Showing posts with label world of warcraft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world of warcraft. Show all posts

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, September 23, 2008

Capitalism - Not on Mythic's Watch!

WAR declares war on Gold Farmers

Here's the thing. If you know people are going to be farming and selling gold, why not just build your game in a way that takes advantage of the practice, instead of employing feeble, expensive, and (I predict) useless tactics that prevent the sellers and the buyers from playing the game they want to to play. If I were building an MMORPG, I'd build a safe system for buying and selling gold right into the game, add prestige incentives for use, and take a slice right off the top. You have to START with that in mind, because depending on your game, too much gold too quick could certainly mess things up.

I think this falls into the category of, "World of Warcraft does it this way, so this is how it must be done." Of course, WoW doesn't really stop gold farming, but smaller companies will try to 'succeed' where WoW failed. Have fun guys.

Games are about what the players want, not your 'vision' of gaming utopia. If players want to buy gold, I say sell it to them.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

WoW spelled backwards is...oh, never mind

Warhammer Online Creative Director says World of Warcraft "has had a corrupting effect" on game development.

I couldn't agree more. I saw it at Wizards of the Coast, I saw it at Hidden City Games. I haven't seen too much of it at my current gig, as not too many of my current com padres play.

Wizards appears to have drunk the cool-aid with their newest edition of D&D. 4th edition of D&D is designed to play more like an MMO. Maybe in the table top format, that's an improvement, but it sounds more like marketing/executive creative thinking than game designer creative thinking. I can't say for sure, as I haven't played 4th edition D&D.

All the developers and designers at Hidden City Games were neck-deep in WoW, and it seemed to me, who doesn't play, every single design choice for the Bella Sara website (yes, horses for girls was influenced by WoW) was compared to how it was done in either WOW or XBox Live. I don't mind telling you it became tiresome.

To quote Paul Barnett from the article a started this post with:

"You can't be the Beatles. If you try and be the Beatles, you'll end up as the Monkees,"

-Adam!!!

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

World of World of Warcraft

From The Onion, America's Finest News Source!

'Warcraft' Sequel Lets Gamers Play A Character Playing 'Warcraft'

I want World of Blogging, where I can play a blogger, but one that gets hits and comments!

-Adam

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

World of Warcraft is opening doors for other MMO's?

So says somebody in the industry.

It's kind of interesting to think that the WoW's leftovers are of greater value to publishers than the entire MMO market when Blizzard launched the gaming behemoth.

*If* a publisher can keep their costs down to survive in the long tail of the MMO audience there's more opportunity for niche MMO gaming than ever before. I'm not convinced the economics work, as the games are crazy expensive to develop. Of course, like everything in the tech sphere, dev costs will continue to go down.

Hmmmm...

-Adam

Monday, October 15, 2007

MMO, the Next Generation

World of Warcraft - Huge. Why? It's just Everquest, but better. Well, it is (was) the next generation of MMO. There was a gap between EQ and EQ2 and WoW jumped in there right when EQ aged and lost traction and EQ2 hadn't caught on (for a variety of reasons.)

There will be a time when WoW no longer holds up. Will WoW2 replace it, or will a new game by a new developer fill the gap? My guess is that Blizzard and every other developer who wants to release an MMO is working to identify that gap, and hit it with the best product they can. Blizzard's goal is to make that gap as short as possible, reducing competition's chance to wedge themselves in there. They've got a huge advantage...just like Sony and Everquest did.

I'm curious to see what supplants WoW. I'm glad I don't work for a company who's trying to shoot that gap (besides Blizzard, at least.)

Other sure fire hits: New Coke, Playstation 3, Everquest 2, and Godfather part III.

Most people are only going to pay $15 per month for one game. The best game. "Best", however, is defined by a lot of factors, many external to the game itself.



-Adam!!!