unforum

[vpisteve]

The Demise of Online Multiplayer Games???

[krystyn]

For me, it was cost.

The game industry seems to be booming (at least, in terms of output.) I can hardly finish one game without a few in the queue, and a bunch of others I want to buy.

And yet, immersive stuff is harder and harder to do when you need a spiffy system and good resolution, and your work computer is crappy so you just play Hexic all day. When you get home, there's often not a lot of time to spend hours exploring new worlds. The Myst games seem to me to attract an older demographic, people who are content to noodle over the spaceship keyboard puzzle for a few weeks. Bringing that sort of environment online, without some sort of free taste or trial run, brings an urgency to it that may not be worth people's shekels.

[vpisteve]

[catherwood]

1) I wasn't even going to enter the live worlds until i had finished the offline game. How do they know how many would have eventually subscribed?

2) I did enter the live world ahead of schedule because of the free trial period -- and that in itself was enticing enough for me to want to pay to see more.

3) Unfortunately, as I have been told, by entering the online worlds I encountered a bug in the software. The game as it is out of the box is playable, but the online version does an automatic upgrade to a version which prevents some actions from working in "mushroom" world, and the bug persists when you go offline.

4) Was the game ready for prime time? I kept thinking it was in "open beta" state and not yet asking for paying customers. How many people never bothered to try early release software, waiting for an official launch?

5) Marketing is a murky business. Did they market well enough? Did they reach the right number of the right people? Do their forecasts of future income reflect the reality of what might have been?

6) I'd rant more, but it's past my bedtime. Oh yeah, time commitment is a major factor. I only have access to a beefed-up-enough computer for maybe 1 day out of seven. Couldn't I just pay for my online time on a per hour basis, rather than a flat fee subscription?

7) . . .

[greywolf]

Offering it only to broadband users stopped me from playing, I don't have it and don't see it coming here for many years, if ever. I had a choice to make, live in the city and have broadband or live in the country and have some sense of sanity. I choose the country. I think that until broadband is available everywhere (which it isn't) they're all going to have trouble offering games only available to broadband users.

[Varin]

I think a big part of the problem is price. How many online games can one person afford? My husband and I play Star Wars Galaxies so we pay about $30 a month for that. I've been interested in playing other games like EQ for the PS2 and I've been meaning to get an XBOX live account. But honestly, if I subscribed to all the online games I'm interested in I would break my budget.

I think Sony had the right idea when they put out a bundle package where you could play EQ, Planetside and some other games for one bulk price. I think some sort of overall online game currency or account system would help. Imagine if you could have an account with ABC company where each game you signed up for from any company could be paid for through them at a discounted price. The more games you played, the less you paid for each.

Another problem is time. In many of the online multiplayer games you need to devote alot of time if you want to advance in the game. And if you don't devote that time to it, you'll get behind in many of the games. That's why I quit EQ years ago. I couldn't (and didn't want to) spend every night leveling up so all of my friends advanced so far ahead of me we couldn't even play together. Luckily, some games like SWG have made it so that you can play with people at any level. Most people have jobs or school (and possibly a social life) to work their gaming around. Personally, I usually play one or two nights a week. There's not enough time in two nights to play more than one. And let's not forget the time we spend on ARG's or offline games...

I think that game developers will have to realize that unless the 30 hour work week is suddenly standardized across the US and the cost for a game account is less than 15 bucks a pop, there's only going to be room for a couple of top online games at a time.

[MageSteff]

1.) I don't have the means to support a pay-for-play habit. Hence all of my playtime is things I either get as gifts, or find as freeware. Does that make me a cheapskate? I'll accept that, because being a cheapskate allows me to do things like go to ARGFest in Orlando. I am involved in a number of FREE face to face gaming and PBeM's that I am not motivated to shell out additional money over and above the cost of the Game CD.

2.) Time. I work an 8-5 job, which means I don't have time to play in a MUD/MMORG etc. and have time to socialize with my other friends, and time for other pursuits.

3.) Many of these pay-for-play services require a credit card number be supplied (usually via internet connection) which is not a method I am comfortable using. Hacks into Credit card databases have happened in the past and will probably happen in the future - I don't want to take the risk.

4.) Why aren't they catching on? Oh they are catching on, but it is a niche audience, just as D&D was in the early days, yet the pen and paper RPG industry is surviving, even going strong after 30 years. Many industries have cycles, and so does this one. People discover it, some stick around while others drift off, only to return later. Not to mention not every game suites the taste of every person who ever played an ARG.

In Business they say the first 2 years are the hardest and it may be several more before you are even breaking even or making a profit. This is still a "young" group, don't count them out just yet.

[catherwood]

Another report at http://www.gamespydaily.com/news/fullstory.asp?id=5672 is all about bottom line.

The in-game website for the D'ni Restoration Council is closing the online world in an in-game way with the announcement on the homepage of http://www.drcsite.org

I don't yet see any acknowledgement at the Greeters Guild site http://www.greetersguild.com/home.html but I was never sure if this was an official site or just a sanctioned fan site.

I've heard it said about restaurants, that any great new venture must plan to lose money for the first year or two. That seems to be the only way to think about your business plan, to get established first and worry about profits later. It must be true for certain software niche industries as well, because the company I work for has NEVER turned a profit in the 4 years I've been here, claiming that they are in it for the long haul.

(I think I'm still in denial about this whole thing.) Sour grapes. It was just a glorified chat with avatars, no big loss.

*sigh*

[Wolf]

[carlitoxxi]

Re: The Demise of Online Multiplayer Games???

[vpisteve]

I don't know if the low subscriber reason was a lie or not, but they definitely had other problems. I think there were a lot of subscribers, but it was absolutely nowhere near what they needed or projected. Somebody looked down the road and realized that there was no way this thing was going to break even, and they didn't want to throw good money after bad, even though they'd already invested so much. They needed to cut their losses.

That's my take, for what it's worth.

Question still remains: Why are these online games unsuccessful in attracting enough players to reach critical mass. I mean, even when they offered big bucks in prizes, as in TerraQuest, they were unable to build the player base they needed to succeed (my best guess was that TerraQuests' player base was in the low hundreds).

Have we just reached saturation point? Is this an echo of the dot com bubble bursting a few years ago?

[Flynn]

[bill]

Economically speaking, the computer/console game industry grosses more annually than Hollywood. In 2002, revenues exceed $10 Billion (yes, with a B).

Part of the issue I see is that with a typical game, they put a tremendous amount of resources into the product up front hoping for a blockbuster hit and then the marginal cost of producing the actual game is a pittance. With Majestic and other online multiplayer games, the economic model is completely different. You have an ongoing operational need to keep servers running, balance in-game resource allocations, add stuff to keep players hooked, etc. etc. To support these activities, game publishers charge a monthly fee for continued access. It's completely different from what they're used to.

On the part of the players, the level of commitment is totally different as well. For most computer games, you can pick them up and put them away at your own pace and progress as fast or as slow as you want with no real repercussions or downside. Online, if you aren't constantly online leveling up and doing those mindnumbing repetitive tasks to collect resources and build skills, you get left behind.

I can only speak for myself, but I am unwilling to make the time commitment required by MMORPHs to be a 'successful' player.

As an early beta tester for Uru Live, I had the opportunity to get involved at the beginning. Sadly, my circumstances didn't allow me to spend much time at all playing the game. Despite my interest in the premise that players would be able to explore and use their intellect, I still couldn't bring myself to make the commitment to stick with it. I think I sensed that despite the innovation Uru represented, my expectations were that it would be repetitious and unexciting once the initial WOW factor wore off.

ARGs, on the other hand, when properly executed, have the potential to really break out of the molds and achieve spectacular and unexpected things. I missed Majestic completely, but had I been around, I'm sure I would have loved it, despite the flaws I've read about. It was, and remains a novel concept.

So, getting back to my original statement, why don't online games take off and find their audience? It might be because of the significantly higher cost to operate leaving a much higher breakeven point for developers to achieve. It might be because the market is somewhat saturated by wildly successful games like Everquest who continue to dominate and profit from their captive audience. It might be something else entirely.

Knowing that a good ARG can be put together on a shoestring (relatively speaking). IIRC, Metacortechs had a budget of only a few thousand dollars, I think that game developers need to start with a more realistic expectation of their audience and scale their expenses accordingly. Programmers don't work for free (unless they are ARG PMs ) but they could certainly roll out content and build up to the pie in the sky plan over time.

[addlepated]

I think there are other issues at play. Lowest common denominator - the top sellers tend to be FPSs, which while entertaining are hardly cerebral. However, there have been runaway hits in games like Civilization, The Sims, Baldur's Gate, and Tomb Raider, all of which require a certain amount of forethought and strategy. Majestic had a ton of hype but didn't meet expectations. Maybe the problem is the invasiveness (or ever pervasiveness) of the games. It takes a real commitment to spend the time needed to build up a character in an MMORPG. I was a beta tester for UO and spent at least a couple of hours a day for months to build myself up, and still was a peon in the grand scheme of things.

With ARGs, I think one big problem is replayability. If you miss something, it's gone. Majestic promised the solution to this, but I think their solution - heavy automation - is financially unattainable to the grassroots games. In addition, many games are changed in the course of play to reflect players' choices. An automated game would lose this level of flexibility.

[Varin]

Re: The Demise of Online Multiplayer Games???