A little over a week ago, I was on a panel on the “Future of MMORPGs” at the New York Games Conference.
Some coverage of the event in general (and my panel in particular) was mentioned on the GotGame blog.
“Future of MMORPGs Panel” at New York Games Conference 2008. Pictured from left to right: Min Kim (VP Marketing, Nexon America), John Smedley (CEO, Sony Online Entertaniment), Matthew Bellows (VP Consumer Strategy, Vivox), Jon Radoff (CEO, GamerDNA), Jonathan Strietzel (CCO, Big Stage Entertainment), Fernando Paiz (Executive Producer, Turbine). Our moderator was Yuanzhe (Michael) Cai of Parks Associates, at the podium.
During the panel discussion, I stated that the MMORPG industry is not healthy, because most industries needs two or three major leaders. It’s a statement I stand by. Think about Avis and Hertz; Microsoft and IBM; Electronic Arts and Activision. This isn’t a critique of the many successful online game products with a few hundred thousand subscribers–many of these are perfectly good, enjoyable games that are also great businesses. It’s a comment about the industry as a whole.
I just think that the industry needs to aspire to get a couple more products in the multi-million subscriber bracket before we can declare the industry to be “healthy.” I do want to qualify my statement somewhat: while I don’t think it is healthy now, I see no reason why it won’t become so. I’m optimistic we’ll see multiple market leaders in the future. We’re just not there yet.
What does everyone else think? Please share your thoughts!
on 
on 
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
While I agree that the MMORPG space isn’t healthy, I don’t think it is because there aren’t multiple leaders. Apple is the only MP3 player maker that matters. eBay is the only auction site that matters. Likewise, there are many product fields where there are multiple leaders that aren’t at all healthy – fantasy football games for instance lose tons of money, yet CBS, ESPN and Yahoo all are considered leaders.
@Zack – there is no “MP3 player industry” because Apple is totally dominant. At this stage, it’s just another Apple product with no viable competition. For example, if you’re a brilliant product developer who knows how to make MP3 players, what are your career prospects outside of Apple? If you have a startup company idea, how available is the capital to form your competitor?
When there are little or no ways to get a job or start a company within a market beyond one dominant leader, I don’t call that an “industry.”
I’d love to hear more about how you define “healthy” in this context. To a certain extent, MMOGs can be successful if they attract a niche audience, albeit a small one. To me, this is a bit like the movie industry – you have the blockbusters and then you have the independent movies. Sometimes, the independent ones will reach mass appeal, but they exist to serve other purposes.
Then again, I may be totally off beat here, since I don’t know what you’re referring to when you say “healthy”.
@rodica – I agree that individual products can be healthy and profitable, even in the shadow of an overwhelming larger competitor. There will always be guerrilla products that attack the edges of a top-selling product.
However, I’m talking about the health of an entire industry, not individual products–and it’s my opinion that there must be more than one market leader for a healthy industry to exist.