GameSpot Interviews Chris Roberts (October 1, 2012)

[AD]

I'm not entirely sure I follow you're point, AD. I have no doubt that digital distribution would be far, far cheaper than a bricks and mortar approach with boxed copies etc. I think that's highly likely, given Chris is talking about adding to the game over time post release. I was merely saying that I don't think EA would hand over distribution to someone else. Why would they? If the game is as good as everyone hopes it will be (WC or not...), then it would be a massive boon for EA and their own Origin platform.

I might have not read what you said clearly... I thought for some reason you were saying that CR having money to self distribute would be an issue for EA... But I can see that was kind of a dumb connection to make.

But I can also see why Chris might want to control distribution himself if he really wants to use something like steam instead of being forced by EA to opt out in favor of Origin (ironic). There's other support reasons to want to control distibution as well if it means simplifying patching and feedback from gamers and the like. Whether that's the holdup with EA or if EA would ever see eye to eye with CR on these issues is something we'll have to wait and see I guess.

 

[LeHah]

Claiming that a single game "killed the genre" is just silly.

Its happened before. : points at Freespace 2 :

The most you can say about ToR is that it may make EA very shy about investing any money into an MMO in the future, but to suggest that no one will be willing to make MMOs any more is completely without basis.

EA invest a lot of money into TOR. TOR has bombed, for all intents and purposes.

Do you really think another company will invest to equal or better EA on that? Do you think someone sees the amount of money sunk into TOR and is willing to best them? Hardly.

Considering the F2P games are the most profitable games in the mobile and social media stage and that MMOs like DDO gained significant population and profit after switching to the model

As many in business will tell you, a sign of changing profit models is a bad, bad sign for income. If you have to make something FREE for people to buy what you're selling, thats a sign of a sinking ship.

Sure, MMOs that are failing because they are not fun/well made will probably try the F2P model as a last ditch effort to recoup some funds, but they will die a natural death - not because the MMO market is dead, but because they weren't well designed games to begin with. ToR is arguably an example of this.

So your whole point is to argue the point to... reverse and then agree with me?

 

[Quarto]

As many in business will tell you, a sign of changing profit models is a bad, bad sign for income. If you have to make something FREE for people to buy what you're selling, thats a sign of a sinking ship.

Wow, LeHah. By your definition, radio broadcasting was sinking right from the moment it was born...

Now, obviously, the fact that they're changing their business model is a sign that there was a problem with the old business model. Does this prove that the MMO is dead? No, it doesn't. If it was, people wouldn't be releasing dozens of new MMOs using a new business model. It just wouldn't be viable - and yet, it is.

When you say nobody makes subscription-based MMOs any more - you are right (though are they really dead? Jeepers, you still have nine million people paying for WoW out there). When you say all MMOs are dead, you are wrong - it's that simple. There's more than a few F2P MMOs out there (and you really need to include all the browser-based ones, you know). And yes, just like with classic MMOs, most of these will fail and die. But that also does not prove MMOs are dead - it merely proves that they have a very low point of market saturation. Nothing's changed in this regard - back in the days when UO ruled the roost, most other MMOs would crash and burn as well.

 

[LeHah]

Wow, LeHah. By your definition, radio broadcasting was sinking right from the moment it was born...

As someone who's family has been in radio broadcasting for 30 years, I could tell you why your analogy doesn't work at all - its income is based on selling airtime for advertisements, unless you're something like NPR which subsists on Federal and public donations - but thats neither here nor there.

Now, obviously, the fact that they're changing their business model is a sign that there was a problem with the old business model. Does this prove that the MMO is dead? No, it doesn't. If it was, people wouldn't be releasing dozens of new MMOs using a new business model.

And of those, how many survive? The fact that a business opens does not make it a success. There was a flood of MMOs for a while - I beta-tested some stuff when EQ was the biggest game out there - and as the market grew, less people played and games folded overnight. Some games still exist like EVE Online - but I've only known one person in my entire life who plays that (and I only know him via Facebook) so thats, what, 1 out of 400 plus people who are friends / acquaintances? Other people who played DAoC, WoW, EQ have moved on - mostly because they're growing up or have kids, etc - and that whole subset of gaming is dwindling. Dark Age Of Camelot has something like 20,000 players now. I don't think Star Trek Online is doing very well either. TOR, the most expensive MMO made by a long shot, is a dead fish.

The death knell as rung. It may be a couple of years, but its coming.

 

[Quarto]

As someone who's family has been in radio broadcasting for 30 years, I could tell you why your analogy doesn't work at all - its income is based on selling airtime for advertisements.

Well, that's exactly the point of this analogy. Radio broadcasting works on a free-to-play model, replacing sales with advertisements. Modern MMOs work on a free-to-play model, replacing sales with something else (sometimes, with advertising, actually).

And of those, how many survive?

Very few, of course. But that's not because MMOs are unpopular or dead, it's because they are different. If an ordinary game can be compared to a movie, something you consume once, an MMO is more akin to a TV channel. Now, think about it - if no new TV channels appear for a few years, does that mean TV is dead? No, it just means the existing channels have taken up all the existing niches. But of course, if you were to compare the number of new TV channels with the number of films being produced, you might fool yourself into thinking that TV is dying.

And this is exactly what you've done here - you've fooled yourself into thinking MMOs are dying because at the moment, there are very few niches out there for new MMOs. Even if we were to end up in a situation where just one MMO exists - what does it matter that it's just one, if it has ten million users as WoW did a few months ago?

Some games still exist like EVE Online - but I've only known one person in my entire life who plays that (and I only know him via Facebook) so thats, what, 1 out of 400 plus people who are friends / acquaintances?

Gee, you know, I know very few people who have played Modern Warfare 3 - I guess that means nobody buys Call of Duty games any more. The fact that you don't know someone doesn't mean they don't exist. In China and South Korea, there are whole *huge* MMO games that you've never heard of, played by *millions* of users. EVE Online not only exists, it *thrives*. It's one of the most successful MMOs ever made, and while they had a major hiccup recently because they made some bad changes in one of the addons, the fact is they are doing just fine, and producing more content all the time, and attracting new users all the time. It's a very, very bad idea to use yourself and your friends as a measure of what the entire world is doing - that's just plain ignorance.

 

[LeHah]

Well, that's exactly the point of this analogy. Radio broadcasting works on a free-to-play model, replacing sales with advertisements. Modern MMOs work on a free-to-play model, replacing sales with something else (sometimes, with advertising, actually).

Thats not the same thing at all. Your analogy might work if you said "Free-to-play also means pay-for-premium" in the way AM/FM is to Sirius / XM. Radio is not "free to play" as there is never a cost to the audience; that is entirely the opposite of a MMO being "free-to-play".

Very few, of course. But that's not because MMOs are unpopular or dead, it's because they are different. If an ordinary game can be compared to a movie, something you consume once, an MMO is more akin to a TV channel. Now, think about it - if no new TV channels appear for a few years, does that mean TV is dead? No, it just means the existing channels have taken up all the existing niches.

The stagnation you describe is a death. How many iterations of Call Of Duty are there and what have they done to rejuvenate or change the FPS gaming world?

And you are onto something when you say that its taken up all the existing niches: this is why most MMOs are dead, dying or DOA. Its nothing new: its all grinding and guild boss battles and whatnot. This isn't a detail ONLY for MMOs but it seems to be the gameplay, that old "fetch and carry" assignments.

Even if we were to end up in a situation where just one MMO exists - what does it matter that it's just one, if it has ten million users as WoW did a few months ago?

Because thats a game, I'm talking about a genre. You're talking about a battle, I'm talking about the war effort.

Gee, you know, I know very few people who have played Modern Warfare 3 - I guess that means nobody buys Call of Duty games any more.

The joke is that MW3 does very well... because its on a console. MMOs are really PC based; EQ tried to jump to the PS2 and that was a massive failure and there were a couple other attempts that never went far either. And considering that the PC market is practically gone (sadly) aside from a couple of things like Steam-based games and Day Z, what else is left? MMOs and (most) RTS games.

It's a very, very bad idea to use yourself and your friends as a measure of what the entire world is doing - that's just plain ignorance.

And using a foreign country as a point that has nothing to do with the rest of the world is absurd. I've never played, say, Soul Of The Ultimate Nation because its a Korean based MMO.

But then, neither would anyone in the European or American markets, making it entirely moot to this discussion. No one cares about that game because no one outside of Korea plays it, meaning that the market for that game is in a tiny, tiny niche on the other side of the world. Why care?

 

[Dyret]

Its happened before. : points at Freespace 2

That's silly... 'Space Sims' died because they didn't really go anywhere and no one gave a shit anymore, like genres before and after, not because Freespace 2 was so unfathomably bad it shattered the souls of gamers worldwide. As I recall it wasn't the only game of its kind to suffer from bad sales towards the end.

As many in business will tell you, a sign of changing profit models is a bad, bad sign for income. If you have to make something FREE for people to buy what you're selling, thats a sign of a sinking ship.

I think it's more a case of gamers not wanting to pay a monthly subscription for more than one MMO at the time... there can only be so many subscription based games out there at a time, and there really isn't any competing with WoW... I'm sure the market will pick up when WoW finally dies, but then we'll probably have another equally dominant game.

 

[Quarto]

And using a foreign country as a point that has nothing to do with the rest of the world is absurd. I've never played, say, Soul Of The Ultimate Nation because its a Korean based MMO.

But then, neither would anyone in the European or American markets, making it entirely moot to this discussion. No one cares about that game because no one outside of Korea plays it, meaning that the market for that game is in a tiny, tiny niche on the other side of the world. Why care?

Oh, I see your point. It doesn't matter if there is a dozen MMOs out there with more than a million users each. Because they're not popular in Europe or the US, they don't count, and therefore the MMO is dead. Makes sense... if by "sense" we mean "nonsense".

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. I've tried all kinds of approaches to explain this to you, but it seems you're hell-bent on fooling yourself into thinking the MMO genre of games is dead. That's fine, your opinion doesn't actually affect reality, so... whatever.

Do remind me to dig this thread up in ten years' time and laugh at you, though.

 

[LeHah]

That's silly... 'Space Sims' died because they didn't really go anywhere and no one gave a shit anymore, like genres before and after, not because Freespace 2 was so unfathomably bad it shattered the souls of gamers worldwide.

And to quote Bandit LOAF

Freespace 2's exceptionally poor sales (20,000 units domestic) have been cited as one of the key reasons EA decided to cancel several Wing Commander projects (most notably Privateer Online). In order to 'turn a profit', a game like Freespace 2 must sell between 750,000 and a million copies - 20,000 copies is a horrible failure. Interplay promised to deliver an exciting new game... what the world got was Prophecy without characters, story or soul. The buying public reacted appropriately.

Oh, I see your point. It doesn't matter if there is a dozen MMOs out there with more than a million users each. Because they're not popular in Europe or the US, they don't count, and therefore the MMO is dead. Makes sense... if by "sense" we mean "nonsense".

You're purposely trying to create an argument where there isn't one. You're talking about MMOs as a world-wide thing - and this is true, since they exist! - but no one in America plays Korean-only MMOs, meaning their effect on the Western market is non-existent. No one at EA says "Well, Bless is doing so well, we should create the same thing!"

 

[Quarto]

Bah. I said I'm done, but I guess I'm too stubborn to give up when faced with such nonsense.

Gosh darn it, LeHah, how can we not talk about MMOs as a world-wide thing, when you're making world-encompassing statements like "the MMO is dead"? Let me remind you what this started with:

MMOs are dead. The Old Republic is really what killed them.

Now, had you said something wishy-washy about no Western company wanting to produce MMOs any more... you'd be wrong, but I wouldn't bother objecting. But no, you made a statement that, due to lack of any qualifiers, encompasses the entire world of game development, and then made a fool of yourself by pretending that only parts of the world arbitrarily chosen by LeHah are subject to discussion.

 

[LeHah]

Now, had you said something wishy-washy about no Western company wanting to produce MMOs any more... you'd be wrong, but I wouldn't bother objecting. But no, you made a statement that, due to lack of any qualifiers, encompasses the entire world of game development, and then made a fool of yourself by pretending that only parts of the world arbitrarily chosen by LeHah are subject to discussion.

And the day I post for Quarto, you'll be the first to know.

 

[Dyret]

And to quote Bandit LOAF

Yeah, there's no denying it was the last nail in the coffin, but it was hardly the only game of the genre to do worse than expected... I feel the space sim genre was done in more by lack of significant gameplay evolution than anything else, which doesn't seem to be so much the case for the latest generation of MMOs... everything before it certainly (including old republic, which only had the awesome story stuff setting it part,) but the latest additions seems to realize that being WoW with slightly fancier whatever isn't going to get them anywhere.