A look at (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/02/19/flood_of_games_too_few_players_cause_change_in_onl ine_realm/) companies finding the MMO market not what they hoped.

Could too many MMO's spell disaster for all of them if the playerbase is spread too thinly to support any one game?

Prompted by the recent canning of Mythica and URU: Live, The Boston Globe have whipped up an article which looks at the current MMO market and the problems facing developers as they try to capture gamers' imagination and emulate the success of EQ. This quote from Jeffrey Anderson, CEO of Turbine Entertainment (Asheron's Call) sums the situation pretty well. "It's like we all decided we all wanted to create our own version of MTV."

Flood of games, too few players cause change in online realm

Mythica was a realm like no other, a grim, glorious land in which brave men and women embarked on perilous adventures in a quest to join the company of the gods.

Until the geeks at Microsoft Corp. had second thoughts and pulled the plug on it.

Mythica was to have been Microsoft's major entry into the market for persistent online role-playing games -- the kind where a player joins an extended online community in which life goes on even when the player has logged off. There's certainly a market for games like these. EverQuest and the new Star Wars Galaxies, both run by Japan's Sony, each boast hundreds of thousands of avid players.

But other companies are finding it surprisingly hard to duplicate Sony's success. Microsoft abandoned Mythica last week, even before the game was officially launched. "We were looking at the . . . market and really determined that we couldn't be competitive," said Microsoft spokeswoman Genevieve Waldman. The company says it's not giving up on role-playing games; it's working on a title for its XBox console gaming platform. Still, the abandonment of Mythica just months before its release showed that Microsoft is doing a serious re-


think about the viability of online role-playing games. Perhaps more remarkable was last week's decision by the French game company Ubisoft to shut down Uru Live, the online component of the successful single-player game Uru: Ages Beyond Myst.

The game was the latest installment in the Myst series, one of the most popular in the history of computer gaming. The single-player version has sold more than 350,000 copies worldwide, making it a solid success. It might have seemed that the millions who've played Myst games over the past decade would be eager to sample an online version. Not so. Only a handful of people signed up, forcing Ubisoft to shut it down. "We did not have the right indications we needed that it would be successful," said Jason Rubinstein, general manager of Ubisoft's online gaming business.

Then there's the online version of the Sims from Electronic Arts Inc. Although the game's stand-alone version has sold millions of copies, only 80,000 people play the Sims Online. Though EA officials have no plans to shut down their online world, they freely admit the population remains far below their hopes.

What's gone wrong? Nothing that fewer and better games can't cure, industry watchers say.

Spurred by the success of EverQuest, lots of companies began launching persistent online role-playing games, without thinking through the demands of the market. "Too many products got created, to be used by too few customers," said Jeffrey Anderson, CEO of Westwood-based Turbine Entertainment Software, developer of another successful online game, Asheron's Call. "It's like we all decided we all wanted to create our own version of MTV."

Actually, it's worse. Nearly anybody who likes pop music might check out the various MTV imitators for a minute or two. But there are millions of gamers who'll never try an online role-playing game.

First, there's the price. Millions of people happily pay up to $50 for the latest game software. Role-playing games require that kind of investment and more -- as much as $15 a month to retain membership in the fantasy world. That's $180 a year per player. This steady stream of revenue is one of the things that attracts game companies to the online role-playing market, but it also scares away customers.

Then there's the complexity. Each player must create a character, then spend hours building up an inventory of skills or gold or weapons, before he can actually get down to killing monsters or building empires. "There is a time commitment to these games," sad Haden Blackman, producer for Star Wars Galaxies at LucasArts in San Rafael, Calif.

Not a bad thing for those who like this kind of gaming. But they're a tiny minority compared to the millions who merely want to pass a quiet hour solving puzzles or slaughtering monsters.

Besides, some of this skill building is downright dull. Even avid players of the Sims walked away in disgust from the online version, where skills are often acquired by having one's character sit in a room reading for an hour or two.

That's why game designers are rethinking their approach to role-playing games. The idea now is to offer a two-tiered game, in which casual players can pop in for a brief bout of excitement while more diligent fans can play out their more complex fantasies. Over time, a percentage of the casual players will become more dedicated, swelling the ranks of hard-core players who might spend a dozen hours a week inside the game.

LucasArts' Blackman said Star Wars Galaxies has already adopted this style of play. There are mini-adventures built into the game that allow the occasional player to have a satisfying one-hour visit. "I think we have to design with that kind of time limitation in mind," Blackman said.

"We call it short play cycles," Turbine's Anderson said. "We need to be designing games that satisfy people who want to play four hours a week as well as people who want to play 40 hours a week." Turbine hopes to add such features to its forthcoming online games -- one based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," another on the classic board game Dungeons & Dragons.

Given the popularity of these two franchises, Turbine's online versions will attract plenty of digital rubberneckers when they debut. But to keep them, the games will have to offer enough simple thrills to amuse casual players and enough sophistication to turn them into role-playing addicts. That's no small challenge -- it even scared off Microsoft.

Interesting, it appears they're intentionally designing to appeal to casual players and recognizing that casual players are probably the key to success for a subscription game.

That's why game designers are rethinking their approach to role-playing games. The idea now is to offer a two-tiered game, in which casual players can pop in for a brief bout of excitement while more diligent fans can play out their more complex fantasies. Over time, a percentage of the casual players will become more dedicated, swelling the ranks of hard-core players who might spend a dozen hours a week inside the game.


/snicker Anyone who plays a dozen hours in EQ is considered softcore and probably has lots of silver platters to their name.

That's pretty much what I've been saying for a while. The pool of potential MMOG subscribers is not infinite. In order to succeed, a new one will have to canniballize existing gamers.

I think perhaps some companies could be profitable if they aimed towards smaller markets and dedicated their game to that market instead of trying to please everyone.

There still is a lot of room for growth in MMOGs. For various reasons, there are a lot of people who avidly play video games that just haven't gotten into playing MMOGs yet. Some of them are apprehensive of paying a monthly fee or just don't feel they should. There are probably also a lot who don't know about MMOGs. Blizzard's forums are a testament to this. Lots of the people clamouring to play WOW that post there have never played a MMOG beofre. Probably the biggest reason though is that some just haven't seen a MMOG that appeals to them yet.

I do agree though that the customer base for MMOGs is finite. While someone might buy several console or single-player games within a year, they'll likely only be subscribed to one MMOG. Because of the time constraints and monthly fees, there just isn't a lot of reason to play more than one MMOG at a time. While it's probably still several years away, it'll eventually get to the point that anyone that is interested in MMOGs will be playing one.

In the case of Mythica, I think Microsoft just realized it was a bad business move to have two products that were in direct competition with each other. Why fund two projects when you can pour all your money and resources into just making one better? EA was probably the first to realize this when they closed down UO2. UO2 was designed a lot like UO, and releasing it probably would've decreased the amount of people playing UO and wouldn't have given UO2 as big of a player base. Then they'd be funding two different projects with only a slightly larger player base between the two.

Sony is the odd one in this though. They currently run four MMOGs (EQ, EQ:OA, Planetside and SWG) with another on the way (EQ2). While they might be a good example that a company can successfully run a few MMOGs, it's without a doubt that they're spreading their playerbase thinner among the four titles. Half my guild left for SWG from EQ. That doesn't earn SOE anymore money since they stopped paying $13 a month for EQ and instead were paying $13 a month for SWG. Personally, while SOE might avidly deny it, it wouldn't surprise me in the least for them to close EQ a while after EQ2 is released or at least for them to cut back on EQ's funding. It just doesn't make sense to run two games that compete against each other.

However, I think the big overlaying problem with MMOGs not being successful is just that so many of the ones that have been released recently have sucked ass. The industry continues to push unfinished MMOGs out the door in a failed attempt to make a hit. Part of this is because they don't realize how much MMOGs will cost to make and have to push it out the door so they can gain some money back, and part of it is because investors want a return sooner, but some of it is just because they feel they can.

These companies should really look to Anarchy Online if they want a reason why they shouldn't do this. AO's playerbase would be significantly larger had they not had a horrible release. It's a solid game - perhaps the best Sci-Fi MMOG out there - but so many players refuse to play it because of what they got when they first played. This is the same reason I would likely never play Horizons regardless of what they do to it. Just the same, I wouldn't go see a movie again if they added new scenes to it weeks later. Release the complete game, not just parts of it and these games will have a better chance of success.

However, this industry is pretty much still at its infancy. Developers and players are continuing to learn new things as new MMOGs are put out the door. Many still have no idea what will work and just tweak EQ's successful model a little bit just to be safe. I think it'll be a few years before the only place developers have to get customers from is other MMOGs. Regardless, with the multitude of MMOGs due out between this year and next it'll be very interesting to see what works and what doesn't.

Looking forward to the future, I have no doubt in my mind that companies are going to have to rethink their business model to be able to continue producing MMOGs with a chance of success. It wouldn't surprise me to see MMOGs use different payment methods (hourly fee, etc.). I also expect that several MMOGs will be released with it fully in mind that the MMOG will close down at a specific time.

It'll be interesting to see how MMOGs will develop in the future.

That doesn't earn SOE anymore money since they stopped paying $13 a month for EQ and instead were paying $13 a month for SWG

They still had to pay $50 to buy the game, while it might be a 1 time surge, it's still more money. Same with the expansions is Everquest. Anarchy Online's horriable release is exactly why I wont reload up that game. When they said they were starting the free month for everyone although the game was still unplayable, I pulled the plug.

Interesting article. I do remember reading that the numbers of players getting into MMO wasnt increasing, they were just stealing fans from each other. However I think this is why Blizzard has a shot with WoW, they have their own set of fans (b.net) to appeal to, they dont need to go out and steal players from EQ and SWG like Mythica would have to.

There are alot more reasons for Microsoft to close down Mythica other than glut of market most likely the Mythic Entertainment lawsuit had more to do with it than Microsoft wants to admit. Microsoft had problems with AC2 so they need to come back into the market with a winner.

Personally I hadn't paid much attention to Mythica, the MMO sites I visit hadn't paid it enough attention to draw me in, that may have been a good thing for the game though, depending on their marketing to the existing Myst playerbase. ATM I don't believe that marketing a new game to the current MMO playerbase is the way to go. Games that will draw new players to the MMO market are the best options. See WoW and SWG, Blizzard has a large fanbase for Warcraft games and while some of the base crosses the line with MMO fanbases a large percentage of it doesn't, same with SWG, the majority of the complaints about SWG dont' come from either the previous SW gaming or movie community but from the MMO gaming community.

The existing MMO marketbase is the hardest market for new games, we are synical. Any game that comes along will face tough comparisons to existing games and will fail in those comparisons for many reasons. An existing game is more developed having had months or even years to grow and expand. Existing gamers also tend to approach a new game expecting it to draw them in and bring them back to that blistful newbie stage where everything seemed possible and the world was huge and ready to be conquered. Unfortunatly that stage rarely exists once you've played MMO's for awhile, you've learned to much about gaming to be excited over your first newbie weapon or armor drop. And powergaming is too much of a habit.

I agree, too many Momos

I posted this in forum problems/bugs/errors also but, the link on the homepage takes me to a 404 page, but the link on the top of this thread works fine.

AO had a rough start, but so did EQ as many may no longer remember. Recall the free month of EQ that we all got because it was so bad...

EQ turned it around. So did AO, which, like many say, is easily the best SF MMOG game out there, and possibly the best MMORPG in general (it's won awards for such.) I reactivated my sub and log in now and then, it's a lot of fun.

Thanks Drake! Fixed it.

Hmmm... maybe I should try AO, it sounded interesting.

I think the future if MMOs is in having a variety of games to play for one charge and another charge for newer games. This collection of games could share resources. That is probably the future of MMOs.

On the user side, there is talk about having a single fibre thread going to every house. This would be your TV, phone and internet connection and you could decide who provides that service. When this type of connection becomes common(10 years out?) then you will see a steady increase in users. For those with cable internet, you will see more people playing games.

Let's face it, SoE has done it. They have created a successful persistent world that keeps the majority of us coming back for more. While catering to the casual players that really only intend on playing the game for a few months. The original world has swelled beyond the aspirations of any beta tester of EQ Classic, and it's supposed to only get larger.

So what's the next step? What will lure people in and hold their imaginations? Well, I believe the previous poster that mentioned one fee for several games has it right. Most of the newer persistent communities are going to focus on forcing you into a shorter play time. Controlling how often you can get a quest or event, and the such. So the best way to keep the lure of the hardcore gamer is to offer multigame subriptions. Like SoE with their all access pass. Problem with SoE's pass is that it doesn't include SWG, which would have probably boosted SWG's success up.

With EQ2 around the corner, SoE seems to have already made arrangements with the all access pass to keep their customer base solid throughout it's games. So new start up persistent games to compete really shouldn't be limited to one game, but several games to offer up with one monthly fee. If some of the companies that are coming out with products now would pool their fees together, I believe they will see a much greater success rate.

Gates of Discord in my opinion shines, and tells me that SoE really has their game face on. The launch was good, the best I've seen yet. The content is challenging, and entertaining. While it doesn't appease the casual gamer much with some of the deeper games, I think it gives the dedicated players a very stern challenge to overcome. Next big milestone will be the new graphics engine, I'll be absolutely impressed if they pull that one off smoothly.

I do wonder how much sense it makes to target the truly casual gamer who only wants to play for a couple of hours per week. There any many more casual players than hardcore players, but are the casual players likely to want to pay $180/year for a game. It seems unlikely (to me at least), because if you play that little, it’s about $2/hour at those rates.

Also inevitably part of MMO games is that to some extent what you get out is determined by what you put in. A game of Halo you can play for a couple of hours and enjoy – your character can’t grow any more powerful so there is no need to put in time to build him up. A MMO doesn’t work like that – the more you put in up to a certain limit, the more you get out.

Perhaps they could make a MMO which doesn’t require character building, but I wonder what would keep people coming back for more in such a game, given that the game has to have enough of a draw to compete with the many free online games which already exist (warcraft, quake, halo, etc).

I do wonder how much sense it makes to target the truly casual gamer who only wants to play for a couple of hours per week. There any many more casual players than hardcore players, but are the casual players likely to want to pay $180/year for a game. It seems unlikely (to me at least), because if you play that little, it’s about $2/hour at those rates.

Still cheaper than a 2 hour movie and the food/drinks to go along with it.

Perhaps they could make a MMO which doesn’t require character building, but I wonder what would keep people coming back for more in such a game, given that the game has to have enough of a draw to compete with the many free online games which already exist (warcraft, quake, halo, etc).

Character building doesn't have to come in the form of statistics. Could be a quest driven game with lots of dynamic storylines. A world focused on roleplaying instead of stat-mongering.

I think a game geared toward the casual would cost more when buying and less on monthly fees with lower amount of support. Like mentioned, a casual player wants to feel they are making progress but this would turn off the hardcore because they would max out what could be done. This is where dungeon add ons come in to play.

AO had a rough start, but so did EQ as many may no longer remember. Recall the free month of EQ that we all got because it was so bad...

I guess the difference here though is that when EQ came out there was really no competition. A lot of people put up with the problems EQ originally had because there was nothing else they could play of the same magnitude. I also think it's a lot more excusable for the first MMOG to have troubles since they had a lot of unforeseen problems which newer MMOGs know about. AO, on the other hand, had some competition when it came out and some of it was very fresh.

Let's face it, SoE has done it. They have created a successful persistent world that keeps the majority of us coming back for more.

Well technically Verant (or RedEye, if you want to go back further) did. Sort of bothers me that SOE is trying to make people think that they are responsible for EQ's success when they had very little to do with it (creatively) until they purchased it shortly before Luclin. Also, very few people working on EQ2's team worked developed the original EQ or made it the success that it is today. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. :P

The gentleman (whos name escapes me at the moment) who is designing EQ2 was also the lead designer for Kunark and if I am not mistaken Velious, so it is not quite as far removed as you think. Certainly Kunark and Velious have something to do with EQs success.

You're thinking of Bill Trost. In addition to what he did for Kunark and Velious, he also wrote the original lore for the city and named many of the locations. Regardless, most of the original team of EverQuest isn't working on EverQuest 2, and SOE had little to nothing to do with the game creatively. It's not really that big of a deal. I'm sure SOE very well could make a popular game (although they haven't done two great with the 3 MMOGs they have made...), but they didn't have much to do with EverQuest's original success.

Character building doesn't have to come in the form of statistics. Could be a quest driven game with lots of dynamic storylines. A world focused on roleplaying instead of stat-mongering.

At no point did I mention statistics, this is just an interpretation your one track mind has imposed on the subject.