Massively^™

Good things come to those who wait. In our earlier coverage of Webzen's upcoming MMO Huxley, we lamented the state of the in-game videos we saw -- a lot of running, nice scenery, but little else. Huxley-evolved.com has finally given us what we wanted with two videos available on blip.tv. At the time of this post, huxley-evolved.com's site was unavailable, so we're linking to the separate videos.

What does the first video tell us? Well, it's an FPS, which is a relative rarity in the MMO scene, and just behind that in little-seen-in-MMOs, it's Science Fiction. The traditionals are all here -- jumping, strafing, etc. Neither this, nor the following video feature any melée weaponry. We do notice that there's no HUD in this video, however, which some will like and some won't, but the second video does have one, so apparently it's toggleable. It also seems to take an extraordinarily long time to die, with hit after hit being scored before the opponent finally lays down. On death, a voice speaking Korean recites what we'll guess is a countdown. If our Korean-speaking audience members would care to drop a comment enlightening us, we'd appreciate it.

Darren over at CSG really has one prediction for 2008: Warhammer Online is going to be the game to beat in terms of PvP. He lays out what most of the other major MMOs will have to do to confront EA and Mythic at the PvP game when it comes out. And what exactly can they do? If WAR is really as good as Mythic claims it's going to be, nothing, really-- his best advice is for Age of Conan to dodge the blow, and he says that Pirates and Tabula Rasa still have too many factors at this point to figure out how they can compete with a game that hasn't been released into beta yet.

But my question is this: who says PvP matters in the first place. Look at the two MMOs this year that trumpeted their PvP: Vanguard and Fury. They're suffering, and it's not just because they couldn't provide a great PvP experience-- it's because they couldn't provide a great experience overall. PvP isn't the only thing WAR (or any other MMO trying to become top dog) will have to do right to succeed-- what it'll have to do is make sure that there's a core gameplay experience there (be it PvE or PvP) that will push people to stay with the game. Endgame PvP means nothing if no one wants to play enough to get that far.

Now, Warhammer does look like it has some excellent incentive to play-- even if the core gameplay suffers, players may fight through it just to see the RvR stuff (and if the Warhammer devs are smart and talented enough to make RvR the core gameplay, all the better). But it's not just about comparing one game's PvP to another-- the way a game becomes popular is that the core gameplay itself (whatever it consists of) stands on its own.

Massively's own Michael Zenke just doesn't seem to quit thinking about MMOs-- not only is he writing for us here, but he's also posting very intelligent stuff on other sites about MMOs, and even over the Christmas holiday, on his own blog, he's turning out insight about MMO design. His latest post is about a game I love, Viva Pinata for the Xbox 360, and how developers can use the lessons learned in both casual and more complicated "empire-building" or "garden growing" games like that to inform MMO gameplay.

The thing that Viva Pinata does best, in my opinion, is that it creates a living breathing world easily and with a relatively transparent interface. Create some worms (sorry, "whirlms"), give them a house, and all of a sudden you get birds. House the birds, and more animals appear-- there's the sense that you're not so much playing as interacting with a real world around you. And that is something that is very easily translatable to MMOs-- I feel like I keep bringing it up, but Pirates' concept of "stored labor" gives me that same sense of "waiting to push the button" that Zenke talks about. And he also mentions the achievements and the gift system that extend VP's gameplay, and it's definitely true that those kinds of things can push MMOs forward as well.

It's probably true that the next big MMO won't draw their influence from an MMO at all-- it'll be the kind of game that brings not only hacking and slashing to the massively multiplayer table, but these other kinds of deeper gameplay as well.

Raph Koster was nice enough to come by and read our post about Live Gamer and their attempts to make RMT legit, and responds that while I suggested RMT was cheating and reading strategy guides was not, many older gamers actually do consider sites like Thottbot and EVE-db cheating. Just as the spirit of gaming evolved to consider outside help legitimate, so, Raph argues, will designers give up to market and player pressure, and make RMT viable and "legal."

Which is probably true-- it's easy to see a future where a game like Dungeon Runners becomes a big hit, and 90% of the people play the game for free (or close to it), and the other 10% of the audience pays for the game by using only the highest level items and gear, and shelling out money for both. But personally, I'd rather go for Raph's other idea-- that smart designers will find ways around integrating RMT solutions by coming up with ways to make RMT unnecessary. I've written and talked about this before-- when it's impossible and/or inconvenient to obtain ingame items with real money, players just won't do it. And no players means no market.

And let's not forget, either, that these are just games we're talking about-- RMT can buy you all the items you want, but it can't buy you great gameplay, and that's the reason we're all here in the first place. If designers emphasize gameplay over simple epic item collection in the first place, there's no reason for RMT at all. Companies like Live Gamer smell money in the air around virtual items, but hopefully (and this is what Raph doubted in his first post) there is still more money to be made with a successful widespread game than just selling the items inside of it.

Relmstein has posted a great analysis of how to do expansions right-- he looks at the history of major MMO expansion releases, and grades their qualities on three criteria: timing of release, cost at retail, and quality of content. In essence, he sets up a quick continuum that proves the old theory: "Good, fast, or cheap. Choose two."

A game like World of Warcraft has released one terriffic quality expansion, but as Relmstein says, it was a long time coming. And Star Wars Galaxies released huge updates one after another, but we all know how well that worked out. Relmstein lists Everquest 2 as the best of all worlds-- they've released expansions fairly often (every 12 months regualrly), at fairly cheap prices (the fact that the original game content comes with every expansion doesn't hurt), and the quality has been done fairly well.

It's an interesting balance. Of course expansion packs aren't an MMO-only phenomenon, but the idea of constantly pushing out new game content is something that lends itself very well to a persistent massively multiplayer world. You'd think that there has to be some rate out there at which players are getting their content too fast, but according to Relmstein, we haven't even reached the ideal rate yet-- it's still taking developers too long to cook up polished expansion content for hungry players.

Analyst Mike Hickey from Janco Partners has taken a closer look at Blizzard's business, and has come away with some fascinating figures. Gamasutra reports that Hickey's investigations have shown that World of Warcraft's churn numbers are a surprisingly low 4-5% per month, while monthly revenues are in 'the low teens' per subscriber when averaged across the globe. (They're averaged that way due to the disparity in payment between US/EU subscribers and those in China.)

With only 4 years in the market, World Of Warcraft continues to attract subscribers at an amazing rate ... WoW controlled 5.6 and 8.1 million subscribers in '05 and '06 respectively, up 45%. Through 09/30/07, WoW controlled 9.3 million subscribers, up a respectable 15% before the seasonally hot Q4 period.

It should be noted that 1.) it's impossible to determine whether the churn rates are accurate and 2.) the average churn rate across the industry isn't a known statistic, so it's hard to say how 'off the norm' these rates are. I'm going to wager a guess it's usually more than 5%, though.