Behind the Curtain: Saving NWC
Part 1: Taking Stock -- Can the Heroes Franchise Be Saved?
Let me start by recognizing that JVC, Gus Smedstad, and the other Heroes designers have created a wonderfully entertaining game—one that certainly deserved its rise to the top of the charts, where it stayed for a good long time. By any standard, Heroes has been an enormous success and no doubt has made good profits for 3DO and NWC. But it seems that over the years success bred complacency, and what had once been adequate if uninnovative marketing became stagnant and rote, even while dramatic changes were beginning to transform the industry. Each of these changes became a ‘tipping point’ for Heroes and each time the franchise tipped in the wrong direction.
Where it went wrong
What were those changes? There were advances in sound and graphics processing that opened the door to console gaming, which the general public found much more accessible than PC gaming had ever been. Demand expected for PC games was shifted to the console segment. There also got to be a lot of bad PC games pushed out to market that turned out to be unready, unfinished, and unprofitable. This coincided with the advent of multiplayer gaming via the Internet, which flourished in forms from head-to-head battles to massively parallel RPGs, further dividing the market. And the Internet itself brought changes to the packaged software business, opening products to international markets and transforming customer/vendor relationships.
Conventional wisdom holds that computer games must be sold through traditional retail channels, alongside console systems and cartridges. But there a certain absurdity to the distribution process as games are (a) Copied on to CDs and placed in boxes, (b) Loaded in trucks to be transported to stores, (c) Placed on shelves for buyers, and (d) Brought home by buyers to be installed on computers on the same network where the game originated. As computer gaming has become more popular, the retail system has begun to show signs of stress. Retail shelf space has become difficult to obtain unless the game is backed by an extensive advertising and merchandising campaign. This forces releases into narrow windows as shipping dates become all important. And it creates an all-or-nothing mentality as companies seek occasional ‘blockbuster’ hits rather than steady revenue streams from enduring franchises.
The conservative approach to product planning has a strong appeal. By sticking with a successful formula, you feel you are taking fewer risks so your profits seem more secure. And the less you change, the less effort is required. It is this mentality that brought Heroes down.
Does Heroes deserve to live?
Before we look at saving Heroes , we must determine whether it deserves to live. Objectively balancing the strengths and weaknesses of the game we can begin to see whether it makes sense for a company to invest in the Heroes franchise as opposed to simply developing and marketing a similar game.
Let’s start with the current state of Heroes. Past sales, particularly of Heroes III, have created a substantial customer base. However, the latest version has proven to be a disappointment, which eroded the base and garnered the series’ first negative publicity. The painful demise of the once-strong Might and Magic franchise has tainted Heroes , which drew its first customers on the coattails of M&M. What’s worse, the game has not been able to tap the expanding market for console games or cross over into other media.
From what I hear, the creator and enough of the development have stayed around to make the core design elements worth maintaining. And if NWC survives, it will undoubtedly pass into more appreciative and capable hands than 3DO. As a new addition to another company’s product line, it should at first receive an injection of resources from the parent company, which will probably come with a requirement for a multi-year business plan with a decent profit picture.
Why Heroes IV failed
Heroes I, II, and III were games that managed to exceed expectations, counter to ‘conventional wisdom’ about the immanent demise of turn-based gaming. As I pointed out in the topic of “Mapmaker as Entertainer,” the appeal of Heroes stemmed from an artful interweaving of advancement, success, and aesthetics. Each new edition was seen as a good value because of significant advances in the gameplay and the availability of an ongoing supply of user-made maps. However, the much anticipated Heroes IV edition turned out to be a disappointment to both the players and the owners.
First, there was the bad press. Partly this was due to inflated expectations based on previous triumphs. Early reviews were written after only a short amount of play, perhaps not enough for reviewers to become proficient enough as players to appreciate the differences. This is not to say there were not glaring problems—a witless AI, unappealing graphics, mediocre maps, unfinished editor, and missing multiuser support came as major disappointments, especially since everyone was expecting big improvements in all of these areas, as had been the case in previous new editions.
And it certainly did not help that the parent Might and Magic franchise came to such a sorry end. Bad reviews, such as the ‘Coaster of the Year’ award from Computer Gaming World, seem to have been based as much on Heroes ’ association with M&M as the failings of the game itself. For instance, the CGW ‘Coaster’ article accused the Heroes AI of cheating, even though as best I can tell this is just not the case. But the author was disgusted with 3DO over M&M and wanted to say something bad about Heroes too. (To be fair, M&M is not the only major RPG to die with a whimper–Ultima IX had already fouled the atmosphere and made the M&M critics more, um, critical.) And where Heroes supplements had a history of providing good value for the money, the two Heroes IV supplements gave far less than their predecessors. It all stank of exploitation.
Once blessed with a happy, active fan base, 3DO and NWC saw that support eroded by a series of amazingly shortsighted moves that were undoubtedly intended to cut costs. Though some of the Heroes staff have kept touch with the fans, this has been on an individual basis. There has been no real corporate voice for Heroes and no market communications apart from routine press releases and occasional interviews. The company has not even answered its e-mail. Relations with Heroes websites have been rocky at best—they even managed to discourage Astral Wizard to the point of closing down his popular site. The “Guild” was a major rip-off and the map contest was a waste of everyone’s time. The phenomenon of tournament play was simply neglected.
Development costs were poorly managed, even without the cuts that attended the release of an unfinished product. Effort was wasted in converting to the diagonal layout just to be able to use mediocre 3D renderings of creatures and map objects. No doubt a sizable part of the budget went to creature animations, yet important parts of the game like town layouts were never converted to 3D.
Cutscreens took another bite out of the budget, even though they contributed practically nothing to gameplay. As the same time, the music that had once been so splendid did not bear repeated listening.
No doubt someone underestimated the amount of effort required to make good maps. The batch that comes with the game was not thoroughly tested and makes little use of the wonderful new scripting capabilities. And in the initial product and two expansions, there has been a total of one XL map--One!--and it’s in the larger maps where Heroes IV becomes most enjoyable—in my humble opinion. The campaigns become monotonous, as if they were created mainly to exercise the game’s features instead of to entertain its players and offered insipid storylines with camp characters like Spazz Maticus.
Unlike previous editions, there was no random map generator and the lack of documentation for the editor meant that user maps would be slow coming. The result was a scarcity of maps, especially in the larger sizes.
But the killer shortcoming was the lack of support for network play in the first release. Personally, I can’t abide waiting for someone else to play (while I like to take my time when it’s my turn J ) so I have not played many network matches. But I do know there are plenty of players who do--and that the challenge of head-to-head competition is what draws them to the game.
So how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
After all that, you may get the idea that I have given up on Heroes IV . Nothing could be farther from the truth: it’s my favorite game and I play it lots. For all the shortcomings, I find the basic appeal of the game is still there. On balance, I think that the new features in Heroes IV offset its problems and that it offers a deeper strategic challenge that its predecessors, especially for solo play of larger maps, which is what I prefer. (If Angelspit will allow, I’m reminded of an old joke: “Two men are discussing a date that one had the night before. ‘That must have been the worst sex I ever had,’ says the first man. ‘How was it?’ his companion asks. ‘Magnificent,’ the man replies.”)
If Heroes deserves to live—what’s left?
From a marketing standpoint, we need to consider what Heroes still has going for it. This reflects the true value of the property, because as I said before if it’s worthless then there’s no point in carrying on.
Established brand
First, Heroes has both name recognition and brand recognition. Whether passage of time will rehabilitate the Might and Magic brand remains to be seen. We will get into this in Part 2. But at some point, Heroes became a recognizable brand in its own right and was eventually able to overtake M&M in sales. I figure this point came at the release of Heroes III. Somebody at 3DO/NWC apparently thought so too. Thus the dumbed-down Heroes Chronicles and Crusaders of Might and Magic versions. I think some of the appeal is in the name ‘Heroes’ itself. This conveys succinctly and positively the ‘heroic’ aspect of the game. (Never mind that heroism really plays no part in the game. Morale, yes, but not heroism.)
There was even Heroes for Gameboy
Movies like Daredevil and Spider-man have brought heroes back into the popular culture, and ‘playing hero’ is being recognized as something entertaining. In the console market there have been a few hero games, but console games are often seen as overly violent and unhealthy for young players. On the other hand, ‘playing hero’ presents a more morally upright approach to combat, and since Heroes does not depend on blood’n’gore to stimulate the player, it can address a more adult audience, while still being suitable for children. It is a game the family can play together. The Dungeons and Dragons franchise holds many adherents, so it should come as no surprise that Atari has announced a D&D game for the XBox entitled D&D Heroes. This can be taken as hard evidence that the Heroes name has market appeal.
The ‘Heroes’ name must still have market appeal.
The word is featured prominently in the D&D Heroes logo.
In search of a Customer base
Before it lost its way, Might and Magic had attracted a sizeable customer base, which lately seems to have moved over to RPGs like Baldur’s Gate, Morrowind, and Neverwinter Nights. But many gamers still have fond memories of M&M and would welcome its return. Since that may not ever happen, the next best thing would be to see M&M features incorporated into Heroes . In Part 2, we will see how that could be done.
Heroes has a customer base that prefers the more cerebral aspects of gameplay over the visceral thrill of arcade action. The Heroes format may not hold much attraction for today’s younger console gamers–not enough action, not enough flash. But on the other hand, the game avoids most concerns about graphic violence and the learning curve is modest enough to allow new players to enjoy it as much as veterans.
Heroes players tend to be older, more thoughtful, and more loyal than most console players. Some have been playing computer games for many, many years and may be less inclined to buy games on impulse. I’d guess they are also more inclined to use the Internet. (These are my impressions. It would be interesting to see some of the survey data that NWC has collected from all those registrations.) This says that the retail sales channel might not be the best way to reach these customers.
Are there enough of these gamers to support the franchise? For the right implementation, I’d say ‘yes.’ Strategic, turn-based games like Civilization and Master of Orion have proven to be highly successful. The appeal of Heroes easily extends into the adjacent markets of the role playing (RPG) and real time strategy (RTS). Exploration and conquest fit well into the realm of swords and sorcery, and Heroes delivers both strategic and tactical challenges in that setting.
Interestingly, the Heroes customer base includes an enormous international segment. Where computer costs are higher and disposable income is lower, players tend to keep their PCs longer and do not hurry to upgrade to the latest graphics advance. This helps Heroes , since its hardware requirements are modest and playability does not depend on high frame rates. Furthermore, there are excellent mapmakers all over the world, producing maps in a wide number of languages—not to mention (for now) the amazing feats of the Wake of the Gods development team.
Unique experience
Actually, the thing that makes Heroes different from others
in the same genre is the combinationof
- Turn based play
- Tournament, campaign, and scenario modes
- Strategic scale
- Fantasy setting
The fun of it comes from advancement in several areas—each complex enough to keep your interest yet not requiring you to memorize a manual in order to play.
- Army development: At its heart, Heroes is an army game.
- Hero development: Whether taking part in a battle as a one man corps (Heroes IV ) or prancing around in the back (prior editions) the hero has an impact on the overall effectiveness of the army.
- Town development: Probably the weakest of the three areas, particularly in the depiction, but still a selection of distinctive towns with some interesting upgrades.
What I would do
So what can be done to raise Heroes to its former glory and insure a long life for the franchise? If I had a say in the matter, here’s an outline of what I’d do:
- Adopt a new product plan aimed at extending value and profitability of
the product. This entails:
- Staffing plan
- Release plan
- Engineering plan
- Marketing plan
- Merge elements of M&M into Heroes to add game features that expand
the market
- Enhancements to basic elements: towns, heroes, and armies
- Maps: modular construction with load on demand
- Generated objects: locations, armies, treasures
- Social features: diplomacy, persistence, headquarters
- Establish a profitable Commercial Website
- Staples: news, forums, contributed maps and articles
- Development program: tools, prereleases, patches
- Company store: games and merchandise
- Premium hosting services: new experiences, personal interface
I’ll cover the product plan today. The game features and website will be the topics next week.
New product plan
Without seeing the books, I can’t work out a detailed business plan, but it’s clear that retail sales alone will not sustain a large development staff. Instead, the company needs a product roadmap that brings a major release to market every two years, each followed with a pair of supplements the following year. This is approximately what NWC has been achieving, so it is reasonable to assume that with a better product plan, the size of the development team can be restored to Heroes III levels with some staff available to devote to the other activities described here.
Staffing plan
Since the NWC development team may well be devastated by the 3DO disaster, it is very likely that additional resources will be required. I see several measures that can be taken to get the most out of the resources available:
First, hire the WoG team to take over development of as much of the game as it can handle. At very least, this would consist of map objects, creatures, and heroes. To put it diplomatically, Russian programming historically gives you more and better code for the money than American programming. Add to this that the WoG team already knows the game engine and has proven they can produce excellent products—and that they have done this motivated only by their love of the game. The result should be a better game at a lower cost.
Whether it’s better to start with WoG code base, effectively rolling back the game to Heroes III, or to turn the team loose on the Heroes IV code is a question that can only be resolved by looking at the code. However, I think there is an excellent case for the former.
Second, since an important part of the marketing effort will be to improve relations with the fan base, I believe that some useful work could be done by experienced amateur mapmakers and testers. By putting out a prerelease to selected volunteers, the company could gain additional maps and an extra measure of testing—plus invaluable feedback on the release while there is still time to do something about it. Recognizing that volunteer work is inherently unreliable, this would involve some supervision, support, and evaluation on the part of the company and the limitation of such assignments to non-critical areas of the product.
Release plan
Next, the product needs a better release plan. To sustain market interest and provide a continuous cash flow, product development should be guided by a rolling five-year roadmap. Expansion packs are a good way to make money from established customers, but they contribute essentially nothing to growing the customer base and they are typically ignored in the industry press. To sustain interest, a healthy product needs a major release every other year. If releases are farther apart, then interest fades. If they come faster, people get confused, especially if expansion packs are also being released. Patch distribution is another matter entirely.
What I’m proposing is a major release every two years—at Christmas, as dependable as Santa Claus. These will have ads, PR, demos, and all the usual hoopla the industry has come to expect. In the ‘off’ years, there will be two expansions, spaced 6 to 8 months apart to keep the pipeline full. However, retail marketing will be focused 95% on the major releases, while the expansions will appear on retail shelves with a minimum of fanfare. The idea is that customers for the expansions will go looking for them, or get them through a more rational distribution channel than a retail outlet, the Commercial Website. On the other hand, the marketing effort for the major releases is aimed at attracting new customers and needs to follow the rules of retail distribution.
Though the suggested release schedule is essentially the same as what we’ve seen so far, there are two key differences. First, there will not be a complete replacement of technology from one major release to the next—however, each major edition will stand-alone and provide material that makes it accessible by newbies. Old customers will have the opportunity to buy a new edition at a reduced cost. Second, development will continue between major releases, resulting in expansion packs that can be downloaded from the Commercial Website.
Engineering plan
Game development should be organized according to “scrum” principles, where most development activities are conducted as continuous efforts that go on relatively independent of product releases. For instance, rather than waiting nervously for test results during a code freeze, developers proceed immediately to the next task. Putting together the parts and building a release package is just another task. What you give up by this kind of development process is a degree of certainty about what will be included in a particular release, so long-lead marketing activities (like magazine ads) will not be able to use extensive feature lists. What you gain is a highly productive development staff and reputation for reliability.
Another effect of the “scrum” approach is the decomposition of development into a set of major tasks that can proceed relatively independently of each other (integration being just another task). Workgroups can operate in whatever environments suit them. This allows some tasks to be farmed out to groups like the WoG team, and might include other activities, especially if the parent company has the needed resources.
As best I can tell, these are the main programming efforts required to produce the product:
- Architecture and design
- Shell and command consoles
- Map structure and generator
- Map displays, turns, and movement
- Heroes, spells, skills, monsters, and treasures
- Towns and other map objects
- Strategic AI (pathfinding, goal setting, resource management)
- Battlefield engine and combat AI
- Tools: map editor, campaign editor, and scripting facility
- Scenario maps and campaigns
- Testing, documentation, source management, patches, and quality assurance
- Music, cutscreens, manual, installer, registration, packaging
Marketing plan
Finally, the game deserves a fresh marketing effort beginning with the rehabilitation of the once-irreproachable Might and Magic brand. This would be presented to the industry as the merging of Heroes with M&M to create a refined gaming experience that combines the strategic scale of Heroes with the rich character development of M&M.
The ultimate goal would be to move Heroes into the popular culture on a par with Magic: the Gathering or Dungeons and Dragons. That is to say, people who don’t play the game would still know about it and would understand references to it. Some of this visibility can be bought through strategic product placements. Some can be attained through clever merchandising. (Would you like your morning coffee in a Maranthea’s Mug, anyone?) But I think the best way is through crossovers with other media franchises. It’s pretty clear that a lot of world of Heroes comes from the fantasy tradition of ‘Lord of the Rings.’ So why not offer an LOTR edition with Tolkien heroes, locations, and storylines? Or how about Universal horror movies? Or King Arthur? Or Arabian Nights? Or Conan the Barbarian? Another way to attract new customers is to hire known writers and artists from comics, movies, or science fiction to produce something for heroes. This raises their fans’ esteem for the game, generating free publicity for Heroes in an adjacent market, while giving the world of Heroes a new shot of creativity.
Packages like this would draw customers from these other genres to the game, and when they like what they see, it could build a vast new customer base. Heroes are a popular component of all cultures, and if we could translate their adventures into gameplay, customers would find ‘playing’ heroes as much fun as reading about them or watching them in movies.
Another way to gain new Heroes players is with a companion console game. This could play something like Spider-man, but using soon-to-be-familiar heroes and locations from the PC game. When players are hooked on heroic action but want to scale up to the strategic level, Heroes is there waiting for them. When we get to the discussion of the Commercial Website, we’ll see other reasons they will make the jump.
Want to discuss this some more? Meet me in the Forums.
