I've just published the first series of posts in my blog, going by the same title as this thread. Hopefully, if enough discussion follow, it's the first of many series on FF XIV and MMORPG in general.
You can see it here for further reference (when this topic will be submerged in the depths of this general discussion forum :p).
The intend of these posts was to highlight some of the common trends in MMORPG as well as to provide a few facts generally consensual within this market's seasoned observers. These introductory series contain no external reference since I don't have them all (talk about digging through years of reading, old bookmarks and pdfs... haha, certainly not), whereas other sources were never meant to be shared outside of work. Researching public papers would take a lot of extra time which, evidently, I don't have for this hobby —I'm just a player in FF XIV. Considering this, I very much welcome criticism and concurrent views, since this is by no means an exact science —it's actually not even science at all.
In a later move in these posts, I humbly provide a simple analysis of how these trends could apply to FF XIV: ARR, but please don't take it for authority. Seriously, do not. Make up your own mind, that's what reading should be about. These are just a few educated —yet subjective— thoughts I wanted to share. Certainly nothing more, hopefully nothing less.
The general tone is not to praise nor bash the game itself, but to objectively try to decipher its legitimate prospects into the future; that is, explicitly, to shed light on some of the key elements that might make for its success or failure, elements that apply to many an online game. It's rather an extensive subject, thus I couldn't obviously get into very much detail, and the rough idea was to outline elements from a clear distance (very general terms) rather than to get into an extensive analysis of the game's features; but I'd wager this is what comments are for: dig deeper. Other posts in my blog may follow on more specific topics. If you're feeding your own blog with such analysis as well, please share it! :)
I hope some of you will appreciate the reading, and I also hope you'll bear with me in terms of language since, as some of you may notice, english is not my mother tongue. Just one I really like to speak and to learn —and I have games, series and movies to thank for that, along with travel, rather than my country's poor foreign language education.
Due to this website's limitations in terms of character count (sic), what was intended as a full-fledged article had to be divided into small parts. Hopefully, this can however serve a different purpose, as a means to discuss specific items more clearly. So please feel free to comment, correct, criticise, add your own view and experience, and generally speaking: talk about anything even remotely related. I don't know how much time I may have to reply to all comments, but ideally I'll just be one tiny voice in a larger discussion.
I wish you all a very nice stroll in this game and its forums/blogs. "Focus on the journey, not the destination. Joy is found not in finishing an activity but in doing it." — Greg Anderson
FF XIV: ARR's prospects into the future
Printable View
-
09-26-2013, 03:03 AMAlcyon_DensetsuFF XIV: ARR's prospects into the future
-
09-26-2013, 03:48 AMAlcyon_DensetsuFFXIV: ARR's prospects into the future [parts 1 to 9/9]
Here follows the full article.
It is a well-known fact in the game making business that players will rush through a game's content much faster than any development team can produce it, provided a few conditions are met:
• Endgame is "not too hard" in order for players to have a mathematical and human chance to win it (the opposite would be plain and simple "cheating" by the CPU); that level of "easiness" also being a condition for players to actually enjoy doing said content, in terms of game design. Sure, you can design a 20 minutes 300-men fight where a single human error ends up in a wipe, but that's not difficulty, that's bad game design.
• The game is profitable while not asking too much money from the players. Sure, you can have a 1000-men development team and ask for a $100 subscription in order to produce mass content and still be profitable, but that is not a sustainable business model by any stretch of the imagination.
• Content gating is not met with unrealistically high pre-requisites, as it used to be the case in the earliest MMORPGs. Sure, you can ask players to farm 10h+ before they even attempt one try at a boss, but that is just not compatible with a real-life job and/or family, thus unable to attract enough solvable customers.
Content updates are done operating within a business environment and is aimed at the general population (as any product…), thus is bound to follow some classic rhythms well-known in most human activity cycles, from sports to school passing by fiscal years.
• "Sizeable updates" to endgame content happen within a 3 to 9 months timeframe from the previous update. 3 is very good, 9 is a bit long for player's tastes. Any less usually means "shallow content", any more usually means "massive updates" (expansion) at best or "small development team" at worst.
• It's been shown in a few studies that 4-5 months is a pretty nice goal (a little bit less than three times a year), and early conclusions seem to suggest that it's because it basically fits the real-life yearly calendar followed by education and business.
• The timing of said updates to content is quite important, too: august/september, december and march/april are good moments, both from a player's and a business standpoint (beginning of the school year and just before Q3 results ; then classic winter/christmas period and school year in southern hemisphere which is also late Q4 / early Q1 ; then early spring which coincidentally fits the new school year in some asian countries, late Q1 / early Q2). Since MMORPG is a lasting hobby / business throughout the year, it's only natural that it's best managed when it fits working / business calendars.
When some players complain that "game X doesn't have much content" for them to be satisfied long enough, one has to consider what kind of player is talking. Currently, in the MMORPG industry, the trends are roughly as such:
• In successul MMORPGs to date, usually only 1 to 3% of players actually manage to clear all content at the highest difficulty level before the next patch is due. Coincidentally or not, in many popular sports, the odds of making it to a pro formation for high-schoolers is about 1 in 100 (1%) (soccer, US football, basketball, baseball…). It's been observed that successful MMORPG makers tend to aim for about 1-2% of their player base being able to down all the content before it is "nerfed" (that is, either willingly or indirectly rendered easier by the coming of a new content patch). What this small part of the player base says or wants can be quite far from the wishes of the player base at large, typically much more specific in terms of content and design, and more often than not at odds with the experience desired by so-called "casual" players. Different experiences, different expectations, same old story.
• Since this very performing portion of the player base (gaming's 1%ers) is usually vey much involved in the game itself, it's been observed that they tend to be more well-known and active in said game's community; i.e. being very active on forums and social media in general. This creates what is usually referred to as a "lens effect" by which a simple observer will see that population being much wider than it really is proportionally to the whole player base. This is especially true of online games which are, evidently, quite socially active in online circles (forums, etc.) and known to gather vocal individuals (as opposed to some mainly offline games which are not so much "talked about" by the bulk of their players, aside from a very few select popular phenomenons (GTA, soccers games come to mind). This tends to blur nowadays since most games have online modes, and YouTube "outs" single-player experiences on the internet, but remains nevertheless true so far. In short, the "1%ers" in MMORPG are quite vocal at it. Their activity, both in-game and in metagaming is often tenfolds their real weight within the player base.
This has a tremendous impact on PR in this day and age of global social networking, that should not be underestimated; but insofar as sales happen in a "closed bubble" within one's mind (in a store, online or in real life, pretty much you alone facing a bunch of games and making the decision to buy or not), it has not really been shown that moderate online bashing has a clear negative effect on sales overall, at least not on a short-term period (buzz, positive or even mildly negative, can actually boost them as a result of increased customers awareness of a product); however the recent Xbox One debacle, or the latest Sim City's, tend to suggest that this is about to change. MMORPGs also tend to attract group of friends in the long run, single individuals usually don't stick too long in a permanent online world. Some observers are theorising that it took a few years before social media came to a sizeable effect over consumers, and we're now just witnessing the beginning of a paradigm change in global PR, in real-term sales value.
How a company manages to cater to the whole of their demographics is very much based on a "vertical slicing" rather than a horizontal one; 1%ers actually serve the masses and indirectly feed them, via developer's tuning and patching and hotfixing, more than they are opposed to them, in a successful, mass-audience title.
• Despite the 1%ers not being representative of a whole player base, their sheer dedication and knowledge of a game arguably makes them prime spotters for design issues and flaws in content. Usually, good MMO companies tend to rely on their knowledge and feedback, not explicitly to decide where to go with their game (historically, gamers are very bad designers :p), but to know what needs to be corrected, and act accordingly so. When things go well, this helps alleviating design shortcomings before the bulk of players has to experience it, thus making the 1%ers sort of a "massive gold tester" group. This expertise and feedback, more than the arithmetical value of their payments as customers, is what confers a lot of value to their presence in a MMORPG from a developer's standpoint. They are, coincidently, the bulk of "test servers" players for instance. Not having an active population pushing through content often results in a lack of insight on the content produced (if gamers are bad designers, conversely, developers may not be the best gamers, let alone testers, especially at their own game, since there are a lot of biases involved).
Basically put, having a thriving hardcore population is a huge boon in terms of QA (Quality Assurance) for one's product, and it helps raising QA standards for the masses of players who'll experience content later on. Which is why it's very important to cater to that small part of players, not necessarily to please them always, at least not directly, but more importantly to please the masses while retaining these 1%ers. It's a thin line upon which a balance must be stroke in order to succeed at a long-term game's design.
• Blizzard, and CCCP to a lesser degree, often come to mind and in discussions when trying to assess "a successful way to balance the needs and wishes of the 1% versus the mass", since both these companies manage somewhat well to cater to their 1%ers (well, at least "enough", considering how demanding 1%ers are…) all the while expanding their player base at large on a regular basis within their products cycle. Some have theorised that Nintendo and, indeed, Squaresoft, were very good at that at the peak of their domination on the market (SNES era for the former, SNES to PS2 eras for the latter); even though since then Nintendo moved more towards catering to even-larger masses (the so-called "casual revolution" which indeed expanded the gaming audience during the late 2000s), and Square did not in fact really manage to please their 1%ers in a way that benefited their audience at large since Final Fantasy XII (this XIV being seen by some observers, so far, as indeed a possible rebirth of the company's mastership — but I, for one, wouldn't even mention it in this topic if it weren't aimed at analysing a Square-Enix title, so they clearly have some way to go still).
So, what will happen when subs kick in Final Fantasy XIV? Well, here are a few elements of response we can provide so far.
• Endgame seems to be on-par with the current standards in terms of quality. Content gating is pretty much non-existent insofar as gearing is done accordingly, which is probably a sound decision from a casual standpoint (thus in a business prospective), notwithstanding the usual clashes this prompts between hardcores and casuals (iLevels requirements, skill versus gear debates, etc.) This FF XIV isn't really noticeable one way or the other on these aspects, it has its plus and minuses (that's good, mind you, considering how hard it is to achieve quality in MMORPG).
• However there is an arguable lack of content compared to the strongest titles at launch, keeping two things in mind : 1. Most titles with a lot of endgame content at launch do not, in fact, manage to survive in the long term in the MMORPG market, so this is not a clear indicator of success (many of these big launches turned out to fit more into the "cash grab" business model than the long-term vision of the most revered MMORPG — in fact the biggest of them all, World of Warcraft, did not have much more content at launch, all other things being equal (raids shrank in size, farming and time-sinks as well, etc.). 2. If Final Fantasy XI is any indication, content was rolled out very progressively so as to amount to a lot in the long run, and if EVE Online (the only MMORPG constantly increasing its player base for 10+ years now) is another indication, it seems to be a good recipe for success — however small that game's community might be compared to AAA MMOs.
• The planning of updates appears to be rather fast and quite "spot on" in terms of calendar, compared to the strongest titles, with much content being shelved in december with 2.1. We can probably attribute that to the muscled reunion of several development teams inside Square Enix in order to put back the Final Fantasy boat afloat after the 1.0 debacle and the "meh" response to FF XIII (despite strong sales of this title, the response of the public, and the FF XIV 1.0 failure, were admittedly very worrying for the next iterations). Merging the titles of producer and director in one man turns out to be also a good wager by SE's management, seeing how Naoki Yoshida is, so far, the providential leader that an online Final Fantasy needed to emerge as a strong market competitor, judging by his decisions and leadership so far.
• The response by the public has, indeed, been overall very good. With a fast content production, hopefully bridging the gaps between well-installed titles and this newcomer on the market, it's arguably probable that a year from now, Final Fantasy XIV will seem nothing short of "valuable" in terms of content. The built-in scalability of said content should also allow for low-cost good-quality reusability and replayability of existing content. However, there are still a few issues that make the response by the typical "1%ers" a bit more mitigated. Latency for many players (a low latency is a staple in online gaming that must absolutely be flawlessly implemented if a game is to be successful in the long run), and a somewhat clunky user interface lacking many standard features (that players have come to expect and actually mind not having, not even mentioning some poorly ergonomic features such as the tabbed inventory, or grouping commands), probably need to be addressed sooner rather than later if this very demanding crowd is to be retained as customers. There is indeed a trend, within said crowd, to "come and go and then come back" to MMORPGs they like, since they'll more often than not burn content much faster than it is rolled out, so the real question is whether or not these issues will be fixed when they come back for 2.1, or 2.2. If there still persists latency or interface shortcomings by then, they might not come back a fourth time to check it out, considering other strong titles might be released by then (TESO comes to mind, along with some other promising titles).
Observers already suggest that the real battle for Square Enix begins now: whether or not they manage to answer the 1%ers concerns may very well decide the fate of their continued subscription, of course, but beyond that the quality experienced by the other 99%, and eventually the degree of success achieved by A Realm Reborn for its "vanilla" cycle (things could change after the first expansion pack due in 18-24 months, but it'll be a whole new cycle by then, whose high/low subs number is usually determined by the previous cycle — you don't see less than 1M players MMORPGs suddenly rise to 5M, unless it's a reboot, and that card, evidently, is already being played).
Early figures suggest that FFXIV: ARR managed to attract somewhere between 1.5M and 2M early buyers worldwide according to my sources, among which (using standard figures) 1M-1.5M may decide to sub for 2-3 months. This is already a success by all standards in the MMORPG market, a doubling of the best figures attained by its predecessor (FF XI). Going under the million might be considered a mild failure from now on, while reaching above 2 millions is arguably an attainable objective during 2014, especially considering the upcoming, hyped, PS4 launch. If by then (estimations say mid to late Q1 2014) the few game breaking issues (as perceived by the 1%ers) may be overcome, then it's realistic to say that FF XIV may establish itself within the 2-3M subscribers range, which is by no means a small achievement in the current economy, all things considered (crisis, waning MMO hype with the market being on a plateau for sub-based titles, rise of F2P, etc.).
Players bleeding from WoW and other big titles may help fuel this increase, along with fresh newcomers from the console market (PS3 and especially PS4 as it rises in terms of installed base). Realistically, the game has about 24-36 months to establish itself in that range; and a glorious first expansion pack could give it a shot at 3+M subscribers if success was met before then; it would very much need that if it is to resist the probable tsunami that Titan (Blizzard's next title) may very well be —if history is any indication— by late 2016 or so.
However this story goes, I think it's fair to assume that Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, as we speak, is a very solid basis armed with strong arguments to become a staple MMORPG on the market, in terms of player satisfaction (thus customer base), and profitability as a business product. Whether it manages to become a historic rebirth of the series, and a top-player in its market, is yet to be seen, and will depend on Square Enix team's ability to answer the 1%ers concerns, reaching the best standards compared to existing and yet-to-come titles, all the while expanding the MMORPG market for casual and namely console players that have yet to try a MMORPG or buy a PS4. The good news is that the calendar plays in favour of ARR on all these aspects, as we're on the verge of a new market cycle now including consoles, meaning it has time to establish itself before the old masters fire anew; but the bad news is that said competition is, consequently, already re-arming itself for a third race at sub-based online games, which all indicators show will be juicier in 2015 than it was pre-2000 (first wave) and then in 2005 (second wave, in which the winner got even more than the lion's share). -
09-26-2013, 04:15 AMZakarnRosewood
I kinda rolled my eyes ar first glance on this thread but I decided to read the first little bit before making a snap judgement. I was pleasantly surprised. Well thought out and well worded look at MMO's and how FFXIV fits in the picture.
Thank you for this! -
09-26-2013, 06:34 AMAlcyon_DensetsuThank you very much! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ZakarnRosewood
-
09-26-2013, 06:37 AMBizniztyme
Nicely written good sir, looking forward to the other parts. :)
-
09-26-2013, 06:53 AMLaifon
Thanks for writing this, was really interesting to read.
And indeed, we'll see how SE handles the game.. they can either make it or break it! -
09-26-2013, 09:19 AMAlcyon_DensetsuQuote:
Originally Posted by Bizniztyme
Thanks a lot, guys! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Laifon
Others posts will follow, probably more in-depth. Stay tuned! :p
As for SE, I guess they're on the right track with FF XIV, but it sure needs a bit more work to score in the long run. Content aside, I'd wager some aspects of the interface need a lot of tweaking if this game is to reach its full potential, unleash the very smartness of its systems (namely items management in regards to crafting, since currently managing items is very much sub-par compared to pretty much any MMORPG out there; and target management in parties/raids, but on that regard ARR is already among the best in my opinions). The interface could very much benefit from an add-on system, if history is any guide.
Latency might more of an issue, considering even the best netcode could not change the fact that EU players will have a somewhat structural ping of 120-150ms to servers based in Canada. I don't see how they could implement an EU datacenter now that this choice has been made, and considering there are potentially more players in Europe than there are in North America, I'm quite unsure if this was a sound choice. Perhaps costs when comparing each continent did make a sizeable difference (taxes, wages and so on), but is it sound in the long run? We'll see. As it stands right now, they still have to fix the code and eliminate (reduce massively) that 300ms fixed server-check latency if this game is to be able to compete with the best titles in terms of endgame reactiveness.
In terms of content, they have a somewhat decent window of about 6 months to make it a no-brainer "must-have" epic game by the PS4 launch; and beyond that they should probably capitalise on the built-in scaling system to progressively make all the instanced content already in-game relevant to level 50 players. It seems they're already following this way, as judging by the 2.1 preview we have so far. What we see in the Crystal Tower preview is also very alluring. It seems they're really going all-in for early patches, which can never be a bad thing. How long they'll manage to roll out so much content on a regular basis (that must require quite a large team) is probably dependant on the game's success, but I see no reason to worry so far. We'll have more visibility into the future when we have the first results after subs kick in for 2.0 players.