Penny Arcade decided to flamebait the blogosphere this week with a post about how purchasing used games is comparable to piracy in that the proceeds do not go to the game's developers. By this standard, PVD is apparently a pirate blog, as the copy of Assassin's Creed that I posted about playing yesterday came not from a retail store but rather from Blockbuster. More to the point, if buying used is akin to piracy, then waiting for the price to come down before purchasing the game "new" is ninja looting.
The initial sales figures for games - and increasingly pre-sales - have a huge impact on the game's ultimate fate. More sales convince retailers to order more copies and allocate more shelf space. More sales lead to more buzz which generates more sales by word of mouth. If you're hoping for continued support for a title, whether that's DLC patches, new content, or future expansions and sequels, that possibility is determined by the EARLY sales, not the number of copies that are sold at $20 a year later when the retailer gives up and wants its shelf space back. At a minimum, there's an analogy to the raider who does not show up to raid nights when the guild is learning new content, but then ambles along to farm nights to reap the loot rewards once the content has been beaten.
MMO's and the effects of banning resale
All of this matters because, as Zubon points out (too succinctly to quote without stealing the whole post) the potential ability to resell games is factored into the game's value. For the buyer, resale is a conditional, partial money-back guarantee. Most of us aren't looking to get rid of the classic game that we've played over and over again. We're looking to ditch the $60 game that offers 8 hours of mediocre gameplay (a third of which feels like padding added to justify the price tag). In an era where it is really difficult to get complete and objective reviews at launch, the knowledge that we CAN unload a game we don't like is an insurance policy - this game costs $60, but we can get back $20 of that if it sucks.
We don't have to ask what the effect of removing resale is on player willingness to take risks on a day one (or before) purchase of a new title. As MMO players, in a genre where accounts cannot be resold legitimately, we already know. Though some still swear by the "land rush" of an MMO launch, the more conservative approach is to wait for months or even a year to see where the dust is going to settle before investing your time and money in a new game. Those of us who do take the plunge on launch day are quick to cut our losses by stopping at the end of the month that was included in the price of the box.
Caution is a natural defense against marketing and hype that is exaggerated and embellished at best, in an era where new MMO's often need six months of continued development to deliver what they promised for launch. Unfortunately, these delayed purchases and canceled subscriptions can lead to decimated dev teams that never get to finish games that might have had more potential. Players lose, developers lose, and sometimes even the investors lose.
An economic decision
Of course, console publishers know this, which is why they're looking to "tax" used sales with $10 or more in one-time DLC coupons in the box rather than trying to eliminating them altogether. As Chris at Game By Night points out, they could try to capture a larger share of the price-conscious market directly by allowing prices to float downwards with demand (as they do online). My guess is that they would prefer NOT to do this to defend the concept that all new games should be worth the $60 MSRP, even when some games are arguably worth more and others are worth far less.
The reason why Blockbuster bought so many copies of Assassin's Creed back in 2007 was because the strong sales at the time suggested that people would still be willing to pay them to rent the game in 2010. In the end, those early sales might actually have been worth more to the developers than the possibility of selling the game to me "new" for $20 three years later.
Cinematic Storytelling Vs Failure
I've been making good on my New Year's resolution to work on my console game backlog, wrapping up Uncharted 2 and Assassin's Creed (yes, the original) in the last week. The two games differ in some ways - Uncharted is like an interactive action movie with guns and grenades, while AC is more about stealth assassination (except when you abruptly need to kill 10 guys at once) in the era of the crusades. Even so, the two share the use of cinematic storytelling and an approach to dealing with player failure.
Storytelling and gameplay
If you look at an old school "pure" game, like say Super Mario, the story is generally pretty limited - a scene at the start in which The Princess is kidnapped again and a scene at the end in which she gives the plumber a peck on the cheek. The "point" of that game, and its incentive to continue, is the gameplay itself, and beating each additional level. If the game gets too hard, that's okay because you're not missing much.
By contrast, these newer-fangled cinematic games are out to tell a story. Each gameplay success is rewarded with the next scene in the tale. The game mechanics are conceptually similar - you're using the abilities on your character and the tools in the environment to solve puzzles (which may include beating enemies) - but the philosophy is very different. When you fail to figure something out in Uncharted or AC, you don't get sent back to the beginning of the level. The scene resets itself to a point pretty close to where you failed, and you can try it again until you finally beat it and then never look back.
Because of this story focus, giving up on a cinematic game is much more of a "failure" than the Mario game. When you quit, you don't get to see how the story ends. This is a problem for the developers, because they want you to leave happy and ready to purchase the sequel.
Quests and MMO Storytelling
Here's where this becomes relevant to the MMO audience: the modern quest system is driving MMO's away from the gameplay model and towards the cinematic model.
World of Warcraft launched primarily as a world, full of threats for players to attack. Sure, you needed to raid to get at the very end of each storyline, but this mattered less because there were multiple stories to follow and multiple zones to explore. The game's two expansions, however, have gone the more cinematic route. With a few sideplot exceptions, every single quest in the new content of these expansions has been focused on building up the storyline to the expansion's signature fight (Illidan and Arthas). Ignoring the plot is no longer an option unless you simply don't read, and even that won't save you from cinematic events like the Wrathgate. This, in turn, has left the playerbase less satisfied with paying full price and not getting to see the end of the story.
Bioware's upcoming Star Wars extravaganza will take the format to its logical conclusion, with a multiplayer form of Dragon Age and Mass Effect, complete with cinematic cutscenes and dialog trees. Players are excited about this, but I wonder whether they'll like the results. I've never been able to get into Dragon Age personally; the gameplay is too shallow compared to what we have in MMO's to stand on its own merits, but it requires just enough attention to seriously detract from sitting back and enjoying the story while you fumble with inventory management and character sheets. Somehow, I don't think I'll be first in line to pay for MMOre of the same.
Storytelling and gameplay
If you look at an old school "pure" game, like say Super Mario, the story is generally pretty limited - a scene at the start in which The Princess is kidnapped again and a scene at the end in which she gives the plumber a peck on the cheek. The "point" of that game, and its incentive to continue, is the gameplay itself, and beating each additional level. If the game gets too hard, that's okay because you're not missing much.
By contrast, these newer-fangled cinematic games are out to tell a story. Each gameplay success is rewarded with the next scene in the tale. The game mechanics are conceptually similar - you're using the abilities on your character and the tools in the environment to solve puzzles (which may include beating enemies) - but the philosophy is very different. When you fail to figure something out in Uncharted or AC, you don't get sent back to the beginning of the level. The scene resets itself to a point pretty close to where you failed, and you can try it again until you finally beat it and then never look back.
Because of this story focus, giving up on a cinematic game is much more of a "failure" than the Mario game. When you quit, you don't get to see how the story ends. This is a problem for the developers, because they want you to leave happy and ready to purchase the sequel.
Quests and MMO Storytelling
Here's where this becomes relevant to the MMO audience: the modern quest system is driving MMO's away from the gameplay model and towards the cinematic model.
World of Warcraft launched primarily as a world, full of threats for players to attack. Sure, you needed to raid to get at the very end of each storyline, but this mattered less because there were multiple stories to follow and multiple zones to explore. The game's two expansions, however, have gone the more cinematic route. With a few sideplot exceptions, every single quest in the new content of these expansions has been focused on building up the storyline to the expansion's signature fight (Illidan and Arthas). Ignoring the plot is no longer an option unless you simply don't read, and even that won't save you from cinematic events like the Wrathgate. This, in turn, has left the playerbase less satisfied with paying full price and not getting to see the end of the story.
Bioware's upcoming Star Wars extravaganza will take the format to its logical conclusion, with a multiplayer form of Dragon Age and Mass Effect, complete with cinematic cutscenes and dialog trees. Players are excited about this, but I wonder whether they'll like the results. I've never been able to get into Dragon Age personally; the gameplay is too shallow compared to what we have in MMO's to stand on its own merits, but it requires just enough attention to seriously detract from sitting back and enjoying the story while you fumble with inventory management and character sheets. Somehow, I don't think I'll be first in line to pay for MMOre of the same.
Designing DDO Druids
DDOCast spent a few minutes of this week's episode brainstorming about when and how the Dungeons and Dragons Druid class might arrive in DDO. The challenges with this class exemplify some of the issues that all games face when adding new classes.
The Mind is Mightier Than The Microprocessor
As nearly as I can tell, the big issue is that the class would require two major game mechanic systems that currently do not exist in the game. In addition to spell-casting, Dungeons and Dragons Druids have the ability to shapeshift into just about anything (animals, plant creatures, elementals). On top of that, Druids can tame dozens of creatures as animal companions, who can advance into sentient, intelligent beings that can then take a character class and gain class levels as if they were a free-standing character.
In a pen and paper RPG, these mechanics work because the game is being run by a living, hopefully intelligent Dungeon Master who can make a rational decision about what exactly happens if the player turns into a Fire Elemental while fighting Ragnaros (or whatever). Unfortunately, a computer game needs to be told in advance what to do about every possible situation, which requires a far more limited stable of options.
Working within the system
DDO's most recent new class, the Favored Soul, is also a divine spellcaster. However, unlike the Druid, the Favored Soul is effectively a Sorceror with different numbers plugged into some stats and a different spell list. The class has some unique quirks, but none of these required new game systems to implement. My guess is that the length of the wait for the DDO Druid will depend heavily on how much Turbine is willing to compromise on the class features (and how much compromise is possible before the class becomes nigh indistinguishable from its existing counterparts).
SOE and Blizzard have been able to implement shape-changing Druids in Norrath and Azeroth because they own the respective lores; if they say that the local Druids only know 3-4 forms, then that's all they know, and that's a reasonable number to implement. Turbine has previously implemented some limitations on spells that are not limited in the pen and paper game; for example, the "summon monster" and "summon nature's ally" spells can summon any creature of an appropriate power level in the pen and paper game, but are limited to a single type of creature in DDO. Even so, shapeshifting raises all kinds of complicated questions, especially when paired with other classes. This level of effort is not feasible for a single class - if they really wanted to do this, they could also implement self-shape-shifting for arcane casters to gain more milage out of their work on the backend, but that would remain a major effort.
The animal companion system seems more promising. DDO has NPC hirelings, who take up a slot in your party and can fill some rudimentary party tasks. It also has uncontrolled NPC pets from a variety of spells, and a recent game update put significant work into fleshing out undead pets for the Necromancy-inclined Wizards. In principle, these efforts might lay the groundwork for a more advanced pet system, though they're still a far cry from what longtime players might be expecting.
When to add classes?
The real challenge when adding one or more new classes to an existing MMO is determining how much effort it is feasible to spend on a single class. If you look at, say, WoW, Death Knights entered the game with a variety of new ideas (no single tanking tree, pets and heals and damage, several new types of resources) and have had to change to behave more like normal classes in the long run for the sake of balance.
However, if you do too little, there's no reason for players to be excited about new classes. In that case, you're just adding work for the class design team, who will need to devise a niche for the new guys for no good reason. The question is when the tradeoffs involved become worth the effort.
Will DDO Druids that look like Priests with slightly more robust pets and slight variations in their spell list make the cut? Time will tell for Turbine and Stormreach.
The Mind is Mightier Than The Microprocessor
As nearly as I can tell, the big issue is that the class would require two major game mechanic systems that currently do not exist in the game. In addition to spell-casting, Dungeons and Dragons Druids have the ability to shapeshift into just about anything (animals, plant creatures, elementals). On top of that, Druids can tame dozens of creatures as animal companions, who can advance into sentient, intelligent beings that can then take a character class and gain class levels as if they were a free-standing character.
In a pen and paper RPG, these mechanics work because the game is being run by a living, hopefully intelligent Dungeon Master who can make a rational decision about what exactly happens if the player turns into a Fire Elemental while fighting Ragnaros (or whatever). Unfortunately, a computer game needs to be told in advance what to do about every possible situation, which requires a far more limited stable of options.
Working within the system
DDO's most recent new class, the Favored Soul, is also a divine spellcaster. However, unlike the Druid, the Favored Soul is effectively a Sorceror with different numbers plugged into some stats and a different spell list. The class has some unique quirks, but none of these required new game systems to implement. My guess is that the length of the wait for the DDO Druid will depend heavily on how much Turbine is willing to compromise on the class features (and how much compromise is possible before the class becomes nigh indistinguishable from its existing counterparts).
SOE and Blizzard have been able to implement shape-changing Druids in Norrath and Azeroth because they own the respective lores; if they say that the local Druids only know 3-4 forms, then that's all they know, and that's a reasonable number to implement. Turbine has previously implemented some limitations on spells that are not limited in the pen and paper game; for example, the "summon monster" and "summon nature's ally" spells can summon any creature of an appropriate power level in the pen and paper game, but are limited to a single type of creature in DDO. Even so, shapeshifting raises all kinds of complicated questions, especially when paired with other classes. This level of effort is not feasible for a single class - if they really wanted to do this, they could also implement self-shape-shifting for arcane casters to gain more milage out of their work on the backend, but that would remain a major effort.
The animal companion system seems more promising. DDO has NPC hirelings, who take up a slot in your party and can fill some rudimentary party tasks. It also has uncontrolled NPC pets from a variety of spells, and a recent game update put significant work into fleshing out undead pets for the Necromancy-inclined Wizards. In principle, these efforts might lay the groundwork for a more advanced pet system, though they're still a far cry from what longtime players might be expecting.
When to add classes?
The real challenge when adding one or more new classes to an existing MMO is determining how much effort it is feasible to spend on a single class. If you look at, say, WoW, Death Knights entered the game with a variety of new ideas (no single tanking tree, pets and heals and damage, several new types of resources) and have had to change to behave more like normal classes in the long run for the sake of balance.
However, if you do too little, there's no reason for players to be excited about new classes. In that case, you're just adding work for the class design team, who will need to devise a niche for the new guys for no good reason. The question is when the tradeoffs involved become worth the effort.
Will DDO Druids that look like Priests with slightly more robust pets and slight variations in their spell list make the cut? Time will tell for Turbine and Stormreach.
Cryptic Considers Trying Quality
"Coming into the launch of STO and Champions, I made sure we had something for everyone. Here was the problem. By following that philosophy, nothing was polished. We ended up having lots of half-done features in some quarters. What I forgot was, inasmuch as a consumer or a player, if it isn't there at launch it might as well not be there, well if it's in half-done or half-done well, that's what you get remembered for. The fact that STO and Champions have gotten better since their launch, we've added content, we've fixed bugs, we've responded to players, all that stuff isn't as important or as forceful as that initial interaction with the game. So we have a very different mindset here. Right now, whatever we do, it's got to be the best possible quality we can."
- Cryptic's Jack Emmert in an interview with Massively
I supposed we're supposed to be impressed by his honesty. Somehow, I don't find the admission that striving for quality is a fall-back position they were forced into by past market reaction all that reassuring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)