Weekend Design Challenge: Older games
This isn't so much a large design challenge as a discussion. If you have an older game, say over 3 years old, and your subscriptions are starting to decline, what can you do to retain players or even attract new ones? What are acceptable actions and unacceptable actions you could take?
My thoughts below.
This is something I have some practical experience with. When you own a game with some historical significance, it is hard to balance the need to stay true to the original game and add all sorts of new features and change existing features in order to modernize the game. Unfortunately this is usually the choice between having people ignore the game or pissing off the faithful who hate changes to the game.
We've also seen that players usually don't care for radical changes to games. The changes to Star Wars Galaxies haven't been particularly popular, and when EQ2 went through phases of major change people saw that as the beginning of the end for the game. Most games get a reputation, and it's often hard to shake that reputation; just ask the Anarchy Online developers.
So, what are the options? What can you do to the game without gathering negative public opinion about your changes? Or, should you stick to your guns and tough it out?
What are your thoughts?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI: http://psychochild.org/wp-trackback.php?p=182
I think if you're going to change the game you might as well do something totally new. This is one of those rare cases where all-or-nothing thinking prevails because that thinking seems to rule in hardcore fanbases.
I'd like to see you do something with a focused multiplayer effect, something that involves collaborativ or at least co-operative play.
Comment by Patrick — 23 July, 2006 @ 11:49 AM
I think this ends up being a business decision more than a design one. First, you need to find out if you've recouped your initial/current devlopment cost (and if you haven't after 3+ years, there's something really wrong). Then there's the current outlook: are you still profitable? If so, a more conservative approach is in order. If it's a gradual decline, maybe you need to look into new advertising sources instead of wholesale game changes. If it's a sharp decline, you need to find out what's ticking off the player base and fix that.
How long, based on current trends, will you remain profitable? A short window leans towards more drastic chances than a longer one.
If you're in real trouble (players leaving in droves, knocking you below the profit line before you even knew there was a problem), then it's time to consider shutting it down. Unless you can make a strong case for why X will fix everything...
In general, I agree with Patrick. If you need to make major changes to a game, it's time to look at making a new one. SWG tends to be the best example of how NOT to do it...I think a sequel, even using the same engine, would have gone over better than the changes they forced on that game.
Comment by Silvanis — 23 July, 2006 @ 9:56 PM
I think rule #1 (which SOE seemingly didn't take into consideration) is do no harm to your current user base. This could include polling users, listening to their feedback about the current game, and maybe even setup a "concept" server where players could try out and provide feedback to some of the ideas the designers are thinking about. You won't always be able to please 100% of the base, but hopefully it could give you an idea of what the base is thinking.
Radical change IMHO is generally a bad idea, unless you're willing to take a huge gamble on getting new players. (and if you're gambling with your user base, that's a great way to lose them.) For a mature game, there's a reason people have been playing it for so long. They like what's there, and you're only going to alienate them by shifting it too dramatically.
Another thing I'd do is address the niggling wants and complaints that your base have been crying for since day 1. In DAoC, players have been asking for mounts since beta. It took Mythic over 4 years to finally make that a reality. Yes they added a lot of new content and gameplay in the meantime, but the cry for mounts could be found in about every 10th thread on every DAoC board. Mythic completely ignored the base on this point (and others), and while it probably wasn't the single reason many people left the game, it certainly was a contributing factor.
Comment by Amber — 24 July, 2006 @ 7:47 AM
First, do no harm. If your game's 3+ years old, odds are good that your player base is composed of a core of long-term players. Those easily distracted by the next "shiny object" have moved on, and the game's likely been off the store shelves long enough that new players are limited to the curious passer-by or friend of the hardcore.
That's an assumption, however. Data mine to determine the truth. Perhaps you've been going strong with a high churn, and you ARE still getting alot of new players, despite the game's age. In such a case, a 'shakeup' of the game system may not be THAT bad... as long as the press is favorable.
The change you make will be dependent on what factor of churn you're looking to affect: prolong the user's stay or increase the new subscribers (note, these may be new players or returning players.)
Dramatic changes to the core game may very well drive away the remaining base, but, as I believe SWG devs argued, their high player turnover led them to believe they could risk alienating the longer-term hardcore and recover the loss with the influx of new players. Reputation worked against them, however... as those that felt neglected made their outrage known. MMO'ers are social animals- bad word of mouth will kill you.
Even if your dedicated player base is small in comparison to the massive churn surrounding them- don't risk alienating them... do your best to recruit them, to harness their passion for your game.
There may be things that can be added, (like DAOC's mounts) that don't significantly impact the game, but may increase player satisfaction. You might increase retention this way, but you probably won't see many new players added or returning veterans. When an EQ2 player hears that DAOC got mounts, they don't usually think "wow, cool, I'll have to try that." They're already on their EQ2 mounts and thinking "DAOC's still playing catchup."
That doesn't mean you can't be experimental- experiments just may be what's needed to generate the "buzz" about your game- particularly if they're innovations that the "big names" haven't really explored.
It's just tough to add a significant game feature after launch. Even if you THINK you're staying true to the game, your players may not see it as such. Remember, the "twitchy" SWG "NGE" combat system is more consistent in style to the space combat system, so the devs thought the transition would be less ... disruptive.
As an example, look at player-created content. Perhaps a "level editor" lets players make dungeons with all the safeguards to protect against powerlevelers (good luck). Perhaps a "city mayor" or "guild leader" could assume the guise of an NPC or leader of an NPC mob in the city / guild territory... becoming something of a "GM" in the classic pen-n-paper sense.
While I'm well aware of the "level of junk" that can arise from player-created content, it IS something that might energise current players who are intimately familiar with the game while generating the buzz to bring in new players. In fact, those players active in the "dungeon building" might very well recruit new people to come in and see their creations.
Of course, level editors would be a but tough to make for "joe average" and a game in decline may not have the budget to adequately build and test such tools. Perhaps a safer approach would be to look at what was "left on the cutting room floor" of your original game- these game elements may have merit on revisit, and your code may have been partially prepared with these considerations in mind.
Perhaps less of a gamble, but still capable of generating "buzz" would be to stage events beyond the normal "Storyline" - something to shake up the predictability of the game for your long-term veterans, but long enough in duration that former players hearing the buzz will come back to see what the commotion is. Hopefully, new players can also enter the game and encounter the event in their own way, at perhaps a lower level.
Events, however, are haunted by the spectres of all the lacklustre events that precede them. If the EQ2 player assumes that your event is going to be no different than "holiday decorations" in his game, or the so-rare-that-you'll-never-encounter-them live events in the old SWG, you're not going to get much attention.
Comment by Chas — 24 July, 2006 @ 9:19 AM
It's interesting to note that Raph Koster recently did an interview where he agrees that radical changes aren't a good idea. He thinks alienating people is a bad thing.
I just wrote another blog entry talking about customer feedback. It's something you have to consider carefully, and it's not always as simple as saying "you have to listen to the customers!" Although, it is important to make sure you're meeting their needs in order to continue making money.
For example, the issue with mounts in DAoC is probably much more complicated than anyone here is considering. I'm sure that the people at Mythic didn't sit around with nothing to do and think, "No, I just really don't want to put mounts into the game today!" There were probably technical reasons (maybe mounts on hillsides don't clip right, for example), or a design issue (it's no fun to play catchup to your friends with mounts, and it's not fun to wait for your slowpoke friends without mounts), or lots of other issues. Given what I know about the fine developers at Mythic, I'm 99% sure there was some issue holding them back from implementing it rather than just an issue of them not knowing or caring what the players really wanted.
My thoughts,
Comment by Psychochild — 25 July, 2006 @ 6:42 PM
I've found the developers at Mythic to be top-notch, so I agree that there were probably some serious design considerations to overcome. The mythic "mounts" example wasn't a cut on them, but it does hilight how a "new feature" to your game might satisfy current players, but not "wow" the market. No matter what obstacles they had to overcome, the public is going to compare it to other games that already have it.
There's plenty the market can't see- we don't see the code that might be in place to prevent a "speed hack" for example, and that code might need to be significantly rewritten to accomodate the addition of PC mounts of varying speeds. (I seem to recall an issue in SWG regarding the introduction of vehicles where such code caused significant issues). Getting around such obstacles is quite the achievement, but not one that'll impress the public.
Comment by Chas — 27 July, 2006 @ 8:19 AM
I think MMOrpg just posed a similar question, I answered it under the name of Zitch a few posts down in the thread.
Here is the link: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/113698/page/1
The game is UO, the artical is about a UO facelift, my comment had to do with what was good about UO from my perspective, and how a facelift would not change the game.
There is more to this problem though, because how, why and when UO evolved, or "disolved" is complicated to answer.
"Older games" should stay true to what they were originally.
To sum, I'd say "don't fix it if it aint broke".
I've got a lot more to say on this issue, but it's superbowl sunday...
Comment by Atoyota — 4 February, 2007 @ 12:36 PM