What happens to successful MMORPGs when they get old?

[Bosstone]

@Max the Immortal

Well, that and I got fed up fighting crabs and bunnies and bees almost exclusively.

This is why I’ve been enjoying Tabula Rasa and City of Heroes. In Tabula Rasa, there is wildlife, some of which is hostile, but for the most part you’re fighting against a (theoretically intelligent) invading force. They do a good job of giving you the perception that your actions mean something in the war, even as a lowbie. City of Heroes, being an urban landscape, offers completely different enemies than random wildlife, with thugs, criminals, robots, mages, and other things that are fun to punch.

[DigitalC]

Any shrinking of the player base is followed by the shrinking of the support/expenses for the game. Servers get merged, customer service downsized, developers move to other projects. You can keep a few servers running with a ghost crew just to make sure things are running smoothly as long as there are still some subscribers and they don’t expect any more content updates. No game is at this stage yet though, although it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened to the original EQ in the next few years.

[Balance]

@Bosstone

In Tabula Rasa, there is wildlife, some of which is hostile…

You are a master of understatement. Unless they’ve massively nerfed the xanx and fithik, the bugs are more dangerous than the marauding aliens. I watched one night as one xanx ate three Predator ships without even belching. The fithik may be even worse.

[Bosstone]

@Balance

You are a master of understatement. Unless they’ve massively nerfed the xanx and fithik, the bugs are more dangerous than the marauding aliens. I watched one night as one xanx ate three Predator ships without even belching. The fithik may be even worse.

I’ve been following the patches (City of Heroes is taking up all my time right now), and every other one they scale the wildlife back a few notches. The fithik get nerfed hard often. I agree, that was a weird imbalance. Still, you’re fighting the real enemy from the get-go, instead of being forced to train up on boargars for a couple levels.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

I’m wondering if Sony’s station pass idea will spread. For about twice the monthly cost of a single game, their station pass gives you access to pretty much all the MMOG’s they are running.

I can see, for example:
EQ’s life being extended, by people who now only play every other Tuesday with a set group of people.
Those same people are more inclined to play the newest Sony game, because they are already paying for the multigame pass.

As said above, it can’t cost much to keep a game up and running, if you aren’t doing any development for it. Why not use it as a hook to keep players buying your new games?

[Apocalypso]

@Really Not All That Bright

Giving Anarchy Online a try now.

Unfortunately my accounts are not active right now (I’m trying to focus on some RL stuff), or I could show you around a bit. The game’s kind of complex to give quick tips, but I can answer any questions you might have. Most of the game’s players are pretty friendly, so don’t be afraid to ask questions! The game features player organizations, called orgs. You might try finding an org geared toward newer players, they’ll help you out a lot, and give you some people to play with.

@Tastes of Chocolate

I’m wondering if Sony’s station pass idea will spread. For about twice the monthly cost of a single game, their station pass gives you access to pretty much all the MMOG’s they are running.
…
As said above, it can’t cost much to keep a game up and running, if you aren’t doing any development for it. Why not use it as a hook to keep players buying your new games?

Sounds like a cool idea for being able to try different games and find one to your liking. I can forsee a few problems though:

1. Any online game developer will tell you that keeping up with hackers, scammers, etc, is a constant battle. If there’s not at least bug/exploit fixing patches coming out, the game will be overrun with hackers and exploiters. And even minor patches require a LOT of coding and testing.
2. A game which you’re not doing any active development for is going to lose its audience pretty quickly. Nothing new in the works means no incentive for the longtime players to keep going.
3. Online games require a much bigger time investment than single player games. I have never had time to play more than one online game at a time. A single player game can be beaten in anywhere from a few days to a month or two. To get people to keep playing (and paying) online games, the character cycle is much longer and more drawn out. I remember reading somewhere that the optimum time to max a character out in an online game is about 6 months.

[JayRx1981]

@DigitalC

Any shrinking of the player base is followed by the shrinking of the support/expenses for the game. Servers get merged, customer service downsized, developers move to other projects. You can keep a few servers running with a ghost crew just to make sure things are running smoothly as long as there are still some subscribers and they don’t expect any more content updates. No game is at this stage yet though, although it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened to the original EQ in the next few years.

Strictly speaking, that’s exactly what happened to Asheron’s Call 2. Admittedly, most didn’t find the game all that enjoyable (there was a huge content gap in the upper levels), but it lasted for at least a year longer than it would have due to server merges and such. Of course, eventually they had to shut it down, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the teams involved weren’t transferred over to D&DO and MEO.

Too bad, really, AC2 was probably the most enjoyable MMO to single in of the 5 I’ve played (EQ, WoW, FFXI, and AC are the other 4). I miss ya, my crazy 4000 health Feral Intendent.