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

Reader Comments (11)

Posted: Jun 9th 2009 4:05PM J Brad Hicks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think you failed to distinguish between buzz, and hype. Buzz is the natural product of advertising a really great product. Hype is what happens when you give the same level of promotion to a product, and then fail to deliver on your promises.

What nearly all of the "bubble" MMOs you're referring to have in common is that they over-promised and under-delivered (due to out-of-control burn rates on their startup capital), and when the money ran out, gave up on even trying to deliver the missing bits in a timely fashion, choosing instead to slash development budgets. That can't ever do anything but fail to enrage everybody who believed your hype.

1) Don't promise more than you can afford to deliver.
2) Once the game is out, if you intend people to continuing paying, continue to improve it.
3) PROFIT!

It's not brain science, or rocket surgery.

Posted: Jun 9th 2009 6:34PM Crsh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The line between buzz and hype can be very blurry; Blizzard for instance likes to publish subscriber numbers on a regular basis as a way to keep the buzz going for their game. While extremely successful with 11.5 million+ active accounts, they like to mix monthly subscriptions with by the minute/hour-based plans used primarily in Asia which always felt a little sketchy.

If North-America has 2.5 million active accounts, and Europe 2, that means there's loosely over half of the total number that is questionable. They indeed are active accounts, but there's no easy way to tell how many of them are played on a regular basis (or even what is considered a regular basis for that matter).

I'm not sure in what category it falls. On one hand, we can all agree WoW is extremely successful (buzz); on the other, playing with numbers in a Shock & Awe way can be just plain misleading (hype).
Reply

Posted: Jun 9th 2009 5:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The trouble I have with this article is in it's final sentence before the summary. I have a hard time with people comparing games that have a F2P structure with those that are P2P.

To say that Runescape, or Second Life (etc.) have successful models is difficult. Of course thier numbers keep going up, they dont ever roll anyone off due to lack of a monthly subscription. Im sure I am still counted as a Runescape subscriber, though I havent touched the game in over a year.

Personally, I'd like to see apples being compared to apples. Lets avoid the oranges in these types of conversations.

Posted: Jun 9th 2009 5:40PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, Runescape does have a monthly subscription in addition to its free to play portion and their released numbers are active paying subs ( http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13769 ). Although they charge a lower monthly rate than most subscription MMOs, they do have over a million active subscribers (and allegedly another 4 million recently active non-subscribing players) and have shown steady growth over the years ( http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html ). A lot of people discount Runescape as "that crappy little java game" and I admit I'm guilty of it myself at times but those numbers demand that the game be taken seriously in the market.

Second life also uses recent repeat logins as their metric and those numbers have shown steady growth.
Reply

Posted: Jun 10th 2009 2:27AM Joystiq Login Bugs SUCK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry Brendan, SL has pretty static repeat users mostly made up of camper bots

http://taterunino.net/statistical%20graphs.html
Reply

Posted: Jun 10th 2009 3:05AM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While those stats show more recent short-term trends, Second Life is definitely an example of an MMO which grew its user base organically and saw steady growth in its earlier years ( http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html ). This is a point I find myself raising quite often - that using techniques like iterative redevelopment an MMO can see constant subscriber growth and grow its playerbase organically.

As commenter "mandrill" pointed out below, it may be preferable for a game to start small and grow than start huge and collapse. Although heavy advertising can ensure massive numbers of people try the game at launch, no game is ideal at launch. A botched launch can alienate players, who may never give the game another try. I fear that the massive launches new AAA MMOs are given are simply a stunt to recoup development costs at the expense of a game's longevity.
Reply

Posted: Jun 9th 2009 8:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The danger is that MMO makers and publishers are well aware of the situation and rely on it to make their money back and some profit early on, and then drop the game because subscriber numbers drop. Rinse and repeat. This would mean that the makers do not consider their customers as fellow travellers on a long journey and don't feel any obligation to provide decent service, regular updates and swift solution of bugs and other issues.

A good MMO is one that has steady growth from the outset, without the need to make back what was spent hyping/buzzing the game. A good MMO is one that values the players contribution to making the game what it is, rather than just money cows to be milked as ruthlessly as possible. A good MMO will start small and grow, rather than start huge and then collapse. I am wary of any buzz/hype around any MMO as I've found from experience that it usually means that the game isn't up to much and the makers are only in it for a quick buck.

Posted: Jun 9th 2009 11:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The MMO market is crowded and needs business models that don't rely on subscriptions. As long as new games that come out avoid subscriptions, then they can survive quite well. But the market is too saturated and becoming too crowded to support subscriptions. I really think it's a mistake for any MMO coming out to go with subscriptions, and then there's games like Champions Online that wants to try to do both Subscription and Microtransaction, which is just a death nail and very greedy.

Free downloads with microtransactions, or box purchases with microtransactions, but no more subscriptions from here forward.

Posted: Jun 10th 2009 1:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You refute your own thesis with the following statement...

"Whatever the metric being examined, there is one universal constant that is absolutely unavoidable – no conversion rate will ever be 100%. At each stage in the marketing, sales and subscription pipeline, some people will invariably choose not to continue with their purchase. Whether that means deciding against buying the game in the first place or deciding to cancel their subscription after four months, at each stage some people will inevitably bleed out of the pipeline."

By the very fact that this is true, it is absolutely imperative for a developer and/or publisher to hype the holy hell out of their game as the more people that have access to it, the more people that will continue to pay monthly subscriptions.

You can assume that the conversion rate of natural advertising (those that hear about the game through word of mouth or from their own research) is higher than that of traditional advertising (commercials, publications, etc), it does not behoove me as a publisher or developer to hope that those people randomly come to my game.

When you've already spent 50 to 60 million making an MMO for 3-5 years, you're not going to sit back and hope that millions of people randomly come across your game and have a high conversion rate. You push the content out to as many people as you possibly can and accept the lower conversion rate with higher overall numbers.

Posted: Jun 10th 2009 10:29PM Brendan Drain said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can certainy see your point but I don't think the two ideas are in conflict at all. Just because the conversion rate will never be 100% is no reason to blast out advertising and hype a game up beyond reasonable expectations for launch. The conversion rate of customers attracted by natural advertising will be siginificantly higher. Yes, with overhyping a game you'll end up with overall higher numbers immediately post-launch but you'll do so at almost permanant expense of part of your potential market. As a few other commenters have pointed out, there is a big difference in the acceptable "buzz" a game generates within a natural potential subscriber-base and unacceptable "hype" that creates an unsustainable potential subscriber-base.

By making false promises that you can't deliver you could double the number of people that try the game at launch, but that's up to a few hundred thousand potential future customers that you've just alienated. They're not going to give the game another go any time soon, especially if they feel that they've just been lied to. A good example is Age of Conan, where the people that played the game at launch were almost absolutely polarised - some thought it was the best game ever and some felt like they'd been lied to and almost scammed out of their money. To this day, there are huge swathes of people who tried the game at launch and refuse to give it another shot even though the game may have improved. Recapturing those players in the future is not going to be easy.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's only so many people that fit into an MMO's target market. If you over-advertise a game for launch and promise the world, you'll reach very high sales saturation of that market within a short time span and have more subs immediately post-launch. But this comes at the expense of dramatically reducing the maximum potential subscriberbase of the game for years to come, stifling growth. Furthermore, the negative press of a bad launch can take years for an MMO to recover from. The ideal scenario is to reach an acceptable level of sales at launch without "using up" the entire market. It's much better to improve the game and therefore improve its retention rate before using heavy marketing to bring those extra players in. That way those players you would have pissed off by overhyping it for launch will only be convinced to play by your advertising later when their conversion rate into long-term subscribers is much higher.

It is perhaps a nasty side-effect of increasing budgets (like the 50-60 million figure you mentioned, which has become a more common benchmark for AAA MMOs) that launch sales have become far too important for MMO companies. Investors expect the games to return their development costs immediately from just launch sales and aren't perhaps as interested as they should be in the constant revenue stream of good subscription numbers.
Reply

Posted: Jun 30th 2009 9:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm also suspicious of WoW's numbers. Sure, WoW is very successful, everyone knows it. However, as someone who played it for 2 years already, there are definate peaks and troughs. Now I feel WoW is on an inevitable decline, but of course getting numbers to back that up is proving very difficult. However I can just look at official forums and my own guild. The former shows many big raiding guilds collapsing, and the later has over 100 accounts, yet our numbers are dwindling to the point where we can't even get raids together any more.

Sure people will come back when the next patch or expansion comes out, but for many of us, we are having to deal with dramatically decreased populations. It's a tough nut; on one hand you need to have the servers ready for the huge glut of people which will appear around patch/expansion time, but you also need to be realistic in handling the people who hang around from patch to patch; your consistent money makers. I dont see WoW implimenting this, but it would be smart to impliment further instancing for dungeons/raids like we see with battlegrounds (although they did do this for BGs, so who knows).

But for now, when you log in to Azeroth, its hard to not get the feeling that the world is about to die due to lack of population.

Anyway i would be very sceptical about subscription numbers since there are so many ways they can lie.

Featured Stories

Betawatch: May 19 - 25, 2012

Posted on May 25th 2012 8:00PM

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW