Sony Commits Future MMOs to Consoles

[Logan Frederick]

Sony Commits Future MMOs to Consoles

Sony Online Entertainment executive John Smedley has said "yes" to all future Sony MMO games being on PlayStation systems.

"It's been a new experience for us because - well, we've done one console MMO," stated Smedley on Sony's previous massively-multiplayer online game. "We're actually one of two companies in the world that's ever done a console MMO. We had EverQuest Online Adventures for the PS2 - still operating. It and Final Fantasy XI are the only actual MMOs."

Sony looks to be pushing into the Blizzard-dominated, PC-centric market of MMOs by trying to convert console gamers into more dedicated players who might be willing pay for subscriptions or, better yet, micro-transactions for free games like Sony's Free Realm coming in six months.

"We introduced a trading card game to our EverQuest and EQ2 players and they got the idea of microtransactions very quickly," explained Smedley. "We put it in there in a way that wasn't harmful to gameplay and it actually gave them a benefit, so that's how we're going to convert existing players. Getting a console player to pay for a subscription, I think that's an interesting question."

With the underlying technology in place to allow for simultaneous console and PC launches, SOE believes it will "introduce a lot of new people [to MMOs]."

"I think it's going to be a cool way for them to experience games that have been on the PC for a while, but have a totally different kind of gameplay on the console," he said.

World of Warcraft continues to control the fantasy MMO market four years after its release. Smedley respects Blizzard's success, but sees consoles as Sony's niche to capture with MMOs of different genres, such as DC Universe and The Agency.

"We have advantages that others simply don't being in the Sony family. For us, the opportunity that we see on the PS3, and potentially the PSP, is something that we can't pass up on.... I would say that we would be one of the early adopters on [bringing MMOs to consoles], and we plan on becoming one of the dominant players in the MMO space on consoles. We see that marketing coming; we think it's there now, so we want to get a good market share there."

Source: MTV Multiplayer [http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/03/sony-online-talks-dc-everquest-massive-action-game/]

Permalink

 

[curlycrouton]

The fools, the blind fools..........

 

[seule]

Sony has a wonderful history of butchering MMO's, EQ and SW:G among them. I guess making them for consoles will just give them a new audience to wreck things for

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

*headdesk*

 

[Jumplion]

MMOs are one of the few generes that PCs still have a hold off, though with the recent MMOs that are being developed for consoles to (The Agency, DC Online) that may change.

Granted, those could be horrible games and such, but so far the RTS and MMO genres (I'm sure there's atleast one more but I forgot) have only been possible on PC.

It's only a matter of time before we get another one of these [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye_007] out on the market.

 

[Logan Frederick]

"We're actually one of two companies in the world that's ever done a console MMO. We had EverQuest Online Adventures for the PS2 - still operating. It and Final Fantasy XI are the only actual MMOs."

That's not entirely correct. He forgot Phantasy Star Online.

From the rest of the article, cut out for consistency:

"There?s other games like ?Phantasy Star Online? that aren?t true MMOs ? they?re more smaller games where you have hosting and get into dungeons with people ? but not quite the same as an MMO."

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

"We're actually one of two companies in the world that's ever done a console MMO. We had EverQuest Online Adventures for the PS2 - still operating. It and Final Fantasy XI are the only actual MMOs."

That's not entirely correct. He forgot Phantasy Star Online.

From the rest of the article, cut out for consistency:

"There?s other games like ?Phantasy Star Online? that aren?t true MMOs ? they?re more smaller games where you have hosting and get into dungeons with people ? but not quite the same as an MMO."

Well, who the hell are Sony to decide what is and isn't a true MMO?

 

[AceDiamond]

They're Sony obviously. Remember that time the video game war ended in 2005 just because they said so?

Yeah I don't remember that either.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

THERE IS NO WAY THIS CAN WORK ON CONSOLES!

(The UI font is too tiny! It's a ***** playing that on a T.V.)

 

[Jumplion]

"We're actually one of two companies in the world that's ever done a console MMO. We had EverQuest Online Adventures for the PS2 - still operating. It and Final Fantasy XI are the only actual MMOs."

That's not entirely correct. He forgot Phantasy Star Online.

From the rest of the article, cut out for consistency:

"There?s other games like ?Phantasy Star Online? that aren?t true MMOs ? they?re more smaller games where you have hosting and get into dungeons with people ? but not quite the same as an MMO."

Well, who the hell are Sony to decide what is and isn't a true MMO?

Well then, let's bump that "2 companies that made console MMOs" to "3 Companies that made console MMOs"!!

Really, does it make much of a difference? Either way, there havn't been many console MMOs out that have been too successful.

 

[Maruza]

How can they say "World of Warcraft continues to control the fantasy MMO market..." when currently there are other successful fantasy MMOs out there.

Games are meant to be fun for their targeted market, not necessarily meant to have widest target market possible. I guess that's something someone like Smedley wouldn't understand.

 

[Jumplion]

How can they say "World of Warcraft continues to control the fantasy MMO market..." when currently there are other successful fantasy MMOs out there.

Games are meant to be fun for their targeted market, not necessarily meant to have widest target market possible. I guess that's something someone like Smedley wouldn't understand.

Wait a minute, if that were the case then video games would never expand beyond their fans. You need to have a successful game, and getting as many people to play is is a good way to get in the dough.

In terms of MMOs, you absolutely have to have as many people playing it which WoW has. Other people besides Warcraft enthusiasts play WoW to you know.

MMOs have been on PCs for years now, and the console MMOs are a hugely untapped source of players. The first MMO on a Console to be widely successful is going to be exactly like WoW; keeping the players in their hands.

And you seem to be missing the point of WoW being the MMO in control. Yes, there are other successful MMOs out there but none I repeat none have been as successful and have broader appeal than WoW. Because of this, Wow sweeps up any competition and no other MMO can derail it's success meaning that World of Warcraft is the MMO in "control". That's also another reason why you see so many Fantasy settings for MMOs, which in a way has hurt the genere.

 

[Maruza]

How can they say "World of Warcraft continues to control the fantasy MMO market..." when currently there are other successful fantasy MMOs out there.

Games are meant to be fun for their targeted market, not necessarily meant to have widest target market possible. I guess that's something someone like Smedley wouldn't understand.

Wait a minute, if that were the case then video games would never expand beyond their fans. You need to have a successful game, and getting as many people to play is is a good way to get in the dough.

In terms of MMOs, you absolutely have to have as many people playing it which WoW has. Other people besides Warcraft enthusiasts play WoW to you know.

MMOs have been on PCs for years now, and the console MMOs are a hugely untapped source of players. The first MMO on a Console to be widely successful is going to be exactly like WoW; keeping the players in their hands.

And you seem to be missing the point of WoW being the MMO in control. Yes, there are other successful MMOs out there but none I repeat none have been as successful and have broader appeal than WoW. Because of this, Wow sweeps up any competition and no other MMO can derail it's success meaning that World of Warcraft is the MMO in "control". That's also another reason why you see so many Fantasy settings for MMOs, which in a way has hurt the genere.

If MMOs have to have absolutely as many people playing as possible, then how do you explain how so many MMOs are successful when targeting a niche market.

WoW targeted a very wide market and they tried to make the best game they could, they are very good designers so they had a large amount of people outside their target market play the game.

But you have to be realistic, if you you want the widest target market possible then you've got to compete with WoW. But if you listen to the players, the people who aren't playing WoW, and playing some other MMO, or better yet, some group of players who aren't playing an MMO at all right now, you can make an a successful MMO. It may not have a player base as big as WoW but it has a player base that WoW has no appeal to.

 

[Jumplion]

How can they say "World of Warcraft continues to control the fantasy MMO market..." when currently there are other successful fantasy MMOs out there.

Games are meant to be fun for their targeted market, not necessarily meant to have widest target market possible. I guess that's something someone like Smedley wouldn't understand.

Wait a minute, if that were the case then video games would never expand beyond their fans. You need to have a successful game, and getting as many people to play is is a good way to get in the dough.

In terms of MMOs, you absolutely have to have as many people playing it which WoW has. Other people besides Warcraft enthusiasts play WoW to you know.

MMOs have been on PCs for years now, and the console MMOs are a hugely untapped source of players. The first MMO on a Console to be widely successful is going to be exactly like WoW; keeping the players in their hands.

And you seem to be missing the point of WoW being the MMO in control. Yes, there are other successful MMOs out there but none I repeat none have been as successful and have broader appeal than WoW. Because of this, Wow sweeps up any competition and no other MMO can derail it's success meaning that World of Warcraft is the MMO in "control". That's also another reason why you see so many Fantasy settings for MMOs, which in a way has hurt the genere.

If MMOs have to have absolutely as many people playing as possible, then how do you explain how so many MMOs are successful when targeting a niche market.

WoW targeted a very wide market and they tried to make the best game they could, they are very good designers so they had a large amount of people outside their target market play the game.

But you have to be realistic, if you you want the widest target market possible then you've got to compete with WoW. But if you listen to the players, the people who aren't playing WoW, and playing some other MMO, or better yet, some group of players who aren't playing an MMO at all right now, you can make an a successful MMO. It may not have a player base as big as WoW but it has a player base that WoW has no appeal to.

Well...duh? You're missing the point. MMOs that target specific niches in the market can be successful, but none of them have been to the level of success that WoW has.

Yes, you can make a successful MMO, that's obvious, but few MMOs are as successful as WoW which is why WoW is said to be "in control" of the MMO market. It doesn't matter if there are other successful MMOs out there if non of them have reached the same success as WoW has.

Either way, the console systems are a hugely untapped source of players for MMOs. Like I said before, the first MMO to break through the console barrier is going to be exactly like WoW and it will be hard (though maybe not as hard) to "dethrone" that certain MMO because of it's impact on Console MMOs.

 

[Retodon8]

"We introduced a trading card game to our EverQuest and EQ2 players and they got the idea of microtransactions very quickly," explained Smedley. "We put it in there in a way that wasn't harmful to gameplay and it actually gave them a benefit, so that's how we're going to convert existing players.

I don't understand.
I can only think of a two options:

The microtransactions give the people who go for them a benefit.
If so, you could easily argue the system would in fact be harmful for the people who don't.
That seems to make more sense, but means mr Smedley hasn't thought this thing through.

The alternative is what the paragraph implies: it benefits both parties.
If so, great, but if the stuff you pay extra for doesn't give you an advantage, why would you pay for it?

Well, unless the paid stuff is purely cosmetic, not really harmful for the non-buyers, yet beneficial since they'll have more diversity in their surroundings.
OK, I just thought of a third option that fits, but it seems a bit unlikely.