As Blizzard wraps up the first content patch of the Warlords of Draenor era, I'm marking something like 3 weeks in the expansion. I'd say that overall it's a good expansion, but I'm not yet convinced of the staying power given that we are almost certainly at least a year from the next edition.
My tale thus far:
- Advanced my main from level 90 to level 100 in 9 days, including full clears of Shadowmoon Valley, Gorgrond, Talador, and portions of the Spires of Arak.
- My garrison is currently as upgraded as possible given my late start, with all buildings at level 2 (if gated by an achievement I have yet to complete) or 3. I've collected 30 followers, all of whom are level 100, and am rapidly working on upgrading them to purple quality and ilvl 630 gear. I'm actually about to start tearing down some buildings where I have already obtained the best rewards.
- Polished off Spires of Arak and cleared out Nagrand.
- Captured all pets that can be battled in the wild in Draenor.
- I'm advancing professions as quickly as the time-gates allowed. One detour here - I'm continuing to farm the Pandaria farm for cloth, so I can make nearly free 28-slot bags every two weeks or so.
At this point, I have some amount of stuff that I can loot for zero effort in about 20 minutes each day at my Garrison. There's a daily quest that I've done once to go to a level 100 area and farm a relatively modest amount of an endgame currency - I can see this getting old pretty quickly. Otherwise, I can level an alt (including the "free" instant 90 that came with the expansion box) for fun and additional garrisons.... or go do dungeons. I don't know that I'm going to be sold on doing dungeons.
There is a lot to like in Draenor. The world is pretty and does much more to encourage exploration than recent expansions have done. There are constant little blips in the world for looting treasure, killing rare spawns, and even triggering events by just taking the time to kill mobs attacking a town without a quest to do so are in some ways a bigger innovation than anything Blizzard did in Pandaria. The story is alright, though a bit focused on having major villains escape to go be raid bosses (perhaps appropriate for revisiting Draenor).
But overall, I'm a month in with a month left on a 60 day time card and I'm not entirely sure what to do with that time. Perhaps tomorrow's patch will shake things up, but this does not bode entirely well.
Showing posts with label WoW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WoW. Show all posts
Monday, February 23, 2015
Saturday, January 3, 2015
2014 Wrap-up: Resolutions, Expenditures, and Questions
2014 was a year when I moved to a new country, largely (though informally) dropped off from MMO blogging, and spent the majority of my time in a single game for the first time in years. (Perhaps 2008?) I spent very little of that time in traditional MMO's and sat out the major MMO launch events of the year (which don't seem to have gone that well). What did I plan to do, what did I actually do, and what did it cost?
Marvel Heroes: $220
I started the year committed to a $130 pre-purchase of the thirteen hero Advance Pack and then added on $50 in cash store currency and a $40 team-up Advance Pack purchase. I started the year still working on my first level 60 and something like 8 characters unlocked. I ended it with 2175/2580 total levels, access to pretty much the entire current roster (all but one unlocked, solely because I haven't had time to play the latest two releases) and 32 out of 43 playable characters at level 60. I might have been able to push through to cap everyone, but I saw no need to rush, especially with a few characters still waiting for their 52 reworks in the coming months.
Having spent about as much time on this game as a traditional MMO, the amount I spent is mostly reasonable and the game treated me reasonably well. The resources I did NOT spend unlocking all those heroes and team-ups sufficed to unlock the entire backlog of playable heroes from launch, and at least the next four new releases besides. That said, with the current pricing strategy I did not have to think long before declining to "renew" the Advance Pack for 2015. The discount sounds great on paper but it isn't large enough compared to all the frequent sales that don't require a year up-front commitment to bundles that include stuff you don't want.
So, it'll be interesting to see where next year goes. I think I will spend more than $0 and less than $220. Probably some cash store currency, perhaps a bundle for the Avengers movie, it will depend on what's on offer and how the year is going.
Heroes of the Storm (technically alpha): $43
I was around for the alpha reset and bought up bundles containing a total of 14 heroes, 2 mounts, and a skin at a far greater discount than what Blizzard has offered since. After trying the remaining characters during free weeks, I unlocked an additional 5 characters with gold. Collectively, that's over half the roster (with gold remaining to unlock 2-4 more heroes depending on price point), and I have access to characters covering every combination of franchise/role currently implemented in game. The goal was to get started with a budget around a retail game, and it looks like I'm good to go.
World of Warcraft: $7.50 (discounted time card)
I used a pre-paid time card to tie up loose ends in Pandaria, including the pre-expansion event and somehow barely grabbing a LFR Garrosh kill before the pre-expansion talent revamp. I liked Pandaria better when cherry-picking the fun parts at the end instead of trying to grind them them all on a deadline to try and jump the next hurdle.
I've got some time penciled in for Draenor in a month or two.
Neverwinter: No Cash Spent
I own a level 60 character never paid Cryptic a cent. Of course, the way this title works, actually gearing out that character would likely churn through a non-trivial amount of money. Meanwhile, I spent significantly more time leveling and farming currency in the out-of-game portal than in-game, which in principle means that my Astral Diamonds helped encouraged someone to spend real money on Zen to sell me.
SWTOR: No Cash Spent
I used a double exp weekend to finish up my Sith Warrior's class story. The expansion presale campaign was a bit wasted on me, as I wasn't willing to clear out that particular month on my calendar to take advantage of it. At this point I'm likely to leave SWTOR on the back burner for a few more months anyway, and perhaps they'll reduce or eliminate the expansion fee (as they did last round).
Dishonorable Mention: Hex ($20 Kickstarter contribution last year)
I'm not going to list out every game I've previously played and/or spent money on that didn't get my time and money in 2014. Hex, however, earns special recognition in this category because the defining feature that convinced me to pledge to their Kickstarter in June 2013 remains unimplemented. The game's plans for PVE content were a huge focus of both the Kickstarter campaign and the accompanying website, but have seen repeated delays, most recently a somewhat-obvious late-year statement that PVE would not be added in 2014.
In the interim, they may or may not get wiped out by a lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast (that they may or may not deserve - I've seen completely convinced people on both sides, and doubt that the real legal meat is available to the public at the moment) that certainly wasn't listed as a budget contingency in their Kickstarter.
I can't say who the dishonor actually falls on (perhaps myself for having decided to offer up $20 and considered paying more), but it's a typical tale for crowd-funded video game projects, and I wish all of you who backed various MMO-hopefuls better luck.
PS3:
My relatively modest mop-up project on this front was mixed. I did complete Uncharted 3, and I also tried Infamous 2 before concluding that I didn't like it and writing the thing off. I also procured a copy of Batman: Arkham Origins that I'd like to finish someday, but decided not to let that stop me from getting a PS4 for Christmas.
2014 Releases:
I've actually spent a few hours, and zero dollars in the open beta/soft-launch for Infinite Crisis.
That aside, TESO and Wildstar both reached the end of 2014 with subscription business models intact. Based on the incorrect assumption that the game would launch on consoles in 2014, I had assumed that TESO in particular was unlikely to make it. Whether either makes it to their respective first anniversaries without replacing their business model is a separate question. In a possibly related story, Massively reports you can no longer purchase a 6-month subscription to TESO; it would make a ton of sense for the game to rip the band-aid off BEFORE the unspecified console launch.
I'd also asked if we would see any F2P-relaunched titles get the axe in 2014, and SOE of all people came through by killing several titles, including Vanguard. I guess that means so long to my former low level Goblin creature, gone off to wherever the inhabitants of Telon have ended up.
And that's 2014, on to another year.
Marvel Heroes: $220
I started the year committed to a $130 pre-purchase of the thirteen hero Advance Pack and then added on $50 in cash store currency and a $40 team-up Advance Pack purchase. I started the year still working on my first level 60 and something like 8 characters unlocked. I ended it with 2175/2580 total levels, access to pretty much the entire current roster (all but one unlocked, solely because I haven't had time to play the latest two releases) and 32 out of 43 playable characters at level 60. I might have been able to push through to cap everyone, but I saw no need to rush, especially with a few characters still waiting for their 52 reworks in the coming months.
Having spent about as much time on this game as a traditional MMO, the amount I spent is mostly reasonable and the game treated me reasonably well. The resources I did NOT spend unlocking all those heroes and team-ups sufficed to unlock the entire backlog of playable heroes from launch, and at least the next four new releases besides. That said, with the current pricing strategy I did not have to think long before declining to "renew" the Advance Pack for 2015. The discount sounds great on paper but it isn't large enough compared to all the frequent sales that don't require a year up-front commitment to bundles that include stuff you don't want.
So, it'll be interesting to see where next year goes. I think I will spend more than $0 and less than $220. Probably some cash store currency, perhaps a bundle for the Avengers movie, it will depend on what's on offer and how the year is going.
Heroes of the Storm (technically alpha): $43
I was around for the alpha reset and bought up bundles containing a total of 14 heroes, 2 mounts, and a skin at a far greater discount than what Blizzard has offered since. After trying the remaining characters during free weeks, I unlocked an additional 5 characters with gold. Collectively, that's over half the roster (with gold remaining to unlock 2-4 more heroes depending on price point), and I have access to characters covering every combination of franchise/role currently implemented in game. The goal was to get started with a budget around a retail game, and it looks like I'm good to go.
World of Warcraft: $7.50 (discounted time card)
I used a pre-paid time card to tie up loose ends in Pandaria, including the pre-expansion event and somehow barely grabbing a LFR Garrosh kill before the pre-expansion talent revamp. I liked Pandaria better when cherry-picking the fun parts at the end instead of trying to grind them them all on a deadline to try and jump the next hurdle.
I've got some time penciled in for Draenor in a month or two.
Neverwinter: No Cash Spent
I own a level 60 character never paid Cryptic a cent. Of course, the way this title works, actually gearing out that character would likely churn through a non-trivial amount of money. Meanwhile, I spent significantly more time leveling and farming currency in the out-of-game portal than in-game, which in principle means that my Astral Diamonds helped encouraged someone to spend real money on Zen to sell me.
SWTOR: No Cash Spent
I used a double exp weekend to finish up my Sith Warrior's class story. The expansion presale campaign was a bit wasted on me, as I wasn't willing to clear out that particular month on my calendar to take advantage of it. At this point I'm likely to leave SWTOR on the back burner for a few more months anyway, and perhaps they'll reduce or eliminate the expansion fee (as they did last round).
Dishonorable Mention: Hex ($20 Kickstarter contribution last year)
I'm not going to list out every game I've previously played and/or spent money on that didn't get my time and money in 2014. Hex, however, earns special recognition in this category because the defining feature that convinced me to pledge to their Kickstarter in June 2013 remains unimplemented. The game's plans for PVE content were a huge focus of both the Kickstarter campaign and the accompanying website, but have seen repeated delays, most recently a somewhat-obvious late-year statement that PVE would not be added in 2014.
In the interim, they may or may not get wiped out by a lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast (that they may or may not deserve - I've seen completely convinced people on both sides, and doubt that the real legal meat is available to the public at the moment) that certainly wasn't listed as a budget contingency in their Kickstarter.
I can't say who the dishonor actually falls on (perhaps myself for having decided to offer up $20 and considered paying more), but it's a typical tale for crowd-funded video game projects, and I wish all of you who backed various MMO-hopefuls better luck.
PS3:
My relatively modest mop-up project on this front was mixed. I did complete Uncharted 3, and I also tried Infamous 2 before concluding that I didn't like it and writing the thing off. I also procured a copy of Batman: Arkham Origins that I'd like to finish someday, but decided not to let that stop me from getting a PS4 for Christmas.
2014 Releases:
I've actually spent a few hours, and zero dollars in the open beta/soft-launch for Infinite Crisis.
That aside, TESO and Wildstar both reached the end of 2014 with subscription business models intact. Based on the incorrect assumption that the game would launch on consoles in 2014, I had assumed that TESO in particular was unlikely to make it. Whether either makes it to their respective first anniversaries without replacing their business model is a separate question. In a possibly related story, Massively reports you can no longer purchase a 6-month subscription to TESO; it would make a ton of sense for the game to rip the band-aid off BEFORE the unspecified console launch.
I'd also asked if we would see any F2P-relaunched titles get the axe in 2014, and SOE of all people came through by killing several titles, including Vanguard. I guess that means so long to my former low level Goblin creature, gone off to wherever the inhabitants of Telon have ended up.
And that's 2014, on to another year.
Labels:
Cryptic,
Heroes of the Storm,
Marvel Heroes,
My Characters,
Star Wars,
vanguard,
WoW
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Playing on Their Schedule
Syp has posted his latest action plan for fitting four separate MMO's into a week. I don't have anything so specific - no one is expecting multiple weekly columns about different MMO's from me - but I am starting to arrive at a decision tree of sorts for my MMO time. For better or worse, non-subscription titles combined with daily/weekly/monthly quest rewards often leave a clear-cut choice for my limited gaming time.
My decision tree (in rough order starting from 30 seconds total in front of a computer all day, down the list as time permits):
My decision tree (in rough order starting from 30 seconds total in front of a computer all day, down the list as time permits):
- Log into Marvel Heroes to collect the daily login bonus (+1 daycount towards exclusive pets, team-ups, and other goodies). May immediately log out depending on which of the below is available.
- Log into Neverwinter once daily for 2-3 minutes to invoke (+1 token towards an epic quality healer companion at the end of a year) and send my profession minions off to farm cash store currency for me. If possible, check the web portal roughly twelve hours later to refresh completed missions. I've bought an account-wide cash store mount this way, time will tell if all this farming eventually pays off in actually playing the game itself.
- Time-critical content (will be gone or massively harder forever, may need daily attention). Last week, that meant several loose ends in Pandaria that I feared would be prohibitive after the patch; in particular, I pushed to finish all of the of the Siege of Ogrimmar LFR wings once so I could say I'd done them, as I feared this could be a huge mess after the patch due to nerfs to "smart" healing abilities.
- Time-sensitive content (typically not unique/not gone forever, but significantly more valuable to play this game at this time). Last week, this meant the Heroes of the Storm Alpha, which was offering double experience. I could also see Heroes of the Storm occupying some time every 2-3 days due to how its daily quest rewards and weekly rotation work. Some of Marvel Heroes' weekly events qualify because I like either the event or the rewards. A monthly visit to the Darkmoon Faire if I have a WoW subscription active falls into this category.
- Other content. Marvel Heroes has typically fit in here, but this accounts for less of my time as I finish leveling more and more of the game's playable characters. Expansions - WoW? Rift? would fit here. I.e. anything else that would ordinarily fit under the category of playing the games normally.
- Oh right, I have a blog that I used to post on, don't I? Funny how you don't get this far down the list when you have a toddler. See also, not getting around to new MMO launches.
Labels:
Business Models,
Cryptic,
Heroes of the Storm,
Marvel Heroes,
WoW
Thursday, September 11, 2014
A Waste of Draenor?
I'm on the fence about the schedule for WoW's upcoming expansion and 10th Anniversary celebrations. I've long since ceased to make purchasing decisions a matter of principle, but I am concerned and a bit puzzled by the rushed pace that the calendar seems to be dictating.
WoW's fifth expansion has taken so long to produce that it has bumped into the game's 10th anniversary. An announcement this week clarified how the schedule will work - the expansion launches on November 13th, the anniversary window begins on November 21st, and the last opportunity to get the goodies will be on January 6th.
The centerpiece of the festivities is a revamped level 100 version of the classic Molten Core raid from WoW's launch. Getting there will require that players purchase the expansion box - at an increased price of $50 compared to past $40 boxes - and gain the ten new levels in just under eight weeks. (The preceding 90 levels are a moot point, as the new box includes one instant level 90 character upgrade credit.) On a shallow level, this is a way to sell boxes and game time, but I wonder if this was a missed opportunity.
I sat out Pandaria's launch due to newborn, and thus incidentally got the expansion box for half off on Black Friday and got to experience the game with the 5.0 jitters polished out. While I'm not opposed on principle to paying full price and showing up at launch, I probably won't enjoy the journey nearly as much with the deadline. I also don't understand why it's in Blizzard's best interest to rush players to the new max level before month two of the new expansion cycle when they have yet to release an expansion in under 22 months.
Finally, there's the nostalgia factor. The 10th anniversary should have been an opportunity to bring back millions of former players to see what Blizzard has done with the game in their absence. Perhaps the cynical math says that $65 for the box and a month of game time is the best outcome Blizzard can expect from these customers. Otherwise it would seem like slapping a large upfront purchase and a deadline is not the best on-ramp for people who may be one or more expansions behind the times. Does it really make sense to take players who last saw their characters three talent overhauls ago, catapult them past all the current expansions, and rush them through the new one, landing them right back at the endgame that may have driven them from the game in the first place?
If anything, I'm thinking I might enjoy resubscribing for a month or two now with no particular pressure to do anything but play around in Azeroth since everything meaningful will be reset in two short months anyway. There are pets to battle, stories to finish, mounts and achievements to collect, and any number of other things that I'll be rushing past if I do take part in the expansion rush.
WoW's fifth expansion has taken so long to produce that it has bumped into the game's 10th anniversary. An announcement this week clarified how the schedule will work - the expansion launches on November 13th, the anniversary window begins on November 21st, and the last opportunity to get the goodies will be on January 6th.
The centerpiece of the festivities is a revamped level 100 version of the classic Molten Core raid from WoW's launch. Getting there will require that players purchase the expansion box - at an increased price of $50 compared to past $40 boxes - and gain the ten new levels in just under eight weeks. (The preceding 90 levels are a moot point, as the new box includes one instant level 90 character upgrade credit.) On a shallow level, this is a way to sell boxes and game time, but I wonder if this was a missed opportunity.
I sat out Pandaria's launch due to newborn, and thus incidentally got the expansion box for half off on Black Friday and got to experience the game with the 5.0 jitters polished out. While I'm not opposed on principle to paying full price and showing up at launch, I probably won't enjoy the journey nearly as much with the deadline. I also don't understand why it's in Blizzard's best interest to rush players to the new max level before month two of the new expansion cycle when they have yet to release an expansion in under 22 months.
Finally, there's the nostalgia factor. The 10th anniversary should have been an opportunity to bring back millions of former players to see what Blizzard has done with the game in their absence. Perhaps the cynical math says that $65 for the box and a month of game time is the best outcome Blizzard can expect from these customers. Otherwise it would seem like slapping a large upfront purchase and a deadline is not the best on-ramp for people who may be one or more expansions behind the times. Does it really make sense to take players who last saw their characters three talent overhauls ago, catapult them past all the current expansions, and rush them through the new one, landing them right back at the endgame that may have driven them from the game in the first place?
If anything, I'm thinking I might enjoy resubscribing for a month or two now with no particular pressure to do anything but play around in Azeroth since everything meaningful will be reset in two short months anyway. There are pets to battle, stories to finish, mounts and achievements to collect, and any number of other things that I'll be rushing past if I do take part in the expansion rush.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Canada Day Resolutions for 2014
Despite not being Canadian, Canada Day Resolutions used to be a thing here on PVD, since I often found myself reviewing my progress on my New Year's resolutions on a day that coincided with the Canadian national holiday. Last year I didn't cover Canada day due to being on summer vacation, and this year I was in the middle of an international move and didn't feel postured to write New Year's resolutions in January, but no need to let these details stand in the way of tradition.
Pursue 2580 Total Hero Levels In Marvel Heroes
Through a combination of purchases, promotions, and in-game awards, I'm rapidly closing on unlocking every hero in the game. Thirteen sit at max level and another five have hit at least level 50 for their second tier synergies. Without specifically trying, this puts me over halfway to the game's current total level cap (2100 for the 35 current heroes at 60), and just shy of halfway when you include the eight announced characters (six remaining Advance Pack characters, Nova, and X-23 for a total of 2580).
I'm hesitant to commit to this kind of goal for fear that I will get tired of it, and perhaps that's a fair concern, but clearly chain-leveling characters in Marvel Heroes has managed to hold my interest. Meanwhile, later characters are definitely getting easier due to steadily increasing amounts of bonuses as the game keeps adding new systems. We'll see how far I can get.
Neverwinter - To 60 But Actually Playing?
Level 30 in Neverwinter was enough of a headstart to get working on the several out-of-game minigames, similar to Star Trek Online's duty officer system. These are good fun, and it seems highly likely that I will hit the game's level cap through experience gained from these mini-games alone. A better, and unanswered, question is whether I will ever get back to playing the actual game, or just stick to the minigames as I did in STO. Not sure if that's good or bad feedback for Cryptic, but there you have it.
Clear out the PS3 line-up
I passed on the PS4 last year, in part because of looming move and in part because there wasn't much on the release calendar for the holidays that I couldn't just get for my existing PS3 instead. A year later, the math is flipped - many of the older PS3 games I had yet to beat are now available in re-mastered editions on the PS4, so it's only a few last hold-outs between me and retiring my PS3, possibly for the shiny white bundle with Destiny. The titles in question are the last few chapters of Uncharted 3 along with all of Infamous 2 (both of which I already own) and Batman: Arkham Origins (which I technically could purchase on the PC if push came to shove).
I have a new set of multi-platform gaming headphones, so I'm feeling good about my odds.
Other MMO's?
And then things are open ended.
Happy Canada Day, and/or best mid-year wishes as appropriate!
Pursue 2580 Total Hero Levels In Marvel Heroes
Through a combination of purchases, promotions, and in-game awards, I'm rapidly closing on unlocking every hero in the game. Thirteen sit at max level and another five have hit at least level 50 for their second tier synergies. Without specifically trying, this puts me over halfway to the game's current total level cap (2100 for the 35 current heroes at 60), and just shy of halfway when you include the eight announced characters (six remaining Advance Pack characters, Nova, and X-23 for a total of 2580).
I'm hesitant to commit to this kind of goal for fear that I will get tired of it, and perhaps that's a fair concern, but clearly chain-leveling characters in Marvel Heroes has managed to hold my interest. Meanwhile, later characters are definitely getting easier due to steadily increasing amounts of bonuses as the game keeps adding new systems. We'll see how far I can get.
![]() |
| My current roster: I can immediately purchase four of the seven greyed out portraits, as I currently have 1400 splinters. I will need 1000 more for the other three, plus 600 for Nova and X-23. |
Level 30 in Neverwinter was enough of a headstart to get working on the several out-of-game minigames, similar to Star Trek Online's duty officer system. These are good fun, and it seems highly likely that I will hit the game's level cap through experience gained from these mini-games alone. A better, and unanswered, question is whether I will ever get back to playing the actual game, or just stick to the minigames as I did in STO. Not sure if that's good or bad feedback for Cryptic, but there you have it.
Clear out the PS3 line-up
I passed on the PS4 last year, in part because of looming move and in part because there wasn't much on the release calendar for the holidays that I couldn't just get for my existing PS3 instead. A year later, the math is flipped - many of the older PS3 games I had yet to beat are now available in re-mastered editions on the PS4, so it's only a few last hold-outs between me and retiring my PS3, possibly for the shiny white bundle with Destiny. The titles in question are the last few chapters of Uncharted 3 along with all of Infamous 2 (both of which I already own) and Batman: Arkham Origins (which I technically could purchase on the PC if push came to shove).
I have a new set of multi-platform gaming headphones, so I'm feeling good about my odds.
Other MMO's?
And then things are open ended.
- I own some prepaid time for SWTOR that I won't use until the next mini-expansion that has adventuring content (apologies to those who are eagerly awaiting the housing mini-expansion).
- Honestly, I'm more likely to jump on the Blizzard MOBA than the next WoW expansion, but I'll keep my eyes out for steep Black Friday discounts.
- I won't look at either TESO or Wildstar until they offer a free trial, and honestly neither is likely to make the cut with me as a subscription title.
- EQ2, Rift, TSW and the Turbine games also seem to be out by default. EQ2 has the best shot at a come-back, but since they went digital only their expansions are no longer available at a discount, and I'd need to buy an expansion to continue playing my character.
- FFXIV is a possible contender. I left that game with generally favorable impressions, but also feeling that I was starting to need more structured group content to advance. This would be a deal-killer with my schedule these days. Maybe in a patch or two, as I hear they are going to have ninjas.
Happy Canada Day, and/or best mid-year wishes as appropriate!
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Technically Alpha Of The Storm
(Also, despite being technically alpha, there is no NDA - Blizzard continues to show admirable lack of fear of showing their cards with extended public testing.)
The Game
So far, I'm liking what I'm seeing. I was never the core MOBA demographic, but for the occasional pop-in PVE against bots I can see little reason why I'd ever use League of Legends for that purpose now that Heroes of the Storm is arriving. I'm sure the competitive players greatly enjoy the strategy of forcing the other player out of lane to heal or finding a time when it's safe to return to base to spend your accumulated gold on necessary item upgrades. I'll take Heroes' talent system (pick one of several abilities every few levels) and healing fountains (which the enemy can destroy) any day.
The engine is smooth, the UI is clean and polished, and the game is full of Blizzard's attention to detail and sense of humor. In an era where we show players stories rather than telling them, I'd much rather be playing characters I know from over a decade of Blizzard's lore than possibly deep League backstories that never really intrude into the game itself.
The game starts with a tutorial in which Uther explains quickly to Jim Raynor how he has ended up in a world of cross-franchise battles, and then it's off to the races.
The Business
| ||||||||
| A testing bundle of ten heroes for just under $30 |
What is in the cash shop will be relatively familiar to League players. Characters run for $4-10 or some amount of in-game currency. These are allegedly based in part on the complexity of the character and seemingly with little basis in popularity - Raynor and Malfurion sit in the $4 tier, most characters including Tassadar, Illidan, and Diablo sit at the $7.50 price point, and only a handful, most prominently Kerrigan, occupy the $10 tier. Cosmetic skins are pricier, generally either $7.50 or, $10 and not available with in-game currency, but are reasonably well done and very clever. In addition to minor or comedic variations, there are cross-franchise outfits - Kerrigan as a WoW succubus, or Uther as a Starcraft Terran Medic - and alternate realities such as Arthas as a human and a fallen demonic Tyrael. Once you own the skin, you can unlock color variants in-game only. There are also apparently cosmetic mount variants (everyone gets a free basic horse), including a $20 rainbow unicorn, because why not.
![]() |
| You can take the healbot out of Azeroth.... |
It may be technically alpha, but it looks well polished. League will survive fine due to its massive userbase, but I'd be very worried if I was running any less prominent MOBA when this game hits wider release.
Labels:
Business Models,
diablo,
League of Legends,
WoW
Monday, June 9, 2014
All In On Wildstar Attunements: Legacy of the Burning Crusade
I have the advantage of a healthy level of distance from Wildstar and its raid attunement system. I'm not playing the game and wouldn't be raiding if I did, so I can't say if what they're doing is either good or the way it should be. Based on what I'm reading from Syl and Liore it sounds like an old-school system in which players will have do do all the content multiple times to be allowed in the door for raids. I think I can see why the studio would want to do this, though there's also a significant risk; if the plan does not pan out, neither the model nor its current target audience will be amenable to changes.
Can Targeting the Top Work?
Reacting to the steep requirements, Syl writes:
Business models are not a democracy, so the percentages don't matter. What matters is whether the content you are creating is retaining your revenue stream or not. A possible explanation of the trend, which I believe is what Carbine is banking on, is that it may not make sense to invest the time to develop raid content for the less dedicated crowd, because they are leaving in a few months anyway.
If there was no top 1-5% then you could always price out a cut-rate option that would fit within in the budget, but there's an additional cost. Making a raid game that looks like what WoW has today makes the game not worth playing for that 1-5%. Five percent of WoW's over ten million peak would be over half a million subscribers, which would put Wildstar in solid territory by any measure.
Legacy of the Burning Crusade
Raiders will often swear that WoW's first expansion, the Burning Crusade, was the pinnacle of the genre. I don't believe this is solely nostalgia, as TBC existed at a unique time in history. WoW opened the genre up to players who wanted to spend some or all of their time soloing, but at that point they faced little or no competition to retain those dollars. This left Blizzard free to do what Carbine may be attempting to do with Wildstar - pocket money from the majority, accept the risk that these people will run out of content faster than you can produce it and leave, and spend your effort on the minority who will only stick around with a robust raid game that's not feasible if budgeted solely on a per-capita basis.
That said, it's a different risk today than it was in January 2007. As other companies finally caught up to Blizzard's lead, WoW faced real competition for solo players dollars for the first time from titles like the newly launched LOTRO and the largely re-launched solo-friendly incarnation of EQ2. After cramming three full tiers of raids into the first four months of TBC, Blizzard spent much of the remaining time in that expansion, and arguably most of the time since, trying to make the game more accessible. You don't make that kind of change to a 10 million subscriber cash cow because things are trending in the way you wanted.
All In for Wildstar may mean All In
Wildstar launches in an era where the risk is that the majority of players will leave in the first 90 days regardless of anything they do. Posturing to anticipate who will be left when the dust settles - trying to be good at one thing, rather than mediocre at all things that WoW does - could be a better plan than many games have tried. The problem with catering to the top 1-5%, though, is that you don't have a lot of room to run in if you're not liking your numbers. When you're that far off the median MMO player, you'll render the endgame completely useless to its existing demographic long before you make it even slightly acceptable to the median.
(The same is true of the business model; despite being the heaviest users of games and demanding a disproportionate level of effort on their content, raiding players are generally the least tolerant of any model in which they would pay a higher share of the development and operating expenses. If you add anything that raiders would actually want, they are quick to accuse your title of being "pay to win". IE, if Wildstar does have a secret plan to go free-to-play in six months after pocketing the launch box prices, they should probably be focusing on other demographics.)
The real test for whether Carbine can win their bet is not whether dedicated raiders continue to pay their $15, but whether they actually willing to back up their desire for this old school system with their own time. Forcing players to rehash the content endlessly to flag their guildmates is not a side effect of this system, it's the entire point. Those guild groups will be short a player or two and that will create the rare opportunity for new players to enter the system. If the Wildstar elite take the position that neither the PUG masses nor lower tier content that no longer offers worthwhile drops are an acceptable use of their time, the system will collapse.
That's where I'd look - not to declarations that the system is demographically unjust or that games should be allowed to try different things - but to whether raiders are willing to run PUG's. If the system works, it'll stick around. If the system never reaches critical mass, both the elite raid community and possibly the entire game could be in a very tough spot.
Can Targeting the Top Work?
Reacting to the steep requirements, Syl writes:
What attunements absolutely shouldn’t be is a way to divide your playerbase and essentially make it excruciatingly frustrating to nigh impossible for the more casual crowd, which constitutes the majority of your paying customers, to ever experience endgame or raid content. It makes no sense to create content for your top 1% or even top 5% and that’s a lesson Blizzard learned down the line, to a point where even flex raids have become a reality.History may argue for the opposite. The majority of MMO's in the last five years, assuming they managed to launch an endgame at all, have drastically reduced or eliminated both hard requirements (you must complete this attunement to zone in) and soft requirements (you must have X gearscore, but we're resetting the gear curve every patch) to enter compared to days of old. Excluding the two titles that launched in the last two months (for which the jury is still out), none of these titles have done especially well at retaining their subscription base, and have instead been forced to relaunch with different business models. Yes, Blizzard continues to release raids, but I don't see the increasing efforts to lower raid difficulty as a vote of confidence. Instead, it seems a reaction as more and more people and guilds either refuse to play them in the traditional formats or struggle to field the requisite rosters.
Business models are not a democracy, so the percentages don't matter. What matters is whether the content you are creating is retaining your revenue stream or not. A possible explanation of the trend, which I believe is what Carbine is banking on, is that it may not make sense to invest the time to develop raid content for the less dedicated crowd, because they are leaving in a few months anyway.
If there was no top 1-5% then you could always price out a cut-rate option that would fit within in the budget, but there's an additional cost. Making a raid game that looks like what WoW has today makes the game not worth playing for that 1-5%. Five percent of WoW's over ten million peak would be over half a million subscribers, which would put Wildstar in solid territory by any measure.
Legacy of the Burning Crusade
Raiders will often swear that WoW's first expansion, the Burning Crusade, was the pinnacle of the genre. I don't believe this is solely nostalgia, as TBC existed at a unique time in history. WoW opened the genre up to players who wanted to spend some or all of their time soloing, but at that point they faced little or no competition to retain those dollars. This left Blizzard free to do what Carbine may be attempting to do with Wildstar - pocket money from the majority, accept the risk that these people will run out of content faster than you can produce it and leave, and spend your effort on the minority who will only stick around with a robust raid game that's not feasible if budgeted solely on a per-capita basis.
That said, it's a different risk today than it was in January 2007. As other companies finally caught up to Blizzard's lead, WoW faced real competition for solo players dollars for the first time from titles like the newly launched LOTRO and the largely re-launched solo-friendly incarnation of EQ2. After cramming three full tiers of raids into the first four months of TBC, Blizzard spent much of the remaining time in that expansion, and arguably most of the time since, trying to make the game more accessible. You don't make that kind of change to a 10 million subscriber cash cow because things are trending in the way you wanted.
All In for Wildstar may mean All In
Wildstar launches in an era where the risk is that the majority of players will leave in the first 90 days regardless of anything they do. Posturing to anticipate who will be left when the dust settles - trying to be good at one thing, rather than mediocre at all things that WoW does - could be a better plan than many games have tried. The problem with catering to the top 1-5%, though, is that you don't have a lot of room to run in if you're not liking your numbers. When you're that far off the median MMO player, you'll render the endgame completely useless to its existing demographic long before you make it even slightly acceptable to the median.
(The same is true of the business model; despite being the heaviest users of games and demanding a disproportionate level of effort on their content, raiding players are generally the least tolerant of any model in which they would pay a higher share of the development and operating expenses. If you add anything that raiders would actually want, they are quick to accuse your title of being "pay to win". IE, if Wildstar does have a secret plan to go free-to-play in six months after pocketing the launch box prices, they should probably be focusing on other demographics.)
The real test for whether Carbine can win their bet is not whether dedicated raiders continue to pay their $15, but whether they actually willing to back up their desire for this old school system with their own time. Forcing players to rehash the content endlessly to flag their guildmates is not a side effect of this system, it's the entire point. Those guild groups will be short a player or two and that will create the rare opportunity for new players to enter the system. If the Wildstar elite take the position that neither the PUG masses nor lower tier content that no longer offers worthwhile drops are an acceptable use of their time, the system will collapse.
That's where I'd look - not to declarations that the system is demographically unjust or that games should be allowed to try different things - but to whether raiders are willing to run PUG's. If the system works, it'll stick around. If the system never reaches critical mass, both the elite raid community and possibly the entire game could be in a very tough spot.
Labels:
Baseless Speculation,
Business Models,
PVD,
WoW
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Is a MOBA Crash Coming?
Are MOBA's in 2014-2015 heading for the kind of crash we saw in subscription WoW-like MMO's post 2009?
I ask the question looking at the increasingly crowded slate of major and minor MOBA's of various flavors. I'll probably play Blizzard's upcoming MOBA when it comes out. Like WoW and Hearthstone before it, the game does not appear to have many revolutionary ideas, but it has some no-brainer quality of life improvements (e.g. try new champions in a closed practice environment for free) that you'd expect from Blizzard. I may or may not ever get around to trying Turbine's DC Universe MOBA. I almost certainly won't get around to trying the half a dozen other MOBA's in various stages of beta.
All of which gets me thinking of the flood of MMO's that imitated WoW's basic design - support solo play and attempt to retain subscriptions with something for everyone. Rather than grow the market with further success, the last five years have seen titles based on the WoW formula cannibalize each other. The resulting drop in revenue has forced recent titles to downsize their staffs and ambitions at best, or close down at worst.
The golden age of the subscription MMO's in the early 2000's was a virtual frontier in which every title enjoyed its own private captive audience. Each title had something unique - soloing in WoW, RVR in DAOC, playing music in SWG cantinas, space piracy in EVE - that you could not get elsewhere, and even if you could find an adequate substitute you probably couldn't talk all of your friends into coming along for a change of game. Thus, each title could count on its reliable subscription revenue to invest into further development of the game.
We have this belief that choice and competition are good, and that the alternative is the parody video about the proposed Comcast merger. The downside to an era with more choice is that the LACK of choice is what made the subscription model viable in MMO's and the subscription was what made the development of those MMO's financially possible. In an era where your new title is competing with half a dozen games with similar budgets that have also had the benefit of years of polish and added content, new titles are getting cut off before they can get off the ground, as people choose to leave.
Modern MOBA's aren't identical to subscription MMO's - in particular, the business model is much more suited to non-subscription payments than retrofitted monthly fee MMO's ever will manage. League of Legends probably has the critical mass after five years to continue. I'm just wondering if we're going to be looking at a bunch of failed MOBA's in a few years.
I ask the question looking at the increasingly crowded slate of major and minor MOBA's of various flavors. I'll probably play Blizzard's upcoming MOBA when it comes out. Like WoW and Hearthstone before it, the game does not appear to have many revolutionary ideas, but it has some no-brainer quality of life improvements (e.g. try new champions in a closed practice environment for free) that you'd expect from Blizzard. I may or may not ever get around to trying Turbine's DC Universe MOBA. I almost certainly won't get around to trying the half a dozen other MOBA's in various stages of beta.
All of which gets me thinking of the flood of MMO's that imitated WoW's basic design - support solo play and attempt to retain subscriptions with something for everyone. Rather than grow the market with further success, the last five years have seen titles based on the WoW formula cannibalize each other. The resulting drop in revenue has forced recent titles to downsize their staffs and ambitions at best, or close down at worst.
The golden age of the subscription MMO's in the early 2000's was a virtual frontier in which every title enjoyed its own private captive audience. Each title had something unique - soloing in WoW, RVR in DAOC, playing music in SWG cantinas, space piracy in EVE - that you could not get elsewhere, and even if you could find an adequate substitute you probably couldn't talk all of your friends into coming along for a change of game. Thus, each title could count on its reliable subscription revenue to invest into further development of the game.
We have this belief that choice and competition are good, and that the alternative is the parody video about the proposed Comcast merger. The downside to an era with more choice is that the LACK of choice is what made the subscription model viable in MMO's and the subscription was what made the development of those MMO's financially possible. In an era where your new title is competing with half a dozen games with similar budgets that have also had the benefit of years of polish and added content, new titles are getting cut off before they can get off the ground, as people choose to leave.
Modern MOBA's aren't identical to subscription MMO's - in particular, the business model is much more suited to non-subscription payments than retrofitted monthly fee MMO's ever will manage. League of Legends probably has the critical mass after five years to continue. I'm just wondering if we're going to be looking at a bunch of failed MOBA's in a few years.
Labels:
Baseless Speculation,
Business Models,
League of Legends,
Star Wars,
WoW
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Demand for Instant WoW-90's
Blizzard says that their instant level 90 service was not priced to maximize profit by selling the maximum number of character upgrades. These economic arguments feel like an oversimplification of what's going on here.
Context
First, some numbers and context. World of Warcraft's instant level 90 (the current level cap, soon to be the entry level for the next expansion) service was obviously going to be available for direct purchase, and this week we learned that the price tag would be $60. This is not quite the maximum possible price they could have charged - that would have been $75-95 - but it's pretty close.
($10 for a new copy of WoW to register to your existing Battle.net account, $40 for the new expansion and the instant level 90, $25 to transfer that new character over within your Battle.net account so you can cancel the new subscription. I'm not sure if you will need to purchase Pandaria before you can buy Warlords for the level 90, thus the possible extra $20.)
Why are we playing again?
Blizzard's comment has two interesting pieces. First, they assert that they are protecting the value of having leveled the old fashioned way, claiming that no one would level anymore if the service cost only a nominal fee (such as $10). This seems like an overly economic look at time spent playing a video game. Economics would argue that you have to be very poor before it makes sense to grind for 60-100 hours to save $10, in the process probably paying at least one $15 subscription fee.
The problem with this argument is that obtaining the end reward - a max level character - is not the only reason for playing the game. Many people who choose to level a new character will do so because playing that character is fun. When EQ2 offered a similar service COMPLETELY FREE as an introductory promotion, I went back and forth on whether to use the thing at all, and ultimately clicked the upgrade button on a crafting alt that I don't think I've even logged into since. There's no point in paying to get out of leveling the character - I just won't play it at all.
So who will pay?
Charging the folks who need the service
These services exist and make sense because that leveling game - generally a solo experience for a variety of reasons I discussed when talking about the EQ2 service - is not for everyone. If the reason you want a new character is to play that character in a group with your friends, the experience of playing the game is no longer part of your entertainment. There may be some people who come back and don't want to see any of the old content for any reason (they will get one level 90 with the expansion box), but the primary reason to need an instant level 90 is to remove this entry barrier.
Which brings us back to Blizzard's statement that the service is not set at the price that will maximize profit by selling the most upgrades. $60 is high enough to discourage impulse purchases and might discourage players from bumping up multiple alts (bearing in mind that basically all active WoW players will pay for one of these upgrades with the expansion box). My question is whether the decreased number of sales will be largely offset by the higher sale price. People who have invested hundreds of hours in raiding and plan to continue to do so are going to purchase the upgrades whether they cost $10 or $60. Maximizing the revenue from these folks may end up outweighing the lost revenue from impulse purchasers.
Blizzard may have other reasons for wanting to discourage these upgrades - they make it easy to shed an unpopular identity, and they might hurt long-term retention by removing players' reason to play the game. I'm just not so convinced that their stated pricing economics is the true story behind this decision.
Context
First, some numbers and context. World of Warcraft's instant level 90 (the current level cap, soon to be the entry level for the next expansion) service was obviously going to be available for direct purchase, and this week we learned that the price tag would be $60. This is not quite the maximum possible price they could have charged - that would have been $75-95 - but it's pretty close.
($10 for a new copy of WoW to register to your existing Battle.net account, $40 for the new expansion and the instant level 90, $25 to transfer that new character over within your Battle.net account so you can cancel the new subscription. I'm not sure if you will need to purchase Pandaria before you can buy Warlords for the level 90, thus the possible extra $20.)
Why are we playing again?
Blizzard's comment has two interesting pieces. First, they assert that they are protecting the value of having leveled the old fashioned way, claiming that no one would level anymore if the service cost only a nominal fee (such as $10). This seems like an overly economic look at time spent playing a video game. Economics would argue that you have to be very poor before it makes sense to grind for 60-100 hours to save $10, in the process probably paying at least one $15 subscription fee.
The problem with this argument is that obtaining the end reward - a max level character - is not the only reason for playing the game. Many people who choose to level a new character will do so because playing that character is fun. When EQ2 offered a similar service COMPLETELY FREE as an introductory promotion, I went back and forth on whether to use the thing at all, and ultimately clicked the upgrade button on a crafting alt that I don't think I've even logged into since. There's no point in paying to get out of leveling the character - I just won't play it at all.
So who will pay?
Charging the folks who need the service
These services exist and make sense because that leveling game - generally a solo experience for a variety of reasons I discussed when talking about the EQ2 service - is not for everyone. If the reason you want a new character is to play that character in a group with your friends, the experience of playing the game is no longer part of your entertainment. There may be some people who come back and don't want to see any of the old content for any reason (they will get one level 90 with the expansion box), but the primary reason to need an instant level 90 is to remove this entry barrier.
Which brings us back to Blizzard's statement that the service is not set at the price that will maximize profit by selling the most upgrades. $60 is high enough to discourage impulse purchases and might discourage players from bumping up multiple alts (bearing in mind that basically all active WoW players will pay for one of these upgrades with the expansion box). My question is whether the decreased number of sales will be largely offset by the higher sale price. People who have invested hundreds of hours in raiding and plan to continue to do so are going to purchase the upgrades whether they cost $10 or $60. Maximizing the revenue from these folks may end up outweighing the lost revenue from impulse purchasers.
Blizzard may have other reasons for wanting to discourage these upgrades - they make it easy to shed an unpopular identity, and they might hurt long-term retention by removing players' reason to play the game. I'm just not so convinced that their stated pricing economics is the true story behind this decision.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
New Year's Curiosities for 2014
I went back and forth on whether to bother with New Year's resolutions and predictions this year. I play a bunch of different games, and I'm not going to change what game I'm playing just to comply with a post from late December - thus I usually end up with a handful of very specific goals that I know I will get done in the next few months and a bunch of vague/qualitative hand-waving for the remainder of the year. Likewise, it's hard to predict much of anything with any accuracy in MMO's since we don't really have the data we'd need to do so.
Instead, this year, here are some things that I'm curious about.
Will Marvel Heroes Pay Off?
I made a late-year-decision to pre-purchase $130-worth of upcoming characters for this game. So far, so good, but the year is young. My shortest-term goal is to get Cyclops to level 60 to start the synergy exp gravy train rolling. My mid-range goal is to have at least 10 characters to level 25 for the first tier stat synergy bonuses (currently 2 for Cyclops and Deadpool), and the long-term is to have at least 10 characters to level 50 for the upper tier stat bonuses (currently just Cyclops). If at least five of the Advance Pack characters make this roster then it's pretty safe to say that the purchase paid off for me.
Will TESO/Wildstar/EQ Next/Camelot Unchained customers revolt?
TESO and Wildstar have announced second quarter release dates, presumably with non-refundable pre-NDA-drop pre-purchase offers to follow. Western console players have not historically tolerated subscription business models, so it's hard to see how TESO does not have a business model re-launch this year. Wildstar at least has the sci-fi sub-genre going for it, but is it far enough outside the box to beat the non-subscription trend that has now claimed every AAA MMO since World of Warcraft? Or, will both products (intentionally or otherwise) charge early adopters $60 for their game box and upwards of $100 for pre-paid 6-12 month subscriptions, only to go F2P within the first year?
Meanwhile, SOE is hard at work pre-selling alpha access to Everquest Next Landmark - which sounds like an odd cross between the real Everquest Next and a paid public test server for EQN player studio content. Camelot Unchained won't launch this year, but paid alpha testing for potentially thousands of Kickstarter backers (mostly in the $200+ range, plus a smaller number who get earlier internal testing access) is supposed to begin this fall.
Thus, by the end of the year, there are scenarios where large numbers of players are dissatisfied with their pre-purchases. Will customers actually change their behavior in the future? Are we as a demographic just willing to accept this as the cost of being present for the launch of each online game? Are these games even catering to the traditional MMO demographic found on forums and blogs, or are they attempting/succeeding in broadening the market somehow?
Will a major title's F2P re-launch go under in 2014?
I strongly debated making this heading title "LOTRO" due to uncertainty about its license option years, my longstanding questions about whether revenue from Turbine's version of "free to play" is inherently front-loaded, and the curious decision NOT to develop an expansion pack for 2014. In fairness, longterm subscribers are correctly noting that with required annual expansions and diminishing restrictions on non-subscribers, it can feel like they're paying more for no good reason.
Bottom line here is that the closing of City of Heroes can be written off as the wrath of NCSoft, but another high profile F2P relaunch going down could have an effect on customer confidence. If not LOTRO, then perhaps Aion, Tera, or one of the Funcom titles? Or perhaps it just isn't possible to affect gamers' consumer confidence - see above discussion.
Any Late Year Surprises?
In 2013, the big expectations were for end-of-year TESO and Wildstar news, leaving the beginning of the year pretty quiet and the end of year similarly quiet once both titles punted to 2014. All these moves mean a relatively crowded schedule for the 2nd-3rd quarters (TESO, Wildstar, EQN:L, WoW's Warlords expansion)... and what precisely for the back end of the year? Syp's annual list notwithstanding, I don't see a ton of waves here. I know better than to suggest a Titan reveal will happen this year, but this could be a good platform for someone with something up their sleeves - SOE? Turbine? - to make some waves.
What are you curious about in 2014?
Instead, this year, here are some things that I'm curious about.
Will Marvel Heroes Pay Off?
I made a late-year-decision to pre-purchase $130-worth of upcoming characters for this game. So far, so good, but the year is young. My shortest-term goal is to get Cyclops to level 60 to start the synergy exp gravy train rolling. My mid-range goal is to have at least 10 characters to level 25 for the first tier stat synergy bonuses (currently 2 for Cyclops and Deadpool), and the long-term is to have at least 10 characters to level 50 for the upper tier stat bonuses (currently just Cyclops). If at least five of the Advance Pack characters make this roster then it's pretty safe to say that the purchase paid off for me.
Will TESO/Wildstar/EQ Next/Camelot Unchained customers revolt?
TESO and Wildstar have announced second quarter release dates, presumably with non-refundable pre-NDA-drop pre-purchase offers to follow. Western console players have not historically tolerated subscription business models, so it's hard to see how TESO does not have a business model re-launch this year. Wildstar at least has the sci-fi sub-genre going for it, but is it far enough outside the box to beat the non-subscription trend that has now claimed every AAA MMO since World of Warcraft? Or, will both products (intentionally or otherwise) charge early adopters $60 for their game box and upwards of $100 for pre-paid 6-12 month subscriptions, only to go F2P within the first year?
Meanwhile, SOE is hard at work pre-selling alpha access to Everquest Next Landmark - which sounds like an odd cross between the real Everquest Next and a paid public test server for EQN player studio content. Camelot Unchained won't launch this year, but paid alpha testing for potentially thousands of Kickstarter backers (mostly in the $200+ range, plus a smaller number who get earlier internal testing access) is supposed to begin this fall.
Thus, by the end of the year, there are scenarios where large numbers of players are dissatisfied with their pre-purchases. Will customers actually change their behavior in the future? Are we as a demographic just willing to accept this as the cost of being present for the launch of each online game? Are these games even catering to the traditional MMO demographic found on forums and blogs, or are they attempting/succeeding in broadening the market somehow?
Will a major title's F2P re-launch go under in 2014?
I strongly debated making this heading title "LOTRO" due to uncertainty about its license option years, my longstanding questions about whether revenue from Turbine's version of "free to play" is inherently front-loaded, and the curious decision NOT to develop an expansion pack for 2014. In fairness, longterm subscribers are correctly noting that with required annual expansions and diminishing restrictions on non-subscribers, it can feel like they're paying more for no good reason.
Bottom line here is that the closing of City of Heroes can be written off as the wrath of NCSoft, but another high profile F2P relaunch going down could have an effect on customer confidence. If not LOTRO, then perhaps Aion, Tera, or one of the Funcom titles? Or perhaps it just isn't possible to affect gamers' consumer confidence - see above discussion.
Any Late Year Surprises?
In 2013, the big expectations were for end-of-year TESO and Wildstar news, leaving the beginning of the year pretty quiet and the end of year similarly quiet once both titles punted to 2014. All these moves mean a relatively crowded schedule for the 2nd-3rd quarters (TESO, Wildstar, EQN:L, WoW's Warlords expansion)... and what precisely for the back end of the year? Syp's annual list notwithstanding, I don't see a ton of waves here. I know better than to suggest a Titan reveal will happen this year, but this could be a good platform for someone with something up their sleeves - SOE? Turbine? - to make some waves.
What are you curious about in 2014?
Labels:
aion,
Business Models,
COH,
LOTRO,
Marvel Heroes,
WoW
Friday, December 20, 2013
Online Gaming Expenditures 2013
I've been tracking my MMO expenditures for a few years, and the top line makes this year look similar to last year - last year I spent $275 on MMO's and another $60 on Diablo III and this year I spent roughly $321 for online products including MMO's, MOBA's, TCG's, and ARPG's. That said, the way in which I spent that money was a bit different.
The latter definitely increased my bottom line spending, and some of the purchases are going down in the books as disappointments. Then again, sometimes a comparatively small purchase made life significantly more fun. As I have less and less time to spend on games, I'm guessing this trend will continue.
Subscription MMO's
I had a subscription to a traditional MMO for most of the year. These games were typically, though not always, the go-to place I would go when I had time for an extended play session.
World of Warcraft - $65 (Pandaria, 60 days timecard, 2x 30 days)
I did very well snagging discounts from retail stores. This "should" have cost me $100.
FFXIV - $70 (PC + PS3 boxes)
The PC box cost $30 for the license plus a month of game time. The PS3 box cost $40 for a second month of game time (the two stack) plus the license for the Playstation Network (reportedly to include the PS4 version, when it arrives next year). I guess I should have taken the time to try the PS3 version in beta - playing on the PS3 was a cool novelty, but I had problems with targeting and would need to purchase a keyboard and mouse to make this work.
SWTOR - $51 (two 60 day timecards at various discounts from retailers, $10 expansion)
Again, discounted time cards for the win here, "should" have paid $70.
The Newcomers
In general, these are titles I play as a go-to for shorter play sessions.
Marvel Heroes - $70 (starter pack, Cyclops, X-Force Bundle Black Friday Sale)
I hesitated until the very last minute on whether to pre-purchase a founder's pack, and I'm glad I pulled the trigger. I like this game way more than Diablo III because it features characters from Marvel's comics. It was worth the money to play the game with the character I most wanted to play rather than one of the less interesting starter characters. I decided to throw them another $50 on Black Friday for an additional bundle of characters and some convenience perks.
Note that I'm counting the $130 Advance pack purchase against next year's budget, as is my longstanding practice for long-term subscriptions and content unlocks that won't be used (or in this case won't be available) until the year after I decided to shell out for them. We'll see whether they've delivered all of the heroes by the time I publish next year's ledger, and how I feel about that purchase.
Hex - $20 (kickstarter)
Technically, this game isn't out yet, but I'm in the alpha as a backer, so I'm prepared to put this one on 2013's balance sheet. I have concerns about the business model and was not impressed by a very brief visit to the very early alpha. Even so, my assessment was that the time it's going to take to see whether or not I am going to like this game will be more fun starting with a minimal base of cards versus nothing.
Guild Wars 2 - $30
I picked this up when the price finally dipped down to my new $30 impulse buy threshold. I've logged in twice, so it could be argued this was a fail, but at least now I can play GW2 if I want to.
League of Legends - $15 (gift cards)
I had some Best Buy reward certificates to burn, so I turned them into the $5 starter Champion pack and a $10 RP code to finally try League. The purchases probably weren't necessary with my current playstyle - I'm currently enjoying trying whatever new champions are available each week. Then again, the cost was comparatively low, since it's often hard to find things at Best Buy that aren't $15 overpriced to begin with.
Played, not paid
TSW - I picked this up for $15 very late in 2012 and was still coasting on the month of included subscription time for most of January.
LOTRO and DDO - played a small amount of each using previously paid content, did not purchase either game's expansion (a first for LOTRO, despite a just-unveiled 50% off sale on their month-old expansion).
Hearthstone - Have not spent any money on the closed beta.
Not Played
Rift - Has an expansion that I got without paying courtesy of a promo and can now access freely due to the game's business model relaunch. I logged in once or twice to preserve my character names, but I never really played.
EQ2 - SOE went the entire year without discounting the expansion from the fall of 2012, and now there's another full priced expansion box on the digital shelf. The good news is that the new expansion purchase includes the one I skipped, and there aren't really any charges anymore for playing the content if/when I pay to unlock it, so maybe I will get around to this in 2014.
Grand Total
Total - $321
- I was subscribed to a MMO for most of the year, but these expenses were significantly reduced due to various discounts from retailers.
- I was generally much more willing to experiment with things that cost $20-30, rather than try to tough out the business model without paying for anything.
The latter definitely increased my bottom line spending, and some of the purchases are going down in the books as disappointments. Then again, sometimes a comparatively small purchase made life significantly more fun. As I have less and less time to spend on games, I'm guessing this trend will continue.
Subscription MMO's
I had a subscription to a traditional MMO for most of the year. These games were typically, though not always, the go-to place I would go when I had time for an extended play session.
World of Warcraft - $65 (Pandaria, 60 days timecard, 2x 30 days)
I did very well snagging discounts from retail stores. This "should" have cost me $100.
FFXIV - $70 (PC + PS3 boxes)
The PC box cost $30 for the license plus a month of game time. The PS3 box cost $40 for a second month of game time (the two stack) plus the license for the Playstation Network (reportedly to include the PS4 version, when it arrives next year). I guess I should have taken the time to try the PS3 version in beta - playing on the PS3 was a cool novelty, but I had problems with targeting and would need to purchase a keyboard and mouse to make this work.
SWTOR - $51 (two 60 day timecards at various discounts from retailers, $10 expansion)
Again, discounted time cards for the win here, "should" have paid $70.
The Newcomers
In general, these are titles I play as a go-to for shorter play sessions.
Marvel Heroes - $70 (starter pack, Cyclops, X-Force Bundle Black Friday Sale)
I hesitated until the very last minute on whether to pre-purchase a founder's pack, and I'm glad I pulled the trigger. I like this game way more than Diablo III because it features characters from Marvel's comics. It was worth the money to play the game with the character I most wanted to play rather than one of the less interesting starter characters. I decided to throw them another $50 on Black Friday for an additional bundle of characters and some convenience perks.
Note that I'm counting the $130 Advance pack purchase against next year's budget, as is my longstanding practice for long-term subscriptions and content unlocks that won't be used (or in this case won't be available) until the year after I decided to shell out for them. We'll see whether they've delivered all of the heroes by the time I publish next year's ledger, and how I feel about that purchase.
Hex - $20 (kickstarter)
Technically, this game isn't out yet, but I'm in the alpha as a backer, so I'm prepared to put this one on 2013's balance sheet. I have concerns about the business model and was not impressed by a very brief visit to the very early alpha. Even so, my assessment was that the time it's going to take to see whether or not I am going to like this game will be more fun starting with a minimal base of cards versus nothing.
Guild Wars 2 - $30
I picked this up when the price finally dipped down to my new $30 impulse buy threshold. I've logged in twice, so it could be argued this was a fail, but at least now I can play GW2 if I want to.
League of Legends - $15 (gift cards)
I had some Best Buy reward certificates to burn, so I turned them into the $5 starter Champion pack and a $10 RP code to finally try League. The purchases probably weren't necessary with my current playstyle - I'm currently enjoying trying whatever new champions are available each week. Then again, the cost was comparatively low, since it's often hard to find things at Best Buy that aren't $15 overpriced to begin with.
Played, not paid
TSW - I picked this up for $15 very late in 2012 and was still coasting on the month of included subscription time for most of January.
LOTRO and DDO - played a small amount of each using previously paid content, did not purchase either game's expansion (a first for LOTRO, despite a just-unveiled 50% off sale on their month-old expansion).
Hearthstone - Have not spent any money on the closed beta.
Not Played
Rift - Has an expansion that I got without paying courtesy of a promo and can now access freely due to the game's business model relaunch. I logged in once or twice to preserve my character names, but I never really played.
EQ2 - SOE went the entire year without discounting the expansion from the fall of 2012, and now there's another full priced expansion box on the digital shelf. The good news is that the new expansion purchase includes the one I skipped, and there aren't really any charges anymore for playing the content if/when I pay to unlock it, so maybe I will get around to this in 2014.
Grand Total
Total - $321
Labels:
Business Models,
ddo,
diablo,
eq2,
FF Online,
Guild Wars,
Hearthstone,
League of Legends,
LOTRO,
Marvel Heroes,
Rift,
Star Wars,
TSW,
WoW
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Is this MMO Burnout?
December has returned, bringing us to that introspective window for the end of the year. I think the term MMO Burnout is generally over-used and over-dramatized. However, looking back at the year gone by, it looks like that may have crept up on me after all. A few arguments for and against:
Things I have NOT done
Which brings us to the exception that proves the rule - I have spent significant amounts of time subscribed to and actually playing World of Warcraft. I did technically hit the level cap, and farmed all of the gear out of the first 2-3 tiers of raid finder. I also skipped the majority of the questing content in the expansion - and incidentally didn't even try to level until my lack of having leveled caused problems for my pet collecting efforts. In many ways, Azeroth is actually a lobby that I use to access the pet battling minigame, the farming minigame, and sometimes even the daily quest or random dungeon minigame. I'm arguably not using the game as an MMO.
Is this the new face of MMO burnout? Or am I just in a rut waiting for the hypothetical next big thing?
Things I have NOT done
- LOTRO: This was the year I finally gave up on even the token effort to maintain the level cap and epic story.
- FFXIV: This is arguably the best pure MMO to (re-)launch in the last two years, there's nothing I would change about the game... and it hasn't made it to the top of my playlist, causing me to stall out midway through the level curve.
- GW2: Bought, barely played
- TSW: Bought at the tail end of 2012, played a bit in early 2013 until the included VIP-time ran out
- Rift, EQ2, DDO: New expansions, haven't done either
- SWTOR: Significant amounts of time subscribed here, including clearing the expansion on my main Trooper, finishing the class story for an Agent, and getting most of the way through a Sith Warrior. That said, I'm playing this game primarily for the single player-like story experience. I'd consider paying real money to trade the entire game in for an interactive movie where my character wins all the fights automatically and moves on to the next story scene, as I might actually like that product better.
- Marvel Heroes: Pure action RPG here, I've spent more time helping to sleuth out the hero release schedule on this game's forums than I've spent on several of the above games.
- League of Legends: Instant action MOBA
- Hearthstone: Instant action card game
Which brings us to the exception that proves the rule - I have spent significant amounts of time subscribed to and actually playing World of Warcraft. I did technically hit the level cap, and farmed all of the gear out of the first 2-3 tiers of raid finder. I also skipped the majority of the questing content in the expansion - and incidentally didn't even try to level until my lack of having leveled caused problems for my pet collecting efforts. In many ways, Azeroth is actually a lobby that I use to access the pet battling minigame, the farming minigame, and sometimes even the daily quest or random dungeon minigame. I'm arguably not using the game as an MMO.
Is this the new face of MMO burnout? Or am I just in a rut waiting for the hypothetical next big thing?
Labels:
achievements,
ddo,
eq2,
FF Online,
Guild Wars,
Hearthstone,
League of Legends,
LOTRO,
Marvel Heroes,
Star Wars,
WoW
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
MMO Black Friday 2013
Another year, another round of sales - or not - in honor of the day after American Thanksgiving. The things that are already announced are below, other observations are welcome.
What I personally bought:
Probably no surprise to folks who have been reading of late, but Marvel Heroes is my current surprise game of choice. I've been waiting on this sale to decide what to buy, and I decided to splurge here. I spent $50 for the G's to unlock:
There's a good chance that I "overpaid" by paying for stuff that I ultimately won't use, but my total investment in this game is now up to $70 - just over what I paid for Diablo III, and I've gotten far more mileage out of this game than DIII. Also, this way I've got my previous G balance and a growing stash of Eternity Splinters to spend on future releases. I wouldn't say that a new player should expect to need to spend this much, but for me personally it's been worth it thus far.
- World of Warcraft: Base game (up to Cataclysm) for $5, Pandaria for $10, direct download from Blizzard; a total of $15 to get into the game, i.e. a single month's subscription. I'm predicting now that the new expansion next year will be the first to go ahead and bundle in all the old content - with the new expansion featuring "one free level 90 character" to attract new and returning players, it isn't going to make sense to insist that players pay for a Pandaria box that they're never going to set foot in.
- Turbine Games: Standard "double bonus point" Turbine Point sale bundles are in effect in both LOTRO and DDO. DDO's new expansion from last summer is 50% off, and all of its multiple tiers of upsells are also 50% off. LOTRO's new expansion from last week is NOT included. They've slashed the price as early as 5-6 weeks after the fact in the past, but apparently last week was a bridge too far. They are bundling all of the previous expansions in one package for $20.
- Guild Wars 2 is on sale for $30 again, which they are promoting as their "lowest price ever" even though it's the same price I paid a month ago. I guess it's technically accurate that they haven't offered a lower price?
- Marvel Heroes is offering 25% off of almost everything in their cash store, other than two heroes who were released this month. Storage stash tabs for general and crafting purposes are NOT included in the sale, and character specific storage tabs are only discounted indirectly if you purchase a bundle containing that character. The main catch here is that, as with most cash shops, you may have a hard time purchasing exactly the right amount of currency to pick up the stuff you wanted. There's also an in-game bonus of 50% exp, rare item find, and special item find for the weekend.
- SWTOR is not doing any direct sales that they've announced yet, but they are running double exp through Sunday.
UPDATES
- SOE Station Cash is 30% off… seems underwhelming since they often offer double SC, and since SC can't be used to purchase content anymore.
- FFXIV is 50% off from Square's website. If you own a PS3/PS4, this is a great way to pick up a console key, as it's only $20 and includes 1 month of game time (i.e. $5 for the right to play on both consoles).
What I personally bought:
Probably no surprise to folks who have been reading of late, but Marvel Heroes is my current surprise game of choice. I've been waiting on this sale to decide what to buy, and I decided to splurge here. I spent $50 for the G's to unlock:
- The X-Force bundle (Cable, Colossus, Deadpool, and Wolverine, with two extra costumes each, stash tabs for all four heroes, and some misc consumables), on sale for 4,500 G's, normally 6,000 G's. (Can be purchased on the website for exactly $45, or you can buy 5500 G's for $50, which is what I did - an extra 1000 G's for $5 is a much better exchange rate than you'll get any other time.)
- A holographic crafter, summons an NPC who gives you access to your stash for storing the stuff you want to keep, and accepts donations (for crafting exp) of the junk you don't want to keep. In my view a much more versatile purchase than the similar portable stash token, works in Castle Doom (where you can't teleport out to sell your stuff), and highly recommended for all players. On sale for 700 G's.
- A crafting stash tab, NOT on sale, for 300 G's. One crafting tab is nigh must-have for all players with as many as 40 slots worth of basic crafting materials - you can expand or compress that number but this is time-consuming, and you'll be hurting for the space if and when you go beyond a single character. I don't begrudge the maybe 75 cents for buying it not on sale, though I might regret that stance if I come up precisely 75G's short of being able to buy something in the future, oh well.
There's a good chance that I "overpaid" by paying for stuff that I ultimately won't use, but my total investment in this game is now up to $70 - just over what I paid for Diablo III, and I've gotten far more mileage out of this game than DIII. Also, this way I've got my previous G balance and a growing stash of Eternity Splinters to spend on future releases. I wouldn't say that a new player should expect to need to spend this much, but for me personally it's been worth it thus far.
Labels:
Business Models,
ddo,
Guild Wars,
LOTRO,
Marvel Heroes,
Star Wars,
WoW
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Cosmetic Audience - For Yourself Or Others?
" Once a game is clearly massive, like Hearthstone or LOL it's worth paying to differentiate yourself from every random player because a lot of people will be audience for your flashy cosmetic outfit."
- Stabs, commenting on my post
Stabs' comment assumes that displaying cosmetics to other players is a primary motivator for purchasing cosmetic items in a cash store. I'm sure some people care about this sort of thing, but I guess for me it is a matter of how you define audience.
I own Cyclops' 90's costume, after deciding to pre-order his founder's pack at the very last minute pre-launch. If there had been even a small discount available for displaying the mediocre default costume to the audience of complete strangers who see me passing by in Stark Tower, I would have taken it. The audience that I cared about in making a purchase to snag this costume is precisely one person large - myself. Playing existing characters from the Marvel universe is a key selling point of this game, and I strongly associate this particular character with the costume he wore during the era when I was actually reading the comics and watching the cartoons. I see my character on the screen far often than any stranger I run into in-game will, and it is worth having my character look the way I want him to look for my personal benefit.
Marvel Heroes is not an open world MMORPG, and thinking back I can remember just one time when I ever had anything in an MMO that actually drew significant attention/comment from other players. I had a horse for my gnome in World of Warcraft back in 2006, before riding skill or easy spill-over rep gain, and I did occasionally get compliments for having pulled it off. That said, I'd argue there are two key differences - first, earning the horse was an in-game achievement (which took a lot of time back in the day) rather than just a small cash fee, and second, WoW servers in that era had much more of a community feel of days gone past when someone might actually remember the gnome on the horse. For better or worse, those days aren't around anymore.
Today, if I do but a cosmetic item, it's going to be primarily for my own enjoyment. How do you all feel? Would you pay extra for the sole purpose of showing off to other players?
![]() |
| A rare sight back in the day (because it was hard to get a horse), and even rarer today (poor Marcus). |
Monday, November 11, 2013
What is Blizzard's Direction?
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery than WoW's newly announced expansion is a remarkable condemnation of what has come before. On paper, being willing to re-evaluate anything and everything is commendable. The problem is that smart people implemented the things that Blizzard spent the weekend backpedaling from, and they did these things for a reason
Blizzard's genre-defining MMO has always struggled to reconcile its two heritages - the social, progression-heavy virtual worlds MMO's like Everquest and the accessible online gameplay of Blizzard's own Diablo II. The trade-offs needed to allow these demographics to co-exist are no longer scaling well in an increasingly crowded marketplace, but I'm not yet convinced that willingness to change alone will prompt a longer-lasting solution.
Three major focuses from the last five years of WoW that are now out of favor:
The coalition of the smaller but more stable demographic of social MMORPG players and the siginificantly larger but less committed masses of more independent online game players held in WoW's prime from 2005-2007. Today, Blizzard faces much more competition for the online instant action crowd (both from other MMORPG's, and from action-RPG's and MOBA's that cut out the persistent world for even faster access). At the same time, when you have 90-100 levels and over a dozen tiers of raid content it becomes harder and harder to retain critical mass amongst the progression MMORPG players.
Personally, while I expect to return to WoW frequently, I suspect I will spend more total hours in Hearthstone and the Blizzard MOBA Heroes of the Storm (which was by some accounts the surprise hit of the show). Moreover, when I do visit WoW, I expect to continue to focus on more accessible minigames like pet battles and the new and bigger version of the Pandaren Farm in garrisons. (Aside: The Garrisons are being widely called "player housing", but Blizzard also stated that they don't want to make systems - such as the farm - from previous expansions mandatory. Wonder how they're going to deal with this in three years.)
I suggest it's no accident that Blizzard is focusing on these areas. It would be really interesting to know whether the version of Titan that got killed this year was guilty of the offense of being an MMORPG in an era in which that's no longer where the money is.
Blizzard's genre-defining MMO has always struggled to reconcile its two heritages - the social, progression-heavy virtual worlds MMO's like Everquest and the accessible online gameplay of Blizzard's own Diablo II. The trade-offs needed to allow these demographics to co-exist are no longer scaling well in an increasingly crowded marketplace, but I'm not yet convinced that willingness to change alone will prompt a longer-lasting solution.
Three major focuses from the last five years of WoW that are now out of favor:
- Blizzard is touting that Warlords will feature few if any daily quests at max level. Pandaria featured a heavy push on daily quests - Blizzard stated that a third of the quests in 5.0 were level 90 dailies so that players would be offered a variety of dailies in rotation. Also worth noting, Blizzard probably wasn't the first to stick a daily progress limit on repeatable quests back in Burning Crusade, but they certainly helped popularize the format.
- Cataclysm devoted a massive level of effort to replacing low level content, in the process removing more content from WoW than most MMO's ever produce. In revisiting Draenor, Blizzard is making the entirety of level 1-90 optional instead of repeating the probably futile effort to update the content. They are also preserving the current incarnation of Outland (possibly through the Caverns of Time, which I had thought might be a good idea back in 2011).
- Wrath introduced the dungeon finder and near single-handedly made it a mandatory feature for all MMO's to have an automated system that puts players in a group that will defeat the content quickly and painlessly. Blizzard is now saying that they want random groups feel like your last resort. This would be a much bigger deal except that I doubt they will follow through.
- (Two other reversals that aren't as relevant to my theme: Re-forging items? Gone, along with some of the stats that made this system necessary (especially hit rating, which was hard-capped for casters. Also, as Nils notes, the entirety of Pandaria will be optional, though seeing Pandas in Draenor presumably will not.)
The coalition of the smaller but more stable demographic of social MMORPG players and the siginificantly larger but less committed masses of more independent online game players held in WoW's prime from 2005-2007. Today, Blizzard faces much more competition for the online instant action crowd (both from other MMORPG's, and from action-RPG's and MOBA's that cut out the persistent world for even faster access). At the same time, when you have 90-100 levels and over a dozen tiers of raid content it becomes harder and harder to retain critical mass amongst the progression MMORPG players.
Personally, while I expect to return to WoW frequently, I suspect I will spend more total hours in Hearthstone and the Blizzard MOBA Heroes of the Storm (which was by some accounts the surprise hit of the show). Moreover, when I do visit WoW, I expect to continue to focus on more accessible minigames like pet battles and the new and bigger version of the Pandaren Farm in garrisons. (Aside: The Garrisons are being widely called "player housing", but Blizzard also stated that they don't want to make systems - such as the farm - from previous expansions mandatory. Wonder how they're going to deal with this in three years.)
I suggest it's no accident that Blizzard is focusing on these areas. It would be really interesting to know whether the version of Titan that got killed this year was guilty of the offense of being an MMORPG in an era in which that's no longer where the money is.
Labels:
Baseless Speculation,
Business Models,
Hearthstone,
PVD,
WoW
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Incorrect Blizzcon Predictions for 2013
It's been so long since a Blizzcon that I've forgotten how I used to post my comically incorrect predictions before the show to see how badly they would turn out. Coming in late means there are some gaps that have already been filled, but there's plenty of room for me to write stuff that we'll be mocking in a few weeks!
WoW
The expansion is already announced, will be playable (I think they've confirmed this?), and presumably going to be a big push of the show. Ditto the console ports. If there is any major Diablo news, it will be some sort of new cash shop or other form of ongoing revenue to replace the soon-to-be-closed real money auction house.
Starcraft II
I haven't heard anything about the second expansion (a.k.a. third game in the trilogy, to justify a $60 price tag for a new game rather than a $40 price tag for an expansion). I assume Blizzard will remedy this.
Heroes of the Storm
Blizzard re-titled their upcoming all-stars MOBA, suggesting that it is moving along. There will probably be an early build playable. I doubt this will be launchable anytime before mid 2014.
Hearthstone
Probably the closest launch window of Blizzard's projects, so I expect a fair amount of chatter, but probably not a lot of real news with the beta already well underway. I predict that all attendees will be given closed beta invites.
Titan
Nothing to see here (back in January, I'd predicted this would finally be the year).
Cross-promotion
Say what you will about WoW's decline, but Blizzard actually has four separate projects that are in the plausibly live and charging money for something new in the next year (NOT counting SC2, but their expansion is recent by Blizzard standards). They're pushing a new integrated launcher for all their games through the Hearthstone beta, using one Battle.net friends list across their entire platform, and handing out cross-title goodies in their Collector's Editions.
I predict they are going to go a step significantly further, to SOE's model with a single in-house currency shared across all the titles (probably re-branding Battle.net Balance and no longer expressing it in real world dollar amounts), and increased incentives to try multiple games.
At a minimum, I expect the WoW subscription will include a nominal amount free gold in Hearthstone and possibly free gold or other cash store currency for DIII (if I'm right about expanding that game's cash shop) and Heroes of the Storm - WoW's own longstanding pet and mount shop may move onto this new model. (Not innovative, SOE has done this for years, even before they were champions of non-subscription models.) I don't expect to see a higher premium plan along the lines of SOE's All-Access plan because it's not clear what they would offer players of the non-subscription titles other than more Blizzard Bucks.
What do you all think is coming in just over two weeks? Are you likely to care?
WoW
- New expansion is all-but confirmed and I'd say level 95 is a given - no reason they'd suddenly go back to 10 levels now, but I doubt they'd do fewer than 5.
- I suspect the foe will be the Burning Legion. For one reason or another there seems to be a ton of nostalgia for TBC and we're running out of things that are on Azeroth that anyone has heard of but that we haven't fought before. I'm suspicious that the end of the Garrosh raid leaves a loose end that the Burning Legion would be happy to tie up.
- I'm going to go out on a limb and predict no new adventuring classes or races. We had three races in the last two expansions, and Blizzard had historically said this was a huge load on the art people. Meanwhile, with holy trinity imbalance being what it is, they cannot add any more classes that are unable to tank or heal, and at some point there are going to be unsustainable balance issues if they have to keep juggling more tanking and healing specs every expansion.
- Instead, I'm going to predict a continuing focus on minigames and other things that offer progression but NOT direct adventuring advancement. The Farmville minigame and Pet Battles have been two of Pandaria's best-regarded features. A significant overhaul to professions, possibly including one or more new ones and profession-based content would make a ton of sense.
- Blizzard will NOT announce the game is going Free to Play. The Blizzcon crowd is the demographic who signs up for the annual pass subscription, not the crowd that wants to pay less. Even if WoW was going non-subscription, the news would NOT play well to this audience.
- I don't expect to see any faster than Blizzard's normal 20-month time table, placing the expansion in summer 2014. If they were to stand up for the keynote and say "oh by the way, beta starts on Monday and you're all in", that would certainly be the show-stealing headline, but Blizzcon has not been that good at show-stealing headlines.
The expansion is already announced, will be playable (I think they've confirmed this?), and presumably going to be a big push of the show. Ditto the console ports. If there is any major Diablo news, it will be some sort of new cash shop or other form of ongoing revenue to replace the soon-to-be-closed real money auction house.
Starcraft II
I haven't heard anything about the second expansion (a.k.a. third game in the trilogy, to justify a $60 price tag for a new game rather than a $40 price tag for an expansion). I assume Blizzard will remedy this.
Heroes of the Storm
Blizzard re-titled their upcoming all-stars MOBA, suggesting that it is moving along. There will probably be an early build playable. I doubt this will be launchable anytime before mid 2014.
Hearthstone
Probably the closest launch window of Blizzard's projects, so I expect a fair amount of chatter, but probably not a lot of real news with the beta already well underway. I predict that all attendees will be given closed beta invites.
Titan
Nothing to see here (back in January, I'd predicted this would finally be the year).
Cross-promotion
Say what you will about WoW's decline, but Blizzard actually has four separate projects that are in the plausibly live and charging money for something new in the next year (NOT counting SC2, but their expansion is recent by Blizzard standards). They're pushing a new integrated launcher for all their games through the Hearthstone beta, using one Battle.net friends list across their entire platform, and handing out cross-title goodies in their Collector's Editions.
I predict they are going to go a step significantly further, to SOE's model with a single in-house currency shared across all the titles (probably re-branding Battle.net Balance and no longer expressing it in real world dollar amounts), and increased incentives to try multiple games.
At a minimum, I expect the WoW subscription will include a nominal amount free gold in Hearthstone and possibly free gold or other cash store currency for DIII (if I'm right about expanding that game's cash shop) and Heroes of the Storm - WoW's own longstanding pet and mount shop may move onto this new model. (Not innovative, SOE has done this for years, even before they were champions of non-subscription models.) I don't expect to see a higher premium plan along the lines of SOE's All-Access plan because it's not clear what they would offer players of the non-subscription titles other than more Blizzard Bucks.
What do you all think is coming in just over two weeks? Are you likely to care?
Labels:
Baseless Speculation,
Blizzcon,
Business Models,
diablo,
Hearthstone,
WoW
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
The Paid Bypass For Levels
With one click of a button, my old Warden crafting alt in EQ2 gained 48 levels and presumably a variety of gear, perks, and AA's. I don't even know what I won because I have yet to log on to check. I made my decision to throw this free upgrade at a crafting alt based on why I do - and do not - play MMO's.
Indirectly passing on the free 85
Before pushing the win button, I used the "try before you buy" feature to test drive a level 85 Beast Lord. This expansion class would have been the most likely choice if I were rolling a new character to actually play the game with. Even on the partially locked down trial status - you start with limited AA's but a full set of high quality gear - I concluded that it was pointless for me to spend the free level 85 token on that character.
I was killing things so quickly that I could not get a good feel for the class. More importantly, I actually enjoy playing solo content in EQ2. If I ever do play a Beast Lord, playing it from level 1 would be the entire point. Since the free upgrade is a limited time offer (for the next week), there was no reason NOT to use it to grab some random perks for my highest level crafting alt to facilitate future crafting.
Now my 62 Tailor is suddenly a lot harder to kill for any mobs I encounter during crafting quests, and supposedly he has a free flying mount for his troubles. I wouldn't have paid the $35 SOE is asking for this service, as there is a non-zero chance that I will never actually benefit directly from having this character at level 85. Still, I don't have a problem taking the upgrade as a freebie.
The myth of the perfectly-balanced player
There are two real drivers for this feature.
First, the modern MMO model of vertical progression is completely failing people who play MMO's because they want to play with their friends. There is no way for games to maintain critical mass for group leveling in a game that's multiple years old using traditional MMO mechanics. Even in games where there is some sort of down-leveling or "level-free" system it is almost always somehow less rewarding for players to come help their newer brethren. Thus we have a situation where soloing to the level cap - 80 or more levels in MMO's that have been around for a while - is the frequently only option.
This would be fine if everyone who played MMO's actually liked all aspects of MMO's, but many people do not - for valid reasons - enjoy soloing. However, you can't just punt on allowing solo content unless you are willing to write off a significant chunk of the market (not a bad decision in principle, and I tip my cap to the games with the guts to go this way). And thus the developer's dilemma. No matter how many times you nerf the content, the player who does not want to be there soloing is still going to see it as a speed bump between them and the group content they want to be doing with their friends. Meanwhile, you will ruin the content for players like myself who actually want to play it long before you make the grind palatable.
While it was EQ2's producer who floated the idea of jumping players to max level back in early 2011, it was actually World of Warcraft who implemented it first, with a revised win-back program a year and a half ago. I supported the plan then and I still support it now. Developers are not going to change player preferences on whether or not leveling solo is a good thing. Killing levels outright for everyone (which Keen proposed a year ago) does fix the on-ramp problem but it does not provide an alternative solution to the design problems that levels exist to fix. Offering instant levels is the most expedient - and, with fees, mutually beneficial - solution that I've seen to date.
Indirectly passing on the free 85
Before pushing the win button, I used the "try before you buy" feature to test drive a level 85 Beast Lord. This expansion class would have been the most likely choice if I were rolling a new character to actually play the game with. Even on the partially locked down trial status - you start with limited AA's but a full set of high quality gear - I concluded that it was pointless for me to spend the free level 85 token on that character.
I was killing things so quickly that I could not get a good feel for the class. More importantly, I actually enjoy playing solo content in EQ2. If I ever do play a Beast Lord, playing it from level 1 would be the entire point. Since the free upgrade is a limited time offer (for the next week), there was no reason NOT to use it to grab some random perks for my highest level crafting alt to facilitate future crafting.
Now my 62 Tailor is suddenly a lot harder to kill for any mobs I encounter during crafting quests, and supposedly he has a free flying mount for his troubles. I wouldn't have paid the $35 SOE is asking for this service, as there is a non-zero chance that I will never actually benefit directly from having this character at level 85. Still, I don't have a problem taking the upgrade as a freebie.
The myth of the perfectly-balanced player
There are two real drivers for this feature.
First, the modern MMO model of vertical progression is completely failing people who play MMO's because they want to play with their friends. There is no way for games to maintain critical mass for group leveling in a game that's multiple years old using traditional MMO mechanics. Even in games where there is some sort of down-leveling or "level-free" system it is almost always somehow less rewarding for players to come help their newer brethren. Thus we have a situation where soloing to the level cap - 80 or more levels in MMO's that have been around for a while - is the frequently only option.
This would be fine if everyone who played MMO's actually liked all aspects of MMO's, but many people do not - for valid reasons - enjoy soloing. However, you can't just punt on allowing solo content unless you are willing to write off a significant chunk of the market (not a bad decision in principle, and I tip my cap to the games with the guts to go this way). And thus the developer's dilemma. No matter how many times you nerf the content, the player who does not want to be there soloing is still going to see it as a speed bump between them and the group content they want to be doing with their friends. Meanwhile, you will ruin the content for players like myself who actually want to play it long before you make the grind palatable.
While it was EQ2's producer who floated the idea of jumping players to max level back in early 2011, it was actually World of Warcraft who implemented it first, with a revised win-back program a year and a half ago. I supported the plan then and I still support it now. Developers are not going to change player preferences on whether or not leveling solo is a good thing. Killing levels outright for everyone (which Keen proposed a year ago) does fix the on-ramp problem but it does not provide an alternative solution to the design problems that levels exist to fix. Offering instant levels is the most expedient - and, with fees, mutually beneficial - solution that I've seen to date.
Labels:
Business Models,
eq2,
My Characters,
PVD,
WoW
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Wasted Content in WoW 5.4
World of Warcraft's patch 5.4 finally dropped this week, adding another gear reset to the game's progression. As a result, the unfortunate but efficient way to win Pandaria's endgame is to skip the overwhelming majority of the endgame content. It just seems like such a waste, and I continue to question whether having stats on gear is even worthwhile if it's going to waste this much content.
Raids gone by
By design, players can jump straight from heroic 5-man content into the new looking for raid content (with a very brief visit to Throne of Thunder - more on how this works in the next section). This is a good thing if your goal is to join your friends in the new content, either because you are returning to the game or rolling up a new alt. It's probably a good thing if all you want is to beat the Garrosh raid once on LFR mode to say that you've been there and looted that. If you were actually enjoying playing through multiple tiers of content and steadily acquiring new gear as you did so, however, this sort of spoils a fair chunk of content.
I have now run the Throne of Thunder LFR's once each (with an additional run through a partially completed final wing this week). That's four raid wings I could be doing weekly and getting real gear upgrades each time. At least I finished the five LFR wings from patch 5.0 before this new content arrived, because changes to gear vendors render that content pretty much entirely obsolete.
I can still go back and do the old content as it was designed - in fact, the expansion's Legendary questline sort of favors that approach (you can go straight to the Ogrimmar raid and do almost all of the steps there, but you will be grinding the same content for a very long time) - but knowing that I'm getting worse rewards for the same time investment feels like doing it wrong.
Appendix: Comparing 5.3 to 5.4
For context, an explanation of what changed and how it got us here:
Endgame PVE in WoW uses two currencies, which were not changed in the new patch. Justice points are obtained in relatively large amounts and there is no cap on how many you can earn as long as you're spending them before you get to the 4000 point cap in your currency wallet. Valor points are typically obtained in smaller amounts per reward, and there is a weekly cap in how many you can earn.
In patch 5.3, these currencies were of somewhat limited value. Your goals were to get to ilvl 460 to get into LFR and then slowly increase your ilvl up to 470 and then 480 for the higher tier content. The problem was that the justice point gear was low enough that it wasn't going to boost your average by very much, and you couldn't actually purchase any of the valor gear without first grinding reputation (primarily through solo daily quests). As a result, I basically skipped random 5-mans, and got to 460 primarily by doing the daily random scenario once per day and spending the rest of time working on miscellany (the farm, archeology, etc). Then I did the LFR's as intended.
Patch 5.4 removed the reputation requirements and downgraded almost all of the gear from the valor vendor to the justice vendor. As a result, ilvl 496 gear that previously required lengthy reputation and valor grinding to obtain is now quickly earned through unlimited random dungeons for easily obtained justice points. This obsoletes the five LFR wings from 5.0, as it takes longer to earn fewer, lower quality rewards that will still actively hurt your average for the newest content in patch 5.4.
Additionally, ilvl 522 rep rewards from the 5.2 raid now require only friendly reputation with that raid's faction. You'll get this in maybe 2 hours by running 3-4 wings of 5.2 LFR's. Once you have this rep, the return on your time in 5.2 content is questionable - you can earn valor points faster in other formats (including heroics) and those points get you ilvl 522 vendor rewards rather than scraping for a chance at ilvl 502 stuff in the 5.2 LFR's.
Raids gone by
By design, players can jump straight from heroic 5-man content into the new looking for raid content (with a very brief visit to Throne of Thunder - more on how this works in the next section). This is a good thing if your goal is to join your friends in the new content, either because you are returning to the game or rolling up a new alt. It's probably a good thing if all you want is to beat the Garrosh raid once on LFR mode to say that you've been there and looted that. If you were actually enjoying playing through multiple tiers of content and steadily acquiring new gear as you did so, however, this sort of spoils a fair chunk of content.
I have now run the Throne of Thunder LFR's once each (with an additional run through a partially completed final wing this week). That's four raid wings I could be doing weekly and getting real gear upgrades each time. At least I finished the five LFR wings from patch 5.0 before this new content arrived, because changes to gear vendors render that content pretty much entirely obsolete.
I can still go back and do the old content as it was designed - in fact, the expansion's Legendary questline sort of favors that approach (you can go straight to the Ogrimmar raid and do almost all of the steps there, but you will be grinding the same content for a very long time) - but knowing that I'm getting worse rewards for the same time investment feels like doing it wrong.
Appendix: Comparing 5.3 to 5.4
For context, an explanation of what changed and how it got us here:
Endgame PVE in WoW uses two currencies, which were not changed in the new patch. Justice points are obtained in relatively large amounts and there is no cap on how many you can earn as long as you're spending them before you get to the 4000 point cap in your currency wallet. Valor points are typically obtained in smaller amounts per reward, and there is a weekly cap in how many you can earn.
In patch 5.3, these currencies were of somewhat limited value. Your goals were to get to ilvl 460 to get into LFR and then slowly increase your ilvl up to 470 and then 480 for the higher tier content. The problem was that the justice point gear was low enough that it wasn't going to boost your average by very much, and you couldn't actually purchase any of the valor gear without first grinding reputation (primarily through solo daily quests). As a result, I basically skipped random 5-mans, and got to 460 primarily by doing the daily random scenario once per day and spending the rest of time working on miscellany (the farm, archeology, etc). Then I did the LFR's as intended.
Patch 5.4 removed the reputation requirements and downgraded almost all of the gear from the valor vendor to the justice vendor. As a result, ilvl 496 gear that previously required lengthy reputation and valor grinding to obtain is now quickly earned through unlimited random dungeons for easily obtained justice points. This obsoletes the five LFR wings from 5.0, as it takes longer to earn fewer, lower quality rewards that will still actively hurt your average for the newest content in patch 5.4.
Additionally, ilvl 522 rep rewards from the 5.2 raid now require only friendly reputation with that raid's faction. You'll get this in maybe 2 hours by running 3-4 wings of 5.2 LFR's. Once you have this rep, the return on your time in 5.2 content is questionable - you can earn valor points faster in other formats (including heroics) and those points get you ilvl 522 vendor rewards rather than scraping for a chance at ilvl 502 stuff in the 5.2 LFR's.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Cash and Burn
I'm concerned that MMO Gamer Chick and Tobold are correct in their suspicions about this week's business model announcements. Two of the highest profile upcoming MMO releases - Wildstar and Elder Scrolls - plan to launch with a mandatory box purchase and mandatory subscription fee despite nearly nine-years' worth of post-WoW MMO launches that have failed to sustain that model. Both bloggers note that it would be borderline irresponsible for a business launching a subscription MMO NOT to have a back-up F2P plan - indeed, it appears that both titles may be setting the groundwork, with Wildstar's implementation of in-game time card items seen in other MMO's (including the F2P relaunches of EQ2 and Rift) and the cash shop that Elder Scrolls apparently confirmed in a German interview.
Unfortunately, the same financial incentives dictate that launching with a subscription is an opportunity to extract $60 for the retail box (with $150 or higher price tags widely accepted for collector's editions) and some subscription revenue in the interim - especially if there's a chance to sell people on "discounted" pre-paid six-month subscriptions before they've had the chance to play the game.
The problem isn't the subscription fee itself, the entry barrier created by the initial box price, the bad press often generated as games visibly fail to live up to their original promises (Elder Scrolls is already making the same promises that they plan to update every 4-6 weeks that so many studios have failed to sustain), or whether the final business model when the dust settles is in any way sensible. My main concern isn't even that this model puts MMO studios in the business of exploiting hype and vague, misleading information to make a quick buck. As Bhagpuss points out, these things ultimately have limited impact on the merits of the actual gameplay.
The real casualty of these cash and burn tactics is the community. When the dust settles, the tourists have come, overpaid, and gone. The jaded veterans like myself have waited for the inevitable re-launch and gotten a high quality product at a fire sale price. The cost is that the community is shattered as the majority of servers shut down, the majority of your friends leave for games that are looking more promising, and the folks who do return do so for brief periods as the content release schedule permits. This may not change the gameplay - especially as more titles are offering more ways to play and win with limited time and commitment - but it definitely changes the experience of playing these games and experiencing these worlds.
If this is the solution to the problem of how to finance MMO development, it's a sad day.
Unfortunately, the same financial incentives dictate that launching with a subscription is an opportunity to extract $60 for the retail box (with $150 or higher price tags widely accepted for collector's editions) and some subscription revenue in the interim - especially if there's a chance to sell people on "discounted" pre-paid six-month subscriptions before they've had the chance to play the game.
The problem isn't the subscription fee itself, the entry barrier created by the initial box price, the bad press often generated as games visibly fail to live up to their original promises (Elder Scrolls is already making the same promises that they plan to update every 4-6 weeks that so many studios have failed to sustain), or whether the final business model when the dust settles is in any way sensible. My main concern isn't even that this model puts MMO studios in the business of exploiting hype and vague, misleading information to make a quick buck. As Bhagpuss points out, these things ultimately have limited impact on the merits of the actual gameplay.
The real casualty of these cash and burn tactics is the community. When the dust settles, the tourists have come, overpaid, and gone. The jaded veterans like myself have waited for the inevitable re-launch and gotten a high quality product at a fire sale price. The cost is that the community is shattered as the majority of servers shut down, the majority of your friends leave for games that are looking more promising, and the folks who do return do so for brief periods as the content release schedule permits. This may not change the gameplay - especially as more titles are offering more ways to play and win with limited time and commitment - but it definitely changes the experience of playing these games and experiencing these worlds.
If this is the solution to the problem of how to finance MMO development, it's a sad day.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Missed Events of August
It's been a busy month and I've missed a variety of things - some that I regret and some that I do not.
- Golden Lotus Storyline: I was aware that Blizzard was removing the Vol'jin world event introduced in patch 5.3 when patch 5.4 launches, presumably next week. I was not aware until very recently that the patch also blows up the entire Vale and with it removes a large chunk of the less-than-one-year-old Golden Lotus storyline from the expansion. I scrambled when I found out, but it does not appear feasible for me to gain the required reputation in the time remaining. As an aside, I'm gaining this rep nearly twice as fast as was possible when the expansion rolled out due to new mechanics (rep for scenarios, dungeons, and farming) and it still feels slow - no wonder people were less than thrilled with Pandaria's launch.
- FFXIV Open Beta: I'm frustrated that every studio insists that limited time events run on weekends. Personally, I play most of my MMO's to unwind after work on week nights and have less time to spend on MMO's during the weekend. In this case, that missing the party have been a good thing, as I've heard less than ideal things about how Square handled the inevitable soft launch server population issues. (The open beta servers will NOT be wiped, and is followed by a headstart this week.) That said, I have not heard anything about a free trial, so it's not clear whether there will be any mechanism to try before you buy for those of us who missed this weekend. Not necessarily the best move for a game trying to shake a bad reputation.
- Hearthstone: Got into the beta direct from Blizzard. Not sure what, if anything, I'll do with that access - why spend time unlocking stuff now when the final game will be F2P and the beta is going to be wiped?
- Patch 2.3 in SWTOR: New endgame content. Guess it's not going anywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






