op-ed
Latest
The Soapbox: My MMO resolutions
Today is the last day of 2013, a long year of extended betas, early access pre-purchases, and soft launch nonsense. The release slate for 2014, however, brings slightly more excitement. 2014 is the year we'll (hopefully) first set foot into Elder Scrolls Online, EverQuest Next Landmark, Destiny, Star Citizen, WildStar, and more. It's the year in which a record number of MMOs will go live on consoles. And most importantly, it's likely the year in which consumers will decide whether the traditional MMO is dead or just in need of a good kick in the pants. Ordinarily I'm not the type to make New Year's resolutions. It seems arbitrary to hang important life changes on a date on the calendar. But the end of the year does bring a nice opportunity to look back on my gaming habits over the last 12 months and provides me with an opportunity to draft a list of things I'd like to do better moving forward. 2014 will be an MMO year like no other, so perhaps it warrants a few adjustments in behavior. With that in mind, these are my 2014 MMO resolutions.
The Soapbox: The horror of embargoes
We're right on the cusp of one big holiday or another. Festivus, I think? I don't really pay attention to the calendar. So we're going to take this opportunity to talk about something near and dear to our hearts that a lot of you don't even know exists because you aren't working here. It's the magical miracle known as the press embargo. Embargoes work something like this. Let's say that Bungie is hard at work developing My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Online, and the company wants to reveal a new piece of information on August 9th. The company sends a lot of different press outlets a release with all of the information on August 2nd, mentioning exactly when the embargo lifts. So on August 9th, everyone can cover it at the same time! It sounds like a great way to ensure that the press knows things in advance and that every big revelation is nicely coordinated across all media. In practice, though, it's something less than beneficial due to failures to communicate and the very nature of the beast. Giving more time between the information and release just means more space for things to go wrong.
Why AT&T should stop whining about carrier subsidies
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson explained last week that carriers can't afford to continue paying huge subsidies to smartphone manufacturers like Apple. When you're growing the business initially you have to do aggressive device subsidies to get people on the network. But as you approach 90 percent penetration, you move into maintenance mode. That means more device upgrades. And the model has to change. You can't afford to subsidize devices like that. This is rather misleading. If carriers weren't making boatloads of money from subsidizing popular smartphones in exchange for meaty two-year-long contracts, they wouldn't be doing it. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that AT&T pays Apple a full US$600 for a 16 GB iPhone (historically, this figure is in the ballpark of reality). AT&T is then able to sell that very same phone for $199. That's a $400 hit AT&T is taking at the outset. But in exchange, AT&T is securing 24 months of steady payments that more than make up for that initial loss. Former Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassee recently skewered Stephenson's remarks, and really hits the nail on the head when describing the real economics at play with carrier subsidies: I don't know if Stephenson is speaking out of cultural deafness or cynicism, but he's obscuring the point: There is no subsidy. Carriers extend a loan that users pay back as part of the monthly service payment. Like any loan shark, the carrier likes its subscriber to stay indefinitely in debt, to always come back for more, for a new phone and its ever-revolving payments stream. There are undoubtedly other economic models in the smartphone business that carriers would prefer to employ, but the notion that carriers can't afford to subsidize smartphones, while wholly ignoring the benefits they receive in return, is nothing more than unsound logic. Also keep in mind that the bulk of carrier revenue comes from smartphone users. Offering them subsidized phones to lure them in as a means to bolster revenue streams seems more than affordable to me. Besides, iPhone users in particular pay, on average, more in monthly fees than other smartphone users. A research report from earlier this year found that nearly 60 percent of iPhone users have monthly bills in excess of $100. I think the carriers are doing just fine.
The Soapbox: There's nothing wrong with easy
The word "easy" gets a really bad reputation in gaming, an unfair reputation, at that, because there's absolutely nothing wrong with something's being easy. A while back, we hosted a great column about how we tend to call things easy when they really aren't. (Seriously, go read that.) That's all well and good, but that's also not what I'm talking about here. Gaming as a community seems to have decided that easy is just plain bad, that it's a horrible insult, and a game being easy is like saying that a game is worthless. But easy isn't bad. Playing a single-player game on easy difficulties isn't a mark of weakness, and having an MMO that's easy on a whole doesn't mean it's a bad game. Having easy content isn't just an acceptable thing; it's an outright good thing for a lot of player. There is absolutely nothing wrong with easy.
The Soapbox: World of Warcraft isn't back, and that's fine
So. That Warlords of Draenor, huh? To take the narrative that a lot of people have constructed, World of Warcraft has been sort of floundering for the past few years. It released one expansion (Cataclysm) that consistently ranks as the worst expansion in the game's history, coming behind the launch game, The Burning Crusade, and Alganon. Then it released another one that turned out to actually be pretty good but with a premise that turned a lot of people off right out of the gate. Mists of Pandaria's quality doesn't matter in the face of the game losing five million subscriptions in three years. But then, Warlords of Draenor was announced, and suddenly hope returned to the faithful. There's this thought that the game has suddenly returned from the brink, that Blizzard hit the big red button labeled "Save World of Warcraft" and the game will be catapulted back into prominence once again. Except that I think that portion of the story isn't just premature -- it's making a stab in the dark about a game that isn't back and can't, in fact, be back.
The Soapbox: Seriously, we have enough fantasy MMOs
Let's play a game. I'm thinking of an MMO that features magic, monsters, humans, and a vast fantasy world full of steamy swamps, grassy plains, and deep, dark dungeons -- can you tell me which MMO it is? If you answered RIFT, you're right. You're also right if you answered TERA. Or World of Warcraft. Or Guild Wars 2. Or Neverwinter. Or... you get the idea. We're people who play MMOs. Our hard drives are practically bulging with games featuring wizards and warriors. We've plunged our swords into millions of orcs and gnolls. We've looted more imaginary copper pieces than anyone could possible imagine. We've even slain so many dragons that you have to wonder why dragons even bother showing up anymore. It's not the gameplay but the setting that can make the whole exercise so soul-crushingly boring.
The Soapbox: Developers build MMOs backward
How many of you MMOs players have ever maxed out a character's combat level then stood around wondering, "What do I do now?" I would venture to guess that a vast majority of you at one time or another have done that, and I'd also guess that it's been recently. That's because developers have built your game backward. Far too many MMOs rely on the leveling process to be the primary content for the game, and everything after max level appears to be an afterthought tacked on to the game until the developers can come up with new stuff for you to do. I propose that if developers would start building a game's endgame first, we would be looking at a very different kind of game, a more enjoyable game. If a game is intended to be played for months, then developers should spend the most time on the content that players will spend the most time on. It's only logical to me. However, if you ask most developers they will likely tell you that the most expensive or time-consuming part of the game is the leveling process. Why is that?
The Soapbox: Instant high-level characters are a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good idea
While handing players the keys to a high-level character isn't something brand-new that studios are doing, it does seem to be more en vogue these days, from TERA to EverQuest II and now to World of Warcraft. It's a topic that has caused a lot of discussion and debate in the community, not to mention a lot of disquiet and dismay in my heart. In last week's Soapbox, Massively's Mike Foster advocated instant leveling by saying, "There is no downside to giving players a chance to skip to the start of new content." With much love and respect to my fellow Massively writer, I think Mike is completely wrong on this front, as are others that are giving a thumbs-up to any MMO that allows players to jump past content and into a high-level character. It has nothing to do with elitism and ego, as was suggested, but has everything to do with cheapening our mutual experience and the very foundation of MMOs. There are many, many downsides to this disturbing trend, and I need to get this off my chest so that at least I've said it somewhere.
Reality Absorption Field: iPads in notebook's clothing
Apple's latest incarnation of the iPad turned out to be a distillation and refinement of what has defined the product. The Apple offering ships free of any keyboard connectors or covers in contrast to the Surface 2 and Nokia 2520 that vied for headlines with the iPad Air's introduction. With so much written about the notebook's attempts to capitulate to the iPad's success, though, one must consider the other side of the tablet-notebook continuum even in the world of Apple. The maker of MacBooks and iPads draws distinct boundaries between the two product lines. While Apple may not be interested in doing much to make the iPad experience more like the Mac's, third parties have stepped in with everything from Wi-Fi-based storage that can accommodate SD cards to remote desktop applications that provide at least a window into Mac applications. And then there are the keyboards of every stripe -- standalone Bluetooth keyboards, Lightning keyboards, folding keyboards, typewriter keyboards, silicone screen-top keyboards, magnetic cover keyboards, and keyboards integrated into and removable from cases and folios. No wonder Microsoft and now Dell have seen opportunity for thin keyboards that attach to their tablets with a minimum of fuss and no need for pairing. If products such as the Belkin and Logitech's svelte keyboard covers were attempts to compete with the slim type cover of the Surface, though, have there been any products to compete with the keyboard docks from ASUS in its VivoBook line and HP in its Split X2? As Dell would put forth with its recently debuted Venue Pro 11, there's value for each type of keyboard. In fact, two Kickstarter projects have produced what create the closest things to an iPad notebook experience -- the oddly spelled Brydge (which ranges from a $100 polycarbonate model to a $200 aluminum model with integrated Bluetooth speakers) and the more oddly named $160 CruxSKUNK. Behold, the iBook! (Wait, that sounds familiar.) Both Bluetooth products make typing on the iPad faster and have pleasing keyboards, which are pretty much the point. The CrunxSKUNK has slightly larger keys and an overall larger form. This is in part due to a metal frame into which one inserts the iPad before securing it with fasteners near its hinge, a hinge that could stand to have less "give." In contrast, the Brydge's footprint is almost identical to the iPad's save for two hook-like extensions at its base. These extensions have silicone-like pads (removable to accommodate different iPad thicknesses) and keep the iPad firmly connected to the hinge despite a bit of lateral wiggle that may occur while traveling. The Brydge makes removing the iPad faster and easier than the CruxSKUNK does. Overall, the Brydge seems to fit the iPad gestalt better, but both products must accommodate the iPad's hardware and software limitations. Since they uses Bluetooth, they must have its own battery that, unlike many Windows docking keyboards, can't charge the iPad. That's not so bad as some Windows options rely on Bluetooth as well. However, unlike Windows (or Android per products such as the HP Slatebook X2 and ASUS Transformer Prime) iOS does not support cursors, so both the Skunk and the Brydge offer an uninterrupted aluminum plane on the part of the wrist rest where the trackpad might be. Because of this, nearly all on-screen objects must be selected and manipulated with your fingers as would be the case if you were holding the iPad. However, with the iPad propped up in a clamshell configuration, you must traverse the depth of the keyboard every time to touch the tablet. The extra effort required to do this illustrates why, despite the defense of touch in Windows clamshells, it's a relief to have trackpads at closer range in them (Acer Aspire R7 excepted). From there, the suitability of the ersatz laptop will depend on how sophisticated your software needs are. Most Web apps aren't a problem and there are a number of basic office suites for the iPad. Windows, and some Android devices, have the ability to show multiple apps on the screen at the same time, a feature the iPad lacks. Being able to glance at updates from other apps, such as e-mail, news and social feeds, can be a helpful capability. However, relatively few scenarios require actively moving around multiple apps (although some time spent in Office is spent doing exactly that). At a minimum, it would be helpful if Apple offered even faster switching among apps than it now offers in iOS 7. It's also helpful to bear in mind the demo that Microsoft gave of the Surface Pro 2. While that PC has the muscle to skim through raw footage from state-of-the-art high-definition video cameras, surely it can't accommodate much of it due to its limited storage, which is a problem for the iPad as well. Alas, neither product stands to fit the new iPad Air, but both work with the less expensive iPad 2 still on the market and updates will likely be in the works. When compared with products such as thin keyboard covers, the Brydge and Skunk offer more variety in terms of viewing angles and a faster path to typing that doesn't require reorienting. They can also keep the iPad more stable on the lap at certain angles one encounters when using a notebook. Other operating systems and designs may do a better job of preserving more of the notebook experience, but the iPad's immense popularity in a notebook-like size category makes it a tempting candidate for laptop impersonation. Ross Rubin is principal analyst at Reticle Research, a research and advisory firm focusing on consumer technology adoption. He shares commentary at Techspressive and on Twitter at @rossrubin.
The Soapbox: Instant leveling and the whining fringe
Over the weekend at Blizzcon 2013, Blizzard Entertainment announced the fifth World of Warcraft expansion, Warlords of Draenor. The content add-on brings most of the things one might expect from an expansion -- new zone, new features, new quests, new dungeons -- but perhaps most notably includes the option to instantly raise any one of your characters to WoW's current level cap of 90. While you'll still face 10 levels of Warlords of Draenor questing, killing, and fetching if you opt to take the insta-level, the feature has re-ignited the argument among MMO fans as to whether offering players a maxed-out character somehow violates the core rules of the MMO genre. Should developers really provide high-level characters just to get/keep players in the game? The short answer, of course, is "duh." Here's the long answer.
The Soapbox: No, 'we' don't hate the subscription model
If you're a casual reader of Massively and read a post or two from a few writers about business models, then you might get the impression that the Massively staff does not like the subscription model. While it's true that some of us praise some games for the choices their publishers have made regarding pricing models, others of us believe still other games have missed the mark. Lately, the subscription model has fallen under some hard scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that all of us dislike the subscription model completely, nor should a few writers' opinions be misconstrued as the opinion of the site as a whole, as if the site were some sentient thing to begin with. Economists have made extremely persuasive arguments in favor of the subscription model, citing its cost-effectiveness with hard numbers and statistics. We've also seen free-to-play and buy-to-play models allowing companies to revitalize their game, and most importantly for the people employed by the developer, doubling and sometimes tripling their revenue. So at what point does the subscription work?
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.
Reality Absorption Field: The Crusaders
Is technology made to serve consumers, companies or causes? When Apple introduced the Macintosh, it famously invoked Orwell's vision of 1984 to promote how its little beige box would stand in the way of IBM's hegemony. In the coming years and for reasons that had little to do with the Mac, IBM would lose control of the PC's operating system, lose share in the PC market, and ultimately exit it altogether in selling the business to Lenovo. But that loss of PC market leadership came at the hands of Microsoft, which did in fact institute near-hegemony from the release of Windows 95 until at least up to the release of Windows Vista. More than a quarter century after the launch of the Mac and following up from iPod dominance that has been Reality Absorption Field has chronicled very thoroughly, Apple found itself on the more enviable side of market dominance with the iPhone. What would come to be known as iOS would leave in the dust every mobile operating system that preceded it. Customers flocked to AT&T to get access to it despite that carrier's notorious struggles providing it with satisfactory service. Competitors needed a way to compete with the iPhone and Google provided it in Android. At Google's developer conference, VP Vic Gondotra took up his own version of the screen-smashing mace, invoking some wording parallels with Apple's famous commercial. "If we did not act, we faced a draconion future. Where one man, one company, one carrier was the future." Indeed, Android debuted on T-Mobile but saw huge market share gains as Verizon based its strong-selling Droid line on Android. Now, coming full circle, the company that came to represent the establishment that Apple was rallying against -- Microsoft -- recently invoked the threat of oppression, if in less dramatic rhetoric. In explaining its acquisition of Nokia's device and service business, outgoing CEO Steve Ballmer noted, "We run the risk that Google or Apple will foreclose our ability to innovate, to integrate our applications the way we have in Office, to do distribution, or to impose economic terms." That makes sense with respect to Apple, which had developed, but has since improved, something of a reputation for being a stickler regarding its iOS developer terms and conditions, But for Google? First off, Microsoft has made so much from Android intellectual property licensing that it is a bona fide revenue stream for the company. Second, has the company not seen the Kindle Fire? It runs Android and, near as anyone can tell, doesn't suffer from much Google interference at all. Indeed, Amazon has even renamed its variant Fire OS. Google would only be a real inhibitor to Microsoft if it wanted the full suite of Google services on its devices, And still Microsoft competes with nearly all of those, it wouldn't be much of an issue. Unlike with the original Mac and with Android, there is no real bogeyman for Windows to fight on the mobile side, just plain old competition. And that's a worthy pursuit. But if Microsoft can't cut deeply into the mobile phone market, there will still be plenty of resistance from those willing to fight the next revolution. Ross Rubin is principal analyst at Reticle Research, a research and advisory firm focusing on consumer technology adoption. He shares commentary at Techspressive and on Twitter at @rossrubin.
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.
Reality Absorption Field: Why Microsoft was no Google
In the height of the PC era, competition between Apple and Microsoft was of a vertically integrated creator of hardware and operating systems versus that of a dominant licensed operating system. In the smartphone era, Apple has expanded its degree of integration to include chip design, core apps, retail and cloud services. But while the opposition is still a dominant licensed operating system, it is now Android from Google. For a few reasons that could fill another column, Apple has been able to attain much higher market share in the smartphone market than it did in the PC market. But that is particularly impressive given that Google is a very different company than Microsoft was during the heyday of Windows, and in many ways is a stronger competitor: Ambition After it had established desktop supremacy, Microsoft began investing heavily in R&D and today Microsoft Research is home to some to many fascinating projects. Call its research's goals more focused if you will, but its clear that Google is interested in attacking issues that reach far beyond any near-term business goals with such far-out projects as Google Glass, the self-driving car, and Project Loon. Who knows what humanity-saving skunkworks may be brewing at Google X? Business model Steve Jobs once said of Bill Gates that his friend and adversary was the first to recognize the potential of software and for many years, Microsoft certainly did do the best job of monetizing it directly. Microsoft is still so dedicated to the idea of recognizing software as a discrete asset that its Windows team changes its Surface team a license fee so as not to give it an unfair advantage over other PC makers that have to pay the fee. In contrast, the engine that fuels Google's growth is advertising, and so a mandate to drive audience is tantamount. This is one reason why Google is so intent on keeping its iOS apps fresh and prominent; to reach a huge set of eyeballs on behalf of its advertisers. Consumers Even today, Microsoft caters strongly to the business market and many of its users are IT professionals. There are divisions of the company that are virtually unknown to consumers, such as its Dynamics customer relationship management software. Windows, Windows Phone, and their server counterparts include many features for enterprise management. Unlike troubled companies such as BlackBerry and Dell, though, Microsoft does have explicitly consumer-focused businesses in Bing and Xbox, but those are relatively small forces steering the ship compared to the predominant focus on consumers that is Apple's and Google's business. Google has certainly stepped up its corporate push with Google Apps, which has attracted a string of attack ads from Microsoft. Still, Google Wave, its attempt at a collaborative environment that might have challenged Microsoft SharePoint, flopped. Next week's RAF will conclude our look at how Google is a stronger competitor to Apple today than Microsoft was even at the height of its strength. Ross Rubin is principal analyst at Reticle Research, a research and advisory firm focusing on consumer technology adoption. He shares commentary at Techspressive and on Twitter at @rossrubin.
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.
Why I Play: Final Fantasy XIV
I hate two kinds of MMO: themeparks and sandboxes. Much like "nerf," these are two terms that have been beaten into the ground until they no longer have any intrinsic meaning. The original "themepark" game was freaking EverQuest, which is not what anyone thinks of when he uses the term in a more modern sense. There's more concern given to whether or not a game fits into a given category than whether or not it's actually fun to play. And that is a bad thing. Sure, your sandbox features a great housing system, but so does The Sims 3, and the latter doesn't abandon me in a featureless wasteland that eschews actual content in favor of letting me choose my final destination (here's a hint: All those destinations are grinding). Yes, Mr. Themepark, I see you chuckling in the background, but your single leveling path followed by the exact same huge-group gear-grabbing jamboree is not better, just annoying in a different way. That's why I play Final Fantasy XIV. But I should probably elaborate a bit on that.
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.
