According to this article in the Escapist, Turbine are reporting that their migration from a subscription based game to a F2P title has increased revenue in Dungeons of Dragons Online by 500%. Granted, we don’t know what number that was an increase on top of, but you can make some reasonable assumptions that they’re doing well because of this.
Despite being available at virtually no cost, Turbine has announced that since the relaunch of Dungeons & Dragons Online: Eberron Unlimited, the subscriber base has actually doubled and revenues have jumped by 500 percent, while microtransaction sales through the DDO Store are running at three times the industry average.
Thank you DDO, for coming out and showing how this is done. There are plenty of companies that should do this with their games. SOE, I’m looking at you – how about Vanguard? Perfect candidate for a F2P test.
In similar news, Raph Koster has blogged today with a doomcast on virtual worlds as most people come to know them. This includes the Second Life-type 3D clients, and the AAA MMOs.
In the meantime, I would be betting against all the “native client” worlds — AAA game worlds included. Against anything that involves too much of a fantasy identity. Against anything that relies on people playing together in real time. It’s just not where the action is for the next several years. Virtual places as they exist now cannot be a mass medium any more than a single restaurant can.
His argument is likely to cause a divide as usually, especially between the MMO and virtual world players/developers/fans and the ones enamored in casual space. It’s so frustrating to watch my Facebook friends, hundreds of game developers whom I’ve picked up over the years, sitting on Facebook/Twitter, etc. completely railing on Facebook games. There is no market research happening. They don’t know anything about this demographic. They don’t care about the mechanics of these games because they’re shrugged off as “spammy”, boring, stupid, silly, and a waste of time. They don’t realize that there are incredible learnings about things that are valuable regardless what kind of game you make for a living. Things like engagement, how to bring players back into games, community interaction in a space where a much larger percent of your audience actually communicates back, how to virally spread your product, what mass market really looks like, feedback loops, leveling mechanics, marketing and promotion, nifty mechanics for making players have more fun, crazy ARPU techniques, and so on.
Facebook is an immense bed of learning, and traditional online game developers are completely ignoring it, and even stating they HATE it. It drives me absolutely nuts. You then have game companies that typically make traditional MMOs venturing into F2P and making the worst decisions about how to do it. (Not talking about Turbine here). Every time I see someone talk about how they’re speaking at or attending an online games conference and in another breath completely insult and disregard the most popular online games of all time…I go batty. There is so much data out there, it’s such a flourishing, CURRENT wave that people aren’t riding. It makes me sad when I see industry thought-leaders that I respect who are completely blind and even hating this stuff. You’re lagging behind, and will not be relevant if you stay this way. I’m not talking about YOU, players. You keep on playing and buying what you want, you don’t mind if you’re niche. 
Another good quote from Raph’s post:
Something like Second Life struggles to gain mainstream adoption because flatter pseudo-places can offer so much of what it does, and the very real benefits it offers are only benefits to a segment of the audience that wants either the pseudonymity, or the placeness, or the chat.
And Facebook games? Hey, there’s a place that feels like a world, strongly weak-tie driven, without pseudonymity issues, and yet they carry with them all that praxis, all that other stuff that was elaborations on the core virtual world concept. It’s like a virtual world, “with the bad bits removed” — which is of course a phrase we have heard before, when discussing why World of Warcraft does so much better than the other MMORPGs.
I love this. In other words…I’ll make the more obvious comparison. World of Warcraft is to MMOs as Farmville is to online games as whole. MMO developers ignoring WoW is a pretty big deal, but ignoring Farmville and other social games that are blowing away these AAA MMOs is riiidiiiccuuulous. Moorgard thinks it’s an industry reset button. I think it’s evolution of gaming, and online gaming is going somewhere it has never gone before. Why someone would want to sit in a bubble and pluck away working on their dial-up modems when the rest of the world (almost literally) is playing on their broadband is beyond me. It’s one thing to want to work on something you enjoy and therefore continue making what you want to make for artistic reasons. I get that, as long as it’s not your goal to be the most successful company in the gaming industry and you’re not trying to analyze industry trends and blog or speak about them. But maybe I’m just ambitious. I don’t want to jump on the bandwagon late, I want to be an industry leader in this. Maybe it’s a Gen-Y thing.
Tami Baribeau is the Associate Producer for Metaplace, Inc, currently working on Island Life. She is also the Lead Editor of feminist gaming blog The Border House, and the National Facebook Games Examiner for Examiner.com. She can be reached on Twitter or by email.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I think the reluctance to engage with casual/social/facebook games is a general disregard for the type of people who play them, and a general bitterness that those people aren’t “smart enough” to be playing the “right” kind of game instead. Also, quite frankly, it’s a “girly game” issue. It can’t *not* be.
I can see that, but I think beyond the “girly game” thing there is just a level of “cool kid syndrome” going on as well. These cartoony, easy to play, fun for kids AND grandma style games aren’t OUR hardcore cool kid games. Those people couldn’t possibly be gamers, right?
Online games are online games, plain and simple. Sure, there are sub-genres, but people drawing thick lines in permanent marker between these genres is downright silly.
I think we’ve finally seen the invention of our digital game space’s version of Monopoly.
Now the question is, will we see countless reskins and only moderate renovation all while keeping the same general concept which appeals so very well to the mass market? Or is it truly the beginning of something new?
And just because everyone loves and owns Monopoly doesn’t mean that board game developers should focus on that genre of board games. To extend the board game metaphor, Settlers of Catan is still wildly popular and profitable despite the fact that it is hardly ‘mass market’.
I imagine you are, in this post, intentionally overstating the importance of this new game order in order to emphasize the fact that it is important, but it is simultaneously ridiculous to link current ‘mainstream’ digital games and MMOs to anything close to outdated (i.e., Raph’s Opera metaphor).
Both (if it even can be broken down into two) categories of games/social spaces can and will continue to flourish, are viable for business as well as creative expression, and will have an impact on popular culture and the public consciousness moving forward.
I think you make good points here Andrew, but I think you’ve made the wrong analogy with Monopoly.
Social Games aren’t Monopoly. Farmville is Monopoly. Social games are board games as a genre. MMOs are jacks and hopscotch. Reinventing Farmville over and over again is the hole I think you’re afraid of. But I don’t think we’re in danger yet of having too many board games. AAA MMO gaming is niche in comparison with online social games as a whole.
I am by no means saying that devs should stop making Settlers and start making Monopoly. I’m saying that they shouldn’t dismiss and ignore Monopoly’s success when innovating on their games. They shouldn’t rail on, ignore, and insult Monopoly – because they’re only hurting themselves in the long run. I’d venture to guess that Monopoly taught board game designers a LOT.
“Why someone would want to sit in a bubble and pluck away working on their dial-up modems when the rest of the world (almost literally) is playing on their broadband is beyond me.”
Because it’s fun. It makes me happy. Why else would I do it?
“I want to be an industry leader in this. Maybe it’s a Gen-Y thing.”
Not unless the Y stands for yuppie.
Seriously, never aspire to be the industry leader. People see through that in a quick hurry.
Do what you enjoy. You clearly enjoy this space. Enjoy working in it. I guarantee you it won’t last any longer than AAA MMOs. When was WoW launched? Six years ago? That’s a blink of the eye.
Sure, there’s lots of money to be made, but don’t try to goad everyone who hates developing for or playing these things to do it just because it’s the future. That just comes across as pretentious.
If someone loves what they do, they’ll find a niche and make a living. If that’s running a MUD on our horrible, pointless, waste-of-time dial-up modems, by hook or by crook, we’ll keep doing it. Because it’s fun.
When did that fall out of gaming, the fun, anyway? When did it become a marketing competition to be industry leader? When did it become more fun to scream into the void about Facebook games – pro or con – than to make or play games of any kind?
Was I too busy enjoying myself to see that happen? Pity.
Ginshirou, I think you’re reading me wrong.
First of all, the pretention comes from the AAA devs who won’t even try a casual game because they’re “not good games” or not worth their time. I try everything I can try, because I think it makes me more educated. That’s how I roll. I listen to all sorts of music too, for the same reason. I like bits from all over the place.
When I talk about aspiring to be an industry leader, I’m not saying “making the most money”. I’m not saying I want to be EA, or Zynga. I’m saying that I don’t want to be the one hopping on Twitter years late. I never have been that kind of person. I’m an early adopter, whether its tech or games or music, or whatever. I do want to work for a successful company and help a product launch to success. Anyone who joins a startup and DOESN’T want to do that, should probably walk out. It’s why I work for a startup and not a big company. It’s why I’m working on a product in a huge, viable, booming market. I don’t want to sit in a room and type and come up with amazing designs that 10,000 beta testers will see before the company cans the game. I want the people paying me to be glad they’re doing so.
This post isn’t saying – don’t do what you find fun. It’s saying, expand your horizons and at least pay attention, because after jumping into social games I’ve seen so much that traditional game developers would benefit from. So much awesome hidden behind the spammy facade. But devs are ignoring it. It makes me sad.
I think you’re spot on about how creative the social gaming scene is. It’s not only rediscovering some old marketing techniques, but revisiting them using the new tools we use and love.
But I think there’s a fundamental difference between social games and traditional ones, in terms of how much they’re games. Gaming mechanics are very limited, they’re much more repetitive and about personalisation (different version of “create your own house”) and less about challenge. The most difficult social game I found was Bejewelled 2.
Ofc they’re targetted at a different population, casual gamers solely. It’s a bit like the difference between playing an online Solitaire and WoW.
Agree with you that there is a fundamental difference. But something Raph Koster likes to talk about is how MMOs (or any video game, really) is comprised of tons of these little mini casual games stacked on top of each other. Combat, crafting, shopping, leveling, achievements, exploring, traveling – they can all use knowledge from the casual game/social game space to enhance their feedback loops. I can’t take credit for that line of thought, but I’ve had that knowledge reinforced for me a lot.
WoW does a lot of this well. It’s a big reason why people complain about combat in EQ2 vs. WoW. Blizzard really nailed the mini-game aspect of combat. Everything feels good, gives you the right feedback and visual/auditory rewards, teaches you naturally, and completes the loop that designers strive to achieve. In other words, each element of the game was designed from beginning to end with fun, high production value, and all the right pieces of the puzzle. Casual games are a stripped-down version of THAT very thing.
Excellent point. You’re tempting me to try Wow
The keyword here is fun and these minigames tend to be exactly that. But tbh the most successful social games (zynga) tend to now rely too much on “addiction/grind” and, while this may not make them less successful, I feel that it drives them away from traditional games. As in “skill vs time”.
I actually think that if you remove the real time from MMOs you are actually doing a disfavor to the social aspect of them. It is the real time aspect of communication and the various parts of the game that actually allows people to connect to each other. Even if a so called “social” game gives you a link or whatever to another player’s page, I would not feel inclined to connect to them at all, reducing the actual social aspect of these games.
You may also say that MMOs are mini-games stacked on top of each other, but good MMOs link them in interesting ways, to make them more enjoyable than the individual parts. Also, some do very much require this real time aspect to work.
Just my 2 eurocents
- SG
P.S. I personally think Facebook games are to MMOs as the Wii is to the XBox360/PS3. The Wii may be more successful to the casual audiences, but most XBox360/PS3 players will still tell you they would rather play real games.
Did anyone say remove real time from MMOs? Real time is what differentiates MMOs from other gaming genres. More on this on Monday.
I’ve played turn based MMOs. Some of the first games my online game existed within were turn based massively multiplayer online strategy games. I would find out about these games at sites such as mmog.com, actually.
I always thought what really separated MMOs from other gaming genres was the persistance of the gaming “world” and players, and the number of players which could be present at a given time on a server.
” Those people couldn’t possibly be gamers, right? ”
There’s a difference between gaming enthusiasts and gamers, though. Gamers drive X360, PS3, and gaming PC sales whereas gaming enthusiasts drive sales of less powerful, but more accessible platforms (both hardware and software).
In related news, several developers and publishers even have made public statements in the past several months that they’re moving away from Wii development and more toward PS3/x360 development. Wii sales have softened while the x360 remains consistent and PS3 (largely driven by better quality titles and recent price drops) has begun to gain steam.
This isn’t to say that Wii development (or Facebook or iPhone) is coming to a screeching halt, only that the realities of a softer economy make the differences in the buying power of “gamers” and “gaming enthusiasts” much more pronounced. Enthusiasts are much more likely to cut back on games spending during a soft economy than the more consistent gamers – especially since gamers consider video games to a primary form of income.
At the end of the day, you’ll continue to see both types of games being made, and largely that’s due to the type of game most developers WANT to make. Infinity Ward could make a BUNDLE designing the next Dora the Explorer or Build-A-Bear Village game…but I’m going to guess that the passion the average Inifinity Ward developer has is pointed solidly at high end, realistic military shooters (which also sell ridiculously well for them).
Just as car manufacturers still make high end sports cars AND affordable mass market sedans, publishers will continue to explore both hardcore/gamer and casual/enthusiast demographics. Both types of players drive different markets in different ways.
Kendricke, good post
But I am referring to online game developers, not console game developers. I’m talking to the MMO folks here (for the most part).
And I’m not saying “stop making your kind of game”, I’m saying quit hating on and ignoring them. Or shit, go ahead and hate but at least pay attention to them. MMOs could learn a lot from the success of casual online games.
Correction to above: “especially since gamers consider video games to a primary form of ENTERTAINMENT (not income)”
The problem with casual games is they get boring fast. I couldn’t play Farmville, I would end up poking my eyes out. However my mother can sit and play it and she isn’t into games really. I suppose it is more for those who just like a little social fun here and there.
Free Realms IMO is the closest thing in a MMO to casual gaming compared to easy little fun games. While I love the game, it gets boring playing mini games all the time, when I don’t feel like doing a dungeon. It is a nice break, very different but- as a MMO/MMORPG gamer. It doesn’t have staying power for me to play for long periods of time, or even several days in a row.
The appeal for these games doesn’t go out to most gamers IMO.
Since I can’t seem to reply to Cuppy’s reply on my mobile phone, I’ll just do it here.
Anyhow, I was refering to your second quote block:
“In the meantime, I would be betting against all the “native client” worlds — AAA game worlds included. Against anything that involves too much of a fantasy identity. Against anything that relies on people playing together in real time. It’s just not where the action is for the next several years. Virtual places as they exist now cannot be a mass medium any more than a single restaurant can.”
“Kendricke, good post But I am referring to online game developers, not console game developers. I’m talking to the MMO folks here (for the most part).”
Even beyond the argument about “online” vs “console” (which is really about PC vs console), you stated that you’re talking about online game DEVELOPERS as opposed to console DEVELOPERS. Fair enough. Which one is 38 Studios now that they’ve acquired Big Huge Games?
Is SOE an online developer or a console developer? After all, they’ve announced that future MMO titles (DCUO and The Agency) will be cross-platform across PC/PS3. SOE announced a future PS3 version of Free Realms.
More and more console games are being developed with online components. Games are being integrated with both Xbox Live and PS Home components. PS Home just announced their first Home only MMO. You can have your Xbox Live achievements or Playstation Trophies show up on your Facebook account. In Xbox Live, you can already see if your friends are playing a game you’re in and you can instantly invite them to join whatever session you’re playing online.
In future games, you’ll see this boundary torn down even more as both Xbox Live and PS home avatars start to show up more and more in titles (similar to the Miis from Nintendo). You’re already able to pick up a 360 controller on your couch, hit a button to automatically turn on your console, wait 20 seconds for it to boot up and log in to XBL and start playing…and while you’re there, your friends may start showing up automatically to help you out in whatever title you’re playing because they saw you online.
How is this really different from logging into World of Warcraft and chatting with members of your guild?
Consoles are basically just highly specialized PCs. As HD televisions become more prevalent and more players become accustomed to communicating through voicechat instead of text/keyboarding, you’ll see the line between “online (PC) games” and “console games” blurring even more.
“People making online games”, is that better phrased? I don’t care where they work, if they’re working on an online game – this is who I’m referring to.
Your comment seems unrelated to the content of my post….? Anyone who makes online games can benefit from the learnings available in these social games – I don’t care what platform they’re developing on.
My comment is completely related to the content of this post. My comment shows that developers are already learning from social games and quickly moving to seize upon the ways to make the games more social.
Changing from subscription based to free to play (such as what happened with DDO) doesn’t have much to do with the social aspect of games at all. It’s simply a change in the business model. However, releasing a new game on Xbox 360 that allows for friends to instantly join in a game with other friends; which ties into Facebook and updates trophies and time spent playing certain games – that’s a lesson in social gameplay.
Right now, I can’t really do much to play with you in a game such as Farmville. I can trade you chickens or what-have-you, but I can’t really log into Facebook and see that you’re currently tending to your crops and then click a button to help you with that. For all intents and purposes, the actual gameplay in Farmville isn’t all that different from the gameplay found in any of the Harvest Moon titles which first started releasing on N64 platforms more than a decade ago. The gameplay in Mafia Wars is virtually identical to the text based turn based strategy games I began playing back in the mid to late 90s – games such as Utopia, Earth 2525, Monarchy, or Archmage.
The only real difference is the “Amway factor”. Most of these games are built upon pyramid schemes of interconnectivity which require players to recruit other players in order to quickly strengthen their armies. For people who cannot do this, the option exists to quickly purchase such strengths.
This is likely one of the main reasons many traditional developers look down their nose at games such as Mafia Wars. It’s not because they can’t see the gameplay. It’s because they’ve already played the game…years ago…and because the gameplay is essentially a transparent means of fast cash generation.
You don’t need to set up a F2P + RMT model to make a better game or to make a game “social”. You just need to find better ways to get people playing together; to find better ways to facilitate and encourage social behaviors.