Showing posts with label mmos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mmos. Show all posts

Friday, September 04, 2009

Noob Tools

Buy-in levels: Tourist, Customer, Fan

Experience levels: Noob, Player, Elite

Levels match each other roughly (but not always)

Noob needs are more distinct than the other two. In fact, many games allow the experience between players and elite result from a gradual progression, rather than a distinct shift in the game's focus when the gamer's status shifts.

Noobs, on the other hand, often require special attention in order to progress their status to the more rewarding Player status. Typically, Players find the attention Noobs require distasteful, so those features must be hidden as soon as they are no longer needed.

This means a game requires a robust 'Noob experience' that is clever enough to conceal itself as soon as it is no longer needed. The more complex the game, the more robust the Noob tools must be.

-Adam!!!


Thursday, March 12, 2009

Want vs Need


When I worked for Wizards of the Coast, handling support for Magic: The Gathering, there was a common belief that we released too many card-sets, too rapidly. The cries were frequently forms of "You are forcing me buy too many cards, I can't keep up."

The key word..."forcing"

Even the lightest application of reason concludes that we weren't forcing anyone to do anything. Entertainment products are not a "need", they are a "want", and as such optional. We weren't selling insulin to diabetics, we were selling slips of cardboard to teenagers.

That said, the hobby game industry was the beneficiary (and possibly the originator) of what we called the Repeat Purchase Model. For hobby games, it started with Role Playing Games. You purchased the basic set, books, or whatever, and the fans were treated to extremely regular releases of technically optional, but frequently essential, supplementary material. While fans frequently grumbled about the amount they felt obligated to buy, lack of such material was considered the death of the game.

The Repeat Purchase Model was advanced into hyperdrive by the invention of the Collectible Card Game. Now a single product could be sold over and over again to a single customer. Profits could be made from casual customers and fortunes made from a relatively limited number of fanatics. By establishing a culture where the newest cards replaced, rather than supplemented, the oldest, players were compelled to keep buying lest their investment be compromised. They didn't necessarily want to buy more cards, but if they wanted to keep playing, it was required spending. A Want was transformed into a Need.

The culture that created this system was to some extent accidental. When Magic was new, the game was not perfected and the cards contained errors and flaws that would not come to light until much later. Newer editions fixed, or attempted to fix, these problems through text and rules revisions. Tournament play addressed these problems by limiting what cards would be allowed in the most heavily supported formats. Eventually, older cards and card sets were deemed to be fun, but flawed. Players that did not have access to them felt slighted when playing against those who did. Using old cards was, and is, an offense just short of cheating.

While the culture started off semi-accidentally, it has been embraced by both manufacturers and players as the status-quo. It is now expected that the first editions of a card game will likely be flawed and eventually supplanted by newer, better versions. New cards will replace old. New rules will replace old.

This culture is not without its downside. Players who feel coerced into making purchases do so cognizant of what's going on. They may be spending money now, but the product must deliver EVERY TIME or else they'll get off the merry-go-round, doubtful to return. Once off, the ride is spinning far to quickly to jump back on again with any ease. There's always a new ride (Online MMO's, anyone?) to replace the old one.

With any product, including Virtual World subscriptions, of which I am trying to apply these lessons and theories, the goal is not to make a want feel like a need. There is a backlash when a purchase is made and the perceived need falls short of expectations. Also, its hard to feel good about purchasing something you need.

Wants, on the other hand, are all about feeling good. The customer (or fanatic) is making the choice for themselves. If the product falls short of expectations, as they do from time to time, there is less backlash when the decision to buy is owned by the customer, rather than projected to the publisher.

Virtual Worlds, like Collectible Cards, are entertainment products. They are about fun, and good feelings. Coercion is not the correct tactic. Enticement is.

Want > Need

-Adam!!!

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Virtual World vs MMO = Casual vs Hard Core?

It may be that the real difference between what we consider a Virtual World and what we consider a Massively Multiplayer Game is the sort of players that play the games, and how those players are catered to by the publishers.

I recently read an article (sorry, I no longer have the link) that made the assertion that so-called hardcore gamers are far more apt to purchase subscriptions than so-called casual gamers. Casual gamers, it said, preferred to pay using the micro-transaction type models.

While there are certainly examples of hard-core games offering micro-transaction content as well as casual games offering subscriptions, from a demographic standpoint, the division is obvious. Most Virtual Worlds are moving, at least in part, to the micro-transaction model. In just the last year, it's becoming generally accepted, despite the drawbacks, that the micro-transaction model is the strongest choice for a successful Virtual Worlds. World of Warcraft, and most hard-core MMO-type games, have settled on the subscription system as the way to go.

Hard-Core -> MMO -> Subscription Payments
Casual -> Virtual World -> Micro-transactions

No so much a rule, but a guideline.

-Adam!!!

Monday, July 21, 2008

What's the diff?

What is the difference between MMO's (Massively Multiplayer Online games) and Virtual Worlds?

Generally speaking, MMO's use client side software more extensively, but many, many VW's do as well, including Second Life, the granddaddy VW.

MMO's usually have a single, overriding game element. Virtual Worlds usually revolve around a number of smaller scale flash-type games. Is that really a difference? I'm not even sure that's a valid characterization of the MMOs vs. VWs.

I really think the primary difference is one of focus. MMO's are primarily about the game, with the social aspects an important, but secondary aspect. VW's are meant to emulate the social aspects of the real work in a convenient virtual setting as their primary function. They include a game or games to facilitate the social aspects and provide something for less social players to do.

That's pretty slim. Perhaps the real answer is there is no big difference, other than that which the publishers choose to market and the fans choose to perceive. World of Warcraft is a Virtual World, but more than that it's also a MMORPG. There are RPG games in 2nd Life, but more than that, it's a Virtual World.

What do you think?

-Adam