|
Teamliquid has always had a thriving community of gamers, who, united by the banner of Starcraft, have collaborated in various group efforts to expand their horizons to new games for themselves to enjoy. The entire sports and games section of Teamliquid fosters its own community of players, who are not limited to Starcraft but share their enjoyment of games in general. However, throughout my two years of playing with Teamliquid, I have noticed something that I call the 4 Month Syndrome.
Now, what is the 4 Month Syndrome?
4 Month Syndrome is the turnover of the community of a game after 4 months. Usually at the end of a period spanning 3-4 months, people's attention spans end and they begin migrating to a new game. A real life example of this in action is the extremely high turnover of players in social gaming. Games in general have the tendency to become stale after being played for a couple months. The lack of replay value in multiplayer games creates a volatile status quo where the most "current games" boast extremely high user counts, while the "games of yesterday" have next to no users.
This has happened with almost every Teamliquid gaming community older than the latest couple months.
Examples:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Mv0WI.jpg)
This is a picture of the old Minecraft PvP factions server. At one point this server was bustling with activity, and the activity in the game created lots of entertainment for the whole community. After a couple months however, the rate of user loss greatly exceeded the rate of user gain, and the server eventually shut down.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VNq8c.jpg)
This is a picture of the village I played with in Haven and Hearth. Unfortunately, this game was extremely unfriendly to players with its permadeath system and high amounts of grinding. The village ended up disbanding once enough players started to leave.
I also expect the TL DayZ community to die out in a couple months as well (a hard truth, but my opinion nonetheless).
List of games I know of that eventually died out:
TL Maplestory
TL Haven and Hearth
TL Minecraft Factions
TL Terraria (To my understanding, at least)
TL Europa Univeralis 3 (A small community)
TL SW:The Old Republic
etc.
Anti-examples:
The TL Eve Corporation thread, to my understanding, has been robust every since its formation.
The TL Guild Wars 2 thread which, although it hasnt come out yet, has maintained consistent posts for quite a time, an impressive feat.
This is a phenomena that only has been occuring in the most recent games; The technological advancements in gaming have led to an expectation of the gaming industry to pump out better, newer games at an unsustainable speed.
What strikes me as depressing is that there are hardly any more games that can be played for sustained periods of time. Gone is the time of Starcraft 1, which, through its amazing community, ran for a period of over 10 years. Gone is the time of Warcraft 3, which was in a similar situation as SC1. Gone is the time of Diablo 2 and WoW (imho it was good up to Burning Crusade) (geeze, Blizzard games galore eh?). Instead we're left in this lamentable situation where games are being released willy nilly, and people become bored and tired of a game within a piddling 4 months. So the purpose of this blog is to bring this question to you: Is there ever going to be another game that will stand the test of time as well as Starcraft has? Or will we be stuck with this 4 Month Syndrome ?
|
On August 01 2012 03:59 KtheZ wrote:
...Gone is the time of... WoW
You have some general points which I agree with - though WoW doesn't really fit into this example in any way, shape, or form. When we talk about dying communities, you can't really talk about a game that has hit it's stride (in terms of users) past the supposed epoch.
Things become stale when new content is unable to be added and thus new adventures unable to be perpetuated. Eve, WoW, and League of Legends are all games able to perpetuate because of the addition of continuous content that keeps pushing the players.
I feel that the age of the one trick game has passed simply because the market advances so quickly that there really is no reason for it to exist anymore. Diablo 3 is comparable to any number of other games (Torchlight 2) and does not appear to have much in the way of content boosters (outside of PvP). Counterstrike now competes against 99 other FPS's.
I think that there is not as much stratification into the only options, but instead the individual preferences are allowed to flourish into special games. There is a dedicated minecraft group who will always just build and decompose. There are dedicated DayZ'ers who will survive past the current popularity. Just as there are SC1, D2, and all sorts of other communities.
In ways, the advent of DLC is the way in which popular game makers can combat this problem somewhat. The other is by allowing the creation of user generated content (Warcraft 3 being probably the best example). By being able to monetize through the creation of content, developers are able to support their products for longer and thus maintain extended interest.
PS. You can add Star Wars: The Old Republic to failed TL communities. That's a 100% better example than WoW.
|
How dare you accuse EU3 of being like modern games. That game has a learning curve so steep it's only surpassed by Vicky 2 and HOI3
|
You have some general points which I agree with - though WoW doesn't really fit into this example in any way, shape, or form. When we talk about dying communities, you can't really talk about a game that has hit it's stride (in terms of users) past the supposed epoch.
Things become stale when new content is unable to be added and thus new adventures unable to be perpetuated. Eve, WoW, and League of Legends are all games able to perpetuate because of the addition of continuous content that keeps pushing the players.
I feel that the age of the one trick game has passed simply because the market advances so quickly that there really is no reason for it to exist anymore. Diablo 3 is comparable to any number of other games (Torchlight 2) and does not appear to have much in the way of content boosters (outside of PvP). Counterstrike now competes against 99 other FPS's.
I think that there is not as much stratification into the only options, but instead the individual preferences are allowed to flourish into special games. There is a dedicated minecraft group who will always just build and decompose. There are dedicated DayZ'ers who will survive past the current popularity. Just as there are SC1, D2, and all sorts of other communities.
In ways, the advent of DLC is the way in which popular game makers can combat this problem somewhat. The other is by allowing the creation of user generated content (Warcraft 3 being probably the best example). By being able to monetize through the creation of content, developers are able to support their products for longer and thus maintain extended interest.
PS. You can add Star Wars: The Old Republic to failed TL communities. That's a 100% better example than WoW.
Hm. Now that I think about it I agree with you on the WoW subject. I just stuck it in there as an afterthought.
I like the point that you bring up, that DLC and user generated content can remedy this issue. I think it takes active developer support of the community to be able to maintain a stable userbase; Game editors such as Starcraft editor, War3 Editor, and Steam workshop are amazingly useful in creating new user experiences; Hell, I can't begin to imagine how many hours I spent playing Diplomacy Infinity in SC1, or Dota/Sheeps vs Rabbits/Warlocks/Pudge wars/etc.
Modding seems to be the way of the future. Now only if games support modding in multiplayer games better, then I think communities would be in much better shape. Maybe if developers started to purchase rights to user-created mods or something. It would reduce their development costs and in the same stroke also please the userbase.
Just imagine in EU3 could be played multiplayer with mods! That would be AMAZING!
On August 01 2012 04:10 MattBarry wrote:
How dare you accuse EU3 of being like modern games. That game has a learning curve so steep it's only surpassed by Vicky 2 and HOI3
Well I made a lot of sweeping generalizations in my post but I agree that EU3 is not like modern games; However it is still very difficult to maintain interest in the game.
|
I still play starcraft 1 and dota after 10+ years with the former and over 6 years with the latter.
I still play them because they have so much variety. No 2 games of dota will ever be alike and that's why it is a game with a very long life.
Only shallow and simple games suffer from the 4 month syndrome, in my opinion.
|
The thing with game editors is that the mods you play end up falling to the same fate. You merely have continuous generation of content to absorb that you end up playing the same "game" for a long time, but in reality you're just mod hopping within that game. At least that is my personal experience with warcraft III customs.
The thing I find interesting about four month syndrome is that I might burn out a game in four months, but a year or five years down the line I will come back and be absorbed into it yet again. Then the cycle will repeat and I find myself coming back to playing the same games over and over again.
|
I disagree with this phenomenon entirely. What you have here is a tiny cross-section of the giant global gaming community, where the "attention spans" range from a few weeks to a decade.
In no way does a few games played by TL members represent any sort of a statistic or a "syndrome" .
Also, it is usually bad games that fall into shorter attention spans.
|
On August 01 2012 04:13 KtheZ wrote:Show nested quote +
You have some general points which I agree with - though WoW doesn't really fit into this example in any way, shape, or form. When we talk about dying communities, you can't really talk about a game that has hit it's stride (in terms of users) past the supposed epoch.
Things become stale when new content is unable to be added and thus new adventures unable to be perpetuated. Eve, WoW, and League of Legends are all games able to perpetuate because of the addition of continuous content that keeps pushing the players.
I feel that the age of the one trick game has passed simply because the market advances so quickly that there really is no reason for it to exist anymore. Diablo 3 is comparable to any number of other games (Torchlight 2) and does not appear to have much in the way of content boosters (outside of PvP). Counterstrike now competes against 99 other FPS's.
I think that there is not as much stratification into the only options, but instead the individual preferences are allowed to flourish into special games. There is a dedicated minecraft group who will always just build and decompose. There are dedicated DayZ'ers who will survive past the current popularity. Just as there are SC1, D2, and all sorts of other communities.
In ways, the advent of DLC is the way in which popular game makers can combat this problem somewhat. The other is by allowing the creation of user generated content (Warcraft 3 being probably the best example). By being able to monetize through the creation of content, developers are able to support their products for longer and thus maintain extended interest.
PS. You can add Star Wars: The Old Republic to failed TL communities. That's a 100% better example than WoW.
Hm. Now that I think about it I agree with you on the WoW subject. I just stuck it in there as an afterthought. I like the point that you bring up, that DLC and user generated content can remedy this issue. I think it takes active developer support of the community to be able to maintain a stable userbase; Game editors such as Starcraft editor, War3 Editor, and Steam workshop are amazingly useful in creating new user experiences; Hell, I can't begin to imagine how many hours I spent playing Diplomacy Infinity in SC1, or Dota/Sheeps vs Rabbits/Warlocks/Pudge wars/etc. Modding seems to be the way of the future. Now only if games support modding in multiplayer games better, then I think communities would be in much better shape. Maybe if developers started to purchase rights to user-created mods or something. It would reduce their development costs and in the same stroke also please the userbase. Just imagine in EU3 could be played multiplayer with mods! That would be AMAZING! Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 04:10 MattBarry wrote:
How dare you accuse EU3 of being like modern games. That game has a learning curve so steep it's only surpassed by Vicky 2 and HOI3 Well I made a lot of sweeping generalizations in my post but I agree that EU3 is not like modern games; However it is still very difficult to maintain interest in the game.
The problem with games like Eu3 (and most really good paradox games) is that you've to be dedicated to really enjoy the game. It has near to 0 interest for a casual so you've just small hardcore communities. And if it's too small it dies as soon as the most active members die.
|
The LoL subforums have been thriving for a while now. If not more so, and it has been there for longer than 4 months.
|
On August 01 2012 06:56 wei2coolman wrote:
The LoL subforums have been thriving for a while now. If not more so, and it has been there for longer than 4 months.
I understand that there are going to be games that do not go by this phenomenon, such as Dota 2, LoL, SC2, etc, but there are more instances of the 4 Month Syndrome occurring.
And regarding the subject of MOBAs, I feel that MOBAs are a category that is exempt from this phenomena, because every time you start up a MOBA (be it LoL or DOTA), you end up starting a new "game" that is relatively fresh and offers extreme deviation from previous "games". The wide hero pool and various mechanics offers a consistent "freshness" that can only be offered by MOBAs, because you can play a MOBA with the understanding that every "game", you have to start over and something new can happen.
|
United States32927 Posts
Starcraft was probably a better counter example 
|
Most games aren't really meant to be played more than 4 months. You're intended to buy the next great game. Sometimes there are classics like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers that you'll play for as long as N64 is the latest console, but really unless a game is incredibly competitive and introduces novelty game after game like Brood War (in its UMS and in its 1:1), then you will eventually get all you can get out of a game. I don't know why you need to call it a syndrome :o
I don't think the days of games that last are gone either tho. Whatever mario kart and smash brothers come out for the wiiu will be played by people for years. Many of the Street Fighter series tend to last a long time. It just has to be the right type of game for that. A lot of these games tho, you might notice, are a little less commital and offer you the ability to play other games concurrently and save these for when friends come over. Which makes sense to me and it's a good business model. A game like BW that gives you a decade of entertainment and leaves you wanting more for 10 bucks, which you often commit to and don't bother to play other games becaues of, perhaps not the best way to continue selling games.
|
On August 01 2012 07:03 Chef wrote:
Most games aren't really meant to be played more than 4 months. You're intended to buy the next great game. Sometimes there are classics like Mario Kart and Smash Brothers that you'll play for as long as N64 is the latest console, but really unless a game is incredibly competitive and introduces novelty game after game like Brood War (in its UMS and in its 1:1), then you will eventually get all you can get out of a game. I don't know why you need to call it a syndrome :o
I don't think the days of games that last are gone either tho. Whatever mario kart and smash brothers come out for the wiiu will be played by people for years. Many of the Street Fighter series tend to last a long time. It just has to be the right type of game for that. A lot of these games tho, you might notice, are a little less commital and offer you the ability to play other games concurrently and save these for when friends come over. Which makes sense to me and it's a good business model. A game like BW that gives you a decade of entertainment and leaves you wanting more for 10 bucks, which you often commit to and don't bother to play other games becaues of, perhaps not the best way to continue selling games.
I think that specifically for games designed for multiplayer, there should be enough content to satisfy a playerbase for more than a couple months. Games that become stale in such a quick fashion indicate a lack of novelty and innovation, which is unhealthy for the market. Although it is a better business model to have games that run out of content quickly to boost product sales, it is negative towards the gamer. It is understandable for companies to try to maximize their profits, but there should be a limit as to how far they go in their pursuit of this.
Whereas around 8 years ago we had wonderful examples of big "bang vs buck" (such as Command and Conquer, SC1, WC3, Counter Strike, Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, etc [Specifically multiplayer]) today we instead are met with far less robust games. I contend that large game production corporations today have gone too far in terms of monetizing their games. An example of this would be Zynga. Their extremely high turnover in their playerbase as well as their freemium business model has led to their decline. Their lack of captivating content and innovation has put them in a situation where users play for short periods of time, and end up very quickly quitting the game.
Innovation is far more difficult to find and create these days, which is why I have much greater hope for the indie developers to create fun and entertaining multiplayer games. Ideas like Castle Story can make wonderful games if multiplayer is implemented. However good some ideas may be though, it will take innovation within a large company to create a fully innovative and immersive game.
|
There is also a point where we just have to put a value on time investment. For example, I played Diablo 3 for 80 hours and then was done with it. I actually consider any entertainment hours : dollar ratio >= 1 a good investment (I would quit if I wasn't actually enjoying the game is how it balances out). Indie games are very effective at accomplishing this because of their lower price tags - which I think is why we generally view them more favorably than AAA titles.
To some degree, every game needs to have the product life cycles because new and better things need to constantly be made for the field to develop (and developers to get their needed money). I also feel that there's been a pushback (You can call it "casualization" but that's really just a prejudiced term) against games that require large amounts of continuous time and repeated play to succeed at. DayZ would be an example of a game that features this premise. People want to be able to pop in, do some stuff, have their jollies, and pop out (On the mass market). The socializing factor also plays a huge role - and I think we can all agree Blizzard's games have ignored this unfortunately lately with their lack of chatroom support etc. Complete immersion is not something that can ever appeal to everyone.
As a closing note, I find it interesting hyow you could also say that your blog has a shortened life syndrome, since I don't think it'll reach past page 2 
PS. If you're fascinated by the possibilities of complete immersion & MMOs, read Sword Art Online @ Baka-Tsuki.
|
On August 01 2012 07:03 Waxangel wrote:Starcraft was probably a better counter example
Ditto this lol.. Been like ~8 years for me.
However, I think "4 month syndrome" type games are more appealing to developers. I assume they cost less to develop and therefore can be sold at a lower price while gaining profit. On the other hand, a game like Starcraft seems terrible for revenue since it was a one time $20 battle-chest purchase for me forever ago. Obviously the goldmine was subscription based MMO like WoW but I think that's a pretty difficult area to compete in, ie: FFXIV failing hard
|
Katowice25012 Posts
You're really cherry picking here to fit an argument that may or may not exist. People of every generation make this complaint as a way to look back at the games of days past with rose colored goggles, when the reality is that every generation has had tons of terrible shit no one remembers and a few great games that stand the test of time.
What strikes me as depressing is that there are hardly any more games that can be played for sustained periods of time
Honestly this is just flat out untrue. Starcraft 2 has been going pretty damn strong for 2 years now, and League of Legends has a crazy huge community and less than 4 years old. Dota 2 has given a resurgence to a relatively old game that will likely last many years from now. The reasoning you gave behind why MOBAs are exempt makes no sense, how can you say games are dead "except the ones that aren't"?
How do you know any games released this year won't continue to be good 2, 5, 10 years from now? You have no idea what the future holds. The difference here I suspect is that you've only now been paying close enough attention to realize that the majority of releases aren't good and die off. This is nothing new.
|
I don't think there's much basis for your post to be honest, especially the timeframe "4 months" seems to be taken out of thin air and it's actually very easy to come up with examples of 4 months being too short. Minecraft is a great example, many communities have played this game constantly for ages, yet you use it as an example of 4 month syndrome.
|
On August 01 2012 04:16 Incze wrote:
I still play starcraft 1 and dota after 10+ years with the former and over 6 years with the latter.
I still play them because they have so much variety. No 2 games of dota will ever be alike and that's why it is a game with a very long life.
Only shallow and simple games suffer from the 4 month syndrome, in my opinion.
^ What this guy said.
Playing QUAKE in 2012, practicing my LG dodge. ( and duelling despite the most retarded voting system ever that forced me to leave after playing T7 twice, by changing the map to BEYOND REALITY ... )
Same applies to brood war and CS 1.6.
Your "4 month gaming sydrome " only applies to casual, this kind of people who play the likes of COD and are more into "interactive movies" than actual games.
People have been playing chess for over a thousand years now. There is no "4 month syndrome " in games, only in today's gaming industry.
Many people play games because of graphics or something else that might've seemed appealing upon buying the game. Gamers play for the gameplay. And frankly, very few games have a gameplay good enough that it can keep someone entertained more than 4 months.
|
You have to keep in mind the sort of culture that was fostered by WoW. Players as a whole got much, much better at chewing through content during its reign. The millions of players that cut their teeth on gaming through WoW ended up able to fly through new content at previously unheard of speeds.
This is potentially a reason for this syndrome. When D2 launched, there wasn't this culture of one-upmanship among a very large population. The average gamer didn't know gearing, min/maxing, compete with friends, or take time off of work to fly through a game. But they do now.
The gaming culture has been forever changed by gaming over the last five years- there's no way around it.
|
I still play 30 or more games a week of BW and have been doing so for the entire year. At least for me the time of SC1 is far from gone. Of course I'm blessed with great friends who stick to the best game with me. Only other multiplayer games I tried to pick up this year were Tera and SDGO, both eventually dropped after a number of months (about 2-3 months).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
