GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
LeapFrog
Associate Producer
 
Off Base Productions
Senior Front End Software Engineer
 
EA - Austin
Producer
 
Zindagi Games
Senior/Lead Online Multiplayer
 
Off Base Productions
Web Application Developer
 
Gameloft
Java Developers
spacer
Blogs

  "Stickiness" in Games, or: Why you can't beat WoW
by Shay Pierce on 01/30/10 05:56:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs
9 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

Game designers have a term that I think is about to see a lot more use than it ever has before. The term is "stickiness"; and what it describes isn't nearly as gross as you might be thinking.

"Stickiness" is a property of multiplayer games; and in the past it's mainly been applied to MUDs and MMOs. The idea is this:

  1. A player begins playing an MMO.
  2. Over time he gets to know some other players in that MMO.
  3. Eventually he joins a guild or otherwise becomes part of a community of players.
  4. After a while of this, he no longer plays the game so much because he finds it fun, but simply because it's where his community is - he cares about being part of this circle of friends more than he ever cared about killing NPCs or completing quests.
When the player reaches this stage, the gameplay is, to them, no longer the point... their friends are the point. The game just happens to be the shared activity that he and his friends do together.

The more this can happen in your game - the more your player can, and is likely to, get involved with other players and become part of a community that they become invested in - the "stickier" your game is.

 An important thing to realize about games is that any player WILL get bored with a game after playing it long enough. But if your game is sticky, people will continue coming back to it long after they normally would have lost interest in the core gameplay. They come back not for that gameplay, but because their friends expect them to be at a raid on time. Most gameplay becomes boring once you completely master it - unless you have a chance to demonstrate your mastery to people, especially people who matter to you such as your friends.

WoW can bring diverse groups of players together.

Almost none of the WoW players I know care much about the game's story (except for a couple very odd individuals I've met, who seem to know more about Warcraft lore than they know about their own lives). But they all care very deeply about certain very dramatic stories that happen in WoW. I'm talking about the oldest form of User-Generated Content: Guild Drama. WoW stories are the same everytime you play them, but the story of what's going on between your guildmates is new every morning...! It may not be high drama, but it's gripping because it's about people you care about, and it's really happening. (In my humble opinion, these are the only stories in MMOs that really matter at all.)

 Stickiness is a big reason why the success of an MMO depends on reaching a critical mass of users. I have a theory that almost anything can, potentially, become the "core activity" that a community gathers around. In other words, it's possible for the most boring multiplayer game in the world to become the place where a community forms. (I imagine that many of the text MUDs and early MMOs would look dreadfully boring to us today, but they still became the home to vibrant and long-lasting communities. Ultima Online is still online to this day - the ultimate example of the legs that stickiness can give your game.) But you have to get a certain number of players to join, and to hang around, before you'll start to see this stickiness form; and to get that many players in the first place, your game must be appealing (so people notice it and try it) and have fun gameplay (so people hang around long enough to become part of a community).

 


This is key, and it's probably the single most important reason no one's been able to beat WoW. There have been some very sophisticated MMOs released in the years since WoW's launch; and while WoW has continued to improve itself and keep pace with its competition, nonetheless it might be true at this point that for each WoW player, there is some other MMO (or other game) out there that player would actually have more fun playing.

So why have these players not moved to those more-fun games? Because their friends haven't. This is why it's called "stickiness": if your community is part of one game, the law of social inertia (which I just made up!) dictates that those people are extremely unlikely to all simutaneously take the trouble to pull up their stakes, buy a new subscription, and all make the move into a new game, starting over in it as noobs. Though there are various barriers in place to cause this inertia, the strongest force is simply that people like staying where they're comfortable and sticking with what they know - unless something truly exciting galvanizes them out of their complacency. WoW is so hard to take down simply by virtue of the fact that they have so many players - most of those players are part of communities that they'd rather not leave. A game will have to be hugely appealing and fun to overcome the inertia of WoW players and convince them to shake up their comfortable communities.

Luckily, those who wan to unseat WoW need not abandon hope entirely! WoW has an Achille's Heel, and it's built into the very thing that makes them so successful. Tune in for part 2 of this series to find out what it is!

[UPDATE: Part two has been posted here!]

 
 
Comments

Curtis Turner - IceIYIaN
profile image
World of WarCraft isn't getting beat anytime soon because the amount of content in the game.



As for the social part of WarCraft:

You can do whatever you want: You're not forced to run around killing anything that moves. You can stand around and chat all day.

a.i. players talk with you

You can join a party/raid of one other person to up to 40 people. You get your own chat color and you can see their name in the game slightly changed.

You're unable to talk with the enemy(Except emotes like /spit)

You have guild chat.

You can talk to a single person without anyone else seeing it(It's also easy to click names in the social box)

The top five people in your party are on your HUD/UI. You can see their life/etc.

Etc

Jim McGinley
profile image
The community didn't save Everquest :)



I think WoW's achille's heel is the fact players can't build anything.

i.e. I can't build my own home, or grow my own veggies..

The next generation of social (Facebook) games might be WoW's biggest threat.

MMO + Restaurant City + Farmville + Minecraft = WoW Killer

Give the users freedom to generate their own content

(but not too much a la Second Life), so Blizzard can't keep up.

Shay Pierce
profile image
Jim,



Regarding Everquest, I did say that MMO players won't leave their sticky communities "unless something truly exciting galvanizes them out of their complacency"; and that a new game has to be "appealing and fun to overcome the inertia" of moving a player out of their previous game. This is what happened with WoW: the sheer "fun level" difference between EQ and WoW was enough for most players to overcome that social inertia. (Though like UO, EQ still has an active community of players - in fact I believe there's yet another new expansion coming out for it soon.)



So one way to beat WoW would be to simply do the same thing to it that it did to EQ: make a game that's just fantastically more fun, appealing, and exciting. This is what most MMOs have been trying to do, and while some may have succeeded at being more fun than WoW, none have been "enough more fun" for it to be worth it to people to make the jump.



To me the only game that looks like it might have a real shot at succeeding at this strategy is Star Wars: The Old Republic. It seems poised to "out-WoW WoW" in every way it can (stronger license, a similarly strong developer pedigree in the Bioware name... and they seem to be pushing the production values farther than any MMO has attempted before).



But for any MMO trying to beat WoW at its own game - even TOR - I think it's a risky (if not losing) proposition with diminishing returns on investment. Remember that EQ didn't have 11.5 million players - that's a lot of stickiness. And WoW has been no slouch in keeping up with the "fun level" of its competitors in the ~6 years since its release; the game gets new features and polish with every patch, not to mention the huge changes and additions that come with each expansion.



I don't agree with you on what exactly the "Achille's Heel" is, but I do agree with you that Facebook might be the place where the true WoW-killer emerges. But that's its own blog post... which I think I'll go write now. :)

Andre Gagne
profile image
I am aware I'll sound overly fan boyish with this comment.



Do you feel then that EVE online takes the guild drama to a whole new level?



One player's actions can affect thousands of other players. More so than any WoW player save leeroy jenkins.

Jason Fleischman
profile image
Actually, Jim, I would say that the community DID save Everquest. Unless you think that people still play it to this day because of its intense graphics and perfectly designed gameplay.

Henrik Koskinen
profile image
I have question relating to the stickiness of MMOs. I've always been wondering whether the single-player game like storylines of MMOs are helpful. This might just be individual bias, but to me those traditional 'You are the one' -type of stories simply distract and break the illusion.



There's a mob of 13 people killing the same poor little giant spiders that the innkeeper has trouble with. More importantly while running from the quest NPC to the innkeeper's basement you encounter PCs doing emotes and in the chat one person asks where the hermit's cave is, twice. Why is it necessary to pretend this is a single player game? What does that achieve, to anyone?



Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to craft stories that support the idea of a world where you have 5000 people doing the same thing, instead of insisting on the illusion that you the player are the only hero of the realm.



Certainly there are exceptions, like EVE or Puzzle Pirates. But the norm is still to have this 'pretend single-player game' on top of the MMO, that 99% of the players ignore. No one reads the dialogue. That's a ton of content created by the devs that no one experiences. That's a lot of impatient clicks by the player, any of which could make the player quit the game. No one feels like The One when they play an MMO, even if they solo all the way. Why is this ignored? Or am I just tragically wrong and narrow-minded?



Please note, I'm not saying you should force teaming/grouping/guilding. I'm saying I don't understand why the fiction of the games insists the game is not an MMO. Yes, I understand that developers are risk averse. But I honestly expected, back when EVE was launched that these single-player storylines would vanish rapidly from MMOs.

Volker Hirsch
profile image
@Henrik

Google for Richard Bartels gamer types and you'll have a good start to finding out what MMOs try to cover.



@Shay

Nicely written and observed. Basically with every game (or brand), that you want to turn into a hobby industry, you will need to install different levels of experience. What you named “stickyness” is the social gaming (or the Metagaming) aspect taking over the “achiever” and “explorer” players to the people instead of world focused game. You really don’t come online to kill a boss for the 100st time, but because your guildies cry out “Thank god, you’re on! Without you, we can’t do this.”.



The hobby aspect is not yet much approached and understood by the video gaming industry. Who does conventions or player parties? Who prints a magazine? Who lets you experience your hobby at any time, no matter if you are offline in a train or lying in bed at night? With MMOs, it is mainly Blizzard and CCP. And both hired experienced staff from the hobby gaming industry (Magic TG, D&D, Warhammer, …).



Happy gaming!

Volker

Gabriel Kabik
profile image
Andre - As an EVE player, I'd have to say you're simplifying a little bit there. It's not just "one player" that has that potential to impact the game - first that player has to build up a reputation amongst hundreds of other players in order to build that trust, which takes literally years. It's not like you can walk into the game and in three months be a major player or anything. I mean I have seen people do it time and time again though, i.e. build up the trust of an entire corporation, gain access to billions of dollars worth of corporation funds and assets, and then disappear into the dead of night, never to be seen again. I've seen countless players quit (including myself) simply because their corporation folded overnight due to this exact thing happening. Everybody loses their money, nobody wants to play, the corporation loses its status, and what fun the game presented vanished. ISK farmers aside, nobody wants to sit in an asteroid field and mine alone, regardless of how profitable it might be.

Henrik Koskinen
profile image
@Volker

I'm sorry, I don't understand the relevance of Bartle's player categories. I'm not saying there should be no plot or lore. I'm saying the plotline of an MMO should differ greatly from the 'You are the one' -plotline. Which seems to be the standard for MMOs. I believe more appropriate storylines would make MMOs more compelling for those into storylines, and less annoying for those who dislike/ignore storylines.



Because as it is I believe even those interested in storylines mostly ignore them, thus resulting in less sticky games.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech