Fresh from the "Better late than never" file, it's time, once again, for another edition of Ask Massively, satiating the knowledge needs of the MMORPG community since roughly a couple of months ago.
Sometimes, the best questions come from your friends while shooting the bull over lunch. So it was this week for our latest column. It all started when someone else asked a very common question, "Will any game out there ever be as successful as World of Warcraft?" While the rest of my lunch crowd tossed out the usual suspects (pretty much every game released or due to be released this year), one of my friend's mind took off in an unexpected direction.
Dave, who is a DJ over at VVC Radio, took on the question from a vastly different perspective. He asked
What makes an MMORPG "successful"?
Much to the unexpected joy of the rest of the table, the question stopped me dead in my tracks. It wasn't that the question was particularly difficult to answer, just that there are so many good answers out there. In fact, I understand that this question has been discussed elsewhere fairly recently.
If you would like to take a shot at stunning me into utter silence, you have other options besides trying to figure out where I go to lunch every day. For instance, you can submit your question to our tipline, or even drop us an email. If you'd like to continue down this particular rabbit hole, then keep reading...
The first, and most obvious, answer to this question involves the number of people playing the game. While it is possible to break down these numbers by number of boxes purchased (most common), number of active subscriptions (good luck getting that info from some game companies), and number of concurrent players, those numbers only tell part of the story.
Just about everybody has heard by now that World of Warcraft has sold more than 10 million copies worldwide, but as some readers pointed out to me in a previous column, having 10 million copies of your software out there does not mean that you have that many active subscriptions or that many players online at the same time. To be sure, WoW most likely has the largest number of active subscriptions and concurrent players, but exact numbers for the number of players concurrently playing a game are somewhat difficult to find. In fact, I could not find any current data at all. According to Tolbold's blog , the ratio of active subscriptions to concurrent players online could range from 3-to-1 to 10-to-1. Of course those numbers are obtained through second and third hand sources, so your mileage may vary. The point is, the actual number of players playing your game is a relatively small subset of the overall subscriber base.
Other companies have been somewhat more forthcoming with their subscriber numbers. City of Heroes, in particular, illustrates another definition of "success" that is far easier to attain for companies and may be ultimately healthier for the MMORPG genre as a whole. With just over 1% of the subscriber base of World of Warcraft, CoH boasts an intensely loyal fan base that isn't showing a lack of devotion, if anything one could argue that a smaller player base can make for a tighter-knit community. According to NCSoft's last quarterly report, City of Heroes had a net loss of subscribers of around 3,000. With a player base of just over 136,000, that results in a churn rate of around 2.25% There are many subscription or contract-based businesses that would be absolutely thrilled with a churn rate that low.
What can MMO companies learn from this example? A game doesn't have to be a "WoW Killer" in order to be successful. In fact, making a game that isn't significantly different than World of Warcraft in terms of gameplay or setting might be a recipe for failure. Why bother trying to be a better WoW, when a game set in a different genre and boasting different game mechanics might ultimately remain profitable for a far longer span of time? If producers switch their mode of thinking from "Big Game" to "Long Term Game", it will be far easier for a company to make a profit in the MMORPG marketplace. City of Heroes, EVE Online, and Lord of the Rings Online are all examples of games that offer content and features that don't directly compete or compare with games like World of Warcraft and, as a result, have much better prospects for long term success.
Lord of the Rings Online, in particular, is an interesting case. While LotRO and WoW are both set in a "Swords and Sorcery" game setting, LotRO has a built-in fan base of Tolkien fanatics that should guarantee a dedicated audience for the foreseeable future. This bodes well for upcoming releases like Age of Conan and Warhammer: Age of Reckoning. Both game worlds have storylines and settings that are familiar to their fans and could provide them with a small, dedicated fan base for the long term. If, however, these games are launched and have the label "Warcraft Clone" applied to them, it is all but certain than the games will rapidly drop in popularity and players will find their way back to WoW. The historical precedent I'm thinking of is Dark Age of Camelot and Everquest. Many of the folks who gave DAoC a shot eventually went back to EQ. It may or may not be fair to call DAoC an "Everquest clone", but at the highest level, one "Swords and Sorcery" MMO is as good as another unless you boast significant improvements in storyline or gameplay. World of Warcraft might very well have met the same fate (subscriber-wise) as DAoC if they hadn't learned from Everquest's examples and mistakes. (Hiring two of EQ's more vocal and well known players didn't hurt either)
Ultimately, there are several factors that are crucial to the success or failure of an MMORPG title. First and foremost will always be gameplay. A game can boast a wonderful story and have legions of dedicated fans, but if the gameplay stinks, the game won't last or make much money. (Are you listening, Star Wars Galaxies?)
A well designed game setting and rich storyline are also important. How does the player fit into the story? Even if you have state-of-the-art graphics, and take gameplay in previously unexplored directions, if the player doesn't care about the story, they won't remain interested in the game. (I'm looking at you, Vanguard and Earth and Beyond) Note: There are so many games that could fit into this category, I just picked two at random.
Finally, and this is less obvious than you would think, endgame content/replayability is crucial. One of the most common complaints I've heard about otherwise good games like City of Heroes and Tabula Rasa is that there is nothing to do once you hit the endgame. CoH's answer to this is to cater to altoholics and make the game "replay-friendly". TR has not yet answered this problem, but unless I miss my guess, they're working hard on it.
That's all we have for this week. If you'd like to submit a question for us at Ask Massively, you can go to our tipline or drop us a line via email.
