[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] MMO's are for Newbies

[Nicholas Koranda]

This post was written by Richard Bartle and posted on another forum. I
found it very compelling and wanted to share it in this group.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

Virtual worlds are being designed by know-nothing newbies, and there's
not a damned thing anyone can do about it. I don't mean newbie
designers, I mean newbie players - first timers. They're dictating
design through a twisted "survival of the not-quite-fittest" form of
natural selection that will lead to a long-term decay in quality,
guaranteed. If you think some of today's offerings are garbage, just you
wait


Yeah, yeah, you want some justification for this assertion. Even though
I'm in Soapbox mode, I can see that, so I will explain - only not just
yet. First, I'm going to make four general points that I can string
together to build my case. Bear with me on this


The Newbie Stream

Here's a quote from Victorian author Charles Dickens:

Annual income ?20/-/-, annual expenditure ?19/19/6, result happiness.
Annual income ?20/-/-, annual expenditure ?20/-/6, result misery.
Annual income ?0, annual expenditure ?20,000,000, result There.com.

OK, so maybe he didn't actually write that last line.

What Dickens was actually saying is that, so long as you don't lose more
than you gain, things are good. In our particular case, we're not
talking olde English money, we're talking newbies, although ultimately,
the two amount to one and the same thing.

Now I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news, people, but here goes
anyway: even for the most compelling of virtual worlds, players will
eventually leave. Don't blame me, I didn't invent reality.

If oldbies leave, newbies are needed to replace them. The newbies must
arrive at the same rate (or better) that the oldbies leave; otherwise,
the population of the virtual world will decline until eventually no-one
will be left to play it.

Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies

Newbie Preconceptions

Another quote, this time from the 1989 movie Field of Dreams:

If we build it, they will come.

Well, maybe if you're an Iowa corn farmer who hears voices inside your
head telling you to construct a baseball stadium, but otherwise


A virtual world can be fully functioning and free of bugs, but still be
pretty well devoid of players. There are plenty of non-gameplay reasons
why this could happen, but I'm going to focus on the most basic: lack of
appeal. Some virtual worlds just aren't attractive to newbies. There are
some wonderfully original, joyous virtual worlds out there. They're
exquisitely balanced, rich in depth, abundant in breadth, alive with
subtleties, and full of wise, interesting, fun people who engender an
atmosphere of mystique and marvel without compare. Newbies would love
these virtual worlds, but they're not going to play them.

Why not? Because they're all text. Newbies don't do text.

Newbies come to virtual worlds with a set of preconceptions acquired
from other virtual worlds; or, failing that, from other computer games;
or, failing that, from gut instinct. They will not consider virtual
worlds that confront these expectations if there are others around that
don't.

Put another way, if a virtual world has a feature that offends newbies,
the developers will have to remove that feature or they won't get any
newbies. This is irrespective of what the oldbies think: they may adore
a feature, but if newbies don't like it then (under point #1) eventually
there won't be anyone left to adore it.

Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature
they don't like.

Not-So-Newbies

Here's another quote (kind of), from a private study of 1,100 players by
the Themis Group. Themis's researchers asked veterans of 3 or more
virtual worlds how many months they'd spent in their first one and how
many months they'd spent in their second one. Dividing the second figure
by the first, we get these averages for time spent in the second virtual
world compared to the first:

EverQuest 80%
Ultima Online 70%
Asheron's Call 70%
Dark Age of Camelot 55%
Anarchy Online 55%

Players spend considerably less time in their second virtual world than
they do in their first. Why is this?

Well, the first virtual world that someone gets into is very special to
them. It's a magical, enchanting, never-to-be-repeated experience. You
thought it was only you who looked back wistfully on your early days
like that? Nah, it's everyone.

This has consequences. There used to be a virtual world called
NeverWinter Nights, unrelated to the BioWare RPG, on AOL. When it was
closed down, its refugees descended on Meridian 59. They immediately
wanted M59 to incorporate every piece of NWN functionality that they
could remember.

In general, players view all their subsequent virtual worlds in the
light cast from their first one. They will demand that features from
their first world be added to their current world, even if those very
features were partly responsible for why they left the first world.
They'll say they hate treadmills, but if their first experience was in a
virtual world with treadmills, then they'll gravitate towards other
virtual worlds with treadmills, all the while still hating them.

There's a long explanation for this, to do with the search for identity,
which I won't delve into here because you only need to know that players
do behave this way, not why (that's a different rant). Read my book
(Designing Virtual Worlds) if you want the full story.

Point #3: Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one
they first got into.

Short-Termism

No quote this time.

When a virtual world changes (as it must), all but its most experienced
players will consider the change on its short-term merits only. They
look at how the change affects them, personally, right now. They will
only make mention of possible long-term effects to help buttress a
short-termist argument. They don't care that things will be majorly
better for them later if things are minorly worse for them today - it's
only the now that matters.

Why is this? I've no idea. Well, I do have an idea, but not one I can
back up, so I'll keep quiet about it. The fact is, players do behave
like this all the time, and it would only take a cursory scan of any
forum after patch day for you to convince yourself, if you don't believe
me.

This short-termist attitude has two outcomes. Firstly, something
short-term good but long-term bad is hard for developers to remove,
because players are mainly in favor of it. Secondly, something
short-term bad but long-term good is hard to keep because players are
mainly not in favor of it.

Design that is short-term good but long-term bad I call "poor". Virtual
worlds are primarily a mixture of good and poor design, because the
other two possibilities (outright bad and short-term bad, long-term
good) either aren't implemented or are swiftly removed. Good design
keeps players; poor design drives them away (when the short term becomes
the long term and the game becomes unfun).

Point #4: Many players will think some poor design choices are good.

Summary

OK, so we now have the four points I need to launch into my tirade.
These are:

Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies
Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature
they don't like.
Point #3: Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one
they first got into.
Point #4: Many players will think some poor design choices are good.

I can now construct a line of reasoning that supports my initial
assertion.

The Newbie Induction

Under point #4, players will eventually quit a virtual world that has
poor features. Under point #3, however, they won't necessarily recognize
that a feature which caused them to leave was indeed poor. Under point
#2, they won't play those virtual worlds that lack this feature. Under
point #1, those virtual worlds that do lack the feature - that is, those
with the better design - will die through dearth of newbies. Any
absolute newbies, for whom this is their first virtual world, will be
educated to believe that this is how things are meant to be, thus
starting the whole cycle again. Q.E.D.

The normal rules of evolution by which computer games operate propagate
good design genes from one to the next. Each generation of game takes
the best mutations from the previous generation and adds to them.

Virtual worlds also propagate good genes, but they propagate poor ones
more readily. The best virtual worlds don't pass their design genes
around much because of their high retention rate: "Why would I quit when
what I want is right here?". Poor design genes cause players to leave
sooner, so it's these features that wind up being must-haves for the
next generation of products. This leads to a bizarre situation: for a
new virtual world to succeed, it has to have the same features that
caused its antecedents to fail..!

You're not convinced, huh? OK, here are two of examples of the theory in
action, one old and one new.

Example 1 (Old): Permanent Death

If characters that died stayed dead, it would open up all kinds of very
convenient doors for virtual world design:

* It prevents early-adopter players from gaining an iron grip on
positions of power.
* It re-uses content effectively, because players view same-level
encounters from different angles using different characters.
* It's the default fiction for real life.
* It promotes role-play, because players aren't stuck with the same,
tired old character the whole time.
* It validates players' sense of achievement, because a high-level
character means a high-level player is behind it.

Many designers and experienced players would love to see a form of PD in
their virtual world, but it's not going to happen. Newbies wouldn't play
such a game (under points #2, #3 and #4), therefore eventually neither
would anyone else (point #1).

PD is short-term bad, long-term good: rejected.

Example 2 (new): Instancing

Instancing looks very appealing on the face of it: groups of friends can
play together without interference in relative tranquillity. What's not
to love?

The thing is, this is not what virtual worlds are about. How can you
have any impact on a world if you're only using it as a portal to a
first-person shooter? How do you interact with people if they're
battened down in an inaccessible pocket universe? Where's the sense of
achievement, of making a difference, of being someone?

Most players don't see it that way, though.

Newbies see it as familiar - "fantasy Counterstrike, cool!" (point #2).
They don't know what it means for their long-term enjoyment (point #4).
Of course, they eventually will learn what it means - boredom and
disenchantment - but even so, they probably won't connect the effect
with the cause. They'll just go looking for another virtual world that
features instancing (point #3). Older-era players will perhaps initially
avoid anything with instancing because their first love didn't have it
(point #3), but they'll probably try it eventually because (point #4)
hey, maybe it's that missing piece that will give them the sense of
closure they crave?

Thus, instancing will get locked into the paradigm. New virtual worlds
that don't have it will get fewer players than those that do have it,
even though they have the better design.

Instancing is short-term good, long-term bad: accepted.

Analysis

It's not just permanent death, it's not just instancing: it's
teleportation, it's banks, it's non-drop objects - it's everything that
makes sense in some contexts but not in all (or even most) contexts.

Player: You don't have teleporting! How can I rejoin my group if I miss
a session?
Designer: Well gee, maybe by omitting teleportation I'm kinda dropping a
hint that you can have a meaningful gaming experience, without always
having to group with the same people of the same level and run a
treadmill the whole time?
Player: Are you NUTS? I want to play with my friends, and I want to play
with them RIGHT NOW!
Designer: But how are you ever going to make new friends? How -
Player: Are you listening? RIGHT NOW!
Designer: (Sigh)

Virtual worlds are becoming diluted by poor design decisions that can't
be undone. We're getting de-evolution - our future is in effect being
drawn up by newbies who (being newbies) are clueless. Regular computer
games don't have this problem.

The market for regular computer games is driven by the hardcore. The
hardcore finishes product faster than newbies, and therefore buys new
product faster than newbies. The hardcore understands design
implications better than newbies. They won't buy a game with features
they can see are poor; they select games with good design genes. Because
of this, games which are good are rewarded by higher sales than games
which are bad.

In virtual worlds, the hardcore either wanders from one to the next,
trying to recapture the experience of their first experience or they
never left in the first place. Furthermore, in today's flat-fee
universe, the hardcore spends the same amount of money as everyone else:
developers aren't rewarded for appealing to the cognoscenti, except
maybe through word of mouth that always comes with caveats (because of
point #3).

Possible solutions

I'm not completely pessimistic here; there are ways the cycle can be
broken, mainly by attacking points #2 and #3 (that is, by overcoming
prejudices concerning what "should" be in a virtual world). Here are
half a dozen hopes for the future:

* Innovation. If evolution doesn't work, maybe revolution will? A
virtual world different enough that it doesn't map onto players'
existing experiences may attract newbies and oldbies alike. Of course,
there's no guarantee that the new paradigm won't itself be short-term
good, long-term bad

* Marketing. People can sometimes be persuaded to overcome their
preconceptions. Even a text-based virtual world could become a monster
hit if it had the right licence and was advertised to the right group of
people. Unfortunately, marketing costs money.
* Cross-fertilization. If no poor features are ever added, point #4
becomes redundant. How do you know that a proposed feature is genuinely
good, though? Simple - there are two traditions of virtual worlds (West
and East) so you cherry-pick the best ideas from the other one. You
speak Korean, right?
* Works of art. Virtual world design involves much craft, but at root
it's art. A designer makes decisions based on how they feel things ought
to be. Players will eventually pick up on the differences and play a new
virtual world just because they like the designer's previous work: Raph
Koster, Brad McQuaid and Richard Garriott already have more creative
freedom than first-time designers. Point #3 evaporates! If only
designing a virtual world didn't take so long

* Time may heal. If you wait long enough that people forget why they
ever objected to something, that something can come back. Fashions
change, and who knows what the newbies of 2024 will think? Good ideas
will always get a second chance to enter the paradigm, it's just that
"wait a quarter of your life for it to happen" thing that's a little
depressing.
* Growing maturity. Perhaps the best hope for the future is the growing
maturity of the player base. First-time newbies will always assert the
supremacy of their first virtual world, but oldbies who have been
through the mill enough will realise that some of the features they've
been taking for granted are actually counter-productive. If they're
around in sufficient numbers, we may see virtual worlds appearing that
do everything right and very little wrong, removing point #4 and leading
us into a golden age. I can dream


Conclusion

Virtual worlds are under evolutionary pressure to promote design
features that, while not exactly bad, are nevertheless poor. Each
succeeding generation absorbs these into the virtual world paradigm, and
introduces new poor features for the next generation to take on board.
The result is that virtual world design follows a downward path of
not-quite-good-enough, leading ultimately to an erosion of what virtual
worlds are.

Fortunately, there are a number of processes at work that have the
potential to arrest this descent. Thus, although the future of virtual
worlds may look disappointing, it's not completely bleak.

Besides, for the purist there will always be text MUDs.