| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (10)

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 11:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Something tells me that this has less to do with the developers and more to do with the marketing and business folks.

Where the developers come in is when they give the others estimates on when they will be done. At some point the money folk have to say "Well, we've waited too long, we need a product able to keep subscriptions so we stop bleeding cash."

It would be nice if every company was willing to sit on a project until it is DONE (Duke Nukem Forever) but when you have shareholders to answer to you have to respond in a responsible business fashion or you may find your seat gone at the next board meeting.

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 11:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just now realized that I got so lost in the article that I ignored the original question. My apologies.

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 1:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not really an option a developer has. I mean either you have risk averse money backing you, which is going to want you to get a game out the door now now now, or you have risk tolerant money backing you, which means you can make like TR and WoW, which doesn't seem to really improve your chances of making a great game.

Realistically speaking there are only really two developers (of video games, period, not mmos) with the monopoly on developer talent that can be counted on to consistently make quality products, and they don't release many of them because their strategy is to make a long term market rent on every game they release. Everyone else should get to market as soon as they have a halfway decent product and patch from there, because they're going to have to rely on word of mouth and community more so than the big two.

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 1:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a pretty firm believer that projects can be full featured and relatively bug free, and also timely. Most MMOs have failed at this: they are either fast (and buggy) or slower (and still buggy, though perhaps a little less so).

I found Burning Crusade highly disappointing from this perspective: after having 2 years 3 months to work on it, Blizzard released a product that was not only somewhat buggy (to be expected, not everything will come to light on a PTR), but it had a lot of actual design flaws, some of which took up to 5 months post-release to correct. Probably the biggest of these, and the one that cost them the most customers spring 2007, was itemization stat allocation. This is something they got right in the 1.0 iteration of their game - stuff got progressively better as you went through dungeons and raids in scale of difficulty. How they screwed this up so very badly in BC is really beyond me.

What surprises me is how few times articles like those here on Massively ignore Turbine's LoTRO in making these kinds of comparisons. I have played LoTRO off and on since it's release and, having been an online gamer since MUDs and the days of NWN on AOL (ha, showing my age), I can honestly say that Turbine has really set the standard for timely releases of content, relatively bug-free, AND they're hitting the shelves with their first for-pay expansion 1.5 years post-release. It's a shockingly beautiful, qq-free game, IMHO. About the only place where Turbine has not done "as much" as others is the interface - allowing more player customization there would be nice. But the interface is quite useable as is, so it's not a game-breaker by any stretch.

At any rate. Bloggers here keep comparing the quantity and quality of content in WoW, AoC, and the upcoming Warhammer left and right, and really kind of ignoring one of the best games on the market in terms of success in both areas. It's interesting and a bit puzzling. :)

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 3:42PM Mystal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yea, LoTRO is a very interesting case for the MMO industry as a whole. They've done everything just about as well as you can possibly ask, and while I'm pretty sure they're making decent money, I don't think they're ever going to get out of the shadow of WoW.

On the topic:
One thing to keep in mine with the seemingly unique Blizzard model is that Blizzard already has a lot invested in their brand. It's actually cheaper to throw away an expensive failure than to release it and tarnish the brand name.

If you're a new studio with no real brand name, what does it really cost you to throw a half baked game on the market? It's better to earn back a portion of what you spent than to take a total loss, right? Even if people hate your company, it doesn't cost that much to throw away a non existent brand and start over.

If you're Blizzard you throw away two bad games and make the third one, which is actually good. If you're company X, you make a bad game, change your name to company Y, release another bad game, change your name to company Z, and finally manage to make a good game. It's only when you've established yourself as company Z, maker of a good game, that you have a brand that's worth holding onto.

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 10:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would agree on that re: LoTRO and WoW's shadow, primarily because really, truly WoW has become the America Online of MMOs. It's most often the first thing "new to online gaming" people try; it's the most "out there", and let's face it: the barrier to entry level play is *extremely* low.

I expect WoW may retain market share when you include Asia in the figures. Their overseas playerbase now far exceeds their "western" playerbase in N.A. and Western Europe, and will continue to grow even as the West has declined somewhat. As long as they can continue to find new markets for the existing WoW iteration they will continue to maintain the concurrency plateau they're on, or perhaps even grow a bit more.

What Blizzard did best was to borrow elements from all the MMOs that came before, and make them accessible to the masses: playable on a middle to low end PC, with easy controls and "instant rewards". Solving the performance issue, alone, got them a lot of people who simply could not or would not purchase the hardware to run EQ expansions. Add the design issues that caused the social and playability problems that existed in EQ (forced grouping, among others). Oddly forced grouping and strict adherence to traditional tank/healer/required CC is what's been killing the end game playerbase for them for awhile now.

In the West though, folks are really wishing for something new. If you go with the common enough estimate that WoW has ~5 mil subs in North America and Western Europe combined, a group nearly equal to 20% of that bought AoC. Assuredly some percentage of those purchasers never played WoW but I would imagine a large majority have done so. Likewise for WAR, which has had massive numbers of beta signups and has nearly sold out the CE preorders a full 3 months prior to release day. People are clearly on the prowl for something new.

WoW, in the West, will die a death of a thousand cuts, so to speak. I don't think there will ever be "one MMO" that will ever draw that many again. As the market grows more sophisticated and more people dump the training wheels and want a gaming experience that caters to their personal interests, the market fragments into everything from EVE to LOTRO. As more good offerings arrive that will continue to be the case.

What's going to be interesting is whether these smaller player bases can support really good ongoing development of quality games. I'm sure this will come down to corporate "personality". So far, Turbine seems to be doing quite well with reinvesting in LoTRO; EVE has clearly succeeded here too. Again, it begs the question of why a company like Blizzard with (one would assume) infinitely more financial resources can't put out content more frequently than they have done, and with fewer design flaws. Something's wrong with their development pipeline. Either not properly staffed, or pinched off by too many top chefs in the kitchen, or perhaps the issues of Asia slow things down (having to vet every single change to make sure it cannot offend someone, somewhere, in however many languages they've ported in now).

Oddly we've been testing Wizard 101 lately, which is actually amazingly well done and just about perfect for the age group it's targeting. It's flown in under the radar, but for a 'tween and young teen audience whose TV, film and book tastes run to magic and mayhem (from Pokemon to Harry Potter, this game is going to appeal to all these kids), I suspect it's going to do REALLY well, and grab an audience that will certainly graduate to more adult MMOs someday. We've been terribly impressed by the quality of it, so far.
Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 5:00PM Russell Clarke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Kevin, you're right, but perhaps your focus is too much on one side of the Quality equation - i.e. presence or absence of bugs?

There's 2 sides to Quality Control - Verification and Validation. Verification is your standard bug squishing - check things work properly and if not, raise them and get them fixed. Validation is a much softer concept, and it's about getting the OK from your user base that you've actually developed what they wanted - it's essentially the user acceptance testing stage, which for MMOs, as I have mentioned before, runs from beta till the day you close your live servers.

Vefirication = have we built the product right?
Validation = have we built the right product?

You can have a technically polished game that is dull as dishwater - it will fail. You can have a slightly buggy game that is compelling, and it will succeed (as long as the development team addresses the technical issues in time!)

So while bugs in a game will definitely reduce its longevity (and therefore the chances of the dev team fixing stuff before their player base leaves) I believe that it's the softer aspects (e.g. is it interesting, is it any fun, does it have the features I expect?) that are stronger barometers of success or failure. And of course no amount of testing can add that sort of stuff into a game after the initial conceptual design has begun, and no matter how many millions of dollars people throw at it. So TR was redesigned 3 times. They still made (in my humble opinion) a boring, repetitive game.

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 6:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hey, I think Turbine (with Lotro at least) did quite well on release! Very few bugs, and most of those were with very complicated Boss Mob scripts. Yeah they tweaked some classes after, but not really serious bugs.

Also I think Cryptic did a fine job with City Of Heroes release too!

I was in those beta's and the beta for WoW and for AOC and Tabula Rasa, and yes I bought the Release of all those. AOC and Tabula Rasa were very flawed and I no longer play either of them. I think WoW had more problems on release (which was fairly smooth) compared to Lotro and CoH (surprisingly smooth)..

Other companies besides Blizzard can execute excellent releases! These loser companies really are below average.

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 10:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes WoW had a really rocky launch as compared to either LoTRO (nearly perfect) or AoC (not so perfect but nowhere near as bad as WoW).

Lots have forgotten but Blizzard completely dropped the ball on database design and infrastructure. They made a pretty and engaging leveling game, but they did not put nearly enough analysis into transactional loads, and I suspect much else of what was associated with the back-end server-to-database server infrastructure, including internal networking.

It's like nobody said "okay I have an avatar and I can kill X mobs in an hour, and pick up Y items, and sell Z items, and craft this many more - now let's multiply that by concurrency caps and see if the infrastructure can do this many transactions per hour without performance problems".

By the time the FilePlanet 50k "open beta" period rolled around it became really clear that their servers could not handle the transaction load of all those players moving all those items (read: bits and bytes in the databases) around. Their temporary solution was to hold off on shipping copies (remember the incremental box releases for the first 6-7 months). For those of us who'd preordered and were continuing on past beta, from the start of the open/FilePlanet beta until late spring 2005 was a difficult time to play. "Loot lag" and "loot stuck" were probably tied for the most heard phrases in chat (and in our household, LOL). Crashes with rollbacks and loss of time/exp/items were daily (sometimes hourly). They put in even lower concurrency caps to at least keep the servers from crashing too much under the transaction load, which meant logging on by 5pm EST if you wanted to play that evening without waiting 1-2 hours in a queue.

In the end, they got their infrastructure redesigned and things got better, but it really did take half a year before significant gains were made. And it was much longer than that before the evening queue problems were resolved. But at the time, the only alternatives were EQ or EQ2, both of which were so painfully "slow to level, hard to play, impossible to solo" and would not run on mediocre PCs. SWG had done their deed and driven most of their customers off by then. Blizzard had a relatively captive audience. Plus there were thousands who wanted to try it, but couldn't buy it, so you had this whole Wii-like cachet going on.

And yet I still hear people say what a great WoW launch Blizzard had (clearly, it's the whole blocking-the-pain-of-childbirth-memory phenomena in action). :)

Reply

Posted: Jul 12th 2008 8:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would argue that there isn't less risk as such in limiting development time as you have to stand apart from the 1000 pound gorilla and a growing number of competitors. You really have to be interesting if you want to get a decent piece of the pie, burnout with other games alone won't keep your playerbase tied to you.

That said, there isn't really such a thing as unlimited development time either, there's always a budget. I really don't think anybody sets out thinking "I'll make half a game and patch the rest in later", but circumstances always dictate what you can produce to some degree and we'd all like to have "until it's done". So what you do with the time you have would be as important as how much time you start out with. And then there's advertising it, oh advertising..

Ambitious software projects very often get delayed or features cut, this really isn't anything new in business. This is a very unforgiving market though, the moment you fire up ye ole hype machine you'd better be able to deliver all you promised, or your product will be rushed, and deliver it when you promised, or it's vaporware. And people will go out of their way to tell others if they feel this way which WILL hurt you.

As such, the moment you go public should be a big factor in your planning and when you do, you need to be confident that you can deliver. Blizzard does this extremely well, when they go public there's always this whole show which grabs people's attention, but they keep very quiet until then and don't actually promise anything specific for any specific date until they know it'll be there after either.

Trust me when I say it's very easy to get carried away in your enthousiasm about all the cool stuff you still have coming, but at one point you just have to decide that for launch, this will be it. And ideally you want to make this decision in private, not 2 weeks before the date. There's always after and anything newly announced that makes it in will only make you look better.

Myself I don't have the luxury to set an unlimited development window either way. I'd stay in development as long as I could though, until I knew my basic product was good enough to withstand public scrutiny. That's what I'd advertise and from then on out, development time is dedicated to polishing what I have in time for launch. If getting that right requires a delay then that can't be helped, but I'd prefer not to.

And if I still need to cut or delay more after an extended period, I have bigger problems..

Featured Stories

Editorial: Learning from the 38 Studios disaster

Posted on May 25th 2012 1:00PM

Storyboard: Why I rejected your guild application

Posted on May 25th 2012 12:00PM

Everything you need to know about The Secret World

Posted on May 25th 2012 11:30AM

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW