Two years ago, players were complaining that the dungeons of World of Warcraft's Cataclysm expansion were not fun because they were too difficult. The Blizzard response - that content should possess non-zero challenge - was as accurate as it was irrelevant. Customers were dissatisfied with the level of fun they were having with the results of the design, not the quality of the design itself.
Today, Blizzard argues that various non-raid activities - such as daily quests and running the looking-for-raid difficulty in pick-up-groups - are optional for raiding because only the very top difficulty setting is balanced so tightly as to assume that players have the best gear available. I like to call this the "pants optional" argument - no MMO I am aware of has a mandatory requirement that characters wear pants, but very few players opt to go pantless. The choice technically exists, but is largely uninteresting, as there is almost always (*) no benefit to going without pants and the player would then be obligated to upgrade the rest of their gear to off-set the stats from the missing leggings. More to the point, every bit by which you exceed the theoretical minimum requirement gives the player - and the group of 9-24 friends they are raiding with - that much more margin for error to help secure victory.
We could sit here and argue the academic/semantic merits all day, but this misses the point for the same reason Blizzard's 2011 defense of the game's difficulty missed the point. If paying customers feel like they are obligated to do something that they do not believe is fun, it does not matter if the customer is theoretically incorrect. Lecturing the customer on why they are incorrect, not as good at playing the game as people who are beating the content with the minimum gear, and need to find new friends with lower expectations - however accurate all of these statements may be - is not a good business strategy.
The structural issues with Cataclysm as an expansion probably would not have gone away had the game's initial cadre of heroic dungeons launched with lower difficulty and shorter completion times. Even so, it was an inauspicious start to what turned into the game's least successful era to date. If Blizzard continues to build a game whose core endgame mechanic is upgrading character performance through acquisition of better gear, and continues to require non-raid content for access to upgrades that raid players want, Pandaria may not be off to any better of a start.
(*) - There have been several eras of WoW in which certain tanking classes were obligated to intentionally lower their mitigation when attempting content that was significantly below their gear level, because their classes were dependent on taking sufficient quantities of damage in order to generate resources. Several players I knew would remove their characters' pants in this scenario, because it was the quickest and most humorous way to accomplish this.
Currency Caps And Cash Shops
Two indirectly related stories over the last week: SOE has implemented a tradeable in-game time card for Everquest 2, while Bioware is testing SWTOR's free to play model and allowing the resale of most cash shop purchases for in game credits.
Both moves seek to harness the desire of customers with out-of-game money to get a headstart on their in-game finances. In the process, both moves potentially convert non-paying players into sources of revenue by making their in-game currency into an incentive for the moneyed crowd to pay more to the studio. However, both are potentially hampered by strict currency caps aimed at preventing legacy subscribers from switching down to less lucrative non-subscription models.
Both studios invested the money to re-launch existing products with presumably hundreds of thousands of subscribers in the hopes of coming out ahead financially. Thus, both struggled with how to make an "optional" subscription less optional without alienating the new potential customers coming in under the new model. Currency caps have stayed on the table as a subscriber-only perk because they fit both bills. New players are unlikely to hit the restrictions until later in their careers, while existing players who bump up against the caps may already be using enough other services to make the subscription worthwhile.
Allowing players to effectively pay others to farm in-game currency for them calls more attention to players who fall in the middle ground, as this type of option will inherently be most attractive to people who are, for whatever reason, looking to limit their real-world expenditures. Unfortunately, here is where the business models conflict - a player who can offer only a pittance - 18.4 plat in EQ2 or 350,000 credits in SWTOR - is not much of an incentive for someone else to open their wallet and pay the studio real world dollars.
It's possible that both studios will ultimately relent on the currency restrictions. Prior to the announcement, SOE's David Georgeson told me on twitter that they were re-evaluating the game's currency cap - in hindsight, perhaps due to this very concern. Meanwhile, the Bioware folks are still iterating their model, though the game's senior producer stated that the current escrow functionality was intentional as of two days ago. Perhaps this sort of continued mishap is just the price of doing business in an era of retrofitting non-subscription business models onto existing games.
Both moves seek to harness the desire of customers with out-of-game money to get a headstart on their in-game finances. In the process, both moves potentially convert non-paying players into sources of revenue by making their in-game currency into an incentive for the moneyed crowd to pay more to the studio. However, both are potentially hampered by strict currency caps aimed at preventing legacy subscribers from switching down to less lucrative non-subscription models.
Both studios invested the money to re-launch existing products with presumably hundreds of thousands of subscribers in the hopes of coming out ahead financially. Thus, both struggled with how to make an "optional" subscription less optional without alienating the new potential customers coming in under the new model. Currency caps have stayed on the table as a subscriber-only perk because they fit both bills. New players are unlikely to hit the restrictions until later in their careers, while existing players who bump up against the caps may already be using enough other services to make the subscription worthwhile.
Allowing players to effectively pay others to farm in-game currency for them calls more attention to players who fall in the middle ground, as this type of option will inherently be most attractive to people who are, for whatever reason, looking to limit their real-world expenditures. Unfortunately, here is where the business models conflict - a player who can offer only a pittance - 18.4 plat in EQ2 or 350,000 credits in SWTOR - is not much of an incentive for someone else to open their wallet and pay the studio real world dollars.
It's possible that both studios will ultimately relent on the currency restrictions. Prior to the announcement, SOE's David Georgeson told me on twitter that they were re-evaluating the game's currency cap - in hindsight, perhaps due to this very concern. Meanwhile, the Bioware folks are still iterating their model, though the game's senior producer stated that the current escrow functionality was intentional as of two days ago. Perhaps this sort of continued mishap is just the price of doing business in an era of retrofitting non-subscription business models onto existing games.
Liberté, égalité, free-to-play
Rohan has a post up categorizing what he dubs "payment methods". This is a more systematic approach to a question I tackled colloquially - you are what you sell. Current players appear to dislike almost all of the options that Rohan has described for how it appears that SWTOR plans to make money after its non-subscription re-launch. I would suggest that the real issue at hand is that the changes upset the balance of how the game is developed - and how the developer will value these customers in the future.
As long as the angry mob is out anyway, let's break out the guillotine and look at this question with the motto of the French Revolution.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité - Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood
Under a subscription MMO model, customers are relatively equal in value. Longtime subscribers are going to pay more in the long-run, and may serve as pillars of the community in a way that retains more than just their $15. However, when it comes to the quarterly earnings call, each customer's $15 is the same.
If anything, this equality motivates companies to focus on endgame. The raider is most likely to quit now if they are out of content, and most likely to be retain-able if the studio makes more raids. The solo player may also quit when they run out of content, but they might re-roll instead. Worse, the developers might spend their effort on more solo content only to have the solo player beat that content as well and quit anyway.
The non-subscription model adds variety to the payment models, and, in so doing, adds Liberty. A non-subscriber might pay less than $15, while non-subscribers and subscribers alike can potentially choose to pay MORE than $15. This freedom means some customers are literally worth more than others.
The obvious and most-feared extreme is that the one person who is addicted to gambling for cosmetic items through so called "lock-boxes" is literally worth more than a small guild of loyal players who had been with the game in its previous incarnation. That aside, having a model where players can pick and choose what they pay for potentially reverses the developer's incentives for the future direction of the game.
If only a small proportion of players raid - and said players vehemently oppose any mechanism whereby they make themselves proportionally more valuable by paying more money, on the grounds that this would be "pay to win" - then only a small proportion of future development can support them. By contrast, if the majority of paying customers are located in the leveling curve, that is where the developer must focus their efforts, even if said customers are certain to depart after spending some amount of time in game.
To use another concrete example, the patch will add a new NPC companion, an HK-51 droid. Bioware hopes that nonsubscribers will pay for an unlock to access the content that awards this NPC. However, even though companions are basically solo tools that cannot be used in serious group content, the questline requires a max level character and several group dungeons. Merits of this decision aside, a non-subscription game can ill afford to put barriers between customers and stuff they want to pay for.
With this kind of split in the interests of the playerbase, it should come as no surprise that Brotherhood is in short supply indeed.
As long as the angry mob is out anyway, let's break out the guillotine and look at this question with the motto of the French Revolution.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité - Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood
Under a subscription MMO model, customers are relatively equal in value. Longtime subscribers are going to pay more in the long-run, and may serve as pillars of the community in a way that retains more than just their $15. However, when it comes to the quarterly earnings call, each customer's $15 is the same.
If anything, this equality motivates companies to focus on endgame. The raider is most likely to quit now if they are out of content, and most likely to be retain-able if the studio makes more raids. The solo player may also quit when they run out of content, but they might re-roll instead. Worse, the developers might spend their effort on more solo content only to have the solo player beat that content as well and quit anyway.
The non-subscription model adds variety to the payment models, and, in so doing, adds Liberty. A non-subscriber might pay less than $15, while non-subscribers and subscribers alike can potentially choose to pay MORE than $15. This freedom means some customers are literally worth more than others.
The obvious and most-feared extreme is that the one person who is addicted to gambling for cosmetic items through so called "lock-boxes" is literally worth more than a small guild of loyal players who had been with the game in its previous incarnation. That aside, having a model where players can pick and choose what they pay for potentially reverses the developer's incentives for the future direction of the game.
If only a small proportion of players raid - and said players vehemently oppose any mechanism whereby they make themselves proportionally more valuable by paying more money, on the grounds that this would be "pay to win" - then only a small proportion of future development can support them. By contrast, if the majority of paying customers are located in the leveling curve, that is where the developer must focus their efforts, even if said customers are certain to depart after spending some amount of time in game.
To use another concrete example, the patch will add a new NPC companion, an HK-51 droid. Bioware hopes that nonsubscribers will pay for an unlock to access the content that awards this NPC. However, even though companions are basically solo tools that cannot be used in serious group content, the questline requires a max level character and several group dungeons. Merits of this decision aside, a non-subscription game can ill afford to put barriers between customers and stuff they want to pay for.
With this kind of split in the interests of the playerbase, it should come as no surprise that Brotherhood is in short supply indeed.
Competition From Single Player On Killing Rats
Massively has some elaboration from Sony Online Entertainment's John Smedley on his views on the need to move beyond traditional content - the kill and loot model - in the name of sustainability. He is not the most impartial messenger since he has to endorse whatever his products are currently doing, that doesn't negate the message.
Over the weekend, I beat the main story in 2010's Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, and got to work on side missions. The series had always featured various minigames used to unlock helpful NPC's or other rewards, and this edition adds some optional missions with chase sequences and vehicles that rival its main storyline. However, alongside these major undertakings are less elaborate outings that feel remarkably like the kill ten rats quest.
Unlike the optional plot-related missions, side missions for the thieves, courtesans, and assassins of Rome occur in the regular game world of the city proper. There is a brief load screen as the appropriate NPC's spawn, but you are otherwise free to wander around and collect other things - Borgia flags, treasure, building deeds - on your way across town. The other thing that set them apart in my mind was that they are less like unrelated minigames - e.g. the rooftop footrace against the clock - and more about the game's regular activities - sneaking around, stealing, and, yes, assassinating bad guys. Perhaps this has all always been there, but grinding out the last few percent completion needed to unlock the last story scene made me realize that this single player game basically includes the core of modern MMO's - and arguably as well or better than many MMO's themselves do.
(Aside: It occurs to me that I'm fine for now playing with a sleeping infant resting on my shoulder, but at some point I may need to consider not playing these games in front of my daughter. I'm not especially worried that she will grow into a Dexter-style serial killer who believes in killing people so long as they are bad. I'm marginally worried that seeing Assassins attempt to climb buildings will exacerbate the likely inevitable urge to climb household furniture. Also, perhaps most likely, I'm not sure if I need my first parent teacher conference to be about why my kid thinks George Washington enlisted the help of an elite order of Assassins to combat the Templar menace on both sides of the Revolution.)
One of the things that struck me about Smedley's own DC Universe Online - curious how his product failed to appear on his list of recent MMO's that peaked and dropped after launch - was how its closest competitors were in many ways console superhero games, rather than other online offerings. Single player games are getting larger and more elaborate in ways that erode some of the advantages of scope that larger virtual worlds once enjoyed. Moreover, the need to free up time for some more in-depth action sequences on the core storyline has created the same pressure for "filler" quests that utilize the existing engine and world. It's going to be interesting to see how these two types of games continue to collide.
Over the weekend, I beat the main story in 2010's Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, and got to work on side missions. The series had always featured various minigames used to unlock helpful NPC's or other rewards, and this edition adds some optional missions with chase sequences and vehicles that rival its main storyline. However, alongside these major undertakings are less elaborate outings that feel remarkably like the kill ten rats quest.
Unlike the optional plot-related missions, side missions for the thieves, courtesans, and assassins of Rome occur in the regular game world of the city proper. There is a brief load screen as the appropriate NPC's spawn, but you are otherwise free to wander around and collect other things - Borgia flags, treasure, building deeds - on your way across town. The other thing that set them apart in my mind was that they are less like unrelated minigames - e.g. the rooftop footrace against the clock - and more about the game's regular activities - sneaking around, stealing, and, yes, assassinating bad guys. Perhaps this has all always been there, but grinding out the last few percent completion needed to unlock the last story scene made me realize that this single player game basically includes the core of modern MMO's - and arguably as well or better than many MMO's themselves do.
(Aside: It occurs to me that I'm fine for now playing with a sleeping infant resting on my shoulder, but at some point I may need to consider not playing these games in front of my daughter. I'm not especially worried that she will grow into a Dexter-style serial killer who believes in killing people so long as they are bad. I'm marginally worried that seeing Assassins attempt to climb buildings will exacerbate the likely inevitable urge to climb household furniture. Also, perhaps most likely, I'm not sure if I need my first parent teacher conference to be about why my kid thinks George Washington enlisted the help of an elite order of Assassins to combat the Templar menace on both sides of the Revolution.)
One of the things that struck me about Smedley's own DC Universe Online - curious how his product failed to appear on his list of recent MMO's that peaked and dropped after launch - was how its closest competitors were in many ways console superhero games, rather than other online offerings. Single player games are getting larger and more elaborate in ways that erode some of the advantages of scope that larger virtual worlds once enjoyed. Moreover, the need to free up time for some more in-depth action sequences on the core storyline has created the same pressure for "filler" quests that utilize the existing engine and world. It's going to be interesting to see how these two types of games continue to collide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)