[MUD-Dev] [NEWS] Warhammer Online Cancelled -- Why?

[Tazzik]

Luca Girardo wrote:
> Mike Rozak wrote:

>> Without a good USP, even if they succeded in a release, they
>> wouldn't be able to differentiate themselves them from their
>> competitors. This makes survival much more difficult, since the
>> game can't rely upon the USP to keep players around after their
>> 30-day trial.

> Hmm, what is a good USP? And good for whom? For the future
> customers or for the investors/producers of the MMOG? And is the
> absence of a clear USP a signal that we are having more
> evolutionary projects then revolutionary ones? Looking at the list
> I see three MMOGs that even if they have/had cleared USP, failed
> to reach a critical customer basis (AC2 for example with an
> estimated pop of max 10-15K, A tale in the desert with 7,063
> subscribers (June 2004), Uru Live (already cancelled)).  Now from
> my point of view USP could play a role for a customer in the
> acquisition moment, but it has less impact on the retention
> rate. And with the new trend of offering 14 days free trial before
> acquiring the game, I see USP losing more influence on the
> customer retention/acquisition rate as more products can be
> categorized as evolutionary products.  >

I would tend to agree with this sentiment.  However, in this age of
many new MMO's coming out and failing to live up to their
expectations, it stands to reason to think you may need a hook of
some sort to get the customers in the first place.  Once they come
by to check it out, the gameplay will need to dictate who sticks
around for any reasonable duration.

Personally, I believe that if a game is good enough, word will
spread regardless of any USP.  Even without a unique selling point,
if you execute an existing concept better than the current crop of
games, you can get a solid base of frustrated players to migrate
over.  I see very few MMO's bringing in completely new players to
the genre, so I do believe you can get good numbers just by
convincing them that you have a better version of a previous concept
(combat system, advancement, improved endgame, meaningful PvP,
etc...).

Of course, USP's can also run the risk of discouraging future
customers.  If you try to make your game too unique, many players
could be turned off by the unfamiliar.  As much as players may
complain about the same-old same-old, the general population will
embrace the familiar.

No matter the numbers of how many of us players are in any given
game, I have yet to meet anyone who is completely satisfied with the
current crop of games available.  Even players of the most
successful titles are likely to keep an eye open for the next great
thing.  All they really want is something that improves upon the
shortcomings of their current games (shortcomings being in the
opinion of each individual player.  Obviously, you will never
satisfy everyone).

For myself, all I look for is an improved combat system (one that
involves actual player strategies and more fun than pressing a
simple attack button over and over) and a better advancement system
(I've already done too many treadmills to bother with another game
based almost entirely on hours of tedium).  I would forgive a lot of
other shortcomings if a developer could convince me they improved
enough on those two issues alone.  A USP would really be a secondary
consideration to me, unless you would constitute improving an
existing concept as a unique selling point.

- Brendan
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev