you consider product line branches that haven't even been explored yet.

For example, nobody has found the right business formula for a successful MMOFPS, although there have been regular runs at this holy grail for years. More attempts to build a "winning" MMOFPS are in the works right now.

Almost no MMORTS games have been brought to market. That's a field with great potential if you can figure out how gameplay, community and business models can mesh. I fairly certain at least one well-funded MMORTS development effort has been underway for about the last year.

Finally, as the City duo proves, you CAN be successful with non-fantasy topics in the MMORPG space. Almost everyone in the industry laughed at a superheroes MMORPG until City of Heroes quickly passed the 150k subscriptions mark. After that, both SOE and Microsoft decided they would spend big bucks on big licenses to compete in that part of the MMORPG market.

Needless to say, there other non-fantasy topics with equal potential, including everything from vampires to Indiana Jones style adventuring.

The trick, as always, is making a game good enough to be worth playing. MMOs raise the bar one level higher - can you make a game that's good enough to be worth playing for months or years?

[Lisa Galarneau]

4.

@Mike: Yes! Thank you for clarifying! I also agree that there is still a huge opportunity for the online social gaming experience, it's just that this baggage will hinder us as long as we continue to design the same kind of commitment-heavy, inflexible MMOs. Once word gets out that there are lots of different options that address a range of levels of commitment and play styles, a lot of these 'MMOs aren't for me' types may change their minds. And that will be good.

@JenD: Yes, GW is a great example of an MMO that has deliberately sought to eliminate some of these barriers. (it also had some other features I really liked, like NPCs that help with quests). It would be interesting to explore some of the trade-offs, i.e. does the lack of financial commitment and ability to come and go over time create a less invested social dynamic? I haven't played it enough to really know.

[Lisa Galarneau]

5.

@Arnold: Yes, I know there are always doomsayers, but I am reacting to something a bit different: the fact that there are legions of gamers who might otherwise like MMOs, but avoid them like the plague because of what they have heard about them... the negative brand problem that goes way beyond the quality of any individual title and affects the genre as a whole. Sure, there are people who don't like RTS games or think that many are hopelessly derivative... but these anti MMO types are people who might enjoy playing the games - they just won't give them a chance because of what they have heard about them as a general category.

[Todd Ogrin]

6.

Another reason why people say "MMOs aren't for me" that I've heard several times from several people, most of whom were once in deep and have since emancipated themselves: "I can't turn it off when I want to."

It's really the opposite of the "can't just jump in" item up above...you can't just jump out without sacrificing your place in the group/raid, your instance, the good graces of your guild, or all the work you did clearing mobs that are going to repop in 5 minutes. Putting an MMO on "pause" just isn't possible to the degree most people want or need.

[JenD]

7.

Lisa, my impression of GW is that is hasn’t come close to creating the deep social networking that WoW has. As the industry experiments with MMOs over the next decade, I will be very interested to see the impact of different business models on things like community cohesion, etc. Personally, I love the idea of GW but did not enjoy the actual combat and general gameplay and so I find myself back in CoH or WoW despite myself.

In many ways I think GW is relying on content over community to keep people buying the updates. I am very curious to see if it is enough to keep people playing for much longer. I suspect they will lose their base much more quickly than subscription MMOs.

Another question I have related to your post, beyond GW, does anyone have an example of an attempt to create a more linear, story-driven MMO? Is the sandbox, “I can go anywhere and do a million different things” feeling essential? Perhaps this has been discussed elsewhere here?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

8.

JenD: does anyone have an example of an attempt to create a more linear, story-driven MMO?

Anarchy-Online. The ideas was dropped within one year, AFAIK.

[Bhagpuss]

9.

"In fact, I have often said that since games have always been largely social (and single player gaming an anomaly that resulted largely from technological limitations), that once people have a taste of gaming with others few will choose to go back to solo play."

Isn't it just as likely that, prior to the advent of computer gaming, games had always been largely social because of technological limitations?

I don't know about the USA, but here in the UK we are barraged by surveys and reports claiming that "young people" spend all their free time in front of screens rather than indulging in the healthy outdoor pursuits their parents used to enjoy. Apparently, given the option, they prefer to sit alone in their warm, comfortable bedrooms playing computer games rather than running around in freezing sleet kicking lumps out of each other. Go figure.

If WoW has taught us one thing above any other, its that the more you facilitate solo gameplay the wider your market expands. I feel the social elements of MMOs have always been heavily over-stated, and what players primarily respond to is solo game play with chat-room communcations.

[Andy Havens]

10.

Here's what pisses me off: almost all MMOs treat me exactly like a character in a single-person, stand-alone video game who happens to be playing at the same time with X other players who are being treated exactly like characters in single-person, stand-alone video games.

Which, when I whip out the "all knowing, self reflective mirror of hyper consciousness" that I carry around with me at all times, ends up making me feel like an NPC in everybody else's game.

Lisa said: "Other players represent that sort of super sophisticated AI that no NPC can begin to approach."

Ah! So my participation in a game is a neat way to circumvent the need for good AI [I know that's not what you were *only* saying, Lisa... but it's part of the truth]. With lots of players running around, doing random stuff... you don't need as many bots running around doing programmed random-ish stuff.

I don't care if the men are in tights, space-suits, capes, thongs, fur, spurs or bowling shirts. As long as what I'm doing with others in this space is fundamentally no different than what I could do with myself... why should I play WoW instead of Elder Scrolls?

Now... I hear the screams of "Guilding!" and "PvP!" and "Groups!" Yes. There is interaction with other humans who are plugged into the game on the other end of those toons. And that is significant. But much of what is done -- from a gameplay standpoint -- is identical to what can be done solo, or could be done by NPC-bots. In some cases, I've frankly had more interesting conversations with NPCs in WoW than other players...

What I mean is that the social-ness that is inherent in the system is not being leveraged into very many game mechanics *at all.* On a tactical scale, I know... You want to have a group of players that have "mixed unit" capabilities; shout out for a priest/healer, please. I don't hear that enough in-game... But, again... I've played games where I can control multiple characters and set my priest on "auto-heal my team-mates."

Many of the most social aspects of MMOs are handled *outside* the game mechanics. Many of the problems that are mentioned by Lisa are due not to inherent game-play flaws... but to the way that social group dynamics have been badly layered on top of games that weren't designed specifically for them, but had them kinda glommed on afterward.

It may be that the real attraction of the best current MMOs isn't that they are such great social, multiplayer games per se, but that they represent an added social-feature benefit for folks who would have played the game anyway. WoW, frankly, is a great solo game. The MMO benefits are, yes, a good add. But in my opinion, they really just make it a great solo game that lots of people can play together. Not a great "social game."

"How can MMOs evolve to combat these perception problems and barriers to entry/continued participation?" I think we need to think of the "social gameplay mechanics" possibilities inherent in the medium as a prime-mover. What can people do *here* that they cannot do in a FPS or RTS or RPG. Yes, multiplayer versions of those games will be fun. And, yes, they will find markets, I'm sure. But I think that the first really breakaway MMO (multi-tens of millions) will be the one where the core gameplay revolves around "that thing you do with other players," not swinging a sword, buying/selling credits, gold farming, etc.

Games are primarily about the rules. Right now, the "MM" in "MMO" doesn't drive many rules.

[Dyardawen]

11.

I wouldn't comment much about this very well thought out post.

But being a MMOG player for almost three years, I cannot anymore play any offline game - it't boring. Lately I reinstalled my never really played Morrowind. But after looking for the chat window for about a minute (no joke), I knew that I am finally lost for offline games.
With a few exceptions of course, namely "The Settlers" 3 and 4 and Microsofts Flight Simulator, which latter can be played online as well (via VATSIM for example) and is indeed much more realistic and much more fun than flying around alone.

[Mike Rozak]

12.

The dinosaurs didn't die out; they just evolved into chickens!

Text interactive fiction evolved into adventure games, which evolved into action adventure games. Both text IF and adventure games still exist, but they're niche markets.

Traditional MMORPGs (with orcs, raids, 500+ hours to complete) will always exist. However, newer "MMORPGs" will increasingly target more-casual players. Expect them to change even more radically that GuildWars.

[nate combs]

13.

> The dinosaurs didn't die out; they just evolved into chickens!

But, dinosaurs from which period - the Cretaceous or the Jurassic?

The second part of the question is in which period are we in now, MMO-logically speaking.

[Kohs]

14.

great post!

i believe there IS still a very large untapped audience for MMOs.
right now, they're quite niche, despite however many brazillion people allegedly play WoW.

MMOs, in my opinion, are the next step in entertainment. they've the potential to be much more than just online video games. they can offer features which most other forms of entertainment can not.
most notably, interaction and increased immersiveness in a fictional environment.

i hope that one day we'll see nearly as many people playing MMOs as we see going to the movies, or watching TV.
as computers and internet enters more and more households around the world, the potential MMO audience only grows.

but, like you said, diversification needs to occur. and SOON!
we can't keep making the same Diku, loot&level, item-centric, rigid-classed, static-World, whack-a-mole, grindfest, memory-hogging, number-crunching, predictable, churn-prone games which are flooding the market right now.

CCP, i believe, has taken the first step in the right direction with EVE.
but it's only the first step down a long path.

i share your belief that players themselves are the advanced AI which would present the challenges players always ask for, and the challenges which new players would seek.
but you can't just unleash that "AI" against each other. there has to be rules.
the rules have to be familiar to people. which means they have to work more or less like they do in real life. they must be organic.

just as movie audiences complain about plot-holes, or bad dialogue, most people can and will be dissatisfied with every artificial or poorly designed rule in an MMO.

there will always be a market for the Diku-based MMOs we have now. but that market has pretty much reached its full potential with WoW.
WoW is practically the ultimate in Diku MMOs. Blizzard took every standard feature and tweaked and polished it to near perfection.

but if MMOs want to continue to grow beyond the numbers of WoW, they must reach out to the non-RPG initiated. the rest of the world.
people who want to just jump in and play, and not be restricted by level, or requirements, or artificial restrictions.

hopefully, within the next 5 years or so, MMOs will emerge which reach towards that potential, and this niche video game genre will begin to become an entertainment medium in its own right.
maybe then we can make Roger Ebert eat his words...

[Jonas P]

15.

Excellent read! I know several people in each category so it was fun to have you bring them all up.

I think MMO's will break into the next level of social consciousness when we as developers stop trying to emulate EQ, or WoW, or [insert successful MMO here]. This thought that our MMO has to dominate the rest is a poor premise for designing such games. To paraphrase Mr. McQuaid (I've been watching Vanguard lately) "if 100k subscribers is niche, I'll be fine with that, but we can do more".

Once we recognize the legitimacy of a niche product as a successful one, it opens up the possibilities for the numerous genre's of MMO's mentioned (FPS, RTS, Action Adventure, Puzzle, etc.). So you create a MMOFPS (like the folks creating Huxley) and it gets 150k subscribers... Congratulations! You've just released a successful game. Now does your design have the constitution to make maintain those numbers and actually create a business out of running such a game?

I think a big problem is that the large majority of us still view MMO's as single products that we design, develop, release and then move onto the next. While I am wary of the hype over Vanguard, I do appreciate their business model. They are designing with the next seven years in mind, with several full expansions already worked into the full story they are trying to tell.

Until we start being satisfied with our niche, whatever it may be, we'll never be able to prove to those on the outside that we have something to offer everyone and we won't ruin their lives.

And until we start designing MMO's (of any genre) for the long haul, we'll always be designing just another game that people get sick of and leave.

[Mike Rozak]

16.

Jonas P wrote: "And until we start designing MMO's (of any genre) for the long haul, we'll always be designing just another game that people get sick of and leave."

As I see it, we SHOULD be designing worlds with the assumption that players will get sick of them and leave.

What we have with EQ, WoW, and Lineage are the equivalent of Robert Jordan's 13+ book Wheel of Time series.

Most books, or even book series, are much shorter. I think MMORPGs should be too... but then they become "chickens" (no longer dinosaurs) because many unique MMORPG features (like guilds) tend to disappear.

[Jonas P]

17.

I guess it comes down to the whole 'gamey-world' or 'worldy-game' question. Do I want to build a world that has contrived elements that make it more acceptable as a game, or do I want to build a game that has contrived elements of a world in it to add immersion?

I would agree that we SHOULD be designing worldy-games for players to get sick of and leave, but I do think gamey-worlds (my own passion) should be for the long haul. But for those who decide to build latter, is it viable to do so alongside an industry that churns out mass amounts of the prior?

While I am all for a dozen 150k subscriber MMORPG, MMOFPS, MMORTS, & MMO-puzzle games all existing and thriving at once, would this ease of finding their niche keep players from delving into a gamey-world that, like the real world, requires a bit more tenacity to truly enjoy?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

18.

Jonas: But for those who decide to build latter, is it viable to do so alongside an industry that churns out mass amounts of the prior?

For an immersive MMO, the world is the interface. Current input-devices are very limited, thus if you want advanced and unique actions users will have to learn a new interface because of the limited mappings available...

Users dislike learning new interfaces. They would rather see you add new content. Long term prediction: You will end up with big companies Disney/Sony/EA having a few worlds for which they churn out lots of content. All other providers will be niche..

[ErikC]

19.

I am not so sure that one must have complicated interface mappings to create a sense of a world. User personalisation and perhaps direct subconscious user input could be via camera tracking / face analysis and biofeedback rather than alternatives to keyboards. Walking mechanisms could also be intuitive physical computing devices.
As to gamey worlds or worldy games couldn't there be one environment that allows both, but creates content filters so those inhabiting can communicate with those questing but only in ways related to the quest content or backstory? Inhabitants would probably try to corrupt the traveller's (gamer's) quests but that could just add to the fun of the game/world.

[Jonas P]

20.

I too don't think a complicated interface is the key to immersion in a world, though it certainly will help it go further than ever before. An immersive world is designed much like Bethesda designed Oblivion, with player-independant AI and lasting changes from player interaction.

Players as inhabitants... yes, but certainly not exclusively. There always will have to be a mechanism to suplement those late night faithful who want to experience the world, but can't because all the shop-owners, quest givers and tradesman are in bed.

Though as high speed internet becomes even more the norm, interfaces like the Wii might be able to break into the MMO genre and that would truly be a huge step in immersion.

"Sweet, we now have to actually swing at every snake we kill for this quest"

"How many you need?"

"100... Man my arm is gonna get tired..."

[keebler]

21.

Perhaps these game worlds will never really catch on until you get the equivalent of a Microsoft who comes along and builds a base world that other companies can add to (think OS and Quicken for example). What you have now is the equivalent of building a OS just so your financial program can operate.

I honestly think until you get a company to build "The World" that other companies can add their stuff to, you won't grow beyond what we have today. How many companies are out there that have ideas for games that might attract a few hundred thousand players, but they can't afford to make their world? Now imagine if they could just focus on their idea, a pro football addition for instance, and plug that into The World. Sure it might only appeal to 30,000 people, but add them to all the players in The World, and now you are getting somewhere interesting.

[d]

22.

The industry is not di ing it just takes more for developers to get gamers hooked now a days. If you have been involved in any betas lately folks say they want something different the developers do different then they hear we want more social not all combat / quests . The new releases if they stick to tried true they will only do their own niche following. If they dare to add social happenings things to do in down time be creative with crafting they can cross over to that idea of something different.Unfortuntely i do not see the ideal of something different or skill based games in the next 5 years.
So i do think the newest releases will be in for a surprise. We just aren't ready to jump on the next band wagon, if it doesn't give us something besides quests combat only

[kimmygorden]

23.

The word is synergy.

A "world" is a combination of systems that work together at it's core.

MMOs have to be more than quests, combat, and levels.

Why is it that MMOs are designed for everyone to perform quests to gain levels to do more quests to gain levels?

A player should be able to enter your world and whether they be casual- grinders- PvEers- PvPers- Social- or Solo they should be able to find a place in your world. The way to do that is to consider these playstyles and used them in a fashion that is in your worlds synergy.

There are days that I want to log on and play for 30 minutes and there are days that I want to play for hours. The next really successful MMO will allow me to do that.

When you say it's a difference of Gamey-Worlds and Worldly-Games, I think you really have to strive for both and make sure they can co-exist.

If you make a game where everything is completely open then I may as well be in the real world doing something. I bought your game for entertainment- that means I'm going to need SOME direction.
You don't go to a movie and direct what happens next- it's the same with successful video games. A story is presented and you follow a path-
AT THE SAME TIME
An MMO MUST allow you to control/change the world to some degree. Going to kill the big bad Wizard on Monday and then repeating the quest with a friend on Tuesday may be fun for a while but it's not a world.

Here are a couple of things I think need to be done:

The first step must be a world that sets itself in motion from the minute it is created no matter if there are any PCs at all.
Meaning NPCs need to have a purpose they are striving for constantly.
"The Klingons are trying to rule the galaxy" so they are deploying ships- capturing planets- destroying cities- all of this is happening whether You or your buddies are playing or not.

Next, players need to be able to participate in this world in more ways than building weapons to combat, combating, healing the combatants- etc.
If you like to RTS then you should be able to participate on that level. If you like to solve puzzles there should be something for you. If you like to craft there should be an interesting way for you to do it that has an actual effect on the world.
If you kill the head of the Klingons- HE'S DEAD. And someone steps up to take his place OR the Klingon's target your race now. Which brings me to-

There needs to be a HISTORY in your game. People should be able to look back and know that the Klingons started capturing planets and then a guild of warriors called Epsilon chased them back into their own corner of the Universe.

Now, a player shouldn't HAVE to know this information but it should be available so that one can feel that he/she has a chance to change the world around them.

Lastly, the way these game draw in money needs a second look other than the monthly fee. Yeah, the monthly fee is the easy way to quick, lock solid cash BUT with hundreds of thousands logging on regularly- there has got to be better ways to earn dough on MMOs allowing you to lower or eliminate fees.

I could go on- but I've ranted enough.

[TheGrog]

24.

One point to remember. There are 8 million known MMO players. More that have stopped playing for the moment. Soon there should be a niche for a 'veteran's' game. I know a number of people unhappy with WoW due to faults, that while they could be changed such changes would be detrimental to, well, noobs.

A big market? No. But perhaps a dedicated one. Games to draw in new, fresh players have an attraction. But a company's core market is their core market for a reason, and entrenching one's relationship with that core market is not always a bad thing.

The problem with such a game would be competing against an established product/service. A game aimed at a niche that hasn't been exploited yet has no, or few, established comparisons so success is easier. It's not hard to be better than nothing. Jumping a bar already established is harder, but the rewards may be better.

Regardless, tackling WoW head to head isn't going to be easy. Trying to outdo them even in a particular niche or constellation of niches isn't simple. Attacking them at the least satisfied areas of their customer base is best, at the least developed areas of their game system next best. One potential problem with applying these kinds of classic business tactics though. Can you build a successful MMO community by stealing away one or a handful of segements from another game? Can a fairly specific MMO succeed, or is there a general population minimum draw level that you need for a healthy MMO community?

[TheGrog]

25.

As for WoW being the 'perfection' of Diku MUD style play ... er, not really. It has it's high points, and a lot of them.

It's also got it's low points. Travel. LFG tools. Social networking/information storage. Scaling.

WoW is good. It is neither perfect, invincible, nor all-encompassing.

26.

For example, nobody has found the right business formula for a successful MMOFPS, although there have been regular runs at this holy grail for years. More attempts to build a "winning" MMOFPS are in the works right now.

I think the problem is that there's too much competition with the models that people have tried so far. Why pay a subscription for an FPS against other people, when you can just go buy and play Counter-strike, and now, Counter-strike: Source? Or whatever version of Unreal is current. Or Battlefield 2.

Really, the only potential difference so far is in scale and persistence. When scale gets really really big, people often feel like they have less control. This seems like a rather problematic conflict.

[Darniaq]

27.

A good post, but the same questions in a different year. Only two real differences in 2006:

1) The bar is much higher for the next King to jump
2) The industry is more aware of the disparities in both experience and success of East and West.

Only a few companies can beat WoW at its game, but the same was said about EQ1. The key isn't the money. It's the Will. Companies have spent comparable dollars on games (Driv3r comes to mind). These same companies haven't spent it on MMOs because, as noted by many above, they didn't think the ROI was there. Now with WoW's dominance, they adjusted their reasons for not thinking the ROI was there. Instead of the genre peaking at 750k total accounts, not it's 8.25mil account (7.5mil + 750k). It's easy for the few companies with these budgets to talk themselves out of a huge risk.

In my opinion, the future will be services like SOE's All Access Pass. Only MMO aggregators like them, NC, Nexon, Codemasters and maybe someday Funcom can do this. Right now MMOs are too vertically oriented (one company = one game = one big risk). I can see a future of Miniclip.com for MMOs though, where these same vertical companies try to enter a meta portal of MMO options.

That may increase exposure, spread the wealth, or only reward those with the most Marketing dollars. But the Internet itself is already an aggregator, and the victors already defined by these things.

But just like any indie-vs-mass argument, the "victor" is based on a constantly changing metric.

Will WoW be beat? Sure. But that's not the question any more than it was for EQ1. It's really a question of how. And in my opinion, the answer is when the rules for success get redefined, not when a better diku is invented.

[TheGrog]

28.

My counterpoint would be to not forget Diku gameplay. There are a lot of people at least somewhat satisifed with WoW, since they still play, and some large fraction are happy with what they get.

New rules and new gameplay is all well and good, but if you alienate a large part of the current market you are asking for trouble and more risk. Some parts of Diku play have a global effect, some don't. The trick is picking out which are which, and which are worth the tradeoffs elsewhere.

I have to wonder what current all access passes really look like? How many people actively bounce between the games and how many spend a large fraction of their time in one and only rarely dabble in others. Considering how grindy most current MMO's are, the thought of an all access that doesn't transfer or credit me time spent in other games isn't very attractive to me. Leaving one grind to play another for a bit has it's attractions, but not for long. Anybody know what the play patterns of all access players look like?

[keebler]

29.

Just from my own experience with the all access pass, I really don't jump from game to game because you really don't get anywhere in modern MMORPGs by playing a few hours every few weeks. You don't get to build the social connections doing so, which is honestly the main draw for these games for me.

[Jonas P]

30.

-----
Kimmygordon said: "When you say it's a difference of Gamey-Worlds and Worldly-Games, I think you really have to strive for both and make sure they can co-exist."
-----

Agreed, though I'd argue that this means you have to build a gamey-world first. It is much harder (if not impossible) to add the world after the fact.

-----
Keebler said: "I honestly think until you get a company to build "The World" that other companies can add their stuff to, you won't grow beyond what we have today."
-----

Possibly. Much like the Neal Stephenson's metaverse, this world would allow a game like Huxley to exist right along side Age of Empires and Puzzle Pirates. Of course, having each genre of MMO existing side by side in the same world might pollute the theme of the world for some, but this might be worth it.

[Matt Mihaly]

31.

Lisa wrote:

The thing is that WoW could well be an aberration, a red herring that makes us think that MMOs are really taking off when it might in fact be the only MMO that several million of those players ever play. For a lot of people (in the U.S. anyway- I'm painfully aware that Asia is a whole different ball of wax), WoW is their first MMO – and the reason they started playing was either a) they simply thought it was the next installment in the Warcraft franchise and didn’t give much thought to the MMO aspect or b) they got nagged by friends to play it and flocked to it in the same way they all rushed to set up their MySpace pages (and as uncommitted Web 2.0 types will all follow sheeplike the inevitable diaspora, as well).

Good post btw, Lisa.

A point though: In terms of popularity, WoW is not a singular aberration, particularly when talking about the US and the West, as you mainly seem to. Runescape is more popular than WoW in the West and has touched more people's lives. It makes less money per player, for sure, but the article wasn't really about how much money the MMO 'brand' makes or doesn't make.

--matt

[lewy]

32.

I think the key in the future is going to be casual play. The average MMOG right now requires a huge time commitment and the type of individual who can accommodate that time commitment is decidedly atypical. Most people would be better served by a model that allows them to drop in at any time based on the needs of their personal schedules, play, and then leave. That of course is what single player games do so well.

[lewy]

33.

Dyardawen wrote:

"But being a MMOG player for almost three years, I cannot anymore play any offline game - it't boring. Lately I reinstalled my never really played Morrowind. But after looking for the chat window for about a minute (no joke), I knew that I am finally lost for offline games."

On the other hand my experience has been exactly the opposite. I played the UO beta, EQ, DAoC, CoH and WoW. In other words, I played the same basic game through three incarnations and I'm bored to tears now with the whole genre. I had to force myself to level up my WoW toon to 60 and I suffered through an epiphany where I realized I was paying to do something I really didn't enjoy. After that I swore I wouldn't pay for another MMOG until something new came out.

With single player games though I have recently been impressed with the level of innovation the major releases display in terms of story and polish. In fact I wonder if the single player market is on the verge of a golden age, something similar to the era of creativity and innovation that film went through during the 1920's. I wonder how many of the commentators on this board realize how badly the MMOG market is being outstripped in terms of creativity by its cousin in the single player realm.

[magicback (Frank)]

34.

Good OP and comments.

If we stick to the Diku model of RPG MMOGs, then yeah the issues will persist.

However, for three issues that Lisa highlighted: (1) time requirement for social play, (2) level coordination issues, and (3) group coordination issues, let me ask the following?

A common solution in the pen-and-paper game is to (1) allow new players to create characters of appropriate level to the group with appropriate gear, (2) allow other players or GM to bot the character if the player can not make the session, and (3) various options to stop and start session lengths and quests chain like the "Save" option did for single-player games. So why none of these old ideas have been implemented?

Are there a few sacred cow paradigm concepts that just can't be touched? Do we really have to grind for levels and gear? Is the game about level and gear accumulation or other type of content?

At least for business models, Runescape and other companies with innovative models kinda broke the monthly fee paradigm. Setting standard fees at $15/m surely limits the addressable market. Nevertheless, pairing Diku-type gameplay with a $15/m fee is a great and profitable niche.

Frank

Frank

[Ren Reynolds]

35.

/me puts on pop-culture editor hat

Lisa > all we need is Britney Spears to write a song about her hawt night elf and we’ll know that the tipping point is nigh.

Hardly

Kiss of life would be if Blohan dressed up as an Night Elf or something - actually if anyone parties with her could you pass this on as a request from the TN popculture night desk team, kiss of death would be if K-fed did a WoW rap.

36.

Lewy wrote:

"I think the key in the future is going to be casual play. The average MMOG right now requires a huge time commitment and the type of individual who can accommodate that time commitment is decidedly atypical. Most people would be better served by a model that allows them to drop in at any time based on the needs of their personal schedules, play, and then leave. That of course is what single player games do so well."

I just don't see casual gamers ever becoming attached to a MMORPG because the things that make them attractive over single player games usually require time in game. I don't know if I'm typical, but there is always a tiny spot in the back of my mind where I hope to become a hero/famous/whatever when I start a new MMORPG. Then there is the whole social/community aspect that keeps you coming back even after all the newness has worn off. These concepts are the foundation of the genre and I just can't see how you get there playing for an hour a week.

[keebler]

37.

Lewy wrote:

"I think the key in the future is going to be casual play. The average MMOG right now requires a huge time commitment and the type of individual who can accommodate that time commitment is decidedly atypical. Most people would be better served by a model that allows them to drop in at any time based on the needs of their personal schedules, play, and then leave. That of course is what single player games do so well."

I just don't see casual gamers ever becoming attached to a MMORPG because the things that make them attractive over single player games usually require time in game. I don't know if I'm typical, but there is always a tiny spot in the back of my mind where I hope to become a hero/famous/whatever when I start a new MMORPG. Then there is the whole social/community aspect that keeps you coming back even after all the newness has worn off. These concepts are the foundation of the genre and I just can't see how you get there playing for an hour a week.

[Maarek]

38.

WoW is nothing more than familiar faces from the famous RTS games from the past brought down to the single level of one unit/player. MMOs are leap to a new genre that people are trying out. And WoW has been the biggest that people have tried.

Today, there are 2 types of MMOS, the First person Shooter MMO and the MMORPG. Battlefield 2 is the biggest First Person shooter MMO where there is no single player version. This was drawn out of a Half Life clone called Counter Strike. There are no levels involved, just practice on shooting a gun and organization.

The MMORPG has most been the hack/slash gain levels that pretty much all have been except for one. I haven't seen this before, but the skills involve are real-time that can take place while players are not logged into the system. EVE Online http://www.eve-online.com is a space travel style that involve less time in the game to gain levels than WoW's immensive fighting needs to be. Other than UO multi-professions, EVE is an economic based system that allows players to choose any type of profession they choose from fighter to trader. Yes, buying and selling goods (even stock) to make as much as you can in the game without shooting an NPC or another player. It is even possible to play for free with the trading of Time cards which are purchased with real money and trade them for the in-game money called ISK.

Also, I can compare that you CAN manipulate your enviroment in EVE with system control and structures to build where in WoW, you can only Raze other towns and PVP without loosing an item. This will spark an arguement, but the point is people like to see changes even in the games they play not by the developers, but by one another who actually play the game.

[Crimon Jihad]

39.

Whatever happened to Asheron's Call?

[W]

40.

By and large, MMOs and MMO culture do deserve their bad rap. And while I'm completely sympathetic with performing academic research on MMOs, it continually astonishes me how largely uncritical and apologetic the academics have been. Perhaps because they got so caught up in the cyberpunk/space vision of the future, or because they realize their reputation and influence depends heavily on cultural acceptance of the form. We've certainly heard no shortage of grandstanding rhetoric about MMOs on this blog.

[jmachoff]

41.

"I honestly think until you get a company to build "The World" that other companies can add their stuff to, you won't grow beyond what we have today."

SUN Microsystems are doing just this. Read on. It is very exciting.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/oct2005/id20051028_845248.htm

-jmachoff

[keebler]

42.

jmachoff wrote:

"SUN Microsystems are doing just this. Read on. It is very exciting.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/oct2005/id20051028_845248.htm"

Those bastages stole my idea. :)

[Raimondas]

43.

I played Dark Age of Camelot for two years or so and just couple weeks ago I realized that I don't want to play it anymore. Furthermore, I realized that I don't want to play any other MMOGs for now. I was not a hardcore player, more like a heavy casual. The reasons I played and I don't want to play anymore:

- I liked DAOC's RvR. It was fun and like the original author says magnified the social side of MMOs.
- I did not like PvE at all, and I don't see myself going to any of the PvE MMOGs. In computer games I like the story (and the Hero Story :)), and MMOs just don't have interesting enough storylines. Actually, it is ironic, but Guild Wars, which I hate because of instancing, is probably the only MMO with an interesting mission storyline.
- I did not join with real-life friends, and although I had some buddies in DAOC, I did not make a very strong connection with them. This has turned to bite my experience in two ways: as people leave DAOC, it's harder and harder to find groups for fun RvR PvP if you don't have close friends. On the other hand, I don't want to go into a new game and try to find community there.

So to summarize, yes, MMOs do seem to have negatives, such as creeping boredom (both in PvE and PvP), high social effort costs of changing games, and missing storylines. At least for now, this means that I am back to solo computer games.

[EdMcGon]

44.

Back to what Mike Sellers said:
What we can't afford are any more men in tights games. Really. Their time will come again, but for now, WoW's shadow is too deep and too long...

MMOs will remain a niche only so long as we continue to design for, develop with, and sell to people just like us. In doing so we only dig our niche narrower and deeper, which is not a great way to grow a market. A little creativity and courage will go a long way to breaking out of this niche and seeing how far we can grow.

The only part of that I disagree with is "courage". Creativity with low overhead doesn't require nearly as much courage. Aim for the niche markets, but keep your costs low. If it works, you can always expand later.

[ChrisBateman]

45.

Lisa:

Our research contradicts your suggestion that single player gaming is an anomaly that will be eventually replaced by multiplayer play. This is a view I hear occasionally, but only from people who work in the MMOG field. Confirmation bias, perhaps? ;)

Play is extremely diverse, and there are many players who are not at all attracted to playing with other people and greatly prefer to play alone. This relates to psychological factors independent of play, and therefore seems unlikely to change.

The question that is up in the air is where the split between MMOG revenue and single player revenue will find its balance point, which is less certain.

Our informal study suggests also that many people go through a MMOG play phase at some time in their life, but that it doesn't last - students get jobs, for instance, and no longer have the time to invest. I'd like to see a more detailed study of this in order to better gauge the situation. There might already be one that I have missed, of course. :)

As a case in point to underline my opening point, look at the sales figures for The Sims (10 million units) and GTA: San Andreas (16 million units) versus the subscriber rates of the most popular MMOGs (4 million subscribers for Wow, which has approximately 50% market share). Now add the disconnect between the audiences for The Sims and GTA; let's assume a 25% crossover, this places a *lower* bound on the current single player market at 20 million and an *upper* bound on the current MMOG market at 8 million.

Now, and this is the critical point, consider whether the play of The Sims and GTA can be converted to multiplayer without a degradation of play needs. They cannot because (a) The Sims dollplay rests upon the player being the sole agent in their world - that the world belongs to them (b) the playground world of GTA rests and requires the same condition - a sole agent. Adding other players to these games interferes with the core play - as the Sims Online demonstrated to some degree. (Although an online GTA is a possibility, of course, but its audience would be a cut of the GTA audience, not its entirety).

There's room for considerable debate, of course. :)

I would suggest on the basis of our research that the theoretical split would be about 50% (extroverted) + 25% (introverted Guardian) = 75% of the *population* (i.e. of everyone, not just game hobbiests) in theory might prefer playing in groups to playing alone. However, and this is the irony, the videogame hobby attracts primarily an introverted audience - that is, the remaining 25% who would not (in general) prefer playing in groups form the core of the videogame market currently.

The real question then becomes: how many of the people with extroverted-preferences can become interested in videogame play? On the basis of a survey of 3,000 players of MMOGs, the answer is significantly lower than might be expected, at least with our current games.

But I'm rambling already, and any clarity has been lost in between, alas. Hope you gained something of interest from this. ;)

[Biggles]

46.

Sorry to bring this back up, but I just ran across a post on another forum which I think sums up the problem rather well, at least from my point of view.

"""

"But I think all MMOs are inherently worthless"

Indeed they are; all they elicit other than a
shallow gaming experience is a level of social
interaction lacking in other games. Unfortunately
when I am looking for social interaction I either
head to a bar or the rec center, not my computer.

"""

[Rossignol]

47.

Biggles: As the post before yours observes, play is extremely diverse. Social interactions are diverse too, so can't it just be the case that sometimes we want the truncated interaction of MMO games, while other times we want beer and two hundred people in a nightclub? Perhaps the value of MMOs isn't that they offer a level social activity that isn't available in other games, but that they offer a new gradation of social experience that expands the possibilities open to us?