Comments on: Do existing IPs bring more MMO success?

By: /AFK – August 16 « Bio Break

/AFK – August 16 « Bio Break — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:47:29 +0000

[...] IPs. Ferrel markets them! [...]

By: Ferrel

Ferrel — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:15:45 +0000

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.

By: Tesh

Tesh — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:03:57 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:30:40 +0000

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!

By: Gareld

Gareld — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:23:29 +0000

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.