Well yeah, that's why I said Axe is still acting like an idiot, he's basically transposing ideas across to things that aren't logically entirely connected.
There's very few if any games that have not been getting launched for the PC user base without per-order, premium, starter packs, or else-wise. This trend extends hard into the crowdfunding setting where players are actively shelling out millions of dollars to some projects that are still years away from giving them a product. Even in the smaller cases, you see a lot of money getting forked over in the offset of anticipation rather than an informed experience dictating the purchase.
This doesn't preclude that these developers don't intend to support a long-term model for revenue or make sure their title maintains some semblance of quality and progress over time, but there are certainly examples of that happening.
I'd honestly say part of that is more about the quality of the game, the quality of the dev group, and the opinions of the publishers on expected revenue versus actual. If a title is not that great, or good in some ways with several glaring flaws, then it becomes difficult for it to remain supported as time moves on. There's only so much content the devs can make before it's simply not practical.
An example of this would be, while not an MMO, the first Borderlands title and the problem Gearbox ran into when trying to produce the DLC for it. The game's design at the time and the way they had handled the engine had restricted them greatly in terms of what new content they could introduce and what gameplay elements they could add to. Regardless of whether or not people liked their DLC, the point here is that the chosen terminus for Gearbox developing said content was dictated pretty directly by limitations they faced on the production end, and supporting the game for any further amount of time wouldn't have actually worked out well.
MMOs and F2P face the same kind of issues, especially if their system is not particularly extensible or is built in odd ways (such as Tabula Rasa's servers being scripted almost completely in Python) that end up crippling the game's ability for long term development and support.
Then it stacks with the concern of whether or not the publisher puts stock in the title, if the devs are getting pushed into other projects, or the game simply failed to meet projected sales or subs and is getting weaned off the list of supported content.
Plenty of reasons that can go into why a game flounders on it's production and support, many of them technically falling under incompetence, but it's not necessarily because they aren't intending to build a model with longevity I guess would be the point there.
I know that's not the point axe was trying to make, but it's something to consider at least, especially given the amount of titles released now kind of means there's also a lot more developers that swing rather low on the scale of quality or implementation, so there's consequently more turnover due to flops than there was in the past by virtue of there being more titles produced in the first place.
This I agree with, and I can certainly think of two examples of mmos that threatened to flounder after release but had another bite at the cherry, namely SWTOR and ESO. I wasn't around for the release of SWTOR (was working abroad quite remotely), but ESO certainly released with a premium pre-order version. They were both released under the subscription model.
Both transferred over to a B2P/F2P/ freemium/hybrid monetisation model and now appear to be with us for the long haul. I would imagine that both were also developed with longevity in mind originally but suffered from "several glaring flaws" in their first iteration. Both were also developed by companies with deep pockets and had popular IPs to rely on.
The example I raised early on was PWE, and I will run with Neverwinter specifically. This game also appears to have been designed with longevity in mind and incorporates quite an aggressive cash shop to maintain cash flow. However, it also monetised founder packs and early access very early in its life cycle. These proved to be more successful (especially the higher cost founders packs) than PWE had expected, but regardless, the content was created with the intention of monetising the game as early as possible. I would argue that the ongoing revenue is largely designed around putting barriers in the way of players (in terms of fail states on upgrading gear) and via gambling boxes... rather than via releasing new, compelling content (I find it incredible how lazy the expansions are even when compared to the results of the very limited set of tools provided for player created content).
If SWTOR and ESO released now, I wonder which model they would release under. I imagine that having two bites at the cherry actually proved accidently(?) more lucrative than releasing under a freemium model.
Either way, a move towards starter packs, premium pre-order packs, paid early access, crowd funding and so on remove some of the risk associated with being reliant upon retaining subscriptions and put the incentive and emphasis on monetising a game at an earlier stage of development or via cash shop items. A model that can be shown to make a return in six months rather than two years is far more likely to attract investment.
Rather than respond I might just start pointing out the logical fallacies in all of your posts.
Here you shift the goalposts away from starter packs making money in the gaming industry to retention being important in the mobile gaming sector based on a mathematical model without any cited primary sources.
You go on to use this article in an appeal to false authority.
Conclusion: your point is null and void.
You're a member of this conversation too. Pay attention to what you write. That way you won't consider it "shifting goalposts" when I directly respond to the slightly different topic that you brought up.
While a slightly different topic, it's still directly related to my point, since it establishes the strong value of retention (relative to the somewhat minimal value of pre-orders.)
If you take the time to dig into the numbers, you'll realize that the mathematical model he's presented is very revealing of the strong value of player retention.
I strongly agree with the author of The Death of Expertise, who is worried that any legitimate experience and mastery over a craft that's used to justify the distribution of useful information is immediately dismissed as "appeal to authority" by the uneducated.
I feel the critical distinction is I'm presenting you with the actual mathematical model and asking you to see for yourself that it checks out. I'm not asking you to believe me just because my 15 years in the game industry make me substantially more knowledgeable about what I'm talking about. The fact that I have this wealth of knowledge, directly applicable experience, and first-hand knowledge of my own games' internal numbers (which agree with the article) should only be seen as icing on the cake, or motivation to seriously investigate what I say. But the system itself lies before you in that article, and it's up to you whether to educate yourself or remain ignorant.
And there are still precisely zero posters who have told you pre-orders make zero money. They make money, just nothing close to "huge sums" of it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A claim of expertise only works insofar as when one can present themselves as a valid authority.
A forum where anyone can habitually claim anything, is not such a place and as a result is considerably more prone to skepticism towards such claims.
This is a situation compounded when taken alongside the point that you need to realize you're not the only one in the industry, and other posters may very well have an equal or greater familiarity with aspects of the field than oneself.
As that link you provided mentions, you also have to be wary of falling into a category of misinformed or illogical folk that only think themselves reasonable.
As such it's easy to see where one may end up doing this "...the last thing you want to encounter are experts who disagree with you, and so you dismiss them in order to maintain your unreasonably high opinion of yourself."
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
A claim of expertise only works insofar as when one can present themselves as a valid authority.
A forum where anyone can habitually claim anything, is not such a place and as a result is considerably more prone to skepticism towards such claims.
This is a situation compounded when taken alongside the point that you need to realize you're not the only one in the industry, and other posters may very well have an equal or greater familiarity with aspects of the field than oneself.
As that link you provided mentions, you also have to be wary of falling into a category of misinformed or illogical folk that only think themselves reasonable.
As such it's easy to see where one may end up doing this "...the last thing you want to encounter are experts who disagree with you, and so you dismiss them in order to maintain your unreasonably high opinion of yourself."
The other people discussing this with me are not experts in the field. (If they were experts they wouldn't try to oversell the value of pre-order revenue with retention-based revenue looming over it like a titan.) My expertise should be evident based on the amount of knowledge and evidence I've brought to the thread, but Dunning-Kruger certainly works against that. Hopefully people are aware of Dunning-Kruger and are careful to examine evidence on topics where they aren't experts, rather than immediately jump to disagreement with an expert on the topic simply because (at first glance, from their perspective of non-expertise) what they say sounds wrong.
And then of course I reach the point where you mention Dunning-Kruger too, which is hilarious because I've provided all the evidence in the thread confirming my experience-based position, and the other side of the discussion has shown nothing. I mentioned a willingness earlier in the thread to accept evidence of a game making significant money off early B2P purchases, but alas the evidence never surfaced so there was never an opportunity to improve my understanding of the market (if indeed the evidence said what was claimed, which seems incredibly unlikely given how long we've gone without it being posted; if the evidence actually proved the point, it would be posted every single post and the discussion would be over.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For me the longevity is no different now than what it was 15 years ago.
The only difference is that I don't play a single MMO obsessively like I did back in 1998-2002 with UO, EQ1, AC, AO.
Now I rotate between many MMOs weekly, as new content /patch comes out i play that, then I move on to the one.
Longevity is up to each player IMO, just like it always was.
I completely and respectfully disagree with your statement.
MMO's ARE much easier nowadays which in turn reduces longevity to insanely low levels. Since the current generation of mmo players are all about I have to have it now or I throw a shit fit, developers cave in to that and change their game to fit that else their numbers dwindle rapidly. Take a look at the games that were designed to be a little more challenging. They all started well but quickly declined and once they declined, they immediately changed the nature of the game becoming a LOT easier in every aspect.
2 keys things:
1 - Current generation wants everything NOW else they throw a shit fit, everyone wants to be rewarded and/or feel entitled
2 - Developers know this and cave in to it further developing their games for this mindset.
So yes, longevity has definitely changed in MMO's and for the worse. That doesn't mean you personally have to change your play style but the games themselves have changed dramatically. Longevity was what made MMO's an MMO. You built communities, friendships, relationships, you got to know people. Now, its all about who can achieve gear the quickest, the most money the quickest, everything is about SPEED SPEED SPEED. How can I get it NOW. If anything requires any effort or investment of time, players throw a shit fit and its pretty sad. After playing MMO's for the last 16 years, I've seen all the changes happen in front of my eyes and these changes have been for the worse, much more for the worse.
Many years ago when I picked up an mmo I expected to stay there for several months at least. These days I barely expect to stay more than one. Why is this?
This and the subject line are two different questions. That was a really great answer for why they have little longevity for you. As to the subject, though, everyone has their cut-n-paste answers they've used in a hundred threads before, but no one has questioned if the subject line is even remotely accurate.
Where is the comparison data ("just look around, man" and "if you can't see it, you're blind" isn't data) of average time spent in an MMO between then (whenever then is) an now?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
A lot of people here are talking about the advent of pre-order and kickstarter money as part of the reasons MMOs don't have a lot of longevity. There might be some truth to that, but if it is true, this new money before launch might only be important insofar as it signals whether the game is worth maintaining.
We have to remember that even the most popular online games seldom get more than two content additions in a year. Heck, Destiny isn't really an MMO in the conventional sense, but it is a multiplayer quest/raid/level type of game which sold a ton of units and has AAA designers on staff. Yet even Destiny, with all the resources and fan base you could ever want, can only push out two expansions in Year One.
That's the problem with this whole quest-based, achievement oriented 'themepark' design that MMOs seem wedded to. The very model is a whole pursuit of diminishing returns, since you spend a whole quarter or two to churn out an expansion--complete with new art and new gameplay--only for it to get consumed in a week, leaving your players to grouse again that there's nothing to do.
Quest-based multiplayer games are expensive and depreciate rapidly by their very nature. Therefore, if you are a publisher or studio, you try to find out really fast which games are worth the slog to update, and which ones aren't. Part of the data used are pre-order sales and gear sales...they can tell you really fast if there's enough interest there to plan another expansion a year from the pre-order. You can't really blame them, after all, for not wanting to support a dud (even if it's your dud).
But that's what you're left with if the entire point of the game is to consume quest chains...your game is only as good as the quest chains are fresh. And so, is it any wonder why MMOs these days lack longevity? What, praytell, is there to do in the games, once you've done the story?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
For me, it's the lack of good crafting. Crafting makes up 80% of my MMO enjoyment and there is nothing out there right now that can hold my attention due to a lackluster crafting system.
A lot of people here are talking about the advent of pre-order and kickstarter money as part of the reasons MMOs don't have a lot of longevity. There might be some truth to that, but if it is true, this new money before launch might only be important insofar as it signals whether the game is worth maintaining.
We have to remember that even the most popular online games seldom get more than two content additions in a year. Heck, Destiny isn't really an MMO in the conventional sense, but it is a multiplayer quest/raid/level type of game which sold a ton of units and has AAA designers on staff. Yet even Destiny, with all the resources and fan base you could ever want, can only push out two expansions in Year One.
That's the problem with this whole quest-based, achievement oriented 'themepark' design that MMOs seem wedded to. The very model is a whole pursuit of diminishing returns, since you spend a whole quarter or two to churn out an expansion--complete with new art and new gameplay--only for it to get consumed in a week, leaving your players to grouse again that there's nothing to do.
Quest-based multiplayer games are expensive and depreciate rapidly by their very nature. Therefore, if you are a publisher or studio, you try to find out really fast which games are worth the slog to update, and which ones aren't. Part of the data used are pre-order sales and gear sales...they can tell you really fast if there's enough interest there to plan another expansion a year from the pre-order. You can't really blame them, after all, for not wanting to support a dud (even if it's your dud).
But that's what you're left with if the entire point of the game is to consume quest chains...your game is only as good as the quest chains are fresh. And so, is it any wonder why MMOs these days lack longevity? What, praytell, is there to do in the games, once you've done the story?
None of the problems you cite about content-driven games are wrong. It's just a little misleading to cite them in isolation from their benefit (which is that content-driven PVE is enormously popular.)
Is it time-consuming and slow to create hand-made content? Yes. Is it consumed and discarded? Yes. But is it worth it? Yes.
The majority of videogame RPGs over the years have been designed this way, and it doesn't show any signs of stopping because there's always a market for a good interactive story.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Most of the games made today seem to be trash in my opinion. Something slapped together with as many bugs as possible that can (as the original thread poster stated) make as much money as possible in a short period of time before most players abandon the game for something else.
I believe another problem with most MMO's is the lack of attention to the level of hacking/botting that goes on in their game. Who wants to waste time and/or money on something that is flooded with characters that are not actually participating and adding to the game play through questing/PvP or any other useful way?
I tend to jump around games after a couple months and am now back to the single player games that I have enjoyed over the years; until something seemingly worthwhile comes out to try.
A lot of people here are talking about the advent of pre-order and kickstarter money as part of the reasons MMOs don't have a lot of longevity. There might be some truth to that, but if it is true, this new money before launch might only be important insofar as it signals whether the game is worth maintaining.
We have to remember that even the most popular online games seldom get more than two content additions in a year. Heck, Destiny isn't really an MMO in the conventional sense, but it is a multiplayer quest/raid/level type of game which sold a ton of units and has AAA designers on staff. Yet even Destiny, with all the resources and fan base you could ever want, can only push out two expansions in Year One.
That's the problem with this whole quest-based, achievement oriented 'themepark' design that MMOs seem wedded to. The very model is a whole pursuit of diminishing returns, since you spend a whole quarter or two to churn out an expansion--complete with new art and new gameplay--only for it to get consumed in a week, leaving your players to grouse again that there's nothing to do.
Quest-based multiplayer games are expensive and depreciate rapidly by their very nature. Therefore, if you are a publisher or studio, you try to find out really fast which games are worth the slog to update, and which ones aren't. Part of the data used are pre-order sales and gear sales...they can tell you really fast if there's enough interest there to plan another expansion a year from the pre-order. You can't really blame them, after all, for not wanting to support a dud (even if it's your dud).
But that's what you're left with if the entire point of the game is to consume quest chains...your game is only as good as the quest chains are fresh. And so, is it any wonder why MMOs these days lack longevity? What, praytell, is there to do in the games, once you've done the story?
None of the problems you cite about content-driven games are wrong. It's just a little misleading to cite them in isolation from their benefit (which is that content-driven PVE is enormously popular.)
Is it time-consuming and slow to create hand-made content? Yes. Is it consumed and discarded? Yes. But is it worth it? Yes.
The majority of videogame RPGs over the years have been designed this way, and it doesn't show any signs of stopping because there's always a market for a good interactive story.
I don't disagree that interactive storytelling is still popular. But might I suggest that MMOs have never been very good at interactive storytelling, when compared with the way interactive storytelling is historically done, through single player action/adventure titles.
And the proof of this is that players are still very interested--probably more interested today than ever--in playing Arkham Knight, Mass Effect and Witcher III than they are in playing an MMO. Single player action/adventure can just do narrative storytelling better...they have the liberty to place cutscenes and structure the experience in a way that pleases the player more than a multiplayer experience can.
The more interesting question, for me, is why MMORPGs became so popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s when we had more action/adventure titles than we knew what to do with? I don't think it was because MMOs did action/adventure better than action/adventure. I think it was because MMOs were doing something different altogether.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Many years ago when I picked up an mmo I expected to stay there for several months at least. These days I barely expect to stay more than one. Why is this?
This and the subject line are two different questions. That was a really great answer for why they have little longevity for you. As to the subject, though, everyone has their cut-n-paste answers they've used in a hundred threads before, but no one has questioned if the subject line is even remotely accurate.
Where is the comparison data ("just look around, man" and "if you can't see it, you're blind" isn't data) of average time spent in an MMO between then (whenever then is) an now?
Except, you know he is probably right, based on both common knowledge and anecdotal evidence, yet chose to challenge him to provide data to prove his point. Numbers sometimes lie and the fact most Mmos don't publish them anymore goes a long way to prove his point.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The other people discussing this with me are not experts in the field. (If they were experts they wouldn't try to oversell the value of pre-order revenue with retention-based revenue looming over it like a titan.) My expertise should be evident based on the amount of knowledge and evidence I've brought to the thread, but Dunning-Kruger certainly works against that. Hopefully people are aware of Dunning-Kruger and are careful to examine evidence on topics where they aren't experts, rather than immediately jump to disagreement with an expert on the topic simply because (at first glance, from their perspective of non-expertise) what they say sounds wrong.
And then of course I reach the point where you mention Dunning-Kruger too, which is hilarious because I've provided all the evidence in the thread confirming my experience-based position, and the other side of the discussion has shown nothing. I mentioned a willingness earlier in the thread to accept evidence of a game making significant money off early B2P purchases, but alas the evidence never surfaced so there was never an opportunity to improve my understanding of the market (if indeed the evidence said what was claimed, which seems incredibly unlikely given how long we've gone without it being posted; if the evidence actually proved the point, it would be posted every single post and the discussion would be over.)
Evidence was posted page seven, that was repeated multiple times, as the need to repost something anyone can access easily is nonexistent.
This would be exactly where the dunning-kruger applies to you, as the information is easily accessible and you've been made aware of exactly where it is, yet refuse to affirm something that might change your perception, regardless of your claim to the contrary.
You prove your claims wrong in the same step as you make them, effectively.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Many years ago when I picked up an mmo I expected to stay there for several months at least. These days I barely expect to stay more than one. Why is this?
This and the subject line are two different questions. That was a really great answer for why they have little longevity for you. As to the subject, though, everyone has their cut-n-paste answers they've used in a hundred threads before, but no one has questioned if the subject line is even remotely accurate.
Where is the comparison data ("just look around, man" and "if you can't see it, you're blind" isn't data) of average time spent in an MMO between then (whenever then is) an now?
Had this discussion earlier in the thread, but I'll repost my response: -
Admittedly this entire thread is anecdotal. I am stating my opinions from my own experience of a) the amount of time I spend playing games; and, b) the turnover of players I see in my own small sphere of experience.
I don't disagree that interactive storytelling is still popular. But might I suggest that MMOs have never been very good at interactive storytelling, when compared with the way interactive storytelling is historically done, through single player action/adventure titles.
And the proof of this is that players are still very interested--probably more interested today than ever--in playing Arkham Knight, Mass Effect and Witcher III than they are in playing an MMO. Single player action/adventure can just do narrative storytelling better...they have the liberty to place cutscenes and structure the experience in a way that pleases the player more than a multiplayer experience can.
The more interesting question, for me, is why MMORPGs became so popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s when we had more action/adventure titles than we knew what to do with? I don't think it was because MMOs did action/adventure better than action/adventure. I think it was because MMOs were doing something different altogether.
Right, they're certainly not the best genre at story-telling, but they're good enough, and players aren't solely interested in the story (they also appreciate the dynamic that a multiplayer game provides.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Right, they're certainly not the best genre at story-telling, but they're good enough, and players aren't solely interested in the story (they also appreciate the dynamic that a multiplayer game provides.)
Yeah, but I can't stop to think that they should put more focus on the groups story and less on a single induvidual.
The strenghts of MMOs have all to do with other players, telling the story together with them instead of saying that you are the great hero while the rest of the group is just extras seems pretty silly, after all do they do just as much as you.
Any pen and paper player can tell you that telling a story together is more fun that by yourself.
Evidence was posted page seven, that was repeated multiple times, as the need to repost something anyone can access easily is nonexistent.
This would be exactly where the dunning-kruger applies to you, as the information is easily accessible and you've been made aware of exactly where it is, yet refuse to affirm something that might change your perception, regardless of your claim to the contrary.
You prove your claims wrong in the same step as you make them, effectively.
No I haven't been made aware of exactly where it is. That's been my repeated request in like half my posts: show me the evidence!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No I haven't been made aware of exactly where it is. That's been my repeated request in like half my posts: show me the evidence!
... I can't fathom just how ignorant this comment just now was.
It's on page seven, it's been mentioned time and again exactly where it is. Any further lack of ability for you to see the article is entirely your fault. That's been the case for three pages now.
This is not remotely logical of you.
EDIT: Correction, five pages now.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
No I haven't been made aware of exactly where it is. That's been my repeated request in like half my posts: show me the evidence!
... I can't fathom just how ignorant this comment just now was.
It's on page seven, it's been mentioned time and again exactly where it is. Any further lack of ability for you to see the article is entirely your fault. That's been the case for three pages now.
This is not remotely logical of you.
EDIT: Correction, five pages now.
Indeed it is on page 7 as Axehilt has been told repeatedly. This has become a farce. The only possible reason he hasn't seen it is because he refuses to look at it, preferring instead to accuse others of not providing sources that have been provided, and that he has been told about repeatedly.
I think the points you brought up are to some degree all valid. I also think that there are people who tend to stick with one mmo and some who tend to move. Not getting in to why that is, the stickers are still stuck to some mmo that the movers have abandoned. So any new game will get more of the movers. I think quality will hold more players longer, but unless it can keep pulling the dedicated people from their current games and not disappoint the people who move on quiickly, then it ends up failing the population requirements a lot of people have and it end up just another mostly abandoned game.
I don't think single player games do any better. A lot of former MMO players might be playing single player games, but not the same one for any longer than they played one MMO.
Comments
Both transferred over to a B2P/F2P/ freemium/hybrid monetisation model and now appear to be with us for the long haul. I would imagine that both were also developed with longevity in mind originally but suffered from "several glaring flaws" in their first iteration. Both were also developed by companies with deep pockets and had popular IPs to rely on.
The example I raised early on was PWE, and I will run with Neverwinter specifically. This game also appears to have been designed with longevity in mind and incorporates quite an aggressive cash shop to maintain cash flow. However, it also monetised founder packs and early access very early in its life cycle. These proved to be more successful (especially the higher cost founders packs) than PWE had expected, but regardless, the content was created with the intention of monetising the game as early as possible. I would argue that the ongoing revenue is largely designed around putting barriers in the way of players (in terms of fail states on upgrading gear) and via gambling boxes... rather than via releasing new, compelling content (I find it incredible how lazy the expansions are even when compared to the results of the very limited set of tools provided for player created content).
If SWTOR and ESO released now, I wonder which model they would release under. I imagine that having two bites at the cherry actually proved accidently(?) more lucrative than releasing under a freemium model.
Either way, a move towards starter packs, premium pre-order packs, paid early access, crowd funding and so on remove some of the risk associated with being reliant upon retaining subscriptions and put the incentive and emphasis on monetising a game at an earlier stage of development or via cash shop items. A model that can be shown to make a return in six months rather than two years is far more likely to attract investment.
While a slightly different topic, it's still directly related to my point, since it establishes the strong value of retention (relative to the somewhat minimal value of pre-orders.)
If you take the time to dig into the numbers, you'll realize that the mathematical model he's presented is very revealing of the strong value of player retention.
I strongly agree with the author of The Death of Expertise, who is worried that any legitimate experience and mastery over a craft that's used to justify the distribution of useful information is immediately dismissed as "appeal to authority" by the uneducated.
I feel the critical distinction is I'm presenting you with the actual mathematical model and asking you to see for yourself that it checks out. I'm not asking you to believe me just because my 15 years in the game industry make me substantially more knowledgeable about what I'm talking about. The fact that I have this wealth of knowledge, directly applicable experience, and first-hand knowledge of my own games' internal numbers (which agree with the article) should only be seen as icing on the cake, or motivation to seriously investigate what I say. But the system itself lies before you in that article, and it's up to you whether to educate yourself or remain ignorant.
And there are still precisely zero posters who have told you pre-orders make zero money. They make money, just nothing close to "huge sums" of it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A forum where anyone can habitually claim anything, is not such a place and as a result is considerably more prone to skepticism towards such claims.
This is a situation compounded when taken alongside the point that you need to realize you're not the only one in the industry, and other posters may very well have an equal or greater familiarity with aspects of the field than oneself.
As that link you provided mentions, you also have to be wary of falling into a category of misinformed or illogical folk that only think themselves reasonable.
As such it's easy to see where one may end up doing this "...the last thing you want to encounter are experts who disagree with you, and so you dismiss them in order to maintain your unreasonably high opinion of yourself."
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And then of course I reach the point where you mention Dunning-Kruger too, which is hilarious because I've provided all the evidence in the thread confirming my experience-based position, and the other side of the discussion has shown nothing. I mentioned a willingness earlier in the thread to accept evidence of a game making significant money off early B2P purchases, but alas the evidence never surfaced so there was never an opportunity to improve my understanding of the market (if indeed the evidence said what was claimed, which seems incredibly unlikely given how long we've gone without it being posted; if the evidence actually proved the point, it would be posted every single post and the discussion would be over.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I completely and respectfully disagree with your statement.
MMO's ARE much easier nowadays which in turn reduces longevity to insanely low levels. Since the current generation of mmo players are all about I have to have it now or I throw a shit fit, developers cave in to that and change their game to fit that else their numbers dwindle rapidly. Take a look at the games that were designed to be a little more challenging. They all started well but quickly declined and once they declined, they immediately changed the nature of the game becoming a LOT easier in every aspect.
2 keys things:
1 - Current generation wants everything NOW else they throw a shit fit, everyone wants to be rewarded and/or feel entitled
2 - Developers know this and cave in to it further developing their games for this mindset.
So yes, longevity has definitely changed in MMO's and for the worse. That doesn't mean you personally have to change your play style but the games themselves have changed dramatically. Longevity was what made MMO's an MMO. You built communities, friendships, relationships, you got to know people. Now, its all about who can achieve gear the quickest, the most money the quickest, everything is about SPEED SPEED SPEED. How can I get it NOW. If anything requires any effort or investment of time, players throw a shit fit and its pretty sad. After playing MMO's for the last 16 years, I've seen all the changes happen in front of my eyes and these changes have been for the worse, much more for the worse.
This and the subject line are two different questions. That was a really great answer for why they have little longevity for you. As to the subject, though, everyone has their cut-n-paste answers they've used in a hundred threads before, but no one has questioned if the subject line is even remotely accurate.
Where is the comparison data ("just look around, man" and "if you can't see it, you're blind" isn't data) of average time spent in an MMO between then (whenever then is) an now?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
We have to remember that even the most popular online games seldom get more than two content additions in a year. Heck, Destiny isn't really an MMO in the conventional sense, but it is a multiplayer quest/raid/level type of game which sold a ton of units and has AAA designers on staff. Yet even Destiny, with all the resources and fan base you could ever want, can only push out two expansions in Year One.
That's the problem with this whole quest-based, achievement oriented 'themepark' design that MMOs seem wedded to. The very model is a whole pursuit of diminishing returns, since you spend a whole quarter or two to churn out an expansion--complete with new art and new gameplay--only for it to get consumed in a week, leaving your players to grouse again that there's nothing to do.
Quest-based multiplayer games are expensive and depreciate rapidly by their very nature. Therefore, if you are a publisher or studio, you try to find out really fast which games are worth the slog to update, and which ones aren't. Part of the data used are pre-order sales and gear sales...they can tell you really fast if there's enough interest there to plan another expansion a year from the pre-order. You can't really blame them, after all, for not wanting to support a dud (even if it's your dud).
But that's what you're left with if the entire point of the game is to consume quest chains...your game is only as good as the quest chains are fresh. And so, is it any wonder why MMOs these days lack longevity? What, praytell, is there to do in the games, once you've done the story?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Is it time-consuming and slow to create hand-made content? Yes.
Is it consumed and discarded? Yes.
But is it worth it? Yes.
The majority of videogame RPGs over the years have been designed this way, and it doesn't show any signs of stopping because there's always a market for a good interactive story.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I believe another problem with most MMO's is the lack of attention to the level of hacking/botting that goes on in their game. Who wants to waste time and/or money on something that is flooded with characters that are not actually participating and adding to the game play through questing/PvP or any other useful way?
I tend to jump around games after a couple months and am now back to the single player games that I have enjoyed over the years; until something seemingly worthwhile comes out to try.
I don't disagree that interactive storytelling is still popular. But might I suggest that MMOs have never been very good at interactive storytelling, when compared with the way interactive storytelling is historically done, through single player action/adventure titles.
And the proof of this is that players are still very interested--probably more interested today than ever--in playing Arkham Knight, Mass Effect and Witcher III than they are in playing an MMO. Single player action/adventure can just do narrative storytelling better...they have the liberty to place cutscenes and structure the experience in a way that pleases the player more than a multiplayer experience can.
The more interesting question, for me, is why MMORPGs became so popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s when we had more action/adventure titles than we knew what to do with? I don't think it was because MMOs did action/adventure better than action/adventure. I think it was because MMOs were doing something different altogether.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This would be exactly where the dunning-kruger applies to you, as the information is easily accessible and you've been made aware of exactly where it is, yet refuse to affirm something that might change your perception, regardless of your claim to the contrary.
You prove your claims wrong in the same step as you make them, effectively.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The strenghts of MMOs have all to do with other players, telling the story together with them instead of saying that you are the great hero while the rest of the group is just extras seems pretty silly, after all do they do just as much as you.
Any pen and paper player can tell you that telling a story together is more fun that by yourself.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's on page seven, it's been mentioned time and again exactly where it is. Any further lack of ability for you to see the article is entirely your fault. That's been the case for three pages now.
This is not remotely logical of you.
EDIT: Correction, five pages now.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I also think that there are people who tend to stick with one mmo and some who tend to move. Not getting in to why that is, the stickers are still stuck to some mmo that the movers have abandoned. So any new game will get more of the movers. I think quality will hold more players longer, but unless it can keep pulling the dedicated people from their current games and not disappoint the people who move on quiickly, then it ends up failing the population requirements a lot of people have and it end up just another mostly abandoned game.
I don't think single player games do any better. A lot of former MMO players might be playing single player games, but not the same one for any longer than they played one MMO.