rants
Latest
The Soapbox: Free-to-play wasn't our idea
Free-to-play is surging. In just a few short years, free-to-play has become the go-to mechanism through which studios broaden audiences, entice players, and build revenue. No other method of monetization has proven to be so lucrative and effective with such consistency, whether it be a monthly subscription fee, a one-time purchase price, or some combination of the two. Free-to-play's growth has created a world in which non-free games are the exception, not the rule. Of the most popular MMOs and online games as of my typing these words, the vast majority are free-to-play. Games that are bold enough to buck the trend and launch with a sub fee are met with derision and suspicion from the online gaming community; the many thousands of words dedicated to ZeniMax Online's decision to require a subscription for The Elder Scrolls Online are likely the most recent and high-profile examples of this trend in action. When players complain about a game launching with a subscription, their opinions are often countered by a self-appointed gaming elite who believe that things were better in the good old days, when games cost money and poor people didn't ruin everything by demanding free stuff. The argument summarized is something like, "I am sick and tired of lazy, entitled gamers wanting everything for free." There's just one problem: Lazy, entitled gamers didn't invent free-to-play. Studios did.
The Soapbox: Game companies exist to make money
I'm going to start this article off with a statement, and it's going to be divisive, but not for the reasons you might expect. A good chunk of you reading this are going to read the line, roll your eyes, and immediately think that I've just written the most obvious thing ever. Some of you might even take to the comments to start calling for my termination just from this line alone. Ready for this? Game companies exist to make money. All right, so it was probably all of you rolling your eyes. This is pretty basic stuff, right? Except I'm willing to bet that some of you who rolled your eyes at that sentence still don't really get it. You understand that companies are trying to make money, but you don't really grasp what that means in a larger sense. So let's just accept that some of you are going to read this article and nod along the whole time without learning a whole lot. The rest of you will head to the comments and start demanding my head.
The Soapbox: Stop hurting the people who love you
Over the last few years, we have been witness to dramatic shifts in the way the video game business does its...erm...business. Crowdfunding appeared out of nowhere and turned people like Chris Roberts into money tornadoes. Digital distribution created an environment in which anyone with an internet connection and a laptop can create and release a game. Here in the MMO niche, early access, paid betas, founders packages, and extended soft launches became the norm. My opinion on soft launching and paid betas has been well established on this site. I dislike the idea that players must jump in to aid a flailing development team while it buys time on a project the team clearly should have reigned in. I also hate the environment soft launching creates in which studios are not accountable for their mistakes; a game like Firefall can have its entire PvP system wiped while its developers say, "Oops, our bad, beta! But thanks for all the money." However, there is another enormous problem with the prevalence of the soft launch system. Namely, it kills fans.
The Soapbox: What's my motivation?
If you play MMOs, odds are good that you're familiar with the classic "kill ten rats" quest trope. Kill quests are one of the most fundamental elements of traditional MMORPG design, and a great deal of modern and classic MMOs would have little to no content without them. Whether it's ten rats, ten wolves, ten bandits, or ten dragons, the basic gist of the quest is always the same: You, the seasoned adventurer, must eliminate animals or enemies for an NPC who for one reason or another cannot handle the task himself. MMOs are built on combat. It's difficult to design a full-featured MMO that engages players for years on end without some sort of PvE killing content; only a handful of MMOs have even attempted it. And while some would say the days of the kill quest are coming to an end, modern MMOs certainly aren't cutting back on killing in general. As a primary mechanic for advancing a character, slaying seems to be the most popular design choice. I don't have a problem with the bulk of my progression coming from throwing fireballs or bashing shields. I don't mind obliterating monsters in multiples of five. What I do mind, however, is being asked to kill without a good reason.
The Soapbox: Maybe it's time to admit that you don't like MMOs
I've learned a lot from my time at Massively. I've learned that a team of writers can work together without being in the same office; I've learned that the MMO genre is one of the most interesting in all of video games, despite the negative stigma sometimes attached; and I've learned that people love to read and comment about MMOs even when they don't play them. This last point has always fascinated me the most. I have several hobbies and interests, and I don't read forums or websites about every one of them. But one thing I certainly don't do is spend time reading about topics that hold no interest for me.
The Soapbox: The case against The Elder Scrolls Online's subscription model
The Elder Scrolls Online is one of the most anticipated online titles of 2014. Marking the first true massively multiplayer incarnation of the venerable Elder Scrolls franchise, ESO has the rapt attention of fans, developers, and industry watchers. It is the latest attempt to leverage an existing franchise into MMO territory, one that will without a doubt see a huge launch and immense media coverage through its first few months. Despite the hype, ZeniMax Online and Bethesda raised a few eyebrows last month when they announced that ESO would require a monthly subscription to play. According to game director Matt Firor, the subscription is required to ensure the game is a true "Elder Scrolls experience." Firor contends that predictable revenue streams generated by monthly subs are necessary to guarantee players the massive amounts of high-quality content they have come to expect from games in the Elder Scrolls universe. There's just one small problem: The history of the Elder Scrolls franchise directly contradicts the idea that expansive, interesting content is intrinsically reliant on monthly payments from players.
The Soapbox: Actually, that really isn't an MMO
In last week's edition of The Soapbox, Mike Foster argued that online gaming has evolved over the past few years and that the term MMO should be expanded to cover other online games like MOBAs. He examined the blurred dividing line between new online games and the classic MMOs of yesteryear, and he made the controversial argument that Call of Duty and League of Legends should now fall under the MMO umbrella. I found myself disagreeing with many of Mike's arguments and wanting to make additional points of my own, so this week I'd like to offer a few counter-points on the same topic for debate. The MMO market has certainly evolved since Massively was founded, with some pretty big innovations in gameplay and new ideas like the free-to-play business model taking hold. As much as people like to complain about a lack of innovation in the games industry, the same level of experimentation and evolution has hit industry-wide. Call of Duty has borrowed unlock and XP systems from the world of orcs and dragons, and League of Legends came from nowhere to be at the forefront of a global MOBA revolution, but neither of them is an MMO by any stretch of the imagination. In this in-depth opinion piece, I break down the definition arguments surrounding the term MMO, offer a reasoned view of where the line can and should be drawn, and look at why Massively covers games other than MMOs.
The Soapbox: That's not an MMO
You may not be aware of this, but Massively is a website focused primarily on massively multiplayer online games. It's kind of what we do. However, the world of MMOs in 2013 is far different from the world of MMOs in 2007, when the site was founded. The niche has changed and the games industry has evolved. There was a time when "online" told you everything you needed to know about a game because there was really only one type of online game. You knew in picking up an online game that you and some friends would be leveling, looting gear, and slaying dragons. It took a while for developers to notice that online play was actually a thing that could work in more than one particular format. Nowadays, online games range from traditional MMORPGs like Guild Wars 2 and RIFT to MOBAs like SMITE and League of Legends. There's no clear definition for what an MMO is or isn't because so many games are massive, multiplayer, and online. Maybe it's time to embrace MMO as a broader term than previously thought.
The Soapbox: Gaming addiction isn't about games
When I was 21, I was miserable. I was stuck in a long-distance relationship with someone I couldn't trust and could barely see, I was stuck with no real career opportunities, and I had my entire lifestyle ripped away from me unexpectedly. I felt like I was willing to climb, but I didn't see any handholds out of the pit I was stuck in. The only thing I looked forward to was the end of the day, when I could crawl into a game and let my actual day-to-day life evaporate into memory. I wasn't an addict. Barely. This isn't a plea for sympathy; all of this happened years ago, and it's not where I am now. Things got better. This is a talk that we need to have about addiction because the few times that addiction gets brought up, it's addressed by people who seem to have only the vaguest grasp of the games involved. Addiction isn't a result of game mechanics or playstyles or subscription formats or anything else. It's a result of people.
The Soapbox: Community or comments
If there's one thing gamers love doing, it's insult games they don't play. Any news item, editorial, hands-on, review, or general pile of text dedicated to a few key games -- normally those with high profiles -- receives an instant and visceral response from a collection of commenters who seem to exist only to insult a particular game and berate its fans. Much of the time, these commenters have no actual experience with the game in question. Here on Massively, EVE Online and World of Warcraft seem to be the biggest magnets for such tomfoolery. Guild Wars 2 and Star Wars: The Old Republic attract these behaviors as well, and WildStar is well on its way to becoming the next troll-favorite comment piñata. There's nothing wrong with not liking a game, of course. And a little conflict is good; why allow comments if everyone's going to have the same opinion? There's just one problem: If your opinion of a game is based on preconceived notions and not actual experience, that opinion is adding nothing to the dialogue. In short, you are trolling.
The Soapbox: A new mode of interaction
Video games are, by definition, an interactive medium. The entire point of playing a video game is that you get to explore the world, talk to the characters, slay the monsters, and reap the rewards. And you do all this with a keyboard and mouse or controller or futuristic headset or whatever. Players are in charge; players create their own experience. Every video game ever released hinges on player interaction to tell its story. Without the player, a game's inhabitants are meaningless pixels guarding empty checkpoints, staggering through the woods with a groan, or walking in endless circles selling bread. In order for a game to function, players must be able to interact with it. The only question is how.
The Soapbox: On your deathbed, you will not regret gaming
In last week's edition of The Soapbox, Mike Foster reminded us that the grim specter of death comes to us all and asserted that when your time comes, "you will not wish you had spent more time gaming." Mike took the stance that gaming provides temporary joys that can't replace real-life experiences and that it's our inherent responsibility as human beings with finite lifespans to seek out those experiences. He argued that "gaming is a hobby and not a replacement for a life well-lived" and that it's not our gaming achievements but our real life ones that we'll proudly tell our grandchildren. I think we can all agree that it's important to have offline hobbies and interests that help you keep active, but I take exception to the notion that we might regret time spent gaming on our deathbeds. Published data on the top five regrets of the dying actually seems to directly refute this idea, and my life experiences have shown the exact opposite of some of the points Mike makes. MMOs have given me some experiences that I'll probably treasure for a lifetime, and gaming as a hobby has provided me with much more than just temporary joys and escapism; it's helped me discover talents I didn't know I possessed, given me the push I needed to get a good education, led me to employment, and put me in contact with lifelong friends. On my deathbed, I'll probably wish I'd spent more time gaming rather than less. In this opinion piece, I look at evidence that suggests we won't regret gaming on our deathbeds and make the case that gaming can be just as worthwhile as offline pursuits.
The Soapbox: You will not wish you had spent more time gaming
Spoiler alert: You are going to die. It's inescapable. Maybe you fall off a cliff. Maybe you grow old and fade peacefully into the nether. Maybe hawk-wolves pick the lock on your front door and attack while you're frying eggs and trying to remember what you had planned for the day. Maybe you sneeze on the subway and your head literally explodes, ruining the morning commute of dozens of office drones. Whatever the cause and time, death is the inevitable conclusion to the story of your life. It can be neat, it can be messy, it can be expected, it can be a surprise, but it always comes. And no matter who you are, I'm willing to bet one thing about that cacophonous moment in which the world slows and you stare death in the face: You will not wish you had spent more time raiding.
The Soapbox: Tokens suck!
A few weeks ago we reported on a somewhat silly article in which the author advocated that studios could and should charge players real money transaction fees to trade items. I didn't see a lot of people in favor of this idea, but I definitely agreed with one thing that he pointed out: MMOs have become increasingly anti-trade in practice. It's not something that I've thought a lot about recently, but once this article triggered some introspection, I realized that the issue of trade (particularly relating to restrictions) has become a growing frustration of mine. My veteran characters in several MMOs are absolutely loaded -- with basic currency, that is (usually gold). And yet I am sitting on this Scrooge McDuck pile of wealth with no useful things to buy because (a) everything seems to take tokens these days and (b) so much of the good stuff in games is bind-to-character (or bind-to-account). I started feeling fidgety and then I let out a grunt of frustration. Tokens, in a word, suck.
The Soapbox: The soft launch scam
Back in the golden days of video games, there was no such thing as a soft launch. Nintendo didn't send out test copies of Super Mario World to special "backers," and Sega didn't ship half-finished Sonic games with promises of further content updates. Games, for the most part, were played only after they were finished, printed, packaged, and shipped. Even on PC, beta testing was more of an earned honor exclusive to players that showed dedication to a title and its community. Here in these modern times of Internets and always-ons, however, things are different. It would seem as though developers need only make enough game content to shoot a reasonably convincing trailer before the publishing team can begin collecting money by slapping a "BETA" sticker on the webpage and offering fans early access. Over the last few years soft launches have become increasingly common -- especially for creators of online games. The line between "in testing" and "done" is becoming blurred, and publishers are reaping the benefits while players suffer.
The Soapbox: How to run a successful Kickstarter campaign
The past few years have seen an absolute revolution in the games industry, with an explosion of studios securing funding through crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter. In a time when banks worldwide are tightening their belts, Kickstarter represents a lifeline for indie developers and a way for the bigger studios to work on their own projects free from the need for outside investors or publishers. But with the growing number of projects seeking funding each year, developers are facing stiff competition and the rising challenge of running a successful campaign. Most developers don't release all of their stats or write up advice and insights following a successful crowdfunding campaign, and those who do are often lost on obscure blogs that don't appear when you Google for advice. But I'm in the unusual position of both being a games journalist and having successfully Kickstarted a small game project (unrelated to MMOs and my work on Massively). Six months ago, I ran a campaign for my new sci-fi 4X game Predestination, and in the process I learned some valuable lessons on what works and doesn't work on Kickstarter. We've since published the campaign stats and gone on to help a few other campaigns hit their goals. In this article, I run down the lessons I learned the hard way during the Predestination Kickstarter campaign and give some advice for developers hoping to get funded.
The Soapbox: Diablo III's auction house ruined the game
After his departure from the Diablo III development team, Game Director Jay Wilson released a statement that the introduction of an auction house "really hurt the game." While players predicted doom the moment the Real Money Auction House was announced, Jay argued that the gold auction house was equally to blame for the game's fall from grace following its absolutely stellar launch sales. I don't normally agree with what Jay has to say on Diablo III, but in this case he does have a very valid point. Diablo II was consistently popular for over a decade thanks to its immense replayability. At its core, D2 was a game about building new characters and gearing them up by any means necessary. Every enemy in the game was a loot pinata just waiting to be popped, and players farmed endlessly for a few sought-after unique items. You almost never found an item that was ideal for your particular class and build, but you could usually trade for what you needed via trade channels and forums. Blizzard claimed that the auction house was intended just to streamline this process, but when Diablo III launched, it was clear that the entire game had been designed to make the auction house almost necessary for progress. The fault here lies not just with the concept of an auction house but with the game designers. That's right: I'm here to argue not only that Jay Wilson was right about the auction house ruining Diablo III but also that it was his own damn fault.
Chaos Theory: Opinions, facts, and open flames
It's not often that my writings take a ranty slant, In fact, I don't believe I have ever expressed anything along those lines here in Chaos Theory -- although I have a time or two elsewhere. Blue moons come and go much more frequently than I don my Massively-standard-issue flame-retardant garb and venture forth. But right here, right now looks to be one of those times, and I'm already suiting up. So what about The Secret World has me riled up enough to flex my woefully underused ranting muscle? Nothing. Seriously, I can't call to mind a single thing in the game deserving of a rant. Sure, TSW isn't perfect; there are flaws and there are things that could use improving, things that are certainly worth discussing. But rant-inducing? Nope. Too bad the same can't be said for people. It doesn't matter how many times I've witnessed it: It never ceases to amaze me when folks trumpet their own opinions as fact while insisting dissenting opinions can't possibly exist. It's like they board the crazy train where the lines between opinion and fact are swirled together like coffee and creamer, where reality and logic are tossed right out the window. So as a public service, I'm going to derail that train.
The Soapbox: MMOs are to kids what MUDs are to us
I love MUDs. When I go through a several-hour long MUD session, I feel as if I took part in a greater story, and most of the fun was not based on stats or gear. MUDs let me escape into a world because they are about story first. I think I'm pretty rare, though. I can't find many other writers who seem to write about MUDs unless they are referencing them like some sort of relic from the past. The truth is that MUDs are still being loved, played, and enjoyed by thousands. Covering MUDs is as important as covering any other MMO. They're still part of the bigger picture. I'm sure many of you reading this now could not care less about MUDs. You might have played one years ago, but generally they are seen as the cute elderly citizens of MMOdom. That's cool if that's how you feel, but now think about this: The new generation, kids between 13 and 20 years old, will look at many of our large PCs and 20 gig MMOs the same way modern gamers look at MUDs.
The Soapbox: Your MMO is going to die, and that's OK
There is no question about it: Bringing games online has fundamentally changed the way we play and interact with one another. Thanks to the web, we can share games with our friends from thousands of miles away. We can hang out with people who live in other countries and learn about human beings who exist in completely different realities. Playing MMOs is an incredible, unique experience that gives players an honest chance at turning their favorite personal hobby into a full-on social engagement. For any of these experiences to be possible, a game must be connected to the web. Without a server humming away in someone's basement or the cold, dark corridors of an MMO developer's hushed office, the games we talk about here on Massively simply wouldn't exist. The side effect of this online requirement is that every online game, no matter how popular it may be at the moment, has a finite lifespan. Eventually, your favorite game is going to die. This is a good thing. Here's why.
