Rumors of the subscription model's death have been greatly exaggerated

Many analysts, gamers, developers, and publishers alike feel that there is a shift in the PC game industry. One that is moving away from a pay-to-play approach and moving towards a free-to-play-then-pay approach.

The current growth of games like Guild Wars 2 and League of Legends, and the dramatic loss in popularity of Star Wars: The Old Republic and Star Trek Online have only cemented this opinion. It has gotten to the point where a game's failure or success is now determined by what model the developer/publisher use.

I think this is an absurd mentality. Bottom line is that if you make a product that is compelling enough, people will pay for it. I don't think people really care that much about if they are paying $15 per month or $10 for a singular piece of content. I think they care about value.

It's surmised that WoW's subscription success is a one time deal - the game was a breakthrough product and Blizzard was able to leverage that into a novel cash model. Since then, MMO after MMO have tried to emulate Blizzard's model and none have been met with very much success. Yet, maybe it isn't so much the model as the fact that every subscription MMO that has come out basically hasn't been as good as WoW. Each MMO has tried to different in some way - but none were different enough and overall, none were better. Often times it is because WoW has 7 years of development into the game that has resulted in an incredibly matured product - new MMOs are rarely at feature parity with WoW. Other times the initial population wasn't large enough to create a sustainable social environment - a necessary component of the MMO.  SW:TOR leveraged their story, Rift had dynamic events, but at the end of the day, neither delivered as much fun as the full WoW experience.

On the other hand, League of Legends has taken the PC gaming space by storm. And Guild Wars 2 (not technically free-to-play) looks poised to capture many of the stranded ex-WoW players over the years.  Games like Lord of the Rings Online have recovered and grown after converting to a free-to-play model.  However, I feel that these are testaments of the free-to-play model working, not that the subscription based model is dead.

In the current PC gaming space I think you can make 3 solid premises.  1) Free to play is a viable model for the success of a wide variety of games.  2) Subscription based games that, overall, are not as good as WoW are not successful.  3) Games that are not successful with subs can become successful with F2P  It is not logically sound to conclude that the subscription based model is dead.

In particular I want to examine with premise 3 is important - it is a lesson developers should take note of.  In a subscription based model, developers have a tendency to be lazy or too long term in development.  SW:TOR tried very hard to recapture subscription with huge mega-updates to try to impact the feel of the game itself.  The result was long periods of very little apparent development.  F2P keep developers honest.  They MUST offer compelling features and product - and they get better feedback.  As in an earlier post, simply trying to talk to the community won't give a developer a good idea of where to focus development time.  But in a F2P model, the developer has direct sales feedback - if a feature is good, people will buy it.  If it sucks, it doesn't sell well.  Free 2 play is also far less dependent on an initial hook to overcome a pay-to-play game's barrier of entry.

But the bottom line again is that if your product is compelling enough, people will pay for it - and I say that they won't care if its piecemeal or a sub.  If its good and you can make people want to play, they'll pay.  I promise you if a developer can create a game that has an interesting IP, is at feature parity with WoW, has more than 1-2 elements that improves MMO gameplay over WoW, and developers actually deliver frequent updates continual content, people will sub, the game will grow, and that cash cow that every publisher has coveted will be theirs.  I think the lesson that we have learned over the last few years isn't that the subscription model is dead, its that creating such a game is damned hard to do.

What gamers want

I'm currently playing Star Wars: The Old Republic pretty avidly.  That and an occasion dabble of League of Legends.  It's funny how different they are.  Star Wars is an MMORPG rich with history, scenery, immersive stories.  League of Legends is basically a simple tower defense game with a stable of characters you can play with.
SWTOR is very possibly the most expensive game ever produced, but has been plagued with a loss of subscribers, some pretty negative feedback (though it was initially reviewed well), and seemingly a loss of support from EA, its publisher.  League of Legends, on the other hand, is a free to play game that is becoming an unstoppable force, easily eclipsing Call of Duty 4: MW as the most popular PC game, maybe even of all time.  LoL has an estimated 15 million active players, surpassing even WoW's vaunted 12 million mark.
The odd thing here is if you look at the feature roll-out with Star Wars, it was prioritized pretty close to what the community was demanding.  And that's after the game received a lot of positive initial reviews.  So what happened?
I think game developers need to be very careful when it comes to gathering feedback from the community.  I think there is a very simple but powerful phenomenon here - and that is gamers don't always know what they want.
Let preface that by saying gamers DO know what they want at a very simple and abstract level.  It's different from gamer to gamer, but whether its the raucous laughter at a hilarious piece of dialogue or the sweet satisfaction of that last kill after months of frustration, what gamers really want is to have a good time: or fun.  But how do gamers have fun?
Let's go over 3 of the elements in MMOs that are commonly thought of as wanted or unwanted:

A) Grinding sucks
Many common MMO elements are somewhat repetitive nature: aka the grind.  This is now universally denounced.  But there are 2 very important reasons why they exist.  A) They keep players occupied and slows progression (necessary to develop a time commitment that makes leaving a game harder), and B) To increase the satisfaction of the end result of the grind.
What I believe players don't realize is that removing the grind doesn't make them happier, it only makes the reward worth less.  It also removes something to do, which then in turn can results in the player getting bored. Developers need to strike a good balance here because too much grind is boring inherently.  I think ideally you want very little grind at the very beginning so you don't lose people immediately.  Through the early mid game, you want a fair bit of grinding to make rewards worthwhile, and then taper the grind off as people are more and more time committed to the game.  Still, don't remove it entirely, as you do need to give people something to do and work towards.Bored players unsubscribe or quit more than frustrated players. They also complain about lack of content.

B) MOAR CONTENT NAO!
Speaking of content, let's talk about that for a second.  Content, by itself, can't drive a game.  I don't believe its physically possible to develop content at a rate that most players can easily outpace.  It's also not necessary to make a great game.  League of Legends has basically no content, and can be incredibly addicting and fun.  SWTOR has tons of content and is not meeting expectations.  Content isn't always a bad thing - just look at Skyrim or Fallout 3, but it certainly isn't the solution for a game that is boring players by not having enough other compelling elements.

C) Exclusive limited items are awesome!
This is a specific subset of limited items - because I think everyone who plays like limited items to a certain degree.  Without them, the game risks of becoming bland. However, if the item is too exclusive and meant to serve as a badge, this concept backfires. I've heard a fair amount of 'hardcore' gamers say that the game needs this.  I disagree.  While a small number of players will have their e-peen stroked by their badge of elite gamer awesomeness, the rest of the community is left out.  So while the initial reaction is exciting, I believe long term this is an overall negative experience.  It also likely won't satisfy the truly hardcore gamer (that is actually able to earn this item) long term.

There is an initial reaction when looking at these elements in an MMO setting, but perhaps it isn't as clear as you think.  Sometimes, when things don't feel fun to you, it makes something else more fun. Or maybe it just sucked to begin with - who knows?

Free game codes from PAX East

I know its been a while since I last posted but I'm currently cleaning up my place and have some leftover beta codes that I got from PAX East back in April. First person to use them gets them.

Magicka - get the game free on Steam
CY7JL-90TVD-D3008

Bullet Run - Beta access, 2 codes
www.bulletrunthegame.com
2KGK-F9XC-X4FA-4GR2-NZGT
RD9J-PGKP-PG39-2AAE-2KXN

Blacklight - get free stuff in the game (weapon, tag, and camo)
www.playblacklight.com
blacklight.perfectworld.com/redeem
TPZ9L6T

D&D Neverwinter - Beta key
playneverwinter.com
ZDC35-R4C-88LM

E3 2012 - Day One Impressions

Normally I spend my first day at E3 walking between South and West Hall to plan out what I will be doing the next two days. I try to take a lot of pictures early to show others what the convention floor feels like (it really is a spectacle you have to see). If I can, I stop by and play games and view demos as long as the lines are short but I mainly map out which games I need to see. I'll try to provide individual impressions in other posts but here is a snapshot of my day one at E3:

• Dead Space 3 is more of the great Dead Space you love. This time it is set on some frozen planet and there is co-op. You can drop in/out but the story and cutscenes actually change depending on if there is another player or not so they say you get two games in one. I say its more 1.5 but whatever.
• Far Cry 3 can be described with one word - boobs. I can't say I've seen a game start out a demo with boobs but now there is Far Cry 3. Watch the trailer to see the context because I could try to explain it but it wouldn't make sense. It looks frantic and melee attacks are a lot more fun this time around. The jungle looks fantastic but I think they are taking the Heart of Darkness theme a little far.
• Quantum Conundrum - This is a great puzzle game that his made by Kim Swift who helped make Portal. You will find a lot of similarities between the two games except now you change the environment instead of teleporting. You can make the environment heavy, fluffy, slow, or reverse gravity and objects behave differently depending on what you do. Of course the more advanced puzzles have you combining multiple behaviors to solve the puzzle. Comes out on the PC in June.
• Sleeping Dogs - This was the same demo I played at PAX but it is still a lot of fun. Fight mechanics are like assassin's creed and the chase scenes are very interactive. All of this set in an open world environment.
• Lost Planet 3 - Looks like the previous two games and about the same type of fun. If you liked the previous games you will like this one otherwise you can pass.
• Playstation All Stars - Think Super Smash Bros but not as good with Playstation characters. Nintendo has always had beloved franchises to grab characters from but Playstation just doesn't seem to have the same caliber of characters. 
• Lego Batman 2 DC Heroes - Another Lego game but this time they have a great open world in addition to story modes. I played as Superman, Green Lantern, Flash, and Batman and there are other characters as well. 
• Sly Cooper Thieves in Time - Another great Sly Cooper game. I played the original series so I'm looking forward to this one. Plays just like the previous games.
• Zone of Enders HD remake - Still fun but not graphically impressive. I played the first game and enjoyed it but I don't see a lot of people picking this up.
• Darksiders 2 - Rips off a lot of good games but it's still great. Good combat system and Prince of Persia acrobatics combine to create a fun experience.

E3 2012 - It Has Begun

I have been lucky enough to be able to attend E3 for the last 3 years and this year is no different. While I won't be able to match more sophisticated outlets in coverage I will certainly enjoy playing and watching these games and plan to give impressions on those games that I experience. My suggestion if you want the best recap of news is to simply watch the press conferences that are available. They provide a good summary of the talking points companies have to offer and have many good demos of games - some of which appear on the show floor.

Well, it's time to get writing. Stay tuned...

Why Crowdsourcing is good for the video game industry

According to crowdsourcing.com, one definition of crowdsourcing is: "The act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call." In other words, why have one person do the job when you can outsource to the crowd and have them do it for you. This principle is starting to be applied to more and more businesses in order to help determine priorities and solve problems. The video game industry in particular stands to gain a lot from crowdsourcing due to its very active and vocal fan base.

One of the best examples in video games of crowdsourcing lies over at the Playstation blog. Playstation.Blog.Share is a tool that uses public engagement to identify and rank features that should be implemented. Users submit ideas and other users can comment and vote on them - up or down. The more an idea is voted up, the more likely that idea will be addressed. Bad ideas are similarly voted down. Users that submit ideas that have the most votes rank on the leaderboards and users can compare themselves to other users. If an idea is implemented, it becomes an Idea in Action and is highlighted by a post and status that designates that idea has having been implemented.

Now let's look at a non-video game crowdsourcing website - Mystarbucksidea.com. Notice any similarities? Leaderboards, Ideas in Action, and voting are all there. The major differences only involve layout and coffee. You will start to see more and more of this as companies learn how to harness the power of their consumer base to generate ideas and prioritize them. The Starbucks website is powered by Salesforce which means that this type of application should be easy to setup for other companies as well.

Crowdsourcing is very good at figuring out what your consumers want but there is always room for improvement. Let's look at some ideas for improving the Playstation blog:

• Remove old items that can't be addressed
• The five most popular ideas were all submitted on March 17, 2010 which is more than two years ago. The most popular idea, adding cross game voice chat, isn't even an option for the PS3. Yet when someone navigates to the site the first idea they see is cross game chat. As a tool for prioritizing work, having old ideas that can't be implemented on the front page limits the other ideas from bubbling up. Try creating a new category for ideas that are good but can't be done currently - you know you need cross game chat in the PS4 so just remove it from the list of ideas so that other ones can take its spot.
• Highlight Ideas in Action
• One of the best ways to connect with consumers is to show that their ideas have made an impact. Nothing does that better than showing user-submitted ideas that have been implemented. Currently you have to click on the Ideas in Action category just to get to a list of ideas that have been implemented - not exactly hard to find but not highlighted either. 
• Check the Starbucks website to see how they highlight ideas they are working on or have implemented directly on the front page.
• Reward the top contributors and show what they have won
• Being on top of the leaderboards might be fine for some people but there are a number of other rewards that could drive interest in creating ideas. Implement trophies to users who submit the best ideas or offer PSN items like avatars. Also show what people have won so that users are aware of what is possible.
• Move the FAQ down
• Having a submission FAQ is good but it shouldn't be the first thing users see. Keep the big Share button and move up the most popular ideas so it's the first thing users see. 

Implementing these improvements will go a long way to better connect with users and show them that they are being listened to.

Finally, let's look at some common properties that are needed for any successful implementation of crowdsourcing:

• Constant feedback with users
• Having people within the company responding to comments and encouraging discussion shows that the company is paying attention.
• Constantly adding to Ideas in Action
• This is crucial for showing that submitted ideas can be made a reality. Even more important is showing progress on ideas even if they can't be implemented so that new ideas can overtake old ones. If ideas never get implemented, soon users will stop submitting ideas altogether.
• Small team to manage ideas and link duplicates together or provide way for users to find duplicates.
• With all of the ideas coming in, companies must find a way to manage this large data influx. See this Lactose post to get a sense of how many duplicates could potentially exist for an idea. Managing this deluge of information requires a team of dedicated resources or the ability for users to easily find existing ideas and link them together.
• Point or achievement system to highlight top ideas and participants
• Also known as gamification, companies should implement leaderboards to encourage users to compete for ideas. The next step is providing tangible rewards for ideas that are implemented. Even users at the top of the leaderboard won't care so much when they realize that being on top doesn't provide any kind of reward.

Crowdsourcing will become even more crucial in the future as social media increases and companies start connecting more and more with their consumers. Companies that embrace it will be able to deliver better products to consumers and those companies that ignore it do so at their own peril.

Max Payne 3 Impressions

Max Payne booth at Pax East

I had the pleasure of seeing a preview of Max Payne 3 over at the Rockstar booth at Pax East 2012. The line seems long at first but it went pretty quickly. Rockstar employees were giving guided tours where you got to play  a demo portion of the game while they explained features to you and answered any questions you had.

The demo itself took place in America (before Payne travels to Brazil) where for some reason Max is getting shot at. You run and gun your way through a bar, the kitchen, and eventually through some back alleys which is where the demo ends. The first thing my adviser told me is that while cover exists in the game it shouldn't be used all that often. This is a still a run-and-gun game with bullet time. Cover works by pressing a button to snap your character to a wall, similar to other games. I noticed that whenever I was in cover, Max moved much more slowly. You could still pop out and shoot but you weren't nearly as agile as when you were just running around shooting people. While I would normally chastise such mechanics, placed within the context of the game it is a subtle way to encourage the player to only use cover when you need a break (such as for reloading). Otherwise, you should be running around shooting guys in the head.

If you have played previous Max Payne games, you will remember that one of the best moves to use is the diving bullet time which is very much present in this latest game. I always used the dive move whenever I could - around walls, through doors. You can stay on the ground shooting after a dive before getting up as well. Another interesting mechanic is that death is handled through bullet time. When you get shot enough, you start falling down and the crosshair starts moving towards the last enemy that shot you. If you manage to kill the enemy before you hit the ground, then you get to stay alive. The move is handled very well and definitely shakes things up in regards to giving players second chances at life.

The comic panels make an appearance except this time they are more integrated into the gameplay. So instead of seeing a sequence in between levels the sequences are interspersed throughout the same level, such as introducing a boss or getting ambushed. I thought that the comic panels could sometimes be abrupt in starting and ending but it keeps your hands on the controller as you never know when the action might begin.

I am pretty excited for the game. It looks to capture the essence of the original Max Payne games while adding a distinct multiplayer experience with bullet time. The game is coming out May 15.

Contracts and Consoles

The Verge published an article recently claiming that an Xbox would soon be released for only $99.  One minor caveat: it comes with a 2-year contract a la cell phone.  Termination fees and all.

Now, the subscription service has some benefits, most notably that for the duration of the contract you have access to Xbox Live Gold.  A standard Xbox with 2 years of Live comes out to only $39 less ($459 vs $420) than the subsidized version.

Personally, I don't like recurring payments.  However, they absolutely lower the barrier for entry.  Add in the value of an Xbox Live Gold subscription and this isn't that bad of a deal while making the initial cost affordable to many kids with birthday money or parents on a tight budget.  Sure, the long term cost is slightly more, but that's in the future - what counts is that it costs less now.  America invented razor and blades, and this is a red-ringedblooded American console.  Eat it up, 99%.

The console contract marks the start of a new era.  With tighter integration between connected services and the console, I suspect within a generation or two, buying a console will basically require a contract.  There will be no Xbox Live Gold or PSN Premium - just Xbox and Playstation.  If you've got the console, you've got the sub.  Perhaps there will be a cheap family friendly Nintendo that will try to create a niche, but what Microsoft understands is that the most family friendly thing there is a low starting cost.

This is the flip-side of the longstanding subscription incentive to add value to the people who are already paying - something that has sometimes had backlash from the gaming community.  Now the approach isn't to just add value but also decrease initial cost and lower the barrier of entry.

I don't like it, but it's smart and I think will ultimately be the standard model within 1-2 console generations.

Don't Sweat the Little Things

There is a great comic over at Virtual Shackles today called "Machine Made". It points out one hilarious example of an event in a video game that upon further thought doesn't quite add up. In this case it is the design of a Geth ship that Shepard and his crew are fighting through when a companion casually mentions that the ship seems alien and not designed by organics. When I first heard this while playing the game I didn't really think anything of it - I was too busy blasting through Geth Primes and figuring out where the cover points were. But I have to say that the comic points out a funny and all too common example of how gameplay elements can sometimes require reality to take a back seat.

When you really think about it, a ship designed for machines shouldn't really be anything like a ship designed for organics. The same hallways, ladders, bathrooms, or other contrivances that organics would face wouldn't be a problem for a race that can wirelessly download themselves into bodies. The extra space taken up by a mess hall or crew quarters could either be re-purposed for more armaments or a smaller ship. In fact, having a design which doesn't support organics would be a very good self defense mechanism itself. If there were no ladders, then Shepard couldn't maneuver around the ship at all. You would still need loading bays and transports for possible ground assaults but those could be separate compartments away from any vital infrastructure.

Thinking on the design of this ship has also made me think about other moments where gameplay elements clash with reality. How is it that in every RPG there are random chests strewn about that are unopened? It's not like you are always the first one to happen to find these chests a little ways off the road. But if you think about it, reality should dictate that 1) either these chests don't exist at all or 2) most of the chests would already be open by the time you found them. I'd rather have the unopened chest than the reality that someone came along before me to grab my upgraded sword of plenty (or whatever). Of course, until someone figures out a way to dish out upgraded items to me on my quest to kill some magical monstrosity without using treasure chests, I suspect we'll be seeing them for some time. But until then, I'll give the Geth keyboards and treasure chests filled with clothes and gold a pass.

Birth of an Era

And by era, I mean a blog site.

Welcome to the brand new Games For Thought blog! I created this blog in order to capture the thoughts and conversations I had among friends regarding the video game industry. We always discussed gaming news and our thoughts about games but then I thought - why not write them down? These posts are dedicated to the analysis of gaming topics and trends - not to the rehashing of marketing emails and public statements. That isn't to say that those are bad posts - it's just that other sites do them much better than I could. The reader will find topics such as the analysis of game design, commentary on the latest news and gossip, and the occasional review. I always found these discussions quite interesting - hopefully you will too.

Artistic License

The current story on the internet has to do with the varying opinions on the Mass Effect 3 ending.

Many players are frustrated with the lack of closure in addition to perhaps not liking the ending to the epic Shepard story arc.  They have been very vocal about this, and Bioware has even responded to the gaming community promising a free DLC this summer that will provide better closure.

Some people have defended Bioware's decisions, and a blog post by one of Bioware's Doctors specifically talks about artistic license.  However, I do feel that in video games, artistic license only goes so far.

The mass effect games made a killing off of being cinematic with fully voice acted dialogue and a very well written script.  The ability to suspend disbelief was higher in the Mass Effect games than perhaps any other game in history.  The politics, the combat, the emotional interactions all blended together in a couple of the best storytelling games ever made.  But at its core, Mass Effect 1 and 2 are still ROLE playing games.  Players loved being Shepard.  Players loved acting out Shepard in their own way.  In the end, players loved feeling like the Shepard story was one they created.  This is the illusion of choice.

Make no mistake, the choices were mostly always an illusion.  While there is some variation on the events that take place depending on choice, the overall arc remains the same.  I knew this, yet loved Mass Effect 1 and 2 all the same - because I never felt that I was being tricked.  Yes, the arc remained the same, but when a choice I make kills or saves a companion, it feels like a substantial shift in the direction of my Shepard's story.

That illusion of choice, or perhaps control, is gone by the Mass Effect 3 ending.  So while Bioware may have a right to create and sell a game to their liking, they are ignoring what made this franchise great.  One game won't destroy Bioware's reputation, but this isn't a movie that I can spend 2 hours watching, or a book I can read in a couple of afternoons.  This is a character that I have worked tirelessly to become the hero I wanted him to be - and to take that away from me is the very definition of biting the hand that feeds.