When I write lengthy articles it’s because I feel the need to “wrap up” an argument that is starting to come on the surface, influencing the scene in many different ways.
The problem of mudflation is a “node”. A source of consequences all related. My attempt to analyze and understand it is a way to go back at the root. So the mudflation is a “warning” for the development of content in World of Warcraft and the upcoming pay-per-use expansions in EverQuest 2 (and a lot more).
One of the reasons why I personally chosed WoW (as written yesterday) is because the possibility of PvP makes it feel more like a cohesive world with breadth instead of an infinite treadmill with no aim (like a ladder bringing you nowhere). I want to play a game, to consolidate my role, affect the world. I don’t want to drift away with just the greed of power in the void. The game should provide an environment, not a blurred, dispersed space. The “content” I’d like to see added is about different layers of complexity, one on top of the other. It’s vertical development, not horizontal “fat/flat” development. I want to see the elements a game already has to become deeper and more complex, I don’t want to see more elements ad infinitum all working exactly in the same way. Interdependence of all the elements, not dispersed content all equal and mudflated, all eroded and dispersed.
These comments go directly to touch the (dangerous) potential of the “Adventure Packs” EQ2 is about to launch. We already discussed that these represent a line of separation between “have and not-have” players. In an online game or everyone has something or noone has/uses it. The players must agree here because it’s a collaborative game and, for it to succeed, agreements need to be done. Consolidated paths need to be set so that the players are able to gather and organize.
The point is that an expansion pack that is not “free for all” is effectively a barrier between the players. Recursively, if you want the expansion to sell well and if you want the majority of players to buy it, have access to it and make it required even for those unconvinced (so that the barrier goes away), you need to build it following the model dictated by the “mudflation”.
The stuff in that expansion will be a boosted up version of the “free” content that everyone has access to. This because, again, to be able to play in these new zones you need to group other players that also accepted to buy them. And if these zones don’t offer a perceivable advantage over the rest of content, noone will buy them and the zones will be just finish forgotten by the majority of the playerbase.
In any case this isn’t content. The opposite. This is an erosion of content, a continue replacement of old stuff with new shiney (for a fee). The players will just choose the optimal path and leave the remaining 90% of the game to rot. If the used 10% is the free content or the pay-per-use content it depends on the quality of mudflation and erosion used.
The more the system is able to forget, the more the system is able to grow.
I’m not against the idea, but against the implementation. I already discussed that I would gladly see the subscribtion fee of a mmorpg to rise consistently even at 25$ or so. But excused by a REAL continued development that doesn’t just glide on the surface without delving in the possibilities of the design. The reason to do so is that you cannot advance and expand the game mechanics and then put a fee that the players need to pay. Because that path forces you to make the advancement as an “option”. A “flat” subscription fee allows, instead, to go right at the core and advance the mechanics for everyone and on all the layers.
Now the biggest problem is that SOE already surveyed and analyzed the market. It wouldn’t be concretely viable to set a 25$ monthly fee. Instead it is viable to build content packs and sell them for an accessible price. But what I’m trying to say is that this works for the market but it doesn’t work nor improves the possibilities of the design. The market strangles the quality, the potential.
While, instead, it would be possible (even if hard) to slowly lead the market instead of just seconding it. To educate it to a new product and a new type of offer. The direct gain is that this path is harder but more effective and rewarding because its aimed correctly.