It’s been almost a year since I wrote the MMO Turing test and, looking back, perhaps I didn’t make the best choice of words. My goal at the time was to distinguish games with a real future from those that couldn’t cut it in the market, owing in part to the fact I don’t like throwing around terms like success and failure, because I believe the situation is much deeper than either of those two terms could ever describe. That being said, I have adjusted my views over the year to accommodate the two blanket terms, but my criteria of success and failure is based on how the game is remembered, rather than the presence (or lack thereof) of an update that personally chafes me.

So I wanted to revise my test, with the reminder that this is not a test of success, rather a test of longevity.

• Profitability: This section used to be for population, but given a second look population directly translates to profitability. After five years, your given MMO will have significantly cut back on servers, development staff, and support since launch. Also by this point, the population is mostly made up of veterans and returning players, the game is likely no longer sold on store shelves, and the game is probably well known enough that advertising is no longer a necessity.
• Community Awareness: This was titled “self-awareness,” but I think community awareness sums up the focus. I have a theory that the grand majority of players will quit an MMO driven by apathy related to a collection of small gripes with a title. What this comes down to from a developer’s perspective is a balance the release of enough content that every flavor of player can enjoy, coupled with knowing what your community wants (even when they don’t) in order to alienate as few people as possible. To invoke the NGE, Sony’s biggest mistake was implementing the update years after the game’s launch, and essentially telling the community what it should like. If Star Wars Galaxies had launched with the post NGE/CU systems in place from the start, there would not have been such a backlash. So you have to ask: How active in the community are the developers? Are they constantly making bad promises, content that never arrives, or expectations that are consistently tuned down?
• Place: This remains mostly unchanged from its original incarnation, with some additions in specificity. Place refers to the specific niche that an MMO fills, because pretty much any MMO is likely a niche title. If you like superhero MMOs, you will go to Champions Online or City of Heroes. Action online super hero players have DC Universe. Large scale PvP’ers have Darkfall, Dark Age of Camelot, and more. Fantasy role players have World of Warcraft, Alganon, etc, and players who cyber with staff have Age of Conan (fun fact: This entire article revolves around this one joke). A game that can’t nail down its target audience is doomed to a long walk down a short plank, and generally is something that must be secured at launch. You can see my examples in All Points Bulletin, Earth Eternal, and a few other titles.
• Future Outlook: Take a look at old games and see what their activity is. Are they still receiving content updates? How is the player base? Is the game being actively supported or are glitches going months without being fixed, customer support queries unanswered, and the game itself generally on life support? Have the developers been moved to a new project, or have they all been fired? This is an incredibly important factor because it depends solely on the company running the game. NCsoft, for example, is more likely to shut down a game that is under-performing while Sony Online Entertainment is more akin to keeping the game on life support via Station Pass subscribers, before pulling the plug. Just because a game is still running does not mean that it is alive.

I noted this in my previous article, but I want to completely remove the five year benchmark. Setting a point means creating a measure of success and failure, which not only goes against the point of the factors above, but is entirely unfair to certain titles. This isn’t exact science, and what works for one company may not work for another. A financial success for one game might spell certain doom for the next. I do agree with my previous conclusion, that three years is more acceptable line of “do or die,” if a line must be drawn, and five years would be the final benchmark.

As a player, I hate the idea of setting points of success and failure, and would rather a game be judged on how its players remember it post-mortem. On the other hand, MMO Fallout is also based in business, so I have to entertain both sides of the card. There is little doubt I will revisit this article once again in a year or two and adjust my terms, but such is the evolving market. A lot has changed even in the two years since MMO Fallout formed.

It’s been almost a year since I wrote the MMO Turing test and, looking back, perhaps I didn’t make the best choice of words. My goal at the time was to distinguish games with a real future from those that couldn’t cut it in the market, owing in part to the fact I don’t like throwing around terms like success and failure, because I believe the situation is much deeper than either of those two terms could ever describe. That being said, I have adjusted my views over the year to accommodate the two blanket terms, but my criteria of success and failure is based on how the game is remembered, rather than the presence (or lack thereof) of an update that personally chafes me.

So I wanted to revise my test, with the reminder that this is not a test of success, rather a test of longevity.

• Profitability: This section used to be for population, but given a second look population directly translates to profitability. After five years, your given MMO will have significantly cut back on servers, development staff, and support since launch. Also by this point, the population is mostly made up of veterans and returning players, the game is likely no longer sold on store shelves, and the game is probably well known enough that advertising is no longer a necessity.
• Community Awareness: This was titled “self-awareness,” but I think community awareness sums up the focus. I have a theory that the grand majority of players will quit an MMO driven by apathy related to a collection of small gripes with a title. What this comes down to from a developer’s perspective is a balance the release of enough content that every flavor of player can enjoy, coupled with knowing what your community wants (even when they don’t) in order to alienate as few people as possible. To invoke the NGE, Sony’s biggest mistake was implementing the update years after the game’s launch, and essentially telling the community what it should like. If Star Wars Galaxies had launched with the post NGE/CU systems in place from the start, there would not have been such a backlash. So you have to ask: How active in the community are the developers? Are they constantly making bad promises, content that never arrives, or expectations that are consistently tuned down?
• Place: This remains mostly unchanged from its original incarnation, with some additions in specificity. Place refers to the specific niche that an MMO fills, because pretty much any MMO is likely a niche title. If you like superhero MMOs, you will go to Champions Online or City of Heroes. Action online super hero players have DC Universe. Large scale PvP’ers have Darkfall, Dark Age of Camelot, and more. Fantasy role players have World of Warcraft, Alganon, etc, and players who cyber with staff have Age of Conan (fun fact: This entire article revolves around this one joke). A game that can’t nail down its target audience is doomed to a long walk down a short plank, and generally is something that must be secured at launch. You can see my examples in All Points Bulletin, Earth Eternal, and a few other titles.
• Future Outlook: Take a look at old games and see what their activity is. Are they still receiving content updates? How is the player base? Is the game being actively supported or are glitches going months without being fixed, customer support queries unanswered, and the game itself generally on life support? Have the developers been moved to a new project, or have they all been fired? This is an incredibly important factor because it depends solely on the company running the game. NCsoft, for example, is more likely to shut down a game that is under-performing while Sony Online Entertainment is more akin to keeping the game on life support via Station Pass subscribers, before pulling the plug. Just because a game is still running does not mean that it is alive.

I noted this in my previous article, but I want to completely remove the five year benchmark. Setting a point means creating a measure of success and failure, which not only goes against the point of the factors above, but is entirely unfair to certain titles. This isn’t exact science, and what works for one company may not work for another. A financial success for one game might spell certain doom for the next. I do agree with my previous conclusion, that three years is more acceptable line of “do or die,” if a line must be drawn, and five years would be the final benchmark.

As a player, I hate the idea of setting points of success and failure, and would rather a game be judged on how its players remember it post-mortem. On the other hand, MMO Fallout is also based in business, so I have to entertain both sides of the card. There is little doubt I will revisit this article once again in a year or two and adjust my terms, but such is the evolving market. A lot has changed even in the two years since MMO Fallout formed.