Multiplayer no longer extending the life of games

[Commander Fury]

Over the last year we have seen several titles release with a multiplayer inclusion and have been excited about the different tournaments that can be created to extend the playability of the game and continue fostering the team building and communities built around it. But then we get the game and start testing to only find that sure the “Multiplayer†label is affixed to the game but no true means of really fostering a team or community for that matter.

 

So let’s go back a few years so I can help you understand where I am going with this. And keep in mind PC Gaming had already started this trend with games like CounterStrike, but that was not my introduction to multiplayer. On PlayStation 2, a game called Socom was launched with this new feature called Multiplayer. Online gaming was a new concept for consoles and this seemed pretty cool. You could play with different players and the experience would be absolutely different every time since you were playing with humans instead of programmed characters.

 

The next thing you know it, someone asked if I would join their clan or team for those not familiar with the term. Of course I have played with these guys a few times and enjoyed playing with them so I of course said sure. Next thing I know I have registered on the clan’s website and have instantly become a member of this highly focused community built around playing a game.

 

At the time I did not see how much of a big deal this would be, but later in life it would prove to be the friendships and team building aspect of this was unsurpassed by any other experience in gaming. Some of these clans have run strong for many years and like any team, many have had conflict and caused the creation of new clans.

 

So with that in mind you can look at the playability of a game and how this team building would foster a completely new breed of gaming now known as competitive multiplayer. Tournament communities started to spring up everywhere giving games a whole new life with teams competing for prizes, bragging rights and more. Suddenly your clan had a new purpose, not only are you playing with a group so you kind of knew who would do what, but now you could take your clans skills and pit them against other clans with a structured environment behind the scenes.

 

Fast forward about ten years to today and many of these tournament communities have come and gone and some have thrived. MLG is probably the best example of a thriving business built around competitive multiplayer. The business brings in several millions of dollars with their tournaments through sponsorship and attendance. Even Richard Branson jumped on the competitive gaming train with the launch of Virgin Gaming in 2010.

 

The big winner out of this business segment really has been the games themselves, as this creates a long lasting playability to a game. If done right a multiplayer portion of a game can be stretched out to years versus a few months. There is no beating the game, no trading in of the game, just endless play with your clan mates.

 

Now let’s look at the games of the last year or so. Multiplayer seems to have become more of an afterthought then a true focus. In the original Socom for example, you could create a room with a custom title like “My Clan Tryouts†and it made expanding your team very efficiently, this was what we call the lobby system.

 

In today’s games there are no lobbies, and even more so less means of even creating a private match. Socom 4 did have a clan match making system but it did not let you create any custom parameters to a match. Battlefield 3 launched with no private match making at all and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3’s private matchmaking is plagued with issues on PS3 causing communities such as ours to postpone or even cancel tournaments.

 

What do we have to do to get the game developers to take a step back and realize that with the right design, multiplayer can make their game more profitable? Let me explain how…

 

So let’s pretend a multiplayer game came out with the prized features like these:

 

• Private Custom Match Making
  
• Lobbies or User Created Rooms
  
• *A Clan Management System
  

These three simple systems together foster a long life of playability of a game, also giving a developer the opportunity to sale DLC such as map packs and expansions. Here is how…

 

With the ability to customize a private match, a tournament community can offer unique game play by changing the parameters of a game, giving players a completely different experience with the title. This can also keep the competitive play fresh with different setups, weapon restrictions, etc. While a good clan management system give members of the team the ability to manage their rosters, group up for game play and provide structure. And finally with a lobby system, the clans are able to promote recruitment, host events and even show off what tournament they are playing in.

 

 

This breeds for longevity gameplay, giving the developer the right formula to sale additional content. If you have strong tournament communities developing long term events, many will incorporate the new content to freshen up the tournaments. The PlayStation 2 Socom’s are a perfect example for our community… we were able to run a tournament from the day it launched until the day the next title released. Even with Confrontation we ran a tournament up to the Friday before Socom 4 released. That is just shy of three years of game play on a single title. Yet when the DLC was released, we quickly adapted a tournament specifically for it.

 

Now with today’s games, the community building portion of the game has gone. There is no way to foster the building or reinforcement of the clans and there are no stable private match making options in the game.

 

Is this the end of clans as we know it today? I still play with clan members from almost 10 years ago, but now it is almost impossible to get together and play. We invite all developers to contact tournament communities such as ours and even Gamebattles. The ability to include these three simple features can give a game the means to generate additional revenue, keep a strong fan base and breed a whole new generation of competitive gamers.

 

 

 

 

More...

[bloodbath09]

Amen! Great article.

[shane]

Thank you bloodbath

[chiamira]

good Read.... But for as long as people buy millions of copy's of COD games there will be less & less "Clan Support & Tournament support, or Competitive Games out there... That's just my opinion, COD has killed Competitive Gaming....

[Masta-Hattori]

This needs to be sent to every developer out there, no reason why these features are slowly escaping new releases.

[Red0ctobeR]

good Read.... But for as long as people buy millions of copy's of COD games there will be less & less "Clan Support & Tournament support, or Competitive Games out there... That's just my opinion, COD has killed Competitive Gaming....

 

 

How has it killed it? Competitive gaming is stronger now then it ever has been. Niche games on the other hand are dieing. There isn't room in this fast paced adrenaline junky gaming world for games such as SOCOM. IF the base really had that much pull then SOCOM would have never changed.

 

Though this is a good read, CoD shows for a fact that there is staying power. IF you develop a game that people enjoy they can make billions on it by merely throwing a couple of tweeks and calling it a revamped game. The players come in droves. Brilliant really.

[F_E_A_R_L_E_S_S1]

This needs to be sent to every developer out there, no reason why these features are slowly escaping new releases.

 

I agree. Great post!

[chiamira]

How has it killed it? Competitive gaming is stronger now then it ever has been. Niche games on the other hand are dieing. There isn't room in this fast paced adrenaline junky gaming world for games such as SOCOM. IF the base really had that much pull then SOCOM would have never changed.

 

Though this is a good read, CoD shows for a fact that there is staying power. IF you develop a game that people enjoy they can make billions on it by merely throwing a couple of tweeks and calling it a revamped game. The players come in droves. Brilliant really.

 

Cod helped kill our Socom style gaming plain and simple. There is no debate. Even mw3 commercials says anyone can play cod come 1 come all NOOBS.... we make our game so simple anyone can play and win. Lol ..... NO SKILL REQUIRED.

 

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

Edited December 4, 2011 by chiamira

[Bandit99]

Yeah I have heard this somewhere before Shane...lol

[x--JERK--x]

I have to wonder if the intent of developers is to in fact harm clans. When you think about it they want you to buy a new game as much as possible. They don't want you to play the same game for three years. Clans are often built around a single game, and many times when that game changes the clan dies or is at least affected. Do we really think they (the developers) are just this stupid? I'm sorry but I cant buy that, I think they know exactly what they are doing. They know we enjoy good strong clan systems in games, and that we enjoy being to create our own rooms. But when they add those things to games the players play them longer and pass on buying other games. Hell its worked on me, I just bought BF3, which i never would have if S4 had stayed true to Socom tradition. Confrontation was far from perfect but I played it for 3 years, I couldn't stand S4 after 3 months! Confrontation survived and overcame a completely disastrous start because it had a very good clan system (a shitty ladder system though) and user created rooms. Bottom line is things like clans and tournaments keep peoples interests in a game high. Players enjoy hanging with there buds and competing in a tournaments. Thats what kept me interested to Confrontation and thats why they have eliminated it. Maybe its more on Sony ? Im not sure, Im just not buying the fact that they dont know better.

[disfsk3x14]

Id rather pay a fee for a great game then always have to buy a new game and start over...

 

Motorola Atrix via Tapatalk

[IRISH BULL]

Cod helped kill our Socom style gaming plain and simple. There is no debate. Even mw3 commercials says anyone can play cod come 1 come all NOOBS.... we make our game so simple anyone can play and win. Lol ..... NO SKILL REQUIRED.

 

So your saying developers should cater to a small group of gamers that want to play more "tactical"? How can than ever make money?

 

Make no mistake about it, Zipper attempted to change their franchise to appeal to more gamers and make as much money as possible. I don't think it is possible to call a game developer a "sell out". They are in it to make money, period. And when you cater to small amount of gamers, you lose money. And the SOCOM 1 & 2 diehards ARE a very small group of gamers when compared to games like MW3 and BF3.

 

Also, and this is just me, but I don't log onto my PS3 to play a military simulator game. I wasn't in the service, and I don't want to try and get that "realistic" feel in my games. They are games. And I want to have fun playing games. Which is why I'm not a fan of non-respawn type of games. To me there is zero fun in watching other people play in the dead room. Or basically EVERY non-respawn game being a suppression game until the numbers are thinned out.

 

Don't get me wrong, I miss the lobby system that Confrontation had. Only because I miss user created rooms that I can search through. But that's it.

[chiamira]

Did u read the original post on this thread? Lol.... I'm saying.... I played Socom for "years & years" I played mw2 for 6 months. Resistance 1 for 5 months. Confrontation for 2 years. Socom 4 for 1 month. And black ops for 1 month. Yes those quick games are "fun" cod games are fun. But... they don't have the substance to keep me coming back for more. They don't get my adrenaline pumping like no respawn does. And they aren't competetive enough. Clans create and disband once a week and there are no long time communities. So yes again I say COD killed competitive gaming and long term communities. Period.

 

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[chiamira]

Also like I said before it requires no skill to be good at any COD game.

 

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[DevilHawk34]

I can't stand S4. Zipper made slant 6 look like Socom gods when they released S4. The gaming industry use to listen to the fans or they would make improvements they thought we would like. Now its more about throwing a game together, get the money and move on.

 

sent from the ravens nest via tapatalk

[x--JERK--x]

So your saying developers should cater to a small group of gamers that want to play more "tactical"? How can than ever make money?

 

Make no mistake about it, Zipper attempted to change their franchise to appeal to more gamers and make as much money as possible. I don't think it is possible to call a game developer a "sell out". They are in it to make money, period. And when you cater to small amount of gamers, you lose money. And the SOCOM 1 & 2 diehards ARE a very small group of gamers when compared to games like MW3 and BF3.

 

Also, and this is just me, but I don't log onto my PS3 to play a military simulator game. I wasn't in the service, and I don't want to try and get that "realistic" feel in my games. They are games. And I want to have fun playing games. Which is why I'm not a fan of non-respawn type of games. To me there is zero fun in watching other people play in the dead room. Or basically EVERY non-respawn game being a suppression game until the numbers are thinned out.

 

Don't get me wrong, I miss the lobby system that Confrontation had. Only because I miss user created rooms that I can search through. But that's it.

 

No, All im asking for is that sony cater to this small group of socom fans( which I think would easily be over 1.5 million) one time every three years. if you don't want to buy it thats fine but I bet you would.

 

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[IRISH BULL]

No, All im asking for is that sony cater to this small group of socom fans( which I think would easily be over 1.5 million) one time every three years. if you don't want to buy it thats fine but I bet you would.

 

I see what your saying. And your right, I probably would buy it.

 

And I completely agree with your first post. I think Dev's like Zipper, and others like them, think there is no money in making a game with a 2-3 year shelf life. And I think they are completely wrong. I think there is more money in making a great game and then gouging the Hell of the players with DLC for the next three years. As long as that DLC added something to the game.

 

I also agree with Dis. I would gladly pay a monthly/yearly fee for a superior game. But it would have to be superior. You would think that console Dev's would take some tips from WoW. How much has that game made in total with their monthly fee's and DLC.

 

Here is an excerpt about WoW profits. And this is from an Jan. 2008 article.

 

Blizzard is still making $810 million a year (not to mention the cost to purchase the original game and the expansion pack, which at this point is probably negligible at this point given how much retailers like to take out)

 

And here is another excerpt. Basically an answer that it cost $200 million a year to run WoW.

 

Okay, so let's do a conservative estimate, and say even 1 million of these counted subscribers are still in their free month. That leaves 9 million paying subscribers who, at the $15 fee, are generating $135 million every month. Hell, even if you adjust that to, say, $120 million (since many subscribers may be paying for slightly discounted 3- or 6-month subscriptions), that still means Blizzard more than recouped their entire upkeep costs over a four-year period in just two months. We believe the words you are looking for are "hot damn."

 

So how does a Dev that has a game on ALL three platforms not see the astronomical amount of profits they could make on a great game with all kinds of community support and DLC? It's just mind boggling.

Edited December 9, 2011 by IRISH BULL