Blizz reports that they sold 2.7 million Mists of Pandaria copies.  We know that about 700K of them are boxes, so the rest are digital.  The rest are obviously digital.  They also state that they are back above 10 million players, a 1 million boost from the last quarter.  This is strange for a few reasons.

First, this can only include non-asian sales as the game only came out on Oct 4th over there.  Second, if the game increased their player base by 1 million, that means that only 1.7 million existing players bought the expansion.  That’s about 20% of players.

So of the 8 million existing players that don’t have the expansion a few things can be surmised.  A big chunk must be in Asai.  A massive chunk. Also, a fair amount of accounts are likely part of the 1 year buy in for Diablo 3 and haven’t played WoW in a while.  Finally, some people simply are not interested in MoP.

Overall, I would say the number isn’t disappointing or spectacular.  Just odd.

Rob Pardo, head of Blizzard, has a neat interview with Game Industry, where he describes his path along the gaming front.  It’s an interesting read since he’s been around for a long time and seen things that would make most people’s hair turn white.

He has interesting ideas in regards to business models (F2P vs Subs vs Single Player) and the design trends.  Of note:

Definitely. I’m personally a big fan of game designers being involved in the monetization design, because that’s what will ultimately make for the best game. A lot of times I think those become very disconnected in the industry. Someone that’s more business-oriented or production-oriented will graft a business model onto a game because that’s what they think is going to drive the most revenue, but the game doesn’t really support it. That’s one of the things you’ve seen a lot with the subscription-based business model. I personally think subscription-based business models can still work, but you can’t over-value your game. There’s been some games in the past where they’ve put the subscription model on it because they thought they could get away with it. The reality is if you’re going to do a subscription model you need to deliver an immense amount of premium content over time, because people are going to be looking at as ‘If I’m going to be $10 or $15 per month, what am I getting month after month?’ If I’m not spending enough hours in your product, it’s just not going to make sense as a value proposition.

 

I bolded the part I think is relevant.  Some games have a business model before a single piece of code is written, others have it tacked on at the end.  This is part of the problem games have with converting to a F2P model.  The D3 link here is that the game was designed primarily around the RMAH.  Sadly, the entire game was a pay to win scenario at launch.  It sure does make it hard to find balance though.  If the gear is too good, RMAH runs everything.  Gear is too crappy, no one uses RMAH.

A worthy read nonetheless, just to see how an old school Blizz employee sees how the path of gaming is going.

Syncaine has used the past few logical points to try and push EvE as a market success.  Let’s take a look at the argument, using his strategy.

First we’ll go back to the Player Success vs Company Success issue.  The former is a subjective criteria of success, based on the number of players who not only play but play for a long time.  The second is an objective criteria based on the length of life of a game and the quality of updates to it.  Since they each impact the other, they are related.  No players, then the game shuts down.  No game, then no players.

Simply, if a game makes it past the first year, it would be simple to state that it is a success.  This is caused primarily by the fact that the company sets a bar for the number of players needed to keep the game afloat.  The quality of that success however, remains to be seen.

For that, we can look at the quality of the updates.  I would argue that this is new mechanics and new content.  Simply adding new content (new raids, skins, items) is simple.  Adding new mechanics (new events, rebuilding combat, flying) requires a complex planning structure.  EQ 1&2 are more about content.  WoW has expansions of mechanics but patches of content (which is why people think Blizz takes too long on patches).  EvE has had a fair share of both.

Is EvE a success in these terms?  100%.  Is WoW?  Yup.  So is LOTRO, DDO, Rift and a half dozen others.  TOR, DCUO and a few others are not though.

The second portion of the argument is that EvE is a mass-market success.  I don’t think so.  You can’t even say that about WoW.

70% of the US plays video games.  Over 250 million people.  That’s excluding Europe, Canada, Australia and a pile of other countries.  EvE has 400K subs (the wide majority of whom play multiple accounts).  You’re talking about 0.1% of all gamers.  World of Tanks has 18 million registered players.  That’s not even the same ballpark.

The classic MMO game, with a persistent world and stat based gaming, is a niche.  A noticeable one.  The reason people even talk about EvE today is because WoW paved the road.

Is EvE a success?  Certainly.  Is EvE a mass market success?  Not even close.  Is it in the top 10 for subscription classic-MMOs in the west?  Yes.  Why isn’t that enough?

More on the whole Torchlight experience and how it compares to Diablo 3.  The main thing for me in a game is that the core mechanics have to be the same throughout but the consumed content has to differ.  This is a problem in some games, such as Deus Ex: Human Revolutions where the boss fights were  completely different game.  Other games keep the consistent toolset and slowly add to it, like the recent Batman games.  MMOs have a challenge here, where the end game has to resemble the leveling game.  GW2 does it (maybe too well), while TOR doesn’t do it at all.

Back on point.  Diablo 3’s core systems are the same up until Inferno’s wall.  The game changes from an open choice of skills to a narrow set, with specific requirements.  Torchlight 2 is different in that the difficulty curve is steady and the challenge at level 90 is very similar to level 20.   The variety in combat is there too, depending on your skill set and weapons.   Comparing the systems of D3 from 1-59 and Torchlight 2, they are pretty evenly matched, perhaps a bit in Diablo’s favor.

Content is a bit different though.  Both have linear quests with exploration throughout.  D3 has a mostly outdoor events with a half dozen dungeons that can randomly appear.  A second playthrough (of which you are forced to do 3 times to get to Inferno) is nearly identical to the first.  By the time you do hit Inferno, odds are you’ve seen all the content the game has to offer, minus a few outliers.

Torchlight 2 switches this up in 3 regards.  First, there are random events/dungeons on each map. I’m on my 3rd playthrough and each one has had new things to do along the main path.  Nearly every additional dungeon is a random one, making the run through a lot of fun.  Second, once you beat the last boss you open the mapworks.  Here, you can select from 20 or so different maps, each with special effects attached.  You could get more XP, more drops, do less damage, more hit points.  Same for enemies.  Each ends with a boss.  It’s like entering a random dungeon on the regular map but the entire thing, from game load, is done in 6 clicks.  That is crazy accessible.  Third are the Phase Beasts.  There’s a 50% chance per overland zone to spawn this beast.  Once killed, it opens a portal to a challenge room.  I’ve yet to see the same room twice.  The best one so far was trying to throw bombs into ever-spawning spider nests.

It gets you thinking about how much the randomizing (and pool) of content is important in a game.  The semblance that your 8th run through a game might be 50% different than every other run through makes it easier to try again.  I think it’s a great path for gaming.

Let’s get it out right now, Torchlight 2 is probably the best gaming purchase I’ve made this year.

Loot Explosions!

There’s just something to be said about your screen being filled up by loot.  Every corner seems to have a chest and even if it’s only money and 2 items, it showers the screen.  The entire point of the genre is the slot machine effect of getting loot.  Having this perpetual reward, well spaced mind you, is gratifying.

Distinct Characters

My first playthrough was with an Outlander.  I went pure strength, a few passives, dual pistols and rapid fire for the most part.  That got me to level 54 without any problem.  I could play again and use a bow, or a shotgun, or a cannon.   I could go for summons, or poison, or glaives, or pure defense.  All are viable.  Combine this with 3 other classes and you finally have true variety between players and actual replayability.  The fact that you can take the hardest difficulty from the start (instead of having to spend 40 hours on a character first) is amazing too.

Diverse Enemies

There are 3.5 acts and throughout each you’ll find some rather unique enemies.  Some have armor that must be destroyed, some teleport, some set you on fire, some poison, some run away.  All bosses have some sort of unique feature that keeps you on your toes. All of a sudden that dragon breath seems simple once he starts throwing giant rocks from the sky and summons 8 enemies to help him.  Enemies all look different too.  There are very few recycled skins and you never really spend long enough against a type to grow bored of them.  The best part though, is that there are no cheap shots.  No arcane sentries. No immune to all damage.  There’s challenge without walls.

Pure Fun

This is where the difference truly lies.  I have a smile on my face when I play Torchlight 2.  I don’t feel a grind when I’m on a quest or a new dungeon, I feel like I’m a hero.  I don’t need to kill 50 enemies on the screen at once to be strong, I can do it by killing 5-10 at a time, back to back to back.  I don’t have to worry about numbers so much to progress.  Certainly, getting better stats helps but we’re talking about a 5-10 point different in gear, not 100-200 and 5 stats per item.

There’s just so much of it to enjoy.

Syncaine has a good argument against the 3 monther.  It’s a much better take than Keen’s in terms of clarity.

The argument stems from the argument of choice, at the core.  If a game is designed to attract the generic masses and the generic masses are nothing but sheep, then you’re going to have a problem.  TOR designed their game for the casual crowd (clearly) and they came and went.  WoW designed their core game around the dedicated crowd, they came and stayed for many years.  The farther along WoW trends towards the casual crowd, the more they alienate the core.

Can there still be games developed with a longer than 3 month time span?  Certainly but not in the F2P market.  The F2P market is designed 100% around the casual player.  Those games that do offer a sub model in addition to F2P however, are running a 2 tier system.  This is a topic for another time though.

RIFT is probably the only game in the past 5 years that targeted a core group of players, a casual group and provided the content for both on a regular basis.  Actually, it’s the only sub game that has ever done this, to my knowledge.

Are we going to find games that cater to a core group?  Are there any of those people left that are not currently invested in an existing game?  I wonder.

Keen coined the term 3-monther to describe MMOs that only keep people entertained for 3 months at a time, then take a massive dip in subscribers (or simply players).  His recent topic on how not all games follow this trend is divisive, to say the least.  I certainly disagree with the permanent nostalgia he has for EQ and DAOC.

My thought on this is simple.  Nearly every single game available today is an MMO.  If you can play multiplayer and with multiple people at once, then it’s by definition, an MMO.  Diablo 3 is an MMO, Dungeon Defenders, Call of Duty, the list goes on and on.

Way back when UO launched, there were a grand total of 1 other MMO available to play: Meridian 59.  Remember that first to market topic I keep coming back to?  UO’s success is based on this theory.  When EQ launched, DAOC, SWG and finally WoW, there was no competition on the market.  UO was a PvP gankfest where you could lose all your work in a flash.  People jumped ship as soon as a “carebear” option became available (also the cause of the sharding of Trammel).  EQ was a hardcore PvE grind with next to no content.  You killed the same bears for 4 levels, which could take 8 hours or 8 days.  Plus you needed a group to do it, which could take an hour to make if your friends weren’t online.

DAOC was a PvP realm game with next to no PvE, so it drew a specific crowd.  SWG, at launch, was an amazing sandbox but it had massive imbalances.  Without direction, people simply wandered without direction.   NGE turned it into a themepark and it killed the population.  WoW, at launch, was a solo-friendly, content-rich, PvE game that drew massive crowds.  Up until then, it was next to impossible to find a game where you could actually accomplish something in 1 hour.  Most other games, you had to wait an hour to get started.

You can see, there was next to no choice back then as to what game you wanted to play based on your playstyle.  Hardcore PvE?  EQ.  Hardcore PvP?  DAOC.  Sandbox?  SWG.  Casual PvE?  WoW.

Let’s count the number of casual themepark MMOs today.  WoW, Star Trek Online, Lord of the Rings Online, RIFT, Star Wars Online, DCUO.  That’s ignoring the F2P market, which has dozens of options.  You can put your money anywhere.

All that to say that in today’s massive gaming market, you are near guaranteed to find a game you like, with an online component, at most every 3 months, if not faster.  Heck, I’m in the middle of Borderlands 2 and Torchlight 2 right now.  XCOM in a couple weeks will suck me in too.

The 3 month game is here to stay.  MMOs can hope to keep people for longer but they will need to do the following:

• Aim for large box sales and a retention point of 25% or less.
• Release content at most every 8 weeks
• Concentrate on the core playerbase, they pay your bills
• Use the F2P market to decide which content your players want.

Success is possible in this new reality.  RIFT is a prime example.  So is DDO.

Last week we saw Torchlight 2 come out (which you should buy ASAP) and the comparisons to Diablo 3 are inevitable.  Torchlight has most of the minds behind Diablo 2 pushing it along while Diablo 3 is more along WoW’s mentality.  I wanted to take a better look at the core mechanic differences.

Weapons

Diablo 3 bases all damage on the weapon slot and boils it down to melee or ranged attacks.  A bow is the exact same attack as a crossbow, if the stats were the same.  In the end, the weapon is no more than a set of stats.  In Torchlight 2, each weapon is distinctly different than others.  Some are AE, some are close range, some are single shots.  Changing weapons is more than changing stats, it’s changing playstyles.  I won’t argue which is best but the latter, by it’s very nature, adds more choice the the game.

Skills

Torchlight 2 uses an old talent tree model, where you assign points to skills – both passive and active.  All have a near linear increase in power.  The active ones have 3 tiers, where an additional bonus is acquired, making a 5 point investment significantly better than a 4 points.  This in fact gives 4 tiers of talents (1pt, 5pts, 10pts, 15pts).  Your skill choices are static and cannot be changed (unless you have a mod).   There are no limits to the amount of skills you can use, only in the amount you can purchase.  Nearly all builds are valid at end game.  You have quite a lot of choice but once you make it, you can’t go back.

Diablo 3 limits you to 6 active skills and 3 passive ones.  Every single character has the exact same skills available to be picked, so each character is unique based on the 6 choices made.  Some builds are more defensive, some offensive and pretty much everything is an option until Inferno difficulty.  Once there, you basically have 2-3 build per character as an option due to the mechanics.

Trade

Here we have an issue.  Diablo 3 is built around an auction house while Torchlight 2 is has no system to encourage trade.  I’ve written at length why that is a poor decision by Blizzard – if you use the RMAH, you’re essentially giving money to Blizzard – but the real issue here is that the core game mechanics of Inferno’s gear wall mean that you need to buy items to succeed.  Even now, the odds of getting the gear necessary to progress in Inferno from drops is along the 1 per 8 hour session.  Trade is required.

Mechanics

I wanted to close with this section as it’s the most complex.  Torchlight 2 has a mix of mechanics that provide balance with the skills.  Some skills are based on weapon DPS, some not at all and others are a mix.  The increase in power for weapons is pretty linear.  You have an auto-attack.  Some enemies hunt in packs, some are ranged, some slow.  None have a cheap mechanic that is simply meant to kill you.  The difficulties are not related to character level but on player skill.   This means you can play the hardest difficulty off the bat.  You can also restart the game with a new game+.

Diablo 3 is a numbers game.  Either you have the numbers to beat the enemy or you do not.  The game before Inferno is fairly well balanced with bosses using unique attacks and strategy.  Once in Inferno, the power increase is exponential between tiers.  To reliably beat Act 3/4, you need gear that is 75% optimized in terms of stats, otherwise progress is next to impossible.  Damage is based nearly entirely on weapon DPS and an weapon with a slot for gems is overpowered (600 lifesteal or 100% crit damage).  This means the difference between an average top-tier weapon (say 600 dps, no slots, decent stats) and a good one (say 1000, 1 slot, above average stats) is the difference between 20,000DPS and 40,0000.

Overall

The more I play any game, the more I get a more complete idea of what makes great games.  Diablo 3, like SWTOR, was launched early without any endgame plan.  Games that want to stay on the radar need something like this thought out.  Torchlight has an infinite dungeon at the end, for better and better gear.  Diablo 3 is about to implement something like that in the future – well over 6 months after launch.

It’s really saying something that Blizzard’s ‘release when it’s ready’ system failed so much here.  I remember in the fall during D3 beta where they essentially re-wrote the entire combat system.  Then launched 5 months later.  Beta is for refinement, not re-writing.

I’m sure looking back people will enjoy both games for what they were.  I think everyone should give both a try to see how developers that understand mechanics make a game with different approaches.  With two widely differing opinions, people are guaranteed to find something they like.

Even when they are from smaller-ish studios.

‘Borderlands 2’ from 2K Games/Take 2 debuts at the top of the All Formats Chart this week with the biggest launch so far in 2012, toppling the previous best, ‘Mass Effect 3’ by over 4,000 sales.

Borderlands 2 is worth every penny.  Minor bugs aside, this hybrid RPG-FPS sets a its own bar for future games.  Akin to my previous post, being first to market with an idea (even on a sequel) makes you the industry leader by default.  Good on them.