Re: Secret Ops mentioned by XPav – yeah, it was pretty terrible, although free, so difficult to complain about. I think the idea of purchasing serialized content is something that could really work in computer gaming, but it hasn’t been done well to date.
The issue with serialized work is that there is no guarantee that the story will ever be finished. If its free, like Witch’s Wake for NWN, then you never know when other priorities are going to come before providing free mods.
Even if you have to pay for the content, the developer may decide that its not profitable to continue and pull the plug before the end. That’s why I’d rather wait for the serial to be complete so I can be assured that at least I’ll get to play the whole story. Of course, if everybody waits then the developer doesn’t get enough response to make it worthwhile to continue, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s a good point, but that’s why I’d make each component stand-alone. The old TSR D&D modules are a good example - they may tie together, but they’re also enjoyable stand-alone. It’s not a format that would work well for all genres, or even all games within genres that might be practicable, but I think it would work for certain games (and probably better than expansion packs).
I think they actually had more content on the Secret Ops website. Rather than cinematics and the like, they had the faux email and new stories over there that tried to fill in some sort of backstory.
But I never read it because it wasn’t integrated with the rest of the game.
No offense, but one thing that this industry doesn’t need is more influence from “The old TSR D&D modules”.
I think the loosely serialized format of television shows like “Buffy” and “Star Trek” would work just fine.
Ultimately the content isn’t the big issue. The real question is, how are you going to create a gameplay dynamic that people are interested in coming back to every week?
No one is suggesting it as a model for the industry in general – but “classic D&D modules” seems like a pretty natural format for “D&D game that tries to replicate the tabletop experience as accurately as possible”.
I’m not sure I really understand what you mean, in a gaming context. How would that work, and it what genre?
I think the answer to the question -is- content. It doesn’t have to be weekly content, or even monthly. Just periodically releasing new adventures, or campaigns, with content that’s more interesting than a few almost random missions or non-descript land to explore.
Offense. This is exactly what niche genres like computer RPGs (and possibly sims like Freelancer) need. The problem with computer RPGs these days is twofold; one, nobody makes them anymore, and two, it takes them 4 years just to make one. They’re few and far between, in other words. Morrowind took 4 years to make, and another year to make the expansion pack. I don’t want to wait 5 years for the full-on Morrowind experience. I’ll gladly pay $5 for a downloadable module using the same engine, graphics, assets, whatever, to extend the life of my singleplayer game, provided the module is as highly polished and professionally produced as the original game.
I’m sure Bethesda at least has plans for an entirely new Elder Scrolls sequel game not based off of Morrowind, but we won’t see that for at least another 4-5 years, and that’s assuming they don’t try to continue releasing retail xpacks for Morrowind in the near future, which they very well might.
Best attempt I’ve seen at an episodic game (as in Internet distributed) was Halcyon Sun. This is not the screaming praise that it may sound - it was a mediocre game at best, and it was rarely that good. The first episode involved watching almost half an hour of cinematics and the space combat was pantaloons. Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination.
However, it got a lot of the basic ideas right - easily reusable figures, highly compressed voices (but still including them) and a very Wing Commander esque focus on the characters rather than just the Mission of the Week. They had a certain character that I’ve missed ever since X-Wing and Freelancer decided that you were the only person in the entire war worth concentrating on and that your relationship with your wingman should never go beyond you calling him Alpha-2. Which I hate. I want the likes of Angel, Paladin, Jazz, Maniac and the rest of it to add life and a story beyond just sweeping a few points and being told ‘Well Done’.
Compare it to Special Ops or whatever it was called, with a couple of radio messages and a quick blow-up job, and it was all the more impressive in hindsight.
I’m not sure I really understand what you mean, in a gaming context. How would that work, and it what genre?
It’d be interesting to see it done properly. For my money, it could be like…well, let’s take Sam and Max as an example. Instead of one massive story, split into chapters, each month you could return for a brand new mini-adventure. With decent models and clever asset reuse (cell shading for instance would let them get away with much, much lower complexity art), it would probably be possible to do that. Like the TV show, rather than a novel.
Alternatively, I remember tuning in weekly for You Don’t Know Jack: The NetGame. I want that back - best quiz show on the PC, bar none.
I was thinking more of a model where you have a core game that retails for $30-40, has a substantial amount of gameplay, then gets retail “modules” every 6-9 months for, maybe $5 a pop. The model works especially well with RPGs, because each module can just be a new “primary quest.” The other issue from a product perspective is that you basically want these modules to be downloadable (there’s no way you could justify the cost of any kind of retail or CD distribution, unless you somehow inked a deal with AOL to get your game on their crappy “Try the new and improved AOL 9.0!!!” CDs), and since you’re probably dealing with a target audience (for RPGs and space sims, anyway) that’s behind in the tech curve, you’d want to keep the files relatively small for modem users.
Example: the first Icewind Dale game had 2 xpacks, one retail, one free for download. They could have been carved down a bit and each sold for $5 (originally, the first sold for $20 and the second was free), and I would’ve put down the money in a flash. That’s just my opinion, of course.
I’ll agree in an RPG format it makes sense. In fact it’s everything that hoped “Neverwinter Nights” was going to be, and wasn’t.
Still, I shudder when I hear “D&D game that tries to replicate the tabletop experience as accurately as possible”. There’s nothing mass market about that experience, and the audience for it is already far too well served, IMO. I do agree that there’s cool stuff to be mined out of the RPG experience, but let’s give the D&D/D20 model a rest…
You need to make sure (and Charybdis describes it well) that you’re able to bring new users on for the ride at any time, while not alienating the hardcore fan base.
I’m still stunned that no one has been able to ink a deal with sponsor for this kind of thing: “Icewind Dale! This week’s episode brought to you by Pepsi!” We managed to do it for 4 days with Nintendo on Lockdown, but that’s because we had the support of “on-air”.
Clearly. D&D isn’t exactly accessible, but it’s the closest thing there is to mainstream fantasy gaming by default, since it’s the largest and most prominent. The “replicate the tabletop experience” line is clearly to attract hardcore nerd fans, who will always have a kneejerk reaction to complain and criticize, because that’s what hardcore nerd fans do.
This is why Neverwinter Nights represented such a big win (or a potentially big win, anyway) for fantasy nerds everywhere. It made D&D accessible. You didn’t need to know 3rd edition rules to smash open treasure chests, and when your orc-man cleaved multiple goblins who were standing around you, you’d say, “oh cool, what was that, anyway?” Then go back to smashing chests.
Getting a major sponsor to agree to kick down money on a cutesy $5 product that will only be available for distribution on the internet and will only be of interest to an established user base that has already purchased and installed a niche RPG? Think about it for a second, and it’ll come.
Sponsorship or no, I still say an episodic content system would be good to keep supporting singleplayer games, provided the original game did well, and the modules were of extremely high quality and well worth the download. That’s just me, though.
I was hoping that Microsoft would soon deliver on using Xbox Live as a delivery system for a good episodic content game but I have yet to hear anything on that side of the fence.
That was planned (or at least mused over for a while) for Hitman - you’d be able to buy ‘HitPacks’ consisting of a handful of levels, like the missions in the core.
I’d say the big problem with it is a simple one - who actually finishes games? I do, I’m sure you do, and likewise for the hardcore market, but I see the average gamer simply moving on after a while. Your game has to be absolutely, jaw-droppingly stunning and addictive in the single-player mode AND carry on the same level of quality in the online updates to keep people interested (The Sims being the obvious exception to the rule, but discountable if we’re talking plot and more direct episodic finishes).
And even then, it’s only a maybe. If you build your game around that concept only to have it tank, you get to make a choice between either supporting it out of your own pocket to retain honour, or waving your hands in the air and saying “That’s all folks!”. You’re also competing with any free stuff that other companies release, like Epic’s BonusPacks, and probably fighting with your own users - who are likely to be the only ones really checking the site to see the updates, about why you’re not handing out your work for free.
I’d rather see people chasing the episodic model from the off, and effectively taking chances a bit more. If you’re focusing on story, puzzles and the like, you can re-use the same engine and to a large extent get away with lower quality art assets simply because of the much, much lower standards that people hold to online stuff. You can use this leap to start putting together smaller scale games than the overblown epics that everyone feels honour bound to make at the moment, without having to risk the entire company on a particular title failing. A string of them would wipe you out, but that’s true of anything - at least there’d be a chance to acquire a fan-base in the course of one story and then build from it with the future ones.
A big thing would be to avoid the gargantuan stories to begin with, and instead tell a more basic story in, say, six parts. That’s doable, you can plan in advance and know roughly how taxing it’s going to be, and the smaller timescale should stop users from panicking that the story won’t be finished.
It actually a second for me to get all your words out of my mouth.
I don’t think you could do what you describe and I’m not suggesting it. The base price would probalby have to be $0, with some kind of sponsored subscription fee. (Remember how TV used to be free, and paid for by advertisers?)
That’s what I was trying to say before about creating a Gameplay Dynamic that is going to be interesting over time. What’s going to bring users back to the same experience week in and week out? But you can do it: look at Everquest.
I think that suggesting it’s going to take some form of story based RPG is a good point.
Or possibly something more kid like, with an ongoing cartoon that shows up on TV and drives the content. Basically making the game equivalent of the old “secret decoder rings”.
Maybe we just don’t have the technological equivalent of TV for games yet.
It’s also got a lot to do with economies of scale. Do I need 100,000 users at $10/month or 1,000,000 users at $1/month? Those are going to be massively different challenges…
There are two big differences with EQ - that it’s an insane time-sink of a game, and the bajillion-zillion versions of it that are already coming out. An episodic game would need is a hook right now, not the possibility of one some three months down the line. Someone will subscribe for a ‘play any time’ game and dip in and out until they get bored or addicted, but they’re not going to keep plonking down cash for Spend-Two-Hours-Clubbing-Monsters-Like-Seals every month.
Maybe we just don’t have the technological equivalent of TV for games yet
With broadband picking up, it’s not that far off. Sites like Shockwave have already done okay for smaller stuff, and there have often been video projects that have caught peoples’ attention (Strong Bad E-Mail is one that I check regularly). With Shockwave, almost everyone has the ability to play 3D content in their browser, and that’s a huge boost over having to manually create a million pieces of 2D artwork. The Tex Murphy guys are playing around with something for a new series of online episodes, although they haven’t released many details yet.
Do I need 100,000 users at $10/month or 1,000,000 users at $1/month? Those are going to be massively different challenges…
There’s another few possibilities as well - like letting people purchase access to older episodes as wella s the one that you’re pushing, or tying everything together into a wider service. Really, I’d think you’d have to combine things with something like The Zone or Shockwave or something of that ilk to build your initial userbase. Unless you had a major, major license for a TV show or something like that. I’d be interested to know how well Law and Order did.
Everquest is an online game that receives regular content updates and fixes by download. Its entire subscriber base has come to accept these updates as being completely natural and an inherent part of playing the game. Everquest is in no danger of ever getting put on the shelf in favor of hunkering down on a sequel with a 5-year development time. In fact, the sequel has already been in development for years, yet the original game still brings in huge numbers of people and also features regular content updates.
Obviously, good multiplayer can extend the life of a game long past its single-player campaigns. Starcraft’s incredible (and continually enduring) popularity as a multiplayer game is an obvious example.
What I was getting at was prolonging the life of single-player games, specifically. Currently Bethesda (or whoever) works for 5 years to make Morrowind, release Morrowind, have people play and then forget Morrowind, then take another 5 years to start developing a full-fledged sequel. What I was proposing was some kind of alternative.
And has also, it seems by the fact you posted such, accepted the fact patch = storyline in the most bizarre fashion imaginable: that being the patch storyline gag is somehow episodic.
I’m interested to hear people’s impression of Anarchy Online’s “soapopera”-like storyline. (please no “The [Sc]rotum Wars” jokes)
The problem is that it’s hard to get that kind of proposal into your production cycle.
“Let’s make the game extensable so we can release monthly expansions later!” says the Designer, during the pre-production phase.
“Sorry, but we had to drop the add-on features, but management said we can do an expansion pack. We needed to make sure this gets out on time,” says the Producer, 3 months into production.
This is not directed to anyone in particular but… I’m not sure what this discussion is all about, honestly. It’s not as if developers were hell-bent on avoiding sequels or expansions. On the contrary, every semi-successful game gets at least one expansion. After that, the developers scrap the engine not because they’re stupid but because technology has advanced and people start to get tired of the game.
Expansions are cheaper to make than full games but they are also less profitable because they must sell at a lower price and typically move fewer units. Whether they’re more profitable than a full game depends on the individual case but it’s not a foregone conclusion that putting out expansions will drive up your profits. Expansions that nobody wants to buy are a net loss, no matter how cheap they were to make (and they probably aren’t cheap if they’re “AAA” quality).
As I see it, slicing up games into a basic release and a long row of content modules only makes sense in two cases:
Your basic release is fantastically popular and millions are hopelessly addicted to it. They don’t care that the graphics are ageing or that they’ve seen it all before. See Everquest or The Sims.
You’re a hobbyist who creates an inexpensive framework that allows other hobbyists to contribute some content, basically for the fun of it and maybe for a few extra bucks. See Zillions of Games.
(There’s another popular option – the basic game contains editing tools which increase its longevity but are not intended for the creation of commercial expansions. But as I understood the discussion it was about profitable add-ons by the original developer, not fan mods.)
Both methods are alive and well. What we do not see is someone investing millions into an expandable “AAA” engine that sells moderately well, and then creating a string of predictably unprofitable high-quality content modules. That just doesn’t make any economic sense.
And the web-based distribution model that was mentioned in this thread would definitely fall under category #2, due to bandwidth limitations and the very low numbers that web distribution tends to sell. There’s certainly nothing coming out of that corner that would count as “high quality” by retail standards.
By their nature they have to sell fewer units, since the market is a subset of the purchasers of the original game.
Or 3. the nature of the game makes the addition of discrete content particularly compelling, and the cost of producing those discrete modules is far less than the profit derived from them. Like NWN modules. Arguably the growing library of content continues to drive sales of the original game and allows it to retain shelf space.
If web distribution is practicable (which is questionable), your distribution costs are lowered, making it more likely to be a profitable venture with fewer sales. Again, it’s not something that would work for all genres, or all games within a genre, but I think it’s an option that hasn’t really been given an opportunity to succeed.
