Making MMOs Massive
The demand matches the challenge.
Published as part of our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz' widely-read weekly newsletter, the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial is a weekly dissection of one of the issues weighing on the minds of the people at the top of the games business. It appears on Eurogamer after it goes out to GI.biz newsletter subscribers.
"How do you beat World of Warcraft?" is a question I've heard asked plenty of times in the past four years. It's the wrong question. Other developers and publishers have been asking the right questions all this time - questions like "what can we learn from the success of World of Warcraft?" and "how do we co-exist with World of Warcraft?"
Many companies have tried to clone the success of Blizzard's game, with extremely limited success. Others have attempted to appeal to the hardcore audience who, some argue, are marginalised by the mass-appeal of WoW - a generally doomed endeavour, since that audience may be noisy online but it's actually extremely small in size and not hugely lucrative. Others still have tried genuinely new approaches, but have failed to learn WOW's vital lessons about accessibility and progression, and have paid the price.
Sony Online Entertainment is one of the companies which has struggled to get the questions right. From being the largest operator of massively multiplayer games in the western world, thanks to the success of the Everquest franchise, SOE has seen its fortunes decline as Blizzard's star has risen. Everquest maintains a legacy audience, but new launches such as Vanguard have badly misjudged the marketplace and failed to attract significant subscriber numbers.
This week, however, SOE is the darling of the online gaming world, thanks to the launch of its much-trumpeted free-to-play MMOG, Free Realms. Just a month after its arrival, Free Realms has signed up two million users - and that's on the PC client alone, with the PS3 version still in the pipeline.
Free Realms is exactly the kind of departure from the WOW formula which is likely to succeed in the market. It's aimed at a different market segment, with a focus on appealing to young teenagers - and particularly girls, who make up a third of the player base at present. It's built on a radically different business model, with the game being free to play but expandable with the purchase of in-game items or upgrades. Those purchases are supported by the sale of Station Cash cards at a widespread retail network of big US brand names like Blockbuster, Best Buy and 7-Eleven.
Yet this departure from the norms of the MMOG world is tempered with a clear understanding of the things which make games like WOW appealing and addictive. Free Realms, from the first glance, is accessible, entertaining, and takes care not to overwhelm the player with stats. Its interface is simple to navigate and its character archetypes are fun and easy to comprehend even for newcomers to the fantasy genre.
To a certain extent, of course, there's a sense of foreboding about Free Realms' early success. We've seen the same huge claims a couple of times recently, most notably in the cases of Age of Conan and Warhammer Online, both of which trumpeted vast early subscriber numbers which then rapidly reduced in subsequent months. The caveat on Free Realms' success is that there's no way of telling how many of those two million players will continue to return to the game in the months to come.
However, even with that in mind, Free Realms is one of the most interesting efforts yet at breaking MMO gaming out of the niche it presently occupies. World of Warcraft widened that niche significantly, but it's the companies working at the edges of the genre which are doing the most to bring massively multiplayer, interconnected and online social gaming to the wider audience.
That spectrum of gaming extends from Facebook games at one end (many of them are, by any definition, social and extensively multiplayer games) through to hardcore MMOs at the other end. World of Warcraft sits at the hardcore end of the spectrum, albeit rather closer to the centre than any of its kin. Free Realms plonks itself down squarely in the middle; if I were writing the marketing pitch for it, I'd describe it as bridging the gap between WOW and Facebook. If it can attract players from both sides of that divide, it'll be a huge, long-term success.
Even if it can't quite achieve that lofty goal, it clearly signposts one of the directions which this market needs to take. Potential markets for games exist across the spectrum of online socialisation. The core ingredient which makes WOW appealing to its players, the simple magic of playing in a world populated with other people - even if you're not directly playing with those other people - can be applied to a huge range of games, and appeals to almost every audience.
Appealing those audiences, however, is going to require a change in approach and perspective for many game developers. One of the greatest accomplishments of World of Warcraft is just how stable and bug-free the game is - running happily even on fairly old hardware. No buggy or demanding game will ever conquer a more lightweight audience, where attention spans wander as soon as a technical challenge appears. (For the same reason, old conventions like separate servers or "shards" need to go out the window; no casual player will tolerate such an artificial separation from their friends and acquaintances in the same game environment.)
Even WOW, however, demands that users download big patches - and even the straightforward process of installation may be enough to drive users away at the most casual end of the spectrum, where browser-based games that require no installation or patching are likely to dominate. The challenge for developers will be to deliver compelling experiences, bug-free, using the thinnest clients possible - a fairly radical departure from the client-heavy experiences game developers have been creating for the past few decades.
The early enthusiasm for Free Realms provides evidence, if any more were needed, that there is an audience out there keen to engage with this kind of massively multiplayer experience. If game creators can tap into that audience as effectively as Blizzard has targeted the more hardcore gamer market, then even the most optimistic of projections for the growth of the MMO market may turn out to be conservative.
For more views on the industry and to keep up to date with news relevant to the games business, read GamesIndustry.biz. You can sign up to the newsletter and receive the GamesIndustry.biz Editorial directly each Thursday afternoon.
You may also like...
-
Digital Foundry: PS3 Skyrim Lag Fixed?
-
Retrospective: Star Wars Episode I Racer
-
Who Killed Rare?
-
Game of the Week: Catherine
-
Mobile Controller Group Test
-
The Story Behind XBLA's Biggest Game
-
Retrospective: Grim Fandango
-
ModNation Racers: Road Trip Review
-
Happy Action Theater Review
-
Sony confirms PS Vita 1st Party digital only game prices
-
Call of Duty: Black Ops has best game ending ever, says Guinness World Records
-
Mass Effect 3 Demo: The First 20 Minutes
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
DICE working on multiple Battlefield 3 fixes
-
EGTV: Eurogamer playtests PlayStation Vita
-
Halo 4 Master Chief action figure flaunts new suit design
-
Motorola Xoom 2 Tablet Reviews
-
Sony explains PlayStation Vita game price strategy
-
Tim Schafer: publishers aren't evil
-
Apple begins Foxconn factories inspections
-
App of the Day: Monkey Bump
-
Face-Off: Final Fantasy 13-2
-
3DS Ambassador Super Mario Bros. game updated
-
Fallout: New Vegas dev asks fans what game they would like it to Kickstart
-
UK Top 40: Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning beats Darkness 2









Comments (21) Latest comment 3 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
While I don't think releasing mac clients of every MMO will save there bacon in every case, it would certainly give them a bigger audience to entice.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Good article.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think my best interests lie more in the 'direction' of having game companies remain relatively small, take some creative risks every now and then and focus on us poor 'noisy' hardcore minority rather than endlessly growing and opening new markets everywhere, teenage girls, pensioners, first time mothers, no one is safe..
let's hope we get one of those nice retro gaming articles tomorrow, it'll be the perfect antidote for all this 'biz' nonsense
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It quite clearly states that it's an editorial for the business side of the games industry. If it bothers you so much, you don't have to read it...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
That's one side of it, the main reason why so many people still haven't plugged into MMOs is that the gameplay experience hasn't evolved at all. It's just grinding with artificial low-responsive (combat) controls (which pale in comparison with regular action games), whether it's a narrow PvE street with half-assed PvP options or the complete other way around with heavy PvP and too few computer/developer controlled factors. In other words, the genre hasn't had its Half-Life, StarCraft/Total Annihilation moment yet.
I really can't blame gamers who are sticking to traditional genres to get their game fix, MMOs just feel too stuck in their own mindset to be worth such a big time and money investment.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Once you hook them with the gameplay/concept, the "community" is the real USP, or rather the thing that keeps people from moving on.
What Blizzard have with WoW you can't beat. They can only lose for themselves, because there's no way a developer can beat having a whole society of real humans you actually *know as people* to play along with.
Its the same as Xbox Live; once you have created a real sense of community on your service its a massive barrier for any competitor to broach. Offering parity of service is no longer good enough as you need to offer something so clearly better that people will migrate in groups, and that's a tall order. Because ultimately the real "draw" is the people you know, the service is just a facilitation mechanism.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
see jstar, I know where my games come from, who makes them and why. That doesn't mean i feel the urge to tell the games industry what it should or should not do in order to make its business more profitable. Because that's how some of these articles are delivered, not as predictions or assessments but as something of a preachy wishlist of things to come. As if we a) had some say in it or b) would somehow benefit from it.
I don't tell companies big or small what to do. That's not my place. But it's an empirical fact that smaller companies are the ones usually taking the most risks and producing the output that I enjoy (and yes, buy) the most, lack of 'polish' or no, so, egoistical twat that i am, i don't see the intrinsic benefit (for gamers) of the industry growing ever larger, reaching all new markets and producing stuff none of us will ever be interested in. Maybe if the next GamesIndustry.biz article cared to explain that instead of assuming it is so i'd find these reads more enlightening.
The thing is, i don't give a damn where new markets are found or what resources are allocated for them, it's the article that bothers me not the reality behind it. Yes Genji, it wouldn't have bothered me if i hadn't read it (thanks for pointing that out) but i did, so it does, and i know it's so evil of me to say so here please forgive me all you industry connosieurs..
And jstar please realise that Eurogamer readers in general and the ones taking the time to read an article and post a comment on its thread on a saturday morning in particular are pretty much the hardcore minority in the industry's eyes.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Why not avoid reading them then? It's a GameIndustry article, about industry and business, so naturally you're going to get business phrases cropping up.
I await your future comments after articles about racing games, complaining about the prevalence of terms such as "cars" and "steering".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
WoW's sheer size and scale now requires it to have tens of millions just to operate, but it's easy to forget they didn't have that at the start and didn't need that at the start. MMO's should be there to provide alternatives, to keep the market from going stale but should definitely note that WoW may be the dominant force but no-one would describe it as a perfect game.
MMO's can all survive if people stop trying to be Blizzard's behemoth. Learn lessons, but the more you copy the more money it takes and the more likely you run out of money - if people want WoW they'll play WoW. When I look for a diversion in MMO terms I'd like it to be totally different, which is why Spellborn has my curiosity peaked. Be yourselves, have new ideas, because people who want WoW will play WoW, not a pale imitation.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
As an extension of this, I for one have gone right off multiplayer games with anything other than a very few people I already know well, or a very occasional blast on something that's highly structured and thus keeps the idiocy of people in check to some extent. For me, games are supposed to be a release from the idiocy of others, not an amplification of it. Free Realms is not a game that I know anything about, but if the 'free' in the title refers more to freedom of playing style than lack of cost, it's only a matter of time before the trolls move in, the subscribers who don't love the game totally realise the depths which it can plumb, and go and find something cheaper and less unpleasant to do.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
But it is a business - that's unavoidable these days. And I'm interested in both the creative side and the business side.
To simply blinker yourself to the economic realities of producing games these days is, IMHO, very narrow minded. But hey, what do I know?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The gameplay IS repetitive but that's a general failing with these sorts of games. Especially the earlier parts of the leveling experience, which is where a lot of people come unstuck I suspect. One of WoW's strengths is that the actual leveling experience is far better structured and all the classes are properly balanced so that playing solo isn't like pulling teeth (try rolling a healer class on a korean grindfest MMO and you'll understand what I mean) but even they were far from perfect early on. There's a lot of areas that are simply terrible. Especially quest design. They've come a huge distance, Wrath of the Lich King content in comparison to the original 1.0 content is like night and day.
It's true that WoW is an exception rather than a rule, and that it's unlikely that any game will ever directly challenge it until it begins to run out of steam itself, but it's certainly not just a case of right-place-at-the-right-time like a lot of people seem to suggest. It's simply the most polished, well-rounded, consistent and accessible MUD-derived MMO on the market, and by a fair margin. Personally I suspect that the game that will knock Blizzard off their current perch is going to be something that actually breaks out of the MUD mould entirely.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I mean, seriously, if having to patch your game is enough to turn people away, are they really worth catering towards? People with such a tennuous attachment to the game are just as likely to drop it when eastenders come on, or when they hear the kettle boil, or loose women comes on telly, and it worries me how it's this market 'rather then this percieved 'hardcore', which is driving the MMO market.
I dont see why a game has to appeal to everyone (and ultimately satisfy no-one) fgor it to be successful.
I think, in many ways WoW has damaged the MMO market by providing a benchmark which everyone should not be trying to strive towards. Yes the mass casual market is lucrative and it does need to be tapped, and it does help the community for it to be tapped, by expanding the gaming cumminity, but it should by no means become the only sort of MMO apparent.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
At the same time having plenty of content that can be played and enjoyed solo makes it more likely people will end up meeting online without feeling like they have to keep to defined schedules.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
how big of a market is it for the casuals who find patching to be a pain? I mean really now, how big?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The gameplay draws you in, your friends keep you there - is a very good description how the genre works