Building A Player Base

Sabre0001

[Long Post Warning - the main point is bolded below while other paragraphs are me thinking aloud / examples ]

An interesting topic, I hope, that I have been thinking about recently with the release of Super Street Fighter 4, Quake Live (non-beta) and Starcraft 2 in particular. Why is it that certain games get, and maintain, a substantial player base while others are left to die?

The point mainly arose because Quake Live has left the beta stage behind and is now charging for certain features (basic accounts are still free). This has caused quite a storm on another site which is potentially home to the only Quake players around...Quake is an unforgiving game. You WILL lose a lot. You NEED to know a lot of fundamentals before you can even imagine winning a few. Great depth in the game and yet it is not popular.

Compare that to something like Starcraft 2 or Street Fighter (using examples of mainly 1v1 games for now). Both these games have a massive player base despite having long reaching roots and player bases that have been around for years. Again, there is a lot to know but yet, people seem to stick with these games more. You COULD earn a win or two in Street Fighter with mashing or the same basic combo but it's not going to get you far. Perhaps you could win a game in Starcraft 2 with "cheese" tactics but again, it's not going to get you far.

So why is it that certain unforgiving games develop a player base and attract new-comers while others do not? Is it the learning curve; is it marketing; is it the players in the scene, etc, etc?


The games listed above are 1v1 games so it is interesting to see how there is a difference. Then there are games played as teams. Again, Quake has team modes but they seem to lack in popularity. Counter-Strike is a pinicle of team games but no matter how bad a player is, they may get into the situation of being the 'clutch' player (last one left on the team), could have a storming round where no shot goes astray or by law-of-averages, will be on the winning side at least once in a match.

Modern Warfare 2 also benefits from the team aspect as one can claim a kill of a player who has been weakened by others / by playing the sneaky approach and getting someone who is focused elsewhere. MW2 is a game that shouldn't have succeeded - new players are at so much of a disadvantage against more experienced (knowledge and the items that are available to them)...and yet, players stick at it and it's one of the biggest multiplayer games.

Team games will be more likely to pick up new players thanks to the team element - you don't necessarily have to play as a team but at least members of the other team will have split focus allowing you to pick up a few kills / wins. In the first example I have used two PC games (Quake and Starcraft) while non-exclusive games are used elsewhere.

So, what are your theories....or was this just a long, drawn-out rant that only I will read but at least it's off my chest!

Retr0gamer

Well there's a few things. First it should be accessible so that noobs can join in but also deep so games never get boring and leave lots of tactical options open for players. Also a balanced game system is good. An unbalanced system can really ruin a game.

The last and most important thing is support from the developers. The developers should keep producing patches for their games, delivering content and supporting the community. Charging for addition content only serves to fracture the player base. Capcom support their fighting games with new content and are also supportive of the big fighting game tournaments. Blizzard were patching Starcraft 10 years after it was released. And look at what Valve are doing with Team Fortress 2. You won't see the CoD and Halo communities lasting as long as the the communities for these games.

lulz4success

Advertising.

Look at all the advertising that went into mw2, along with the eminem endorsement.

These days big hype equals big sales.

Sabre0001

Both interesting points.

Though retr0, Street Fighter is hardly completely noob friendly (going to use this as an example as you are based in Dublin; home of the biggest SF scene and many of the better players!). Yes, as I said, you can claim a win or two by doing simple things but offline, it is quite punishing. Online, they have the ranked and who you're matched up against pretty well - of course, it can be caught out by people who never play ranked (but have hit training hard) and then jump in but it is a system that works well.

Marketing is certainly a massive element. Would agree with that. The bigger games are often the ones with massive amounts of money pumped into them.

CoD also benefits from the unlocking system. People see a reward for their time and therefore assume that it is time well spent / worth putting time into. That little bar filling up and getting closer to the next level is also another incentive to keep playing. And when you hit the top, just "Prestige" (even the name sounds good) and start over.

PogMoThoin

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well there's a few things. First it should be accessible so that noobs can join in but also deep so games never get boring and leave lots of tactical options open for players. Also a balanced game system is good. An unbalanced system can really ruin a game.

The last and most important thing is support from the developers. The developers should keep producing patches for their games, delivering content and supporting the community.

Disagree, Arma2 has all of the above but our boards.ie group hasn't gained a single new player with the release of the expansion pack in Jun. Arma2 has got 40+ patches if You count the beta's.

Its all about clever marketing and hype. MW2 is the perfect example, its not aimed at seasoned gamers, I'd say 90% of its player base are under 15, they make sure the game gets an over 18's cert and gets headlines for gore. They're not really supporting the game, the COD forum has endless threads about hacking and boosting and they're concentrating on DLC

Retr0gamer

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Though retr0, Street Fighter is hardly completely noob friendly (going to use this as an example as you are based in Dublin; home of the biggest SF scene and many of the better players!). Yes, as I said, you can claim a win or two by doing simple things but offline, it is quite punishing. Online, they have the ranked and who you're matched up against pretty well - of course, it can be caught out by people who never play ranked (but have hit training hard) and then jump in but it is a system that works well.

Actually got to disagree here. While the level of play can be very high at with the Dublin SF4 crowd that meet up there's plenty of people that turn up with quite low ability levels and the guys are all friendly and will gladly help anyone and teach them to get better. I know this because ask any ofthe guys, I'm probably the worst player that turns up to them:P

Also by noob friendly I meant you could pickthe game up and start playing it very easily, learn it and then try it online.

lulz4success

It really has to be hype.

Take me for example, I go onto youtube and see the gaming section littered with mw2 videos, I learn from these videos and I want to go play. I've grown into an accomplished mw2 player(in my own eyes atleast). That really would have never happened if it wasn't spammed into my face everywhere I went on the internet.

Same goes for Street Fighter and I. I first saw how cool-looking it was on Youtube when the sf4 craze began. then I saw the ammount of skill and reward that went into learning this fighting game. So I said "feck it"! And went out and bought it. I can barely play it to this day but I keep on trying cause I'm watching all these youtube videos that make me want to try new things. I keep the mindframe that one day I can be good at it just like I became good at mw2 from watching videos and practicing.

Take another game I was thinking of buying; Operation Flashpoint. I wanted a realistic shooter. So I immediately thought of OF and went to research it online. I came up with reviews from IGN giving it a good score but most player reviews were giving it a terrible time. I never see any videos about it on youtube so I just went with the assumption that it was rubbish and never bough it. If I saw it on youtube around the time I wanted it, I probably would have bought it.

To this day I cannot realise why mw2 is so popular. Probably because it is the Wii of shooters, that is to say, a casual shooter where most public games can be won over with noob tubes. But I still play it....because everyone else does.

Jonny7

There are too many factors to pin it down to one thing..

Hype, marketing and awareness play a major part but there is also the style of the game...

The most ultra realistic in-depth Formula 1 simulator will never be as popular as some Mario Kart game.. because Maria Kart is easy to pick up, intuitive, appeals to a broader audience, etc, etc

Quakelive was a good idea bad implemented, without going into depth, they screwed it up.

Multiplayer has changed.. FPS's have changed.. no matter how much marketing or hype the next "Quake" game gets, it will just appeal to a increasingly smaller group of hardcore players..

All that said, there is one thing that a game truly needs and that is critical mass.. its just a stage the game reaches where it is good enough and so many are interested that it generates its own increasing popularity - like starcraft 1 in South Korea, that just got, and still is, enormous.

Even though Quakelive was a rehash from a well over-used format, it had a slim chance of that critical mass due to the fact that it was free.. but they just fecked it up.. and now it will remain in that slow downward death spiral

Starcraft 2 on the other hand.. well it could get very big, we'll see, looking good so far.

Jazzy

eminem promoted MW2 ?

Burgo

Jazzy wrote: »

eminem promoted MW2 ?

one of his songs was used for the trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyASw-1KWyU