Do existing IPs bring more MMO success?
The MMO genre, like most genres, is not immune to trends. One of the current ones that we’ve been working through is taking an existing intellectual property and designing an MMO around it. We saw it with Star Wars Galaxies, Lord of the Rings Online, and Warhammer Online. The question I have to ask is did those names really bring in more players than the MMO would have anyway? The notion of course is that a Star Wars fan who has never seen an MMO might play SWG. That should mean extra dollars, right?
In truth I’m not so certain of that fact. I would say that at the onset a developer might sell more boxes due to the name they attach to it. Does that name alone, however, lead to the most important monetary generating system: conversions? How many of those players, after seeing what an MMO is, agree to play past the first month? Are non-MMO players who just like the IP really willing to stay for the long term? I’m thinking that no, they don’t, and there is evidence to suggest why.
Looking at the bigger MMOs out there none of the IP based ones come to mind other than World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft was obviously based on Warcraft the game which, in turn, was massively influenced by Games Workshop’s Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Given that concession, however, I dare to say that originally people went to play WoW because Blizzard was making it and not just because it was based on the RTS game. It is also safe to say that huge portions of the WoW audience these days are barely aware of the game’s roots. WoW is, in essence, stand alone.
Beyond WoW, most of the original graphics based MMOs were designed around a new IP. Ultima Online was based on the Ultima universe which was not well known to the general public. EverQuest, Dark Age of Camelot and Asheron’s Call were all based around worlds that their developers created. On the other side of the coin, in the second MMO generation, we have a large quantity of games that have tried to sell us on the name. Most of these games are barely anything worth mentioning or they have an asterisk by their name. Matrix Online has gone offline and if you talk to a SWG player they’ll say, “The game was great before the combat patch.” None of these games do much more than average business. They seem no more viable than a game based on a world someone recently created.
When it comes to existing intellectual properties you also have limitations. You cannot deviate from the existing history without approval. If something doesn’t fit in the world then it is out, even if it is fun or exciting. In essence you can design your way into a corner with less ways out. You also have another stake holder who has to be paid and has the power to take back their property. It really leaves me questioning if this is a worthwhile avenue for game companies.
It is my hope that in the third generation of MMOs we’ll see more home grown IPs. 38 Studios is doing that with their Copernicus project and I applaud them for it. With any luck other studios will take the hint. A great name doesn’t mean you’ll have more customers. It just means you have more opportunity for angry rants on forums. After all, if someone loves an IP and you do a terrible job of translating it into your medium that is quite an intense dislike. We are all quite attached to the worlds we love. In the end I’d rather play a game that sells me on its features and content, not because I can run into Frodo, Darth Vadar, Mario or all three together. How about you?
Tags: 38 Studios, Copernicus, Ferrels MMO, LotRO, MMO Design, Warhammer
Blizzard next gen mmo is a new IP that they are creating especially for MMO play. I am very curious to see what it will be like.
I agree. Going for an existing IP is a risky thing but it will more than likely result in higher initial box sales. I see the same issues with it as you though. If a company signs on for an existing universe, they have to live up to the history and context of that universe. It’s possible for neat things to happen still but at the same time, the developers have clearly defined walls of what they can and can’t do. LotRO did it the best, in my opinion, but even they have to push the boundaries of the IP from time to time to do things they think will be fun and exciting.
The other issue I see is that existing IPs, especially those based largely in literature, have fans that are likely to be let down by the studio’s imagining of the game. Why? Because it’s not *their* imagining. Playing a game isn’t the same as reading a great book, most of the time, and I think any company would be hard pressed to match the experiences and adventure of characters in a true narrative. Still, with a game like LotRO it’s nice to have that world re-imagined because they’ve done it with their *own* narrative. That’s the key thing, I think. If you’re going to take on an IP with an established and well-loved story, you have to weave your own story and bring your players into it actively.
Great article!
A side concern that seems to be assumed here is that we’re talking about subscription games. In a game like Guild Wars, where the box price is everything, or a microtransaction game where there *is no box price*, the equations change. It could even be argued that the GW model doesn’t care all that much about retention, since recurring customers are a drain on resources (though building brand loyalty for any sequel box releases is important, it’s not the same thing as retention as a sub game might hope for). Likewise, the microtransaction model relies heavily on retention (gotta keep finding stuff players will buy), while the subscription model relies more on inertia. (After all, the subber who pays but doesn’t play is golden.)
In general, though, I’m all for creating new, interesting IPs. They tend to have to stand on their own merits, rather than being able to use name recognition as a crutch for sloppy game design, and I get the sense that it makes for better games as a result.
You make a really great point there Tesh. A solid IP could work wonders for a game that uses the Guild Wars model. After all, if your goal is to sell boxes, the name should do that. I would point out that that is not unlike console games based on movies. Movie games are notorious for being absolutely awful. I’m not sure why I didn’t think about that analogy and include it. We used to sell a lot of those games when I worked for GameStop. The reviews from customers were generally along the lines of “ugh” when they came in a few days later to trade the beasts in.
[...] IPs. Ferrel markets them! [...]