GC: Film and MMOs don't mix - ArenaNet News
PC
Xbox 360
PlayStation 3
MMO
News
by
Ellie Gibson
Jeff Strain, co-founder of Guild Wars developer ArenaNet, has said that MMO studios should focus on creating new worlds instead of basing games on books, TV and films.
Speaking at the Leipzig GCDC Strain said, "Even the big two [franchises] haven't lived up to their expectations."
He went on to point out that the top two MMOs are based on original worlds - and that this means their creators aren't restricted when developing titles.
Strain also argued that most MMOs fail because of the social nature of the genre, and because gamers rarely commit to more than one at a time.
"The primary factor that determines whether an MMO lives or dies is the active player base," he observed.
"There's a sweet spot, and those that don't reach that threshold tend to die within a short time."
Of course, Strain continued, there are plenty of reasons why players stop playing an MMO. But he reckons you can spot potential problems before a game is even on the shelves: "Releasing an MMO before everybody on the development team is absolutely proud of it is walking away from every dime you've invested in it."
Strain agreed that World of Warcraft has had a huge impact on the industry, but warned against trying to copy Blizzard's work too closely.
"The best-placed people to create World of Warcraft's successor, it's the World of Warcraft team," he told the audience. "Let's all do our own thing, and be good at it.
"[WOW isn't] the most innovative product on the market, but it has a tremendous amount of content in it and it's exceptionally polished. It was in development for five years and probably cost well in excess of USD 40 million to bring to market."
To finish up, Strain took a swipe at the notion that monthly fees are the only payment solution for MMOs. "Don't count on subscriptions. The subscription model is not the future of the games industry," he stated.
"Gamers don't buy the argument that an MMO has to charge a subscription fee to cover the ongoing cost of servers and development. We know it, and they know it."
Are you excited about World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Related Games
World of Warcraft
Guild Wars
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade
Guild Wars: Factions
Guild Wars: Nightfall
Guild Wars: Eye of the North
Guild Wars 2
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King
Latest Features
-
World of Warcraft Interview [47]
-
World of Warcraft Review [120]
-
World of Warcraft Hands On [22]
-
World of Warcraft Interview [4]
-
World of Warcraft Interview [13]
Latest Videos
World of Warcraft: Call of the Crusade [1] 5 August, 2009
World of Warcraft - Ulduar [4] 14 April, 2009
Latest News
-
Blizzard on 15 years of Warcraft, 5 of WOW [41]
-
BlizzCon moving to Vegas in July? [2]
-
Battle.net now required to play WOW [8]
-
Blizzard keen on WOW micro-transactions [37]
-
WOW patch 3.3 in "coming weeks" [27]
Latest Screenshots
28 June, 2008 [19]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-14 of 14 in total
|
kangarootoo
21/08/07 @ 15:00
0
"Gamers don't buy the argument that an MMO has to charge a subscription fee to cover the ongoing cost of servers and development. We know it, and they know it."
Well they may not buy it, but that doesn't make it not true. Games players don't accept all sorts of things (advertising on a free website being another common one close to home), but half the time thats because they don't like dealing with reality or simply don't know what they are on about. The case in point is Guild Wars. The way the game works is fundamentally affected by their pricing model. You couldn't do WoW if it was funded the way GW is. The rest of the article just sounded like someone bigging up their own wares by the back door tbh. |
|
0
"Gamers don't buy the argument that an MMO has to charge a subscription fee to cover the ongoing cost of servers and development. We know it, and they know it."
Actually, I think WoW has changed that. Before WoW I didn't feel like paying monthly fees to play a game. Now I see that the money is (partially) being invested in creating a bigger and better game.
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 21/08/07 @ 16:13
|
|
0
What he actually said was that you could not justify a subscription fee just to cover server and bandwidth costs. He went on to say that you could justify a subscription fee for other things, like large GM teams or frequent content updates.
His point was not "subscriptions are evil and doomed to failure," but instead "not every game should charge a subscription fee, so be sure you can justify it if you choose to do so."
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 21/08/07 @ 16:39
|
|
0
A lot of MMORPGs do not charge a subscription fee for playing, they use other methods to generate revenue (as micro transitions for exclusive content).
Also there are alternatives to a flat monthly fee, such as time cards. None of what I said should come as a surprise to anyone with some knowledge of MMORPGs, the diference is that what I said is common in asia but unheard of in the rest of the world. |
|
0
i think he's talking about Guild Wars and its recent passing 4 million sales since release.
Don't worry EG will probably report that tomorrow :P EDIT: Linky: http://www.guildwars.com/events/press/re...
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 21/08/07 @ 19:55
|
|
kangarootoo
21/08/07 @ 21:51
0
@skillian
Lol, is that good because I'm consistent, or bad because I'm obvious? :D |
|
0
I think he's pretty close on the money.
Pre-existing non-pc-game IP: LOTRO isn't doing badly, but it isn't storming ahead either. DDO never really took off. Matrix online? lol. Star Wars? Shot in the foot. Original IP: Lineage WoW EQ UO Now, you tell me which list you think had the most 'hit' titles. Theres always the "developer was good/bad" argument, but at a glance, it could very well be to do with using non-computer-game IP as the base contraining ideas/functionality/inventiveness. |
Comments: 1-14 of 14 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
