[MUD-Dev] NEWS: Why Virtual Worlds are Designed By Newbies - No, Really! (By R. Bartle)

[Eric Random]

On 13 November 2004, Richard A. Bartle wrote:

> Yes, but unless they can attract new players it doesn't matter
> that they can maintain existing ones.

This distinction is required because of the context and framework of
your premise.

Given that a virtual environment's product cycle is
conceptualization to qualification to certification to production,
and the production phase continues perpetually through product cycle
meta-phases of variation, alteration, and expansion, the article
illustrates the imbalance within the context of the production
phase.

In a way, you are attempting to prove a universally quantified
proposition. The industry includes every product, and therefore, a
fundamental property of the industry is a fundamental property of
every product in that industry. To prove such a proposition false is
to prove there exists such a product in which it is not true. But,
this method does not quite hold, as properties of an industry are
normally attributed to the most popular products within the
industry, which is a subset. Therefore, the clearest method is to
attempt to prove the proposition true or false for every product.

The article presented that the design influence of the new player is
greater than that of the veteran player in the context of the
production phase, and it is this imbalance which drives the industry
towards satiating the new player.

My response is that this imbalance does not occur fundamentally in
the production phase, but does occur fundamentally in the
conceptualization phase, and would hold true for all products. There
is no need for the distinction of maintaining players in the
conceptualization phase.

Once a virtual world enters the production phase, a balance between
maintaining players and attracting them is essential for success.
Virtual worlds are fundamentally more perpetual interaction rather
than temporal attraction, unlike more transient explore-and-discard
worlds.  Large player populations constitute a core marketable
attribute for success. Therefore, unlike transient worlds,
maintaining players is paramount towards attraction, and vice-versa.

Further, expansion/alteration/variation phases are best leveraged on
existing customers. It is much less costly to expand or vary an
existing world than transform it. Changes in market demand have a
greater effect on new products rather than existing ones.

Ultimately, though, this is not about new or veteran players of a
particular world, but of an industry. The major genres have been
explored and cross-platforming is a reality. The industry has an
understanding of the size of the existing market. One can compete
within it, or attempt to expand outside it. It's a matter of
demographics and current market conditions. This is where
maintaining and attracting meta-industry players makes the
difference. When the market caps out and competition heats up,
attracting new players becomes more important as the competitive
dynamics already maintain the current ones. To expand, the virtual
world industry adopts attributes of other parallel industries, and
the same exists for parallel markets expanding into virtual worlds.

This, actually, introduces an interesting dilemma in the creation of
virtual environments. Did the concept of RPG expand into virtual
worlds, or did the virtual world concept expand into RPG? What
effect does this have on its developmental direction? My experience
from the early 80's views it more as RPG expanding into virtual
worlds, as I was more making social spaces become environmentally
interactive rather than making interactive environments more of a
social space. Perhaps this is what we see in today's VW industry,
with interactive environents like Ultima, Bard's Tale, and Wizardry
becoming social spaces and not the other way around.  This could,
perhaps, be a way of understanding the nuances of the virtual world
community and how it develops, but I digress.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev