[MUD-Dev] RE: Back to the Future (was Re: WIRED: Kilers havemore fun)

[Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mike Sellers [SMTP:mike at bignetwork.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 01, 1998 5:55 PM
> To:	mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject:	[MUD-Dev] Back to the Future (was Re: WIRED: Kilers
> havemore fun)
> 
> At 03:20 PM 7/1/98 -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
> >One could have a very fun time determining exactly how UOL reached
> its
> >touchstone value in this list.  While I'll freely admit I had more
> >than a hand in it, the depth of penetration of UOL as a reference
> >point in MUD-Dev is astounding.
> 
Well, it's big and easy to point to. 

> Actually, that brings to mind a question I've been meaning to ask for
> a
> bit: what do you all think comes *after* UOL?  It's lifespan isn't
> infinite
> (I saw the UOL box on the bargain shelf at the local EB, I believe),
> and
> yet none of the other potential contenders has emerged. 
> 
Currently we are quite happy with what we are seeing, and see
possibilities for growth, actually. I don't think UO's lifespan is
running quite that short just yet. And of course we've got a new
iteration (merely additive, not a revision) coming this fall that will
basically move the product right back to the front of the shelves as
well as launch it internationally (which has the potential to double the
current base). 25% of our base right now is outside the US (figure cited
at an IEEE conference on Monday, which is why I can talk about it).

>  Is Everquest or
> Asheron's Call the heir apparent?  What about dark horses like The
> Rubies
> of Eventide, Azaria, or any of the other smaller operations (that may
> or
> may not ever actually see the light of day)? 
> 
I would say the current "heir apparent" by popular consensus among
players seems to be EverQuest, but at the same time I don't see it as
the heir apparent in terms of pushing the state of the art any; it seems
to be mostly a graphical Diku. Which may well be the right move
commercially, of course.

>  M59 has stabilized with a
> small population but strangely enough a profitable (current terms,
> don't
> know about ROI for 3DO) setup.
> 
I have it on fairly good authority that M59 is profitable since the
pricing change back a while ago. But 3DO has basically abandoned the
market. In fact, they had a bit of a firesale on good online game
developers and we picked up quite a few.

>   I don't know about UOL, but I'd bet drinks
> at next CGDC that they're going to be _barely_ profitable if that.  
> 
Do you mean by next year? We've been profitable since we launched, and
currently have over 90000 paying subscribers (again one of the few
numbers that is public--sorry I can't discuss too much more...)

> Are commercial, graphical muds and mud-like games here to stay, or are
> they
> just an interesting experiment?
> 
I think they are here to stay, judging from some of the figures released
lately by matchmaking services (figures mostly from MMWire and from
Strategy Plus' website):

Diablo and the service it launched, battle.net, is the only success
story in online game matchmaking. Blizzard announced a week or so ago
that they are now self-sustaining thanks to ads, with 25% of the online
players' time spent chatting (and being exposed to ads)-that's 83,000
people in one day. There are no profits in matchmaking anywhere else.
TEN announced 25000 subscribers at $20 a month. This is $6m a year. They
hope to get to 50% of their revenue coming from ads. But they have only
one persistent world game, and the rest is matchmaking. Unsurprisingly,
the majority of their play minutes are on the persistent world game
(Dark Sun Online). It is worth noting that Kesmai has taken 7 years and
$25m to build up, and in its new form of  Gamestorm, has stated publicly
that they need 150,000 subscribers at $10 a month to break even.
Gamestorm's stated belief is that advertising and matchmaking will not
support an online gaming service until several years from now-and in the
case of matchmaking, probably never will. MPG-Net is in a similar boat:
"What we're looking at is we're going to make money from subscriptions,
money from advertising, and money from commerce, and we think that
advertising and commerce long term will be the largest roles on the
service." Subscriber base according to their CEO: under 25,000, at $10 a
month. However, their selling point is the emphasis on chat rooms and
community, just like battle.net. Basically, matchmaking doesn't make
money, ads in a chat room does.

Kesmai feels that persistent worlds are the only way of making money in
online. So far, figures back them up. In the post-AOL-money-fest era,
money is scarce even in persistent worlds. The Realm has 20000
subscribers at $50 a year, and is being treated as a really big R&D
project they cannot shut down. Only a couple of all the online
persistent worlds ever created in the commercial arena have ever closed,
the only notable one being Neverwinter Nights-and doing so proved to be
a massive PR hit for America Online, when it took place.  There is every
indication that with the gradual accrual of a significant user base, a
game of this type can continue being profitable indefinitely as long as
it is supported. Margins are lower than retail, but the money is
reliable. There is, of course, no good way to shut one down, as when one
disappears, there is significant player complaint that carries over to
the next product, even if it is a sequel, because the complaint is with
the administration of the game, which remains unchanged. Simutronics
learned, probably to their dismay, that they were not able to shut down
Gemstone III despite having a newer game, DragonRealms. In fact, GIII
probably still gets more usage. They claim around 2000 users peak
average per day.

-Raph