Slashdot Mirror


MMORPG: Money, Money, Money

JTacomis writes "There's an interesting article up at Business 2.0 magazine about Sony Online and EverQuest. It says that EverQuest makes Sony over $5 million a month. Star Wars Galaxies is expected to make even more than that. It's a long and in-depth articles that takes us through the whole back-story to EverQuest. One interesting fact: EverQuest almost didn't get made. According to the article, the idea was originally turned down inside of Sony."

288 comments

  1. The truth why George Lucas introduced Ja-Ja Binks by Bramley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since everyone hates him, I can see a long queue forming just to kill him off in the game...

  2. They will need all that money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  3. Is 5 million a lot ? by tmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm just not sure whether 5 million a month is a lot ... it doesn't seem like it would be a lot for a company the size of Sony. And if the Star Wars game gets popular, you have to expect that a lot of it will come at the expense of cannibalizing the Everquest ranks. MMORPGs, like MUDs, after all, require a very particular type of person to pay to play.

    1. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by birder · · Score: 2

      The dream is to have a multitude of online games to choose from, each generating similar revenue.

      A cash cow of 30 or 40 million a month with large profit margins is very attractive.

    2. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 2, Insightful
      5 million dollars a month may not be much, but 40 per cent gross profit margins are rather attractive.

      Seriously though, the market will only expand if it offers differing types of online game. If they are all D&D/Star Wars type universes, they'll be competing for the same market. The Sims looks like a promising idea for tapping a different section of the online population.

    3. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Elanor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't think the players of everquest will stay faithful to the world they've invested alot of time in? I can understand people trying out a new world, but it'd have to be significantly more entertaining to overcome the homesickness!

      - Lnr

    4. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      it's 40% of 5 mill
      but why quibble.
      "$5 million a month for the Japanese entertainment giant. Given the 40 percent gross-profit margins"

    5. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by NexusTw1n · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once the game is developed 5 million is a lot per month.

      Development costs are covered by the sale of the game+manual+first month subscription package, day to day running costs (coders doing bug fixes, server system admins) are pretty negligable, considering companies like Blizzard and the EA can afford to do it for their customers for free, and newbie helpers/game testers/Wizards/Gods whatever, tend to be players prepared to do the work for free.

      So all those Evercrack subs are sheer monthly profit, a nice little earner, even for a megacorp like Sony.

      As for Starwars or whatever the MMORPG of the month is stealing custom, well that will happen, but a lot of their customers will be ex Evercrack addicts, looking for a new fix. There's plenty of burnt out players who while never wanting to touch Everquest again, won't be adverse to trying a new game out.

      Remember kids, Choose life, or rather than MMORPGS choose Heroin, or crack cocaine, at least those drugs get you out of the house, meeting people now and again.

      --
      It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
    6. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by manseman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps 5 million isn't all too impressive. But if you compare an online pay to play game to a regular single player game there is the little difference that people who play online games pay money over and over to keep playing unlike s/p games that will only force the player to pay a one-time amount.

    7. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Ryvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is all gleaned from developer quotes, interviews, and gamasutra articles:

      $5 million is quite a bit as it comes out to $60 million a year. Keep in mind that most games are LUCKY to break 100,000 copies sold (x$50 = $5 million), and thus Everquest makes Verant as much in a month as most games do in a year.

      However, a solid chunk of this goes to upkeep of the servers, bandwidth, and salaries for the shoddy-at-best support staff. IIRC, slightly less than 50%. So that leaves $30-35 million a year to play with a year. But wait, let's assume I'm way off base and those fees rack up 80% - that's still $10 million a year net.

      Guess how much it takes to develop a good MMORPG? Between 8 and 11 million dollars. EQ has been running a few years now, which is why Sony/Verant can afford to develop four new games simultaneously (EQ2, SW:G, some MMOFPS I believe called Planetside, and some MMORTS).

      Frankly, the whole business makes me sick. Everquest is terribly unfun to anybody not hooked on it, yet it's like crack to the poor souls addicted to it (many dropping out of college, ignoring their marriages, and in one case neglecting their newborn to the point of death). In exchange for making a shitty game Verant reaps ungodly amounts of money as far as their industry is concerned. Perhaps worst of all, though, is the way Verant hits new heights in censorship of its playerbase - going so far as to remove the accounts of players who post 'objectionable material' in message boards, or those trying to write their own software to act as third-party servers for the game client (DMCA, anyone?). While they're certainly entitled to write any crazed demands into their EULA that they wish, they'll never see another cent from me again.

      For a story about a relatively sane MMORPG company that built its game cheaply and (for an MMORPG) fairly bugfree using a mix of licensed proprietary client software and open source software on the backend (smart combination, that), check out Postmortem on Mythic Entertainment's Dark Ages of Camelot (free login required).

      --Ryv

    8. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by tolleyl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that most of the MMORPGs are going to start competing for the same small group of people. Though new worlds and themes will bring in some people who don't currently play, I can't see this ever being more than a niche market. In the article it states that "one third of players 18 and over spend more time in the game world than at their paying job". I don't see that this type of commitment is possible for the majority of game players. One possibility for them to attract new people is to have a tiered pricing structure like ISPs do with dial-up access. If I'm paying $14.99 a month for playing Star Wars Galaxies then I would want to play as much as I could to get my money's worth, but if I pay only $5.99 for 20 hours or so then it might be more palatable.

    9. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by xneilj · · Score: 1

      Maybe it doesn't sound like a huge amount, but over, say, three years that's a tasty $180 million... Not too shabby, eh? Getting on for a quarter of a billion dollars (and that doesn't take into account the cash they made from selling the boxes to start with)...

      --
      rm -rf / is the evil of all root
    10. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by crevette · · Score: 0

      Yes DAOC is fairly bug-free and sane but it is also fairly contect-free or fun-free past a couple weeks.

      There is one thing about Everquest: it's addictive.

      I wonder if, at one point, the gouvernment will step in and regulate the market. If the online worlds become detrimental enough to the individual (likes drugs) and the society (due to health care fees or loss of productivity) maybe they will be forced to.

      I don't know exactly on what grounds the gov passed laws to make drugs unlawful (if it was morals, population health or economics), but maybe we have on our hands a similar 'product' here.

      At the very least, if MMORPG are to get out of the 'niche' market they are currently in and become widely used by everyone, I would like the companies making them more sensible. Or if the companies fail to see the point of doing so (like because of a customer backslash), the gov should do it.

      As it is now, they give the background and you can play in it. However if there is something wrong it the background (aka bugs) they are not responsible for it. You lose, let's say, a Big Bad Vorpal Sword of Cheesehead Slauthering because (let's get a totaly fictional situation that _never_ever_ happened to me) you drop it on the ground and their clean up code is messed up and the item goes *bam* gone, in 0.03 seconds. Well, they won't give it back to you, because, somehow, it YOUR fault if you lost it. Doh? When the market gets more mature, the companies better follow. However we all know that the addictive part of EQ is to get more power, more items in the longest amount of time as possible (hey, they want your money!), so why, ho, why? should they play 'fair' with you?

      "Who let him out"

    11. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To Sony, profit is good, it has far too many lossing money business like ... TV. 40% margin is not low, question is if it is scalable. I think MSFT is aftering this market, not game itself; that's why they want game dev to use MSFT server. But didn't they learn the lesson from Sony's own doom -- beta? Open, and share the profit!!!

      Is EQuest just a special case? I never played EQuest before, and maybe I should try. The only game I ever played online is ... couldn't even remember the name. But I bet along the timeline, in our life time, this form of entertainment or variation of it will become so big and common place; it is like TV todat (hello, reality TV ... what is better than you yourselves involved?)

      Anyhow ... I think I said too much already.

    12. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      You forgot to factor in the cost of the boxes originally. I'd bet the boxes themselves paid for a big chunk of the R&D.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    13. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by RobertNotBob · · Score: 1
      The article quotes a 40% gross profit margin. Thats 2 mil per month pure profit.

      Or, as you mentioned, 4 months to make as much money as a standard game.

      --
      ___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
    14. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by clary · · Score: 2

      [...] yet it's like crack to the poor souls addicted to it (many dropping out of college, ignoring their marriages, and in one case neglecting their newborn to the point of death).

      They baby (almost?) dying smells like an urban legend. Do you have a published news story reference on that?
      --

      "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

    15. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by debrain · · Score: 2

      According to the Fortune 500, Sony has revenues in excess of $60.6 billion per year. So Everquest's annual $60 million accounts for 1/1000th of Sony's revenue. It is probably a notably high margin portion of Sony's revenue, however.

    16. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been developing an online game and I am currently in the second round of financial talks. So far the guesstimated operating costs for Everquest is around 2.5 million a year in asset expenditures (computers routers, etc) and another 5 million in manpower per year (That article points out there are 100+ customer service reps. Figure 20k a year plus bennies, so say 30k total that is at least $3,000,000 for personel) so we have annual operational costs of at least 5.5 million. Now assume that the margin on the software is 10% (really high actually) so each copy that is sold (avarage $30) you would make $3 a piece. This is what 4 weeks of talks determined:

      The initial shelf sales pays for the inital equiptment (But not the coding time, artists, etc.)

      The staff is floated, cost wise, for the 1st year!! (Ack! No profit for the 1st year!?? This is provided you don't pull a WorldCom in you accounting, basically you are paying the staff loan money until the user base grows large enough to post revenues that can support the staff, which by estimates should be around 12 months)

      Provided that you do not factor advertising, the inital coding investment and development costs are around 2-5 million. And sales will not peak until the 4 or 5th month.

      Translation: Everquest was broke year one. Rich Year Two, and filthy rich from then on out.

      !!But!!
      As Everquest's populatity slows the margin will begin to vanish and once it hits 0% Everquest will be shut down (But by then Everquest 10.0 "The Dawn of the TechnoDragon Regime" will be out) and end up Open Sourced 3 to 5 years after that.

      The inital costs are terrifying (You should see the quote I got from MNNET for backbone access budgeting 10000 connections from users at 100kbs garunteed rate, I litterally almosted fainted... I was bad.... I asked "Is that per year?" and all we did was laugh, I cried and laughed at the same time because it was funny, but sadly real too..)

      To answer in short: 5 million a month is not that much (It's a lot, but they soaked a lot of that profit early on in debt) after 2 years. Based on the rate of growth Everquest is actually starting to plateaue. I was dissapointed that they didn't really point out how quickly EQ started to profit. I would have to guess that it took them 15 months to pay everything off and actually increase their net. Again all these figures are best guesses. Sony has never published any hard numbers about EQ that I could find. Later. Happy gaming.

    17. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Latent+IT · · Score: 4, Informative

      Okay, I'll scare the hell out of you.

      St. Petersburg Times

      ZDNet

      So...

      Yeah. I think that bad fathers will be bad fathers. If it wasn't EQ, it probably would have been *actual* heroin.

      The kid who committed suicide is true too, according to Wired.

    18. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      I get the feeling I'll get a -1, Flamebait for this, but I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass.

      Money shouldn't control you like that. Never think that because you paid for something, especially in a case like that, that you have to make it worth your money. Play for the most fun, and then stop playing again, until you want to play some more.

      At that point, if it's not worth your money, just stop paying, and playing. ;p

    19. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Ryvar · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually. Although like many news stories, what was initially reported (and what I read) was not what actually happened:

      Here.

      It's clear now (it wasn't at all when the media I read was blitzing the news) that EQ had little role in the killing. Whether it had a role in the general neglect of the infant (malnourishment) isn't addressed in any article I can find, but that seems to be the implication, and the prosecuter makes a statement to that effect in the above link.

      Actual St. Petersburg article here.

      --Ryv

    20. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      The article also points out that it's their highest and most reliable profit margin, and that raising subscription costs had almost no impact on the number of subscribers (and they're still gaining new subscribers every month). Meanwhile, their hardware is barely keeping 1% margins and every movie or album they make is a gamble.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    21. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Restil · · Score: 2

      Who cares if its a lot or not? Its PROFIT. Certainly Everquest might only be a small percentage of Sony's business, but Sony has a lot of fingers in a lot of different pies. As long as each one of their ventures is making money, who cares if one single investment isn't making a LOT. Any tech company making a profit these days is in good shape.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    22. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Restil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see much that the government can do about this. First of all, a person who isn't addicted to Evercrack and can play it 30 minutes a day and go on with his/her life won't suffer any physical/mental/emotional side effects. Drugs, even the legal ones, present a real physical danger to those who abuse them. Evercrack presents no such danger. Someone might run their life into the ground while playing it 14 hours a day, but there are plenty of other activities they could waste their time on if they felt so compelled.

      I was addicted to UO once, for the first six months of its release. I played it a bare minimum of 8 hours a day. One day I saw the light and quit playing it cold turkey and never even felt the desire to go back. It might have been an addiction, but it wasn't a dependancy. Walking away was no problem, just so long as I didn't PLAY it. However, after I quit, I haven't
      spent any less time on the computer. I just now spend my time on other things, some of which are more productive.

      At least now though, I don't spend every minute away from the computer eagarly awaiting an opportunity to get back on it. I no longer spend my entire day at work planning strategies and reading message boards for a game. I no longer dream about a video game every night (like I used to).

      I'm willing to believe that no matter how hooked on Evercrack or some other game someone is, they could walk away from it and let it go if they really wanted to. The government has no place telling that person what to do with their life. When they can no longer afford internet access, they'll become productive again by necessity.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    23. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Avallach95 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no one is using volunteer help at this point. There was a lawsuit not long ago where several player "volunteers" demanded back pay for their time and were able to win in court. As a result no one is willing to risk having volunteer assistance any longer. Dark Age of Camelot has a very limited, unofficial helper program, but it's rarely used, in my experience.

      Bottom line: Server support/newbie help will cost extra money for the developers, but probably not significant amounts. I know the response time in Asheron's Call was *much* faster when the volunteers were in place. (On the order of a few minutes compared to a few hours or even days with "professional" help.)

    24. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Cybersiren · · Score: 1

      DAoC's unofficial helper program rarely used?
      I'm usually flagged as an advisor when I'm in DAoC. I get at least one question a night, usually more. It's not at all the same as being a guide or gm, you can't help with game mechanics problems. EQ guides had a lot more power, but also had to go through a selection process. In DAoC all you need is 14 hours played and you can give /advice.

    25. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by NexusTw1n · · Score: 1

      Volunteers are still being used on Anarchy Online's game .

      Bear in mind not all games are based on US servers, and are not accountable to US class action suits. (If you don't want to be a helper, don't volunteer!)

      --
      It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
    26. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Avallach95 · · Score: 1

      Interesting...I had myself flagged and generally ended up with a question or so a week when I played. Of course, I'm at best a casual player, so that likely minimized the amount of calls I got. Good to know that programs like that can work, since AC's setup right now definitely doesn't.

    27. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Thackeri · · Score: 1


      According to the article it makes 40% Gross margin so they come out with quite a big chunk after they pay ther taxes...

      --
      Better the pride that resides in a Citizen of the world, than the pride that divides when a colourful rag is unfurled
    28. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by rhakka · · Score: 1

      for something they have spent zero dollars on tv advertising for? (going on the fact that I have never seen an everquest commercial) That's not too shabby. In the games market, it damn near amazing.

      Imagine what it could do with good media support.

    29. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could just spend $15 (plus parking) and go to a 80 minute movie.

      I don't think that the ongoing cost of an online game which you play for countless hours is much of an issue... On the other hand, spending $60 to buy the box copy of a game I may wind up hating and never play (Hi there, Black & White) is a bitch.

    30. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, if 5 million in profit is less than about 5% of its overhead, they'd be better off taking a position in US government bonds. This is disregarding the 'be a major player, in case it becomes huge' school of thought, though.

    31. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Reductionist · · Score: 1

      "First of all, a person who isn't addicted to Evercrack and can play it 30 minutes a day and go on with his/her life won't suffer any physical/mental/emotional side effects"

      From that statement alone I can see that you've never played Everquest. It takes 1-2 *hours* just to get in a group most times, not to mention that time spent waiting for a camp to open.

      It's the time sucking nature of the game that creates most of this 'addiction' problems, precisely because Verant designed in numerous timesinks to draw out the experience and keep player paying the monthly subscription fee. Everything from the formula for leveling that created 'hell levels' to the ridiculous amount of time spent on camping a rare spawn for a piece for an epic weapon are proof that Verant is a company that doesn't care about that value of their customer's time.

      You can't *win* the game or even be modestly successful without 'investing' a ridiculously large amount of time. After 2.5 years of playing as a moderate addict(when compared to the hardcore junkie of power guilds like Afterlife) I wasn't anywhere near being considered "uber", yet in those 2.5 years I probably spent 3,000+ hours in the game. Most of that time was spent levelling, which in EQ is nothing more than an endless game of 'Bop the Mole' in a quest to get XP. There wasn't anything inherently exciting or challenging in the combat, it was the quest for 'golden carrot dangling from the stick' that kept you playing the game.

      In that respect, playing Everquest is much like playing a slot machine. You continue doing the same thing over and over again ad nauseum in hopes of a big payoff(i.e. phat lootz!) and the painfully slow increase in experience that let's you play 'bop the mole' on bigger things.

      So I think a much better analogy would be to compare it to gambling, which we all know to be as destructive as any addiction to drugs or alcohol.

      There's a 'Gamblers Anonymous', and yes there's an 'Everquest Addicts Anonymous'.

      Taken in that light your comment that "Evercrack presents no such danger" is pure hooey.

      Is regulation the answer? I doubt it. Regulation of the casino industry is very weak and largely ineffective. Aside from an minimum age requirement of 21, there's nothing to prevent someone from pissing their life savings away.

      Yes ultimately it all comes down to personal responsibility, but responsibility is a two way street. Unfortunately the idea that Verant has a responsibility to their customers to design a product that can be enjoyed in a reasonable amount of time is rather unfashionable in an era of extreme Laissez-faire capitalism in which anything goes.

    32. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Ironica · · Score: 1

      That's $5 million that they take in. They turn around and spend $3 million a month on operating costs. That's what the "40% gross profit margin" means. The $3 million covers bandwidth, rent, salaries, equipment, utilities... predictable costs. But, it's gross profit and not net profit, because then they turn around and reinvest some into expansions and other products, as well as promotional expenses and the like. There's probably a small advertising budget allocated, but I doubt that paid for the Everquest Invasion van (Which has 9 computers in it and drives around the country, letting people taste the game for free).

      Furthermore, Everquest has a very active volunteer program. Most of their CS is taken care of by volunteer guides, working from their homes. They get a few special tools, their play account is free, and they also get in a heck of a lot more trouble than the average player if they screw up.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    33. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2
      require a very particular type of person to pay to play

      I'm not sure about that...the addictiveness of the online RPG translates well across all boundaries. When I watched my friend play Ultima Online (I bowed out after the beta test ended...I was like, they want me to pay to play this unfinished game?) I found that UO appeals to the same impulse in people as slot machines do. An online RPG is really nothing more than a slot machine with a positive expectation of gain. You put your quarter in (time), spin the wheels (mob spawns), and you get your reward (item). Because the rewards gained are virtual, the house (Origin) can guarantee gain, whereas a slot machine must take in more than it pays off.

      I realize RPG'ers probably like to think of themselves as more sophisticated than slot players, but hey, there are a lot of parallels there.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    34. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont think day-to-day costs are that negligable when you have that many subscribers. The bandwidth/server upkeep costs alone for the game must atleast take a nice little chunk of that 5 million. They have had up to 100,000 subscribers on simultaneously, and also they have a server located in the UK, and maybe elsewhere.

    35. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont be too quick to dismiss it though.

      I know of one person who ruined his 'to be' marrage because of it. Another person who chased off not only a wife but 3 gf's over that game. Both were using everquest.

      Games can be VERY adictive. I personaly found the game in question dull and boring. But that was just me. Plus the monthly fee is a MAJOR turn off of a game for me for some reason. I can plop down 50 on a game easy. But pay someone every month to play that 50 dollar game. eeerrr uhhh skip.

    36. Re:Is 5 million a lot ? by Suicyco · · Score: 2


      Replace every occurance of "Evercrack" in your reply with "Heroin" or "Cocaine" and the same reads true. Its not WHAT a person is addicted to, its how they relate to it. A normal person could use heroin for 15 years and never become addicted nor have major issues in their life if they did so with a little moderation. Same with cocaine, alcohol, cigarettes, Everquest, etc. Everquest in itself is harmless. So are lots of things. Addicts are addicts, you can't control that.

  4. More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by codexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With all the MMORPGs in development, I think people are going to play more diverse games. And since, playing a MMORPG takes a lot of time, people aren't going to play more than 1 or 2 at a time. So either all those new MMORPGs aren't going to be popular or the current big ones are going to lose a lot of customers.

    --
    True warriors use the Klingon Google
  5. Re:The truth why George Lucas introduced Ja-Ja Bin by msoya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or, more likely, you will be able to play as a Gungan (or whatever he is) Imagine it - hordes of little kids with their parents credit cards, swarming you with their characters, blocking the only way out with their dead bodies. I'd pay a lot of money to see loads of dead Jar-Jars.

  6. Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will cost them 5 Million in bandwith costs by slashdotting their site! Next week, price per month increases by $15.

  7. Money, money, money indeed by jukal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Ultima Online, you can now change your character name, which was previously fixed. But, quess what, it costs $29.99. Can you believe it!! A simple DB query, I believe. Sheesh.

    1. Re:Money, money, money indeed by sirinek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There's a dumbass born every minute.

    2. Re:Money, money, money indeed by vidnet · · Score: 3, Funny

      But it does keep people from constantly changing their names with the rise and fall of current pop stars.

    3. Re:Money, money, money indeed by jsse · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you started to name yourself like 'K1lj00Nl00UrAsS' and became real good after killing 1000+ people or so, you want to get a better name so as to gain acceptance among noble knighthood. :)

    4. Re:Money, money, money indeed by Evro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same with EverQuest. Honestly I'm glad they charge for it because otherwise people would be changing their name daily, which really makes it hard to keep track of who is who. $30 is enough that it would discourage people from doing it casually, but not so much that it would keep people who have a dumb name and are truly unhappy with it from availing themselves of the service.

      --
      rooooar
    5. Re:Money, money, money indeed by jukal · · Score: 2
      > $30 is enough that it would discourage people from doing it casually

      I agree with this point, but still the cost is rather greedy. If they wanted to just discourage people from changing their character's name, there's other ways to do it.

      Then again, a $30 dollars extra is not much, if you buyed an 3l33t account from ebay, and paid $400 for it. And also, I quess the MMMMMMMORPGS are here to make money, I just simply envy them for being able to pull such fortunes out of twiddling with 32 bytes for 1 microsecond. :)))

    6. Re:Money, money, money indeed by tweek · · Score: 2

      Actually with UO there's more to it than a database query.

      There are some issues with guildstones and other things that require a GM to be available in-game when you do the change. I personally think people needing to change thier name are stupid. What is so hard about thinking up a really good name when you start? I spent 30 minutes thinking about what I wanted to name my character.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    7. Re:Money, money, money indeed by seann · · Score: 1

      "I spent 30 minutes thinking about what I wanted to name my character."

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    8. Re:Money, money, money indeed by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I guess I got into them too late, it took me 30 minutes, well it seemed like that anyway, to pick a name that no one else had.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    9. Re:Money, money, money indeed by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2

      In EQ you just have to choose a name with a x at the end and petition when you come up with a good surname

      On my current char I started as "Ealarx" and managed to slip "Crackforhead" through the surname filter, then I petitioned to get my name changed to "Moor Crackforhead", it's quite amusing if I do say so myself :)

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
  8. Turned down! by standards · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, a lot of projects are initially turned down for business investment ONLY because they suck.

    You see, a business project needs to be shown to be profitable (in the short or long term), and if the original business plan didn't drive that point home, well, it'd be rejected by management. Plus the original business plan would have had to fit into Sony's core business model. If not (and this plan did not!), the plan would have to be much more detailed and robust.

    It isn't that management is always stupid - most executives get dozens of business plans thrown in front of them every week. They have to pick and choose the most likely to succeed.

    After all, it doesn't make anyone look good if $10 million was "lost" in a business plan that most senior executives would laugh at.

    It's kind of like FedEx. We all know that business plan only got a "C" at Harvard Business School. But the fact is, it should have gotten an "F". As a business plan, it sucked. Sure, in the end it turned out to be a wildly successful and profitable business... but the initial business plan could be summed up as "likely to be a failure".

    1. Re:Turned down! by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

      That explains why FculedCompnay.com makes money and doesn't work, right?

      --
      Don't Tread on OpenSource
  9. MMORPG's are great, but... by mrgrey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would you rather pay $150-$200 for a game and not have monthly charges, or pay $40 for a game and $12.95 a month to play it? I think MMORPG's would be more successful, in the terms of user numbers, if they would stop charging by the month. Maybe that's why some people are still playing MUD's and MUCKing around....

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
    1. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by saider · · Score: 1
      The subscription model generates more revenue in the long term. Add to it all the extras of changing names/worlds etc and you can get a fair amount of money coming in. Sony does not care about how many users it has, but rather how much money it can make off of the venture.


      Besides, $12.95 is not a lot when you compare it to other forms of entertainment. If you play an hour a day, which is a modest amount, that is only about .45 per hour. How many other forms of entertainment are as cost effective?


      I would rather spend the $40 because there is always the risk that I will not like the game. If that is the case, then I am only out $40 (or less if I can trade it in at the local game store). $150 is a bit of a risk and I'd only spend that if I got a free trial period.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    2. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your kind of thinking is exactly why the tech-industry is in a crisis.

      Money need to be made to pay the bills, and these guys do that, successfully!

    3. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Or maybe some of us have yet to "upgrade" to MMORPGs because we like being able to use our imagination and create things instead of just mindlessly clicking for hours on end.

    4. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by jukal · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > Would you rather pay $150-$200 for a game and not have monthly charges, or pay $40 for a game and $12.95 a month to play it?

      No. if I start to play some MMORPG, I tend to do it for a long time until there is not much to see, do or try. I will eagerly pay the monthly cost if that makes sure that the server exists also tomorrow. If there is no monthly cost, it usually means that the server gets hosted by a third party, whose main business is somewhere else - and as that third party does not have much incentive to keep the service running, it is easy to shut it down.

      What would be best, I think, would be that the game was freely downloadable without any cost, and if you want to develop your characters (play for longer than a few fays test-period), then you would have to start paying a subscription fee.

    5. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather pay the larger price up front, and have no monthly fee. Even if I ended paying more, I have never subscribed to EQ or others with a fee because I'd always be re-evaluating "am I playing enough to get my money's worth this month?", "should I continue my subscription?". Same with those "all inclusive resorts", maybe cost more overall (not usually) but nice to have paid your money, and can now RELAX and enjoy it all rather than being nickel and dimed to death or at least not having to think about the money after the initial $$.

    6. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Dark+Nexus · · Score: 2

      I know of at least one game like that, Lineage. I got the client off a PC Gamer CD.

      (Didn't keep playing after the free period though - this isn't meant as an endorsement)

      There's probably more out there, too.

      --
      Dark Nexus
      "Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
    7. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1

      I'd rather pay $40 up front and never pay another dime again but still enjoy years of gameplay -- the way PC games have been for a while now. MMORPGs are outrageously overpriced and the only reason they're currently successful is because of the addicts.

    8. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by arkanes · · Score: 2

      Anarchy Online has a free evaluation as well, I believe 30 days, along with a free download of the client. If you want to keep playing, I _think_ you have to pay them the 10 bucks they would have gotten if you'd bought the box.

    9. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Gorin · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer to pay $200 to see if you like a game? Or would you prefer to pay $50 and then one $12 payment to see if you like it? If you don't, you're out $62, about the amount you'd pay for most any new game on the shelves at your local retailer. If you do like it, and you play the hell out of it like most of the MMORPG crowd who sticks with a game, you're spending far less in the long run. Instead of forking out that same $62 every month or two for a new game, that you'll be bored to death with in three weeks, you spend $12 a month and get near endless entertainment. Before buying Everquest, I would consistently buy one, sometimes two new games a month. I've bought 4 new games in 3 years since buying Everquest. I'm coming out on top in cash.

    10. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by maddskillz · · Score: 1

      The thing is a lot of people don't realize how quickly these monthly charges add up. Tell them you want $200 the game, including services, and they will think that is way too much. Tell them it is 40 + 12.95 a month, which is pretty much the same price for a year, and they will think that is much more reasonable.

    11. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by ckedge · · Score: 2

      I'd like to pay $5 per month plus N-cents per hour. Why should I pay $15 per month when I only use the game for 10-20 hours a month, while a friend plays 180 hours a month, using up 10-20 times as much server time as I do, still for $15 per month?

      Why when I take a 3 month break (big vacation, changing interests, etc) do I still have to pay $15 per month just to maintain the character on disk on the server?

    12. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by rhakka · · Score: 1

      would you rather get anywhere from 10-80 hours a month of entertainment for $13 or go see one movie and get a soda, maybe a small popcorn?

      That's value my friend, in the entertainment market. Personally I would have no bones whatsoever paying a monthly subscription fee for any online multiplayer game, provided that enabled the producers to support their product online adequately (good servers, admins, updates).

    13. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meridian 59 is available that way, too.

      I have an account, but it's going to go away soon, since I noticed the other day that I haven't played at all in the last month.

    14. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by flatrock · · Score: 2

      I very much prefer the monthly subscription. With the monthly subscription you pay as you go for the services they provide. You pay extra the first month to get the account set up, and get the disk, but after that you're paying for them to continue to work on the game. In Asheron's Call, new content is added pretty much every month. Some months there are more bug fixes while others have more content, but the company has a constant cash flow they can use to continue develop the game.

      If you pay $200 up front, then as the game matures, there's less of a reason for the company to continue developing the game. Income is based strictly on attracting new players, not maintaining the world for current loyal customres. That's a business model that's bound to eventually fail. For many people spending $200 or more is a much bigger decision than paying the $20 to $60 for the box and seeing how they like the game. They just won't be able to attract the player base at that price.

      As for the people who thing the monthly fees are too high. I strongly suggest you don't play. There are many thousands of people who think the monthly fees are very reasonably priced, and the games really don't need more whiners. I used to buy about a game a month. Now I've bought 1 game in the last 18 months. Asheron's Call has definately been a very good entertainment investment for me. If you don't like monthly fees, there are other choices you can make. Maybe try Neverwinter Nights, or Warcraft 3.

    15. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by gid · · Score: 1

      I personally prefer to pay $50 and be done with it. And leave it up to the community to run the servers.

      3 id.

      I like an RPG now and then, but an online one just doesn't fit in with my lifestyle. There was a time when I could spend endless hours playing games, but now, I just want my quick fix, and then go do something else, with *gasp* other people.

      I sit in front of my computer 8 hours a day working, do I really need yet another reason to spend more time in front of it? :)

    16. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      why reinvent the wheel? Offer a flat monthly rate first. Then offer package deals of 3, 6 and 12 months (perhaps a bakers dozen for that). Not only does it become a bit more attractive for the subscriber, but it locks in the users for that time. Once you pay for something like that, unless there are reasons like loss of service or other technial issues you don't get your money back. Thats the gamble.

      Here, everyone is a bit better off. I would also add that since the revenue is dependant on this and not the initial sells, then give the game away (or simply charge an insanely low rate)

    17. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Would you rather pay $150-$200 for a game and not have monthly charges, or pay $40 for a game and $12.95 a month to play it?

      Go ahead and do the former. You'll go out of business because too few people will be willing to pony up that much money upfront.

      People (and companies) are funny like that -- they'll pay ongoing fees instead of a large upfront fee. Partially because ongoing fees are easier to budget for, partially because there's not such a sense of commitment with a smaller upfront fee.

      On the flip side, there's no way in hell that I'd want you to pay a large upfront fee instead of monthly. Monthly gives me an ongoing revenue base, which is great since I probably have ongoing expenses (like staffing, rent, etc). The large upfront fee gives me spikes in revenue - which is hard for me to budget for and isn't viewed kindly by investors.

      I played EQ for nearly 3 years, had 2 accounts for a year, and bought the expansions up to and including Luclin. So I guess I spent something in the neighborhood of $700 on the game alone in that time. So yeah, it would've been cheaper for an upfront version. But if I had to pay $200 to just start then I never would've played, and that's a huge stream of revenue gone. (And while I will never again play anything like EQ again, I can't really be too pissed -- without it I never would've met my wife, who also played).

      On the flip side, I bought lifetime memberships for both my TiVo's, at $200 each. One has already paid for itself, the other will do so within a few months.

    18. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh don't even GO THERE. If someone did this, all the cheapass little whiners who can't be bothered to pay for upgrades or OSes will pirate the software and play anyway, defending their "right" to do so as the cost for the software being too high and "greedy bastards deserve what they get". (Never ceases to amaze me how easily lamers can "rationalize" theft).

      HOW many times have their been posts like that on /.??? Come on, these people won't pay unless there is some mechanism that FORCES them to. Microsoft has Product Activation, MMORPGs have the monthly fee so they actually see some payback for the investment.

    19. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by kz45 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather pay $40 up front and never pay another dime again but still enjoy years of gameplay -- the way PC games have been for a while now. MMORPGs are outrageously overpriced and the only reason they're currently successful is because of the addicts

      everyone is forgetting one difference between an MMORPG and a regular PC game. The bandwidth. This is why there needs to be somewhat of a monthly fee.

    20. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Would you rather pay $150-$200 for a game and not have monthly charges, or pay $40 for a game and $12.95 a month to play it? I think MMORPG's would be more successful, in the terms of user numbers, if they would stop charging by the month.

      The credit card companies seem to be doing fine assuming that people would rather pay the latter.

      Also, when you say "successful" but define it in "the terms of user numbers" what you really mean is "popular"

      And yes, the probably would be a lot more popular.
      But they'd be a whole lot less successful.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    21. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by tx_mgm · · Score: 1

      actually, its around 25 bucks for the AO program.
      The download and first month are free, but if you stay on, then they tack an extra 25 on to your first bill for the program

      --
      Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
      -Dr. Weird
    22. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by tx_mgm · · Score: 1

      i know that if you cancel an account on anarchy online, your characters are stored on the server for 3 months, just in case you come back. so if you're gonna be gone for awhile, you can just cancel and then come back when you're ready to play again.
      I am doing this with them right now.
      It's kind of an untimatum with funcom:
      they now have 1 month and 6 days left to fix the damn nano-technician class or else im gone for good. but i digress.....

      --
      Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
      -Dr. Weird
    23. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      thats stupid... and only invalidates their business model for allowing a free download. Either they must charge for recoup of a full product or not, but you dont' charge later for the client AND service. Not unless of course there are (like NWN) other servers or just P2P.

      I doubt I would ever be stupid enough to say, "Hey this is great! I have been playing for 30 days for free now I will pay 12... er 33 dollars"

      hehehe, AO is doomed because it is run by blue assed baboons

    24. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by bigdavex · · Score: 2

      Would you rather pay $150-$200 for a game and not have monthly charges, or pay $40 for a game and $12.95 a month to play it? I think MMORPG's would be more successful, in the terms of user numbers, if they would stop charging by the month. Maybe that's why some people are still playing MUD's and MUCKing around....

      I think this method runs into the same problems as unlimited calling plans or all-you-can-eat bandwidth. There are real costs to the running the service which vary with usage. A pricing model which ignores this invites difficulties and "abuse".

      --
      -Dave
    25. Re:MMORPG's are great, but... by Carlos+Laviola · · Score: 2

      The only reason they have so much bandwidth expenses is that they keep the server to themselves. Release the server to the players and the problem is solved.

  10. Sony and ideas... by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ideas that have "almost" been turned down by Sony are legend, the point about Sony has always been that they tend to take a punt on this "possible" cases rather than doing the standard corporate drone concept of "doesn't look like something we've done before".

    As the recently departed (as in dead) chairman said of the Walkman "if we'd asked focus groups we'd never have made it". They've also almost not invented CDs almost didn't get into the console market etc etc etc.

    Sony are the company that doesn't kick itself years later saying "damn we though of that why didn't we try it".

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  11. First MMORPG Post! by EvilCabbage · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well, it would have been, but my characters initiative rating sucks.

  12. Wired Magazine's Article by The-Bus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    50,000,000 Star Warriors Can't Be Wrong This article on Wired is pretty neat --- it mostly talks about the cultural effects of SWG on both the world culture and the Star Wars canon. The amount of work and detail that they've put up is amazing.

    I think what is interesting is that the flat-fee model rewards playing a lot -- I guess these companies have balanced out server loads with making sure the game is popular. More people playing for long periods of time = better word of mouth, happier players, more $10-15/m in the future.

    For the record, I only ever played Ultima Online and I think I got to be a Noble Master Warrior, all on a friend's account and PC. I played so much I made him fail freshman comp sci and drop out of school. So beware! Don't let me play Star Wars, say, at your work, or you'll be fired!

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  13. FYI by Goon+Number+1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sony didn't invent the CD, Phillips did.

    --
    http://radio.weblogs.com/0103443/
  14. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 0

    Klingon Google? I know this is off-topic - but what on earth would make a manager allow his developers to spend time translating their app into Klingon? I'm quite curios about the traffic on that section of Google...

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  15. But, is $5 million a month worth... by qurob · · Score: 0, Troll


    The kid who died because of playing EverQuest?

    Link

    Shawn Wooley, we miss you! RIP!

    1. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by DirkDaring · · Score: 0

      So it's somehow Verants/Sonys fault that some guy dies due to their game... when this guy should never have been in front of the computer in the first place because of pre-existing health conditions?

    2. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by matt007 · · Score: 1

      This is just natural selection at work.

      If he did not play everquest he would have died for another 'cause' and probably still not because he was just mentally sick

      Sorry.

    3. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      First of all, 21 is not a 'kid'.

      Secondly: When one person out of hundreds of thousands commits suicide over a *game*, it's pretty apparent that this one person had other issues.

      We've heard this all a hundred times before: "Dungeons and Dragons makes kids go nuts!", "Laser Tag makes kids go shoot people!", etc, etc.

      If *I* were an epileptic who quit my job and move back in with my parents, I don't think there's any chance in hell they would pay for (or let) me to sit on my ass 12 hours a day in front of a device guaranteed to give me seizures. If his parents did that, what other values might they have reinforced in this guy for 21 years prior?

    4. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by rpozz · · Score: 1

      Nobody normal kills themselves just because of a computer game. That kid must have had some serious problems to start with, and it's just as likely that Everquest was a symptom, not the cause.

      Next you'll be telling me GTA3 is responsible for a large portion of car theft. Jeez.

    5. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link! That was the funniest damn thing I've seen online in a while (other than The Onion, of course). Some stupid fat fuck computer geek loser offs himself because of some damn game! That's pretty damn hilarious!

    6. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by thasmudyan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The kid who died because of playing EverQuest? Link [jsonline.com] Shawn Wooley, we miss you! RIP!

      He died because he had massive psychological and physical problems. The article you linked to also explains that his mother basically just wanted to find out what his last moments (he spent them on EQ) where like, and whether other players (whose screen names she found in his notes) might have driven him into suicide. A game cannot make you commit suicide and it cannot make you mentally ill. The poor guy has had a lifelong history of brain chemistry problems. Given his mental state he could very likely not distinguish between EQ/chat and the real world (at least at times). People like that should not be interacting with others over the internet AT ALL, or at least only when supervised.

    7. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3vil, you live in this fantasy world where people are responsible for their own actions and conditions. You sound as if you truly believe that statistical research and grassroots committee's mean absolutely nothing to you. You insensitive clod.

      It is quite clear that the devil is working through Sony to possess the minds of our youth (and trust me sonny boy, a 21 year old is a babe). He clearly means to thwart the efforts of Good by addicting children to a game, and forcing them to play it. We all KNOW (it's been proven in a number of statistical surveys) that Dungeons and Dragons is evil. Although the jury is out on Laser Tag, I once saw someone on the street shoot someone else, and it just seemed so much like laser tag that I thought "Man, I bet that game is evil too!".

      It is people like you that are preventing a society of omnipresent sensitivity to every bizarre mental, physical or emotional disorder that may or may not actually exist. It is our job as responsible citizens to ensure that every aspect of life is completely safe for every person. If there is an activity which may promote violence, death, illness, or flatulence, we MUSt strike it down, or indeed all of society is to blame for the actions of one man.

      If Everquest did force this child to commit suicide, then it must be burned at the stake! DOWN WITH EVERQUEST!

    8. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe the mother should sit down and play her son's account...


      Then after a couple of months can off herself and save us a lot of more stupid warning labels...


      Die bitch!

    9. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      About those names scribbled in his notes:

      I know they are not the names of zones or items, and no one has to write down the names of their online friends to remember them.

      Most EQ players keep a list like this. It's called an 'idiot list'.

      I will almost guarantee that the names are of people he considered to be jerks (muscling in on his camps, or had ripped him off on trades, etc.). He probably wrote down their names so that he could either warn his friends to avoid them, or bash them on a discussion board later.

      They probably didn't know him from Adam. So, I don't see what would be learned by talking them them short of "It was *our* pull, he was KSing *us*". They might not have anything to do with his final hours. Indeed - why make notes to remember someone if they've just driven you to suicide?

    10. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Testify!
      Praise the lord!
      Amen!

    11. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by greymond · · Score: 1

      to bad they bever gave out his account info so I could have started with some cool shit.

    12. Re:But, is $5 million a month worth... by Broccolist · · Score: 2
      According to a quick google search, the annual suicide rate in the U.S. is 12 per 100,000. There are approximately 400,000 everquest players (AFAIK) so one would expect 48 of them to have killed themselves last year.

      So it's absolutely not surprising that at least one everquest player would have killed himself. It makes no sense to blame this on the game. The fact that I haven't heard of any other suicides of everquest players (when there should be 50) makes me suspect that playing everquest is actually negatively correlated to suicide.

  16. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by codexus · · Score: 2

    Well, where I work we had this crazy idea to translate everything to Klingon to try to make it to the slashdot front page (free advertisement). We never did it though :)

    --
    True warriors use the Klingon Google
  17. Then there's Blizzard.. by CBNobi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Blizzard is on the other side of the spectrum in terms of how they make profit. They initially charged $60 for Warcraft III.

    It reportedly sold one million copies, which means roughly $60 million - about as much as Verant makes in a year with Everquest.

    If Blizzard plans to sell Worlds of Warcraft, their massively multiplayer version of Warcraft for about the same retail price, they've got a huge cash cow waiting for them, especially with the current trends of higher monthly pricing for MMORPGS - from $10 to $12.95.

    (Assuming they can get it out before the market becomes stuffed with major contenders such as Star Wars, Everquest 2, and Asheron's Call 2)

    1. Re:Then there's Blizzard.. by LordYUK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Blizzard will sell on name alone. Personally, I hate the whole massively online genre, but will purchase this and play it for at least a month or two, just because its Blizzard, and they have a proven track record. I am sure that other people will, too. I see its only real competition being SWG, as people longed to be padawans long before they were at home in Azeroth.

      --
      This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    2. Re:Then there's Blizzard.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good, except that the Everquest cash is almost pure profit. I'm sure the operating expenses are minimal compared to the amount of money they're raking in.

      Blizzard may be grossing 60 million, but that has to pay for the costs of development, production, distribution, promotion, etc... so they are not going to realize a profit anywhere near Verant.

    3. Re:Then there's Blizzard.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody knew what the fuck a padawan was until they invented the term in Episode 1. Warcraft precedes that steaming pile of horseshit by many years.

    4. Re:Then there's Blizzard.. by birder · · Score: 2

      You are forgetting that Every EQ subscriber, currently 400,000+ ACTIVE subs, bought the game. Then they bought expansion 1. Then they bought expansion 2. Then they bought expansion 3.

      And all through this they paid the monthly fee.

    5. Re:Then there's Blizzard.. by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      Wow, what amazingly bad math.

      Ok, by the same measure then, Sony/Verant has had an income of roughly $130 (EQ + Kunark + Velious + Luclin, all bought new at release) * 400,000 = $52M.

      Of course, that's wrong too. Far more than 400k people have bought the game, because Sony/Verant has about a 30% cancellation rate. And they didn't reap all of that money in one year, nor did people pay full price for everything.

      More importantly, they see nearly none of that money at all -- maybe a third of it. The rest goes to the end store and the middle men. Ditto for Blizzard.

      What Sony does see, however, is $9.89 (now $13ish) per month from every active account. Until they cancel. And when Planes of Power is released (end of the year? Hell if I care anymore) they'll sell another expansion to 80% of their customer base at $30 a pop. Sure, half the price and a third of the user base. So what. It's icing on the cake at this point -- the development is already paid for, the servers and maintainence are already paid for, every penny that comes in is pure profit at this point.

  18. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by will_die · · Score: 1

    It gets worst then that, according to various studies I have seen hard-core players tend to just focus on a single game. When they are done with that one they move on, and only rarly go back.
    So for most of theses new games they are going to have to focus on the non-hardcore gamer. This will make it interesting to watch just to see how many of them will be willing to pay a monthly fee, and how long they will be willing to pay it.

  19. A little more history on Everquest by DirkDaring · · Score: 2, Interesting

    989 Studios actually started in 1995, working on a project called 'Turret Syndrome' - a tank-combat RPG. In 1996 they shifted to work on a MMORPG concept - Everquest.

    They completed Everyquest in just 3 years time, at double the initial budget. $7 million dollars.

    About a year after releasing Everquest, 989 was asked to provide copies of marketing research they did before deciding to go ahead with the project. They admitted that they didn't do any research, because if they had, they would not have been able to justify even making the game.

  20. Another one bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was a fat twinkie retention device!

    He would have killed himself over something! Don't blame EQ!

  21. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by CBNobi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This becomes much more of an issue as the market becomes riddled with next-generation MMO-Games (I believe we're at the 3rd or 4th gen. right now).

    The big three used to be Asheron's Call, Everquest, and Ultima Online. More recently there are challengers such as Anarchy Online, Dark Ages of Camelot and that one space-age MMORTS game. While all have acheived a significant user base due to its hype, they don't seem to have the stability that the "big 3" still manage to maintain.

    I've played all three of the big 3, and it is truly difficult to balance between even two of them, playing 8-10 hours daily.

    Getting back to the original point - the upcoming MMOers will need to rely on more than hype, as can be seen by the current offerings. Hopefully they've learned the lesson by the launch of Anarchy Online.

    As for the current big ones - it's slowly getting to the point where the only players are the dedicated ones, so there shouldn't be much of an "mass exodus" when new ones appear - probably more of a gradual one.

    No, I have no idea why I wrote this much at 5am.

  22. Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what we need in the depressed tech-industry, GOOD NEWS!

    I'm happy that verant and sony has pulled this successtory off, good work!

  23. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by Gossy · · Score: 2
    So either all those new MMORPGs aren't going to be popular or the current big ones are going to lose a lot of customers.


    That assumes a static consumer base. By all accounts the number of game players are increasing and 'public acceptability' (whatever that may be) of gamers is also on the increase.

    With consoles sporting internet connections and network ports, MMORPGs I'm sure will become inceasingly popular.

    I'll agree that people aren't going to be playing more than 1 or 2 at a time, but with more people playing, more MMORPGs doesn't neccesarily mean less popularity per game.

  24. 50m star warriors, become half-million players by Erik_ · · Score: 1

    50 Million potential users for SWG ? That's great, but I don't believe the Online worlds will scale well for this kind of load. What will happen is that the providers will have to make loads of different server-worlds available.
    In Asheron's Call (which I've played since 1998) there are 7+1 worlds. On a great day, I don't think you'll see more than 2500-3000 players per server-world.
    As for revenue, if you take the 5Million and divide it by $10 per month per user, your 50 million Star Warriors suddenly become half a million players. And say you can host 10000 players per server-world, this will still require 100 servers excluding the database servers, authentication servers and the billing servers. Your worse nigthmare with these environments is having to make database roll-backs if a large bug is discovered ingame and players took advantage of it.

    1. Re:50m star warriors, become half-million players by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Hehheh. It would be more than Slashdotted.

      They'd have to use a Beowulf... ah, nevermind :-P

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    2. Re:50m star warriors, become half-million players by birder · · Score: 2

      Everquest already has 100+ zone servers and many other supporting servers.

      There are rare rollbacks, scheduled and un-scheduled downtime ;) networking issues.

  25. Re:FYI 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    CD standard was developed by Sony and Philips together.
    Specs are in the Red Book. Read it and be wiser.

  26. Blizzard's cut by EnglishTim · · Score: 2

    Blizzard won't make $60 million out of it - remember that if it costs $60 retail, it probably costs something like $40 wholesale. Once you've taken off shipping, production costs etc you're probably talking about $20/box - $20 million. subtract from that the cost of development, advertising etc and suddely that $60 million is looking a lot more like $6 million.

    If Sony is raing in about $5 million/month and as the article says, only spends about 40% of that on maintainance, upkeep, development etc..., then they're putting away $36 million/year.

    I'm looking forward to seeing what World of Warcraft is like though...!

    1. Re:Blizzard's cut by CBNobi · · Score: 2

      Obviously there's a difference between gross and profit, but it just shows that Blizzard will up their prices, and this is important when their MMORPG starts up.

      Granted, they must have huge development/production costs, but so does Star Wars Galaxies.

    2. Re:Blizzard's cut by flatrock · · Score: 2

      Obviously there's a difference between gross and profit, but it just shows that Blizzard will up their prices, and this is important when their MMORPG starts up.

      They can't up their prices on their games. Most People just won't pay much more than $60 to purchase a computer game. With MMORPGs customers are paying monthly fees for updates, and maintence on a persistent world.

      Blizzard can likely charge people to play their games online. It would lose them a lot of loyal fans because they are used to geting that service for free. What people are really paying for with the monthly fees is a persistent, evolving world in which their characters can interact with others.

      Traditional games don't give developers an ongoing cashflow to continue to develop and evolve the game. After the game is released, they provide patches to fix bugs so that they can keep selling more coppies to more players. But after a while, the game goes on the bargain shelf, revenues drop, and it no longer makes much sense to keep developing that game. They may still do some bug fixes to maintain customer brand loyalty, but the money just isn't there to maintain the game. With a MMORPG, the money is there as long as the customers are there. As long as they can keep customers happy, the game will continue, and continue to be profitable.

    3. Re:Blizzard's cut by EnglishTim · · Score: 2

      My original point was going to be that Blizzard would only see about 15%-20% of the retail price anyway, but then I noticed that they published WCIII themselves. The developer doesn't normally get the lion's share of the retail price - that normally gets shared out between the retail outlets and the publisher.

  27. and if you need more cash.. make a Expansion Pack by Erik_ · · Score: 1

    And if a company wants additional over the monthly income, you can always make an Expansion Pack for $20 that is mandatory for new quests, housing and lands to explorer... ;-)

  28. There hasn't been a funny comment yet.... by marko123 · · Score: 2

    I played Anarchy Online, and I did and said stuff I could have done in a Christian chat room for free, but without the graphics.

    Where is the 3DMMORPG for Leisure Suit Larry? I want something to tide me over until I get my holodeck (Thanks Scott Adams)

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
    1. Re:There hasn't been a funny comment yet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWLSLD?

    2. Re:There hasn't been a funny comment yet.... by Sarin · · Score: 2

      Well actually there was a little MMORPG for Leisure Suit Larry a couple of years ago called Leisure Suit Larry's Casino. You could make money in the casino and buy items, buy nice rooms and hang out in the bubble bath with some babes, all of this online. It was fun as I recall it, but people found ways too cheat with it and it became a little stupid after that, because everybody had maxed out their money by then. But the game didn't have a monthly subscribtion fee so that was good.

  29. Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by grendelkhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the whole concept of MMORPGs was explained to me, I thought "Wow, this is pretty cool!" But when I was told that I would have to pony up $10 a month after paying $50 for the game, as long as CS and Battlenet are still out there, I think I'll pass.

    Don't get me wrong, more power to these guys, but really, we're talking about the same mentality behind selling heroin, except that the first hit isn't free. Now if the game was a free downloadable, I might consider it. Hats off to these guys for the scam of the century, but my money is going towards something without ongoing expenses.

    --
    Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
    1. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by aonaran · · Score: 1

      well, consider this, now that the game has been going for a few years you can buy the original game in the stores for about $10 (which includes a month) or, better yet every now and then it shows up FREE in some magazine. ...of course that just gets you hooked enough to go out and buy Kunark or Velious. (sp? ...I gave up Evercrack some time ago)

      All they would need to do to get me hooked on that crack again is port it to Linux. ...and worse yet, if you cancel your account you can't sell/give the old disk to someone else, they have to go to the store and buy it because once you've used a serial code to create a character that code can never be used again, even if all characters assiociated with it are destroyed and the account cancelled.

    2. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's not called "Evercrack" because it's cute, man.

      I myself am a relatively new EQ player. At first I balked at paying $12/month for a game I had already purchased, but after I looked at it and put it all in perspective, $12 for a month's worth of entertainment isn't that bad, considering you're going to pay more than that for 2 trips to the movie theatre.

      And I know you gotta buy the game (got the whole kit-n-b kaboodle, game and 3 expansions, for $60) but that's just a little overhead.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    3. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of these days I'm going to actually proofread one of my posts :) I of course meant "kit-n-kaboodle" without the 'b'.

    4. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by analog_line · · Score: 2

      Everything has ongoing expenses. Battle.net pays for itself with ads, and Blizzard's agreements with the ISPs that provide the battle.net servers. People need to maintain Counter Strike servers, and the large internet connections needed to support them (and with badwidth costs on the rise...). If you think those things have no ongoing expenses associated with them, you're deluding yourself. The difference is, with the pay for play games your favorite server is likely to stay around alot longer than Battle.net (dont' forget, Blizzard is working on a Warcraft pay-for-play MMORPG) or your favorite Counter Strike/Tribes 2 server.

    5. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by deanj · · Score: 1


      For me, playing EQ has saved me money.

      Well, consider the fact that once players do continue to play....this is their only game. I think I've bought maybe two or three games in the last three years of playing EQ. I would EASILY have bought three games (probably more)this past year if I wasn't playing EQ. Unless the game is REALLY good, I would have played 'em for less than a month, and then it would be up on the shelf. There are a lot of really crappy games out there.

    6. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can download DungeonSiege. I never got the IP address of a friend to play with though, so I can't swear multiplayer works. (To play via their servers you have to pay.)

    7. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by unicron · · Score: 1

      Without ongoing expenses, huh? You are aware that may be stupidest shit you'll ever utter in your life. If that were true, you're power, gas, & water would be turned off. Not that it would matter because you would've been kicked out of your residence long ago. Now even if you managed to find a place to stay, you would certainly stink like hell at this point, because you do occasionally have to buy more soap, but as you said you're not down for that whole "keep paying for stuff" way of thinking.

      "Here's a story for ya. Knew a guy, a lot like you. Didn't want to pay his rent, so kicked his ass out in exchange for someone who would. His parents came around, I told them he ran off with some guy. He's probably thinking of drinking his own pee right now."

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    8. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by grendelkhan · · Score: 2

      GAMES, I'm talking about GAMES.

      Dude, take the pills everyday or they don't work.

      --
      Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
    9. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMGZ SLOBBERGOAT STFU & FO !!!! @_@ ROOFLE~

    10. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when I was told that I would have to pony up $10 a month

      Yeah but what if you had to shell out, fork over, or cough up $10? Would it make any difference?

    11. Re:Drug Dealers Make Lots of Money Too by ediron2 · · Score: 1
      First you complain that Subscription Games are like drugs (a terrible analogy, since I have yet to hear of people DYING from Everquest overdoses, of children being born deformed or addicted due to a parent being a 3-hour-a-nite junkie, etc). Then you say:
      Now if the game was a free downloadable, I might consider it.
      Um... so if they make it more like drug dealing (hook you for *free*), you'd prefer it.

      I really am betting you just spoke too quickly, because I see a glimmer of a point, but that analogy is from hell. I strongly doubt you're a hypocrite or a moron, but I've got a handful of strong moron votes for the people that modded you up.

      Man, I'm readin' slashdot less and less these days, and now I realize why: in fifteen minutes, I've lost a decade's worth of earned respect for Declan McCullagh and been reminded just how idiotic things can get even at the mod-5 level.

      The only good part is, you've shown me a 3rd kind of free. Free Beer, Free Speech, and Free Drugs. MSIE belongs in category 3, of course. Free... but yooouuulll beeeee soorrrrrryyyyyy!

  30. are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    really, I am not sure if you are joking or not.

    Any death is tragic, any death. Are we to now limit our lives because of some that are irresponsible and undisciplined? Look at automobile fatalaties, should we all walk (it would do us fatties some good :)

    I don't think that saying anything related to your statement is fair or accurate, as it implies that the existence of the game killed that kid. While sickenly enough it might testify to the power of interactive gaming, the reality is that it did not _cause_ any harm (the game that is). Plus, we are not talking about anything that is inherantly dangerous in and of itself. You take motorcrossing, that is rather dangerous but many do it (it's loads of fun). You have your skydiving, skateboarding, baseball, softball, swimming, diving, hiking, camping, etc.

    I think you are making the same mistake many of the gray haired gentlemen on the hill make, that of confusing something new with being a totally new idea instead of a new implementation. Even once we get full immersion (VR and the like) with full sensory i/o, that will be just a new implementation.

    The real problem with ideas as yours are that it also implies that humans are incapable of thinking for themselves and acting in their best interest. Perhaps what we should all focus on is teaching our youth the lost art of responsibility and accountability that the baby boomers sold out for orgies and drugs. When a society trully cherishes the individual above all else, then as a consequence it will fight harder to protect the individual. The individual will be stronger (sort of a learned social darwinism) and synergistically add to the strength of the whole society. However if we sell our individuality for rhetoric, sound bites and temporary convenience then we become like the sheep who is stalked by the wolf. The sheep better hope that shepard can be all places at all times.

    I seem to remember a case where a mother sued MTV over Beavis and Butthead because of Beavis's constant infatuation with fire (more often the word than anything he himself did). one of her kids set fire to the house and died along with a brother and the remaining brother had severe inhalation and burn damage. Sadly for the kids (and this sets a precedence), the children were left unsupervised OFTEN like this while the mother was either trolling for that week's latest boyfriend, or was busy testing the mattresses with said boyfriend in another room. An avid smoker and drinker, there was not a place in the house that lighters, cigarettes and highly flamable spirits were not easily accessable. The children, whom never should have been allowed to watch the show in the first place, had a short history of near arson accidents before. However that stopped not the flagrant negligence of the gold digging demon that was their mother. Some day she will wake up in her cozy bed, in her well equiped bedroom which overlooks her swimming pool in the lush neighborhood all bought for by the MTV winnings. She will wake up and scream until someone stops her. She will scream because it will dawn on her what a terrible monster she is.

    However, back to earth now. The point is self reliance and responsibility. The game is no more at fault for anything like this, than is the drugs at fault for the addict.

    1. Re:are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rock on, yo. had i mod points i would do so.

    2. Re:are you joking? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember a case where a mother sued MTV over Beavis and Butthead because of Beavis's constant infatuation with fire (more often the word than anything he himself did).

      Even worse when it comes to this particular case is that MTV stripped the references to fire from older episodes and required them not to be included in episodes made from that point on.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    3. Re:are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      hehe, but that did provide for some funny scenes. Beavis at times would just stutter, "FFFF... ffff... FFFFI.... fff" and butthead would smack him and berate him for being a dumbass.

      Actually, they did eventually sneak some fire ref's back in. First it was some videos that when Beavis watched he became entranced and muttered the 'fffff... ffff'. Then they allowed him to do his 'fire, fire... FIRE"

    4. Re:are you joking? by hardcnxn · · Score: 1

      Hell, motherfucking, yes!! Love what you said about a society focussing on the individual...which ours does not even pretend to do. My tax dollars are hard at work for corporations, not people. On an alternative note, I don't think orgies preclude accountability/responsibility (nor drugs, even, in some cases), but you were trying to make a point, so...

    5. Re:are you joking? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      first of all, it never dawns on people like that that they are a monster.

      Computer games are entering a new level of interaction between reality(you controlling the character)and fantasy(what the character/player experiences). It is my opinion this need serious studying.
      TV is a poor analogy, you don't interact with the stories.
      I know TV will change someone behavior, I've watched it happen.
      If your car is rear ended, and the seat belt fails, should the car company not have any liability because they didn't cause the crash?

      Does intensly interactive computer interfaces have an addictive quality? Is there something about how the human brain responds to input that makes someone want to pay attention more?
      I don't know, what I do know is people who are usually pretty responsible about there real life seem to loose it if they start playing games to often. I don't mean the person with an addictive personality, or a history of neglect.
      I am a first generation gamer, I scoffed when people said dnd is bad, and that doom was addictive, but 2 things have changes, improved gaphics, and with MMORPG, human interaction.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      well, first of all why is it you only said your tax dollars were hard at work for corporations, not people? Would it not have been much more accurate to say, your tax dollars are lying in the pit of government bureaucracy that often shares with its corporate buddies? Corporations are no more the problem than are individuals. Individuals can rape, kill and steal. When that happens it is up to government to set things 'right' (not as if you can make it unhappen...). Same thing with companies. So whenever anyone can get away with something because of their race, sexual preference, religous background, or organizational classification (corporations are classified as people in many legal aspects), then it is government that is the problem.

      As for orgies. no, sex with multiple partners is not itself a thing of preclusion to accountability or responsibility. However, (drugs too) it is a situation where those that are in control and responsible are a minority. Perhaps it is just human nature, but sadly many just cannot control themselves and what happens is a sort of domino effect. Plus, the sheer amount of negligence and (you owe us attitude) of orgy/druggy people is rather on the high side.

      I am not bashing said lifestyle, but one cannot escape the truth just because they do not like it. And remember that individuality is DEFINED by responsibility and consistency. You only receive what you give. If you throw up your hands in disgust and protest someone saying something you feel is 'closed minded' then expect them to do the same to you. I have yet to meet a 'free love' person who does not force themselves on others directly or indirectly (voting in people that do).

    7. Re:are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I agree that studies should be done, however not with my tax dollars.

      As far as the question of a car seat belt is concerned, then that would depend on if the seat belt was fault or not. If the energy in the crash was more than it is rated for then it is not the car companies fault. (that is generalizing of course). However that analogy fails in this situation because it is just a medium of entertainment. There was no 'car' or crash. to put back in the car analogy, it would be more like if the driver was mentally unable to safely drive and crashed (or was hit by someone who themselves was not able to drive). Then they suffered injuries resulting from physiological problems that had they not existed they would not have died (i.e. if a healthy person was in the same situation they would have been fine)

      If it is learned that higher immersion makes it harder for some to cope and adapt, then it is up to them to avoid it. Just as it is up to an individual who freaks out, not to walk/ride/drive in heavy traffic. The world CANNOT be sterilized for those that cannot adapt. It is just not a realistic possibility. Therefore, the logical thing to do is find ways to educate and minimize the problem without said sterilization.

  31. When you think about it... by mrgrey · · Score: 1

    Someone buys Everquest, and at first they love it to death. They play and play until they get sick and tired of it. They spent $40 on the game and bought maybe 3 months of play time. That's a total of close to $80. Now, $150-$200 is, I admit a high number, so lets take the bar down to $100 for a game. You pay $20 more than you would for a "regular" MMORPG but if you decide you really like it and play it for a long time, it's really worth the money. Plus if it is a great game the company is going to make a profit off retail sales.

    CBNobi writes,
    Blizzard is on the other side of the spectrum in terms of how they make profit. They initially charged $60 for Warcraft III.

    It reportedly sold one million copies, which means roughly $60 million - about as much as Verant makes in a year with Everquest.


    Even without having monthly fees Worlds of Warcraft could be hugely successful if Blizzard only charged $80-$100 for the game.

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
    1. Re:When you think about it... by Nameles · · Score: 1

      But then they wouldn't have the added revenue (not net profit) from it each year. And I'm assuming that they're going to run it for a couple of years. Even if they only make half as much due to # of subscriptions, it evens out in a few years, and then the rest is profit.

      I think we finally found step 2.

      Step 1: Make a game
      Step 2: Charge monthly fee.
      Step 3: Profit!

  32. Pushers.. by dmouritsendk · · Score: 0, Troll

    EQ is (as other inhere already commented) pretty much a drug, I tried playing it for a while(about 2months). They do everything to make you go after "that next level".

    But got fed up with all the crap they try to pull on you, example, if you killed a monster inside a dungeon and the monster fellinto the wall. Sometimes, you would'nt get xp. Another player told me that this was "the wall bug", and it had been around for ages. Ok, software is buggy and patches sometimes are slow. BUT, Varant just neglected this for a loooong time because it was good for them(less xp, more gametime). Other bugs like undercons etc. was fixed ligthing fast.

    Another very very wierd thing, that just seems generally accepted (nobody can tell you why). But monsters goes into a berserker attack mode, when you are very close to leveling. Even monsters which are relatively calm, and normally would have to be attacked to fight. Just attacks you.

    Varant is simply a pusher, doing everthing they can to hook people on their drugs.

    EQ should'nt be allowed...

    1. Re:Pushers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been playing EQ for the past 2.5 years and have never run into a monster going into a "Berserker Attack Mode" when i was close to levelling, nor have i ever not gotten exp if the mob fell into the wall. EQ is definatly addictive as hell, but what you post in regards to the game is just bad info.

    2. Re:Pushers.. by dmouritsendk · · Score: 1

      Ok so basically your calling me a lier, well fuck you.

      check:
      http://www.magecompendium.com/News/Week_Ending_2 0t h_Feb.htm (this is actually the player implemtation of the bug(/corpse doesnt fix it as they say, you just loose your body))

      or try seaching google for everquest wall bug , I meet alot of people EQ who have had problems with the wall bug.

      On the close-to-level-up "feature", I cant find any documentation on this issue. But, I know alot of people who still plays EQ. Which all agree with me that mobs frenzies more when you are 1-2 blue bubbs from leveling up.

    3. Re:Pushers.. by GabboFlabbo · · Score: 1

      I've been playing eq since it came out, and I've never seen that "close-to-level-up feature". nor have I heard it from anyone in my guild. We're not calling you a liar. We're just demanding some sort of proof.

    4. Re:Pushers.. by dmouritsendk · · Score: 1

      well, as i said. I cant seem to find any documentation/proof.

      In my experince, enemies frenzy you more when you are getting really close to leveling. I might just be me(and the otherpeople i know), but as i wrote in my previous post. I meet other people who agreed that enemies seems more willing to attack when you are close to leveling. But ok, lets just say im wrong.

      Though i must admit you all have such a hard time beliving me, I mean look at some of the features varant has implemented EQ. Like mobs spotting you though a castle wall or something, and then just steps rigth trough it to kick your butt, THIS is a common know "problem".

      quote from this chat: http://www.everlore.com/news/eq_chat.asp

      Ledskof: Aradune-- Are you working on greater stability for the planes, such as makng it so monsters dont attack through walls, or did you mean just greater stabiliity in general?

      Aradune: led: better stability yes, monsters attacking through some walls will never go away


      this is how its supposed to work:
      http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/fe atures/ faq_pages/faq_7.jsp#713

      And I could go on and on, like it costs like 60$ to move a character from one server to another. Varant is just full of bs.

      Do i hate EQ? No, not at all(I do hate varant though).
      Could i play EQ again? Yes, when Varant changes its way of doing business. This may very well happen when Starwars Galaxies comes out and take a big fat marked share =D

    5. Re:Pushers.. by GabboFlabbo · · Score: 1

      well, I don't think anyone will disagree that verant is a money grubbing company. However keep in mind, that verant was bought out by sony (according to the article) and that verant is pretty much sony now. or "Sony Online".

      Now those links you post are from Jan 2000, but more importantly is this "mob see's through walls". I sincerely doubt that they put that feature in. They more or less didn't do the work required to fix it. However, there are quite a few additions to eq that are far worse than the info you have posted in terms of addiction.

      Star wars is being produced by sony, hence they may fix the technical details, but they won't stop trying to get every single dollar from you.

      I play eq, but I play eq because nothing else has sparked my interest (and I've tried almost all other mmropg's) AND eq is very addictive, it also holds social bonds. Perhaps Dragon Empires will tear me away.

    6. Re:Pushers.. by unicron · · Score: 2

      Actually, you're half-confused. I hear people complaining all the time that getting those last two blue bubs seems insanely difficult, but their's a simple reason. Even I'm guilty of this.

      When you're that close, you'll go start attacking light-blue cons just to get a little xp. But light blues actually give so little you probably won't even notice a change in the bar. That's why people are like "I've killed 10 things and I'm barely a blue bub up!". If you're that close, calm down, get full mana, and go kill a dark blue or white con. The bug you mentioned, I've NEVER heard of anyone mentioning it. EVER.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    7. Re:Pushers.. by dmouritsendk · · Score: 1

      The bug you mentioned, I've NEVER heard of anyone mentioning it. EVER.

      The wall bug? did you follow the link?

      (btw. no need to yell dude ;)

    8. Re:Pushers.. by dmouritsendk · · Score: 1

      First, thx for the link. Dragon Empires looks very cool =D

      I really dont want to argue anymore over eq, so im just gonna say one last thing(im not trying to tell you "this is how it is", its just my oppinion). Maybe the wall bug is fixed now what i was "crapping" about wasnt really the one bug. But it just seemed like to me like Varant always was really fast at cleaning up the bugs that where "good" for the player(like when some mob dropped to much loot or was to easy for it con), whilest they where really slow at fixing the other bugs(which took xp from the player, i died about 6 times trying to get my corpse after being killed right out side the priestres's house in eastcommons. Everytime i came back for it, he runned straigth through the wall and kicked me in the mouth. This was partly a noob mistake, i could have gotten invised or something. but still unfair i think, wheres the realism in a chick being able to see/attack through a wall).

      i guess i just dislike varant, plain and simple =D

  33. ROI for these games (long rambling) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I am often intersted in what the costs are for running a game such as this. When you factor in the normal development costs (of non persistent games) plus the live dev and support teams, then add in the network connectivity, hardware and such it certainly might be impressive.

    However, I have noticed that IMHO, persistent world games are released half (or less) baked. This can be a QA issue and/or content. It seems the working strategy is to release a partially completed product so that you can recoup some costs while building up a following (this is the hope at least), while further development is touted as 'additional content' and modifications. Sure it is nearly impossible to balance a game until it really goes live, so I am not really referring to that. (although like many other software products, it is better to produce a well designed and robust system that can better adapt internally and externally (meaning programming changes) as well as design the SYSTEM to be more 'realistic' in its modelling of real world adaptations and balancing) Visiting the many forums of these games, you find that while you have the assortment of fanboys and trolls the normal folk have issues with the system as a whole. I believe it falls under the catagory of 'better to spend more now and save later.' It seems to me at least that often, the designers take short cuts in the name of expediency and cost cutting, that ends up costing much more when the very innevitable changes are required. (DAOC is a perfect example of this, they seemed to forget all knowledge of what has been learned to date about MMOG's and made many poor design decisions). Think about car manufacturing. If the designers made a less standard (if only by their internal definition) car that was less modular and adjustable and merely hacked it together, then that would indeed save a lot of initial cost. However, how much more will that design cost in the mid to long term when you factor in things like customizations, retoolings required for various packages (perhaps they want to make a 4x4 model), fixes to the design and then ultimately quality for the customer. If the customer pays for a vehicle that does not work reliably, then they will loose business. If the vehicle is so unreliable as to cause accidents, then they will now have more bills to pay from the litigation... and more bad publicity. Then what about next years model. Can they reuse this years design as a starting point? Probably not if it is poorly designed (except as a lessons learned).

    Other costly factors could be the growing trend of dead weight inside the companies. Management that absorbs tremendous resources while producing very little except frustration, inconsistency, and a destruction of team work and collaboration. Much like a cancer in the body, these management tumors seem to always take more blood and internal nutrients (resources) that since are not finite, must be starved from working areas of the body, like brain, muscle, GI, bone, etc. The result is a body that functions less than it should and could possibly die. However, this model is inaccurate becuase the brain (parts of it) and endocrine system are the bodies decision makers and they probably did not create (hire) the cancer. So that means it is even stupider when these organizations willingly hire those, and create a fostering culture, that only destroys itself from the inside.

    Imagine if your body wanted to get some more oxygen to a particular area. Well through the magic of biology it increases blood flow in the area and perhaps changes the chemistry a bit to be more conducive to 02 exchange in that region. What about signatories though. What if the body used the mindless bureacracy of many organizations. We would never live past birth (which creates an intersting paradox I suppose). Sure many bureacrats will get angry and defend their policies, yet when they do so they themselves create a paradox. They claim to have those policies for a particular reason (the spirit behind the rules if you will) yet if confronted on the gross negligence those policies produce _FOR_ said reason, they ignore it and say 'nothing is perfect.' (reminds me of many voters) Nothing is perfect, that is true... but are we to always make excuses for processes simply because we are too lazy to change them. What if the airports said, 'nothigns perfect' and never tried to improve security. They would just sit by while armed terrorists boarded the planes, all because it would be too much trouble to change the policy.

    Anyway, to end my rant, I will just say that if I was a major stock holder of a company that produced these games I would be very intersted in an internal audit of the company to find out where the innefficiency was. While often it is the lower end workers that are let go, the irony is that the decision makers that often caused the problems the company has (and are the cause of the layoffs of course) are kept. Isn't that unwise? Government and large corporations have become a haven for stupidity, waste, and inefficiency in a way that totally reverses social darwinism. The higher up in the chain you go, the more your stupidity will effect. It would be better to prune from the top as that will have the effect of setting a good example to follow. As it is, you learn from the bottom that it is not hard work or competence that is cherished as much as BS'ing skills and the ability to confuse and hide your stupidity with an array of buzzwords and paperwork.

  34. Yes by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would you deprive hundreds of thousands of people of years of safe entertainment, and thousands of people of employment, and millions of investors of a good return (for providing the entertainment and the jobs) just on the off-chance that this incident could have been prevented?

    I wouldn't.

    If too many people make _your_ choice, life's going to be a lot less worth living for the rest of us who don't have Shawn Wooley's problems.

  35. read the article by shren · · Score: 2

    The article notes that the consumer electronics market profit margin is around 1% and the online game profit margin is around 40%. That means to match the profit from 5 million in profit from online games, you have to sell 200 million in personal electronics, a month. 200 million in electronics sales in a month is a lot.

    --
    Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
  36. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by mshiltonj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've played all three of the big 3, and it is truly difficult to balance between even two of them, playing 8-10 hours daily.

    What?! You play a game for 10 hours a day? As a habit?! Good god, man.

    I can't believe you ponder the difficulty of "balancing between two games" like pondering the difficulty between balancing work and family.

    I remember years ago when the very first Sim City came out. I thought it was great game. I wasted too much time on it. I realized once that had spent 7 hours in one sitting playing that game. I deleted the game from my system and haven't been a game player since.

    But, holy shit, to repeatedly play any game, or any number of games for 8-10 hours a day, strikes me as dysfunctional. Is this typical for gamers? How do you get anything else done?

    This post sounds like a flame or a troll, but it's not. That post just threw me for a loop.

  37. Very true but... by mrgrey · · Score: 1

    I think people are getting sick of paying monthly fees and many poeple won't play a game just because the fact of a monthly fee. It seems to be a mindset.
    I do see you point though. As much as we would like companies not to charge a monthly fee they will keep doing it just because of the money involved. I guess I will just have to keep dreaming of a day when MMORPG's will be a one time buy sorta thing....

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
    1. Re:Very true but... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Personally, I tried both UO and EQ (and hell I went all out and bought all of the EQ expansion shit). Neither of them offered something that made me want to pay the subscription fee after the first month expired. In fact, I don't think I even bothered playing either of them for the full first month.

      Blizzard, of course, is lucky to be able to consistently sell that many copies of every game they release, and because of it they can currently afford to keep servers running for most of those games (going back to Diablo, which launched it, and WarCraft 2 which they retrofitted afterwards). Unfortunately, the amount of information stored on those servers is not likely to be anything near what's stored for an MMORPG (although Diablo 2's realms are close), and the service has the kind of down-time and problems that tend to sink any kind of service that people are paying for with a monthly fee.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  38. Re:The truth why George Lucas introduced Ja-Ja Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hates who... George Lucas or Jar-Jar Binks?

  39. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by motardo · · Score: 1

    We gamers usually just get bad sleep. I usually play for at least 3 hours a day, every day. I'll play till 1am and get up at 5:30am for work. Then I work a full 8 hours, go spend some time with my girlfriend (OMGROFL a nerd with a girlfriend), then I go home and play games.

  40. It's stable income by travail_jgd · · Score: 1

    One of the reasons software companies like subscriptions (besides the huge profit margin), is that it's a regular monthly income. With the traditional release cycle, there's a massive influx of money when a game is released that slowly trickles off -- making it hard for the accountants to budget, and putting pressure on the development team to speed up the next release.

    Income from a monthly subscription isn't going to change drastically -- barring technical problems and expansion packs. The accountants and game designers can make long-term plans with more security: they have a "guaranteed" revenue stream. It's a win-win scenario: accountants get a regular revenue stream (and profit!), and game designers can take their time on a game and make it as excellent (and addictive) as possible. The only people who lose are the customers stuck paying over $120/year for a game.

    1. Re:It's stable income by Sisca · · Score: 1

      Sony recently upped the monthly cost to $14.99 so for EQ it's about $180/year per account. My wife and I both play EQ (3 accounts total) and DAoC (2 more accounts at $12.00/month) so that's almost $70.00/month we pay. Of course, when you figure we play an average of 4 nights a week for about 4 hours each night that works out to $70.00/128 hours of entertainment or about $0.55 cents an hour. The only thing that competes with that is TV and I'd rather spend the time hitting myself in the head with a hammer than watching that much TV.

    2. Re:It's stable income by travail_jgd · · Score: 1

      I knew the price went up, but I didn't know how much. $180/year per person can buy a lot of pen & paper RPG's; both my girlfriend and I play, so that gives us a lot of "buying power".

      She wanted to get into Everquest, but I explained the economics to her... at $240 per year (then) for both of us to play, we could buy a LaserJet toner cartridge, a case of paper, and still have over a hundred dollars for new p&p books. $360 per year just buys that much more!

      If the monthly fee wasn't so large, we might both be playing. Instead, we're waiting for the Neverwinter Nights Linux client. Spending around $100 for unlimited Internet gaming is a much better deal IMHO.

  41. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by Brad+Wilson · · Score: 1

    It's not typical, but it's not unusual either.

    I played EverQuest, and then moved onto Dark Age of Camelot. I don't play anything these days, because they're too addicting, and I love my wife and life more than MMO gaming. :)

    But I knew people who played EverQuest for years. On weekdays they typically spent 4-8 hours playing (the minute they got home from work until they passed out from exhaustion, probably), and weekends were sometimes 12-14 hours. One guy had 300 days of play time into one of his EQ characters (he had many). Think about that... seven thousand two hundred HOURS played on that single character!

  42. Not pure profit for AC by Erik_ · · Score: 1

    I don't know about EQ, but with Asheron's Call it's not pure profit, as there is staff involved in creating the monthly online content. This is also what makes the game so much more fun and addictive, it's not just getting eXperience Points and 'OnlineCurrency' (pyreals), but new quests...

  43. Re:The truth why George Lucas introduced Ja-Ja Bin by tweek · · Score: 2

    This is what pissed me off about UO. It used to be 18 or older requirements. Now it's just listed as Teen.

    I swear to god it drives me nuts! You get assholes at all ages but damn if I have to see another player named "AzZRapEr" I'm going to yarf!

    --
    "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  44. Shortsightness from the article by SageMadHatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article gave a false impression of what the future holds for MMORPGs, by focusing on the success of Everquest. Yes, this genre is coming out of it's infancy and there is potential there, however you have to keep in mind that these are still games. And if it's a poor game, it will not sell well and it will not succeed. i.e. Anarchy Online from Funcom, one of the newest MMORPGs, has failed. The company had to close down their other divisions in order to keep the game running longer.

    I think EQ's success has to do more with timing than anything else. They came into the scene right at it's sweet point. Nobody else had a 3D MMORPG out there and Ultima Online, The Realm, and Meridian59 had already paved the road of making the public aware for this type of game. Had EQ not snatched most of the players 6 month before Asheron's Call was released, we could be very well to this day be reading articles on how Asheron's Call is the #1 MMORPG.

    SageMadHatter

    1. Re:Shortsightness from the article by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2

      Except AC dosen't have the same type of drive that EQ does. It's more of a d2 style leveling than EQ. EQ you set a goal (60 with DC for instance) and work to achieve it, the moment you get it, there are other goals. It's absolutly impossible to quit playing EQ unless you have no goals left, which is a very hard thing to have happen if your the type of person that plays EQ.

      Also AC dosen't cater to uber players nearly as well as EQ, and part of what makes a good MUD in lots of peoples opinions (and EQ is just a prety mud, don't kid yourselfs) is the fact that there are some amazingly l33t people killing sleeper while everyone else is out enjoying thier "mundane" groups. Without the uber players EQ wouldn't be what it is today. The tales of waking sleeper etc are what keep level 30's in "Awe" of the game, and what keep the ubers interested in the new content.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    2. Re:Shortsightness from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree with the "uber players" idea..

      Asherons Call has updates monthly, and I'm not talking about just fixing the bugs. I dont know if its done monthly with everquest, i've heard they've done patches (and some updates).

      The monthly updates are nice though, they continue on with the story, and add some cool stuff along the way, mostly for the "uber" players.

      Asherons Call can also brag off their "zoneless" universe, where the only time your loading something is if your in a portal to go into a dungeon.

      There's so much I could say about asherons Call, its pvp system (gotta love it), the way clans are setup, ooooo I loved it!

      The poster that said if AC wasn't shipped 6 months later then it may have been #1 is right. If you've been playing EQ and you want something different, try AC. (Dont even think about DAOC)

  45. then that would have been poor research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    there are many times that 'statistical experts agree' that most people like or dislike X. Yet when you get on forums and such and see that there very much is a very LARGE number of people that like or dislike it, you begin to wonder at the acuracy of the methods used by the marketers.

    A simple trolling of forums would tell any potential investor what the public wants. While often this too can be overgeneralized to the point that 'the people want online gaming' is the conclusion, the LCD (lowest common denominator) is that most today want a system that allows online collaboration and/or competition. Many want immersion, so want a good underlying setup, story and plot elements in which their character can actually have a usefull impact on the game world instead of just empty quests that are meaningless (those are fun for about the first 21 days however). Looking at the sci-fi visions of future interactive worlds, you see a wide variety of these, from online meeting points for temporary playing (like the old Diablo setup on battlenet) all the way to a true roleplaying world where your character can be anything you want, and be a lord of the realms or an assassin for hire.

  46. Star Wars bigger than Everquest? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Who are we kidding here? Remember when Star Wars was cool? (I mean, at least cooler than Star Trek?) There are probably about 40 people in the world who give a shit about the Jedi knight thesis paper Lucas has decided to put on the silver screen. Meanwhile, every bored housewife from Florida to Washington seems to be on Everquest. So...how the hell can you say (yet another) Star Wars game is going to be bigger than something already universally known as EVERCRACK?

    1. Re:Star Wars bigger than Everquest? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      So...how the hell can you say (yet another) Star Wars game is going to be bigger than something already universally known as EVERCRACK?


      It's quite easy, really. Star Wars games routinely top the PC games sales charts on release. The question is really one of whether or not they can make a good MMORPG from Star Wars that will keep subscribers and get good word-of-mouth, rather than one of whether or not it will sell. Star Wars games have to be nearly as bad as a Star Trek game (Star Trek games probably make up some of the worst games in PC gaming history, though a couple of Star Wars games were pretty bad) before they don't bring in a lot of money.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    2. Re:Star Wars bigger than Everquest? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1
      Star Wars games routinely top the PC games sales charts on release.

      I know I'm being lazy, but has this trend continued through the "Battle for Naboob" or whatever they released in concert with the Episode I/II prequel-sequels.

      Star Trek games probably make up some of the worst games in PC gaming history

      No argument there...the coolest Star Trek computer thing which ever came out was the Star Trek screen saver...ala 1992?

    3. Re:Star Wars bigger than Everquest? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      I know I'm being lazy, but has this trend continued through the "Battle for Naboob" or whatever they released in concert with the Episode I/II prequel-sequels.

      I'm not even sure what (if any) Episode 2 tie-in games they've done. I know that Jedi Knight 2 did very well for them (an expansion for The Sims eventually knocked it to #2 about 2 months after release), and that a couple of the Episode 1 games did as well (during the Xmas season mostly, I wonder how many of the people receiving those games actually wanted them). Unfortunately it's fairly expensive to actually receive the PC game sales data when it's put out, so you just get the most basic 'top 10' type lists from the game press and the occasional press release from the companies when their games do well.

      Some 1999 sales data brought up from Google showed that in June EP1: Phantom Menace hit #2 and EP1:Racer hit #6, no doubt the other 2,000,031 EP1 games didn't do quite as well. They seem to do alright with console games as well, I found one article that mentioned that Rogue Squadron 2 for the GameCube was LucasArts' fastest selling title ever.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:Star Wars bigger than Everquest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the reason why Rogue Squadron 2 sold so well wasn't just because it was Star Wars. It was also the second (possibly tied for first with Super Monkey Ball) game released for the Gamecube in the US (it was released days before the system).

  47. Ur MMPORG & U:How to lose money w/o even tryin by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    if Sony Online could replicate EverQuest's success in game after game, creating alternate compelling virtual worlds for every fantasy -- the Wild West, World War II, ancient Rome, George Orwell's 1984, or New York's 1930s mob wars -- it suddenly could be looking at revenue streams easily approaching several billion dollars a year.

    Why would I want to play 1984, when I can live it for free? Just rename it to 'George Bush's 1984', it's a little more accurate.

    I won't play EQ, SWG, UOL, or any other MMPORG. Don't encourage the giant corporations! The pay-to-play, listen, watch, and do mentality is going to come back to bite you in the ass.

    The RIAA and MPAA are hard at work getting this subscription model to work for them. You are a dollar sign. Here is another quote from the article.

    "Would you believe we've generated over $1 million in revenue simply from moving characters?" Smedley marvels.

    Sure, this kind of stuff will fade as more MMPORGS appear. The $$$ required to play will become less and less thanks to competition between the companies. For now, you're going to see this:

    Last April, when Sony raised the monthly subscription price 31 percent to $12.95, it hardly lost a player. In fact, Smedley says the game continues to add 12,000 players a month.

    Anything I have to pay to use/see/hear AFTER I buy it, is not going to get a fscking cent from me.

    A cheap bastard for over 30 years and counting. :P

  48. Annoying by Luminous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find MMPORPG's really annoying. I find the people annoying, I find the experience annoying, and I find paying for the annoyance annoying.

    I loved EQ for the first 3 months of play, but realized I just don't have the time to focus on 'levelling' and after accomplishing my first big quest and getting a nift item, I realized everyone will do that quest, kill that monster, get that item. My actions don't change the world one iota.

    So I gave up and waited for DAoC. It at least allowed the world to be affected through the PvP/realm vs realm option, which was a cool concept. I played, found a group of people to play with who played in character and didn't metagame -- but of course they all played 4-6 hours a day while I could only play 4-6 hours a week. Thus they quickly increased in level and I didn't, which means I couldn't join them on group adventures because I wouldn't get any xp.

    Now we come to Neverwinter Nights which so far is exactly what I've always wanted. I can create the world, I can play in the world with other people, and our actions can change the world. And I don't have to be annoyed by yet another meaningless online wedding/funeral/whatever.

    --
    This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
    1. Re:Annoying by Maul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly one of the reasons EQ is not "fun," is what you mentioned. Everyone around you is an adventurer. There are very few "commoners" in the game. What makes it worse is that no matter if you kill the evil orc king (or whoever), he'll just respawn for the next guy. Nothing you do affects the world. Infact, to build your character, you might have to sit around and wait for that evil orc king to respawn. Lame.

      Another problem is that to have a group of friends to play with in the game, you HAVE to play as much as they do... because of the persistant nature of the game, you can play it 24/7.

      I also tried DAoC for similar reasons you did. The PvP system in it sounded compelling, in that the PvP you did would have an affect on the world in some way. Of course, to get to the point where you can participate in the PvP in any meaningful way it turned out you needed to be high level. Until that point it is just another EQ with a bit better of a story.

      Strangely, DAoC is not as "addictive" (so to speak) as EQ. Dunno why. EverQuest has some weird quality about it that makes you feel the need to play, even if you don't want to.

      Anyway, Neverwinter Nights is great. The ability for DMs to make their own worlds and change them based on the actions of the players makes it much more fun than EQ. Real roleplaying can occur (rather than loot collecting and camping). Plus it is hard to play 24/7, since the world is not constantly respawning (there are people who have made modules with respawns, etc... but the game is more geared towards single shot encounters).

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

    2. Re:Annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meaningless online wedding?????!!!? How DARE you say that. _ALL_ my online weedings were VERY serious matter!!!!!!!!!!

      d;*)

    3. Re:Annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never played EQ, but in DAOC's beta, fighting was as exciting as pressing a single key (was it ` or backspace?) and going to get a drink out of the fridge. Horrendous.

    4. Re:Annoying by IsoRashi · · Score: 1

      I find this goal of obtaining high levels is one of the major things that turned me off to MMORPGs. I used to play EQ, for a spate of 6 months or so back in college. I cancelled my account for various reasons.

      First, the whole ordeal with Conquest and Itzlegend--VI's handling of the matter left a horrible taste in my mouth. Second, the grind. I can understand that the higher levels should be more difficult to reach, but MMORPGs don't incorporate any *real* challenge, anyone with enough time can get the high levels. In fact, with EQ you have to have a ton of time if you want to become really powerful within the game. Otherwise you don't have the dozens of hours needed to camp a spawn for a single item. You don't have the hours needed to participate in high-level dungeon raids. You don't have the hours on top of all that needed to simply get the higher levels :P And god forbid you actually die and lose some xp! EQ is basically designed to keep you playing. Goals are difficult to reach only in that they require inordinate amounts of time. This turned me off greatly. Third, and this is something common to both EQ and DAOC, the squeakiest wheel gets the grease. There will always be an uber class, and there will always be a ton of players playing it. Try to tweak that class down to be reasonable, and the masses cry out. Tweak other classes up to be more in line with the more powerful one, and the masses complain. It's *really* annoying. VI and Mythic's handling of consumer opinion, in this way, is retarded.

      As for DAOC, having to be a high level (45+) to have any sort of impact in RvR combat is pretty retarded as well. I played for a couple of months and had a lvl 31 cabalist and I was sick of levelling. RvR was supposed to be what the game was all about, but you had to spend months getting to that point (months where you're still paying them :P) and RvR is still pretty unbalanced. When I left DAOC, whoever had the best (i.e. most) crowd control won the battle.

      I can easily understand why EQ was more interesting though--EQ had a more developed world. DAOC had the 3 realms, and taken together they might encompass more area than Norrath, but the 3 realms were basically just a vehicle to gain xp and equipment. I found the story line, actually, to be trite and boring in DAOC.

      I think both companies and games, however, have distinct problems with their customer relations. While playing EQ, I felt that the game revolved too much around 3 classes--the warrior, the cleric, and the enchanter. You've got your meat shield, a healer, and your "crack dealer" (clarity, a spell that enhanced mana regen). In DAOC I don't get as much of that feeling, but I feel that some classes are unfairly ignored--the shaman and the cabalist. Although shamen have gotten some love recently and a lot of classes have been buffed as well.

      As for NWN, the game was interesting in the 3 or 4 days it took me to beat it. I thought it would have a lot of replay value since I could do it again as a different class, but in the end I just found it boring to do over again. The ability to make modules is pretty nice, but at the same time I know I will *never* make one. Basically it's nice if someone else wants to create the content and give it to me, but otherwise it's a useless feature.

      Hrm, I should have left work 30 min ago but I felt like writing this.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
  49. MMPs, Money & Free Software. by Lejade · · Score: 5, Informative

    Finally a subject where I feel I can safely contribute. :)

    I've spent a few years in the MMP (Massively Multi Player) arena so I think I know my way around. As founder and CEO of Nevrax, where I initiated the Ryzom RPG and the NeL technological platform, I've had plenty of time to reflect on the state of this industry.

    First let me say that MMPs are an entirely different class of video games. The technology, the gameplay dynamics, almost everything is different. It just happened that the game industry got its hands on them first because it had the closest ties, but it could have been otherwise.

    The most important thing to remember is that MMPs have a radically different business model.

    In the traditional game industry you create a game, put it a box, then try to move as many boxes you can in the few month the public stays interested. It's a product oriented business.
    The typical business plan for a studio is:

    1- Convince publisher to finance the production of a game
    2- Try to make a small profit in the process
    3- Make some royalties (maybe) if the game is hugely successful
    4- Start all over again

    This is not very different from what goes on in the music business or in the movie business. Basically to make it simple, the author/studio gets a lousy deal from the publisher/distributor who gets to reap all the benefits.

    The MMP industry could - it's not there yet, but it will eventually - be very different.
    An MMP producer creates a virtual environment, then sells access to this environment. It's a service oriented business.
    A simplified business plan for an MMP producer could be:

    1- Create a Massively Multi Player Game
    2- Make the client software as easily accessible as possible
    3- Sell access to the MMP on a recurrent basis
    4- Profits! ;)
    5- Keep improving your MMP over time > expand user base > more profits!

    This would be the equivalent of a musician cutting the middle man and selling his music straight on the Internet. With one enormous advantage: An MMP producer has no fear of having the client software copied since all that does is expand his potential user base. Whatever you do, you *have* to pay if you want to get the experience.
    Which is, IMHO, the reason why so many people are whining about the subscription fees. It's not that it's too expensive (12$/month for 20H of entertainment time in average is cheap compared to say, movies), it's just that they can't freeload anymore. :)

    My guess is, in the coming years, there will be a real distinction appearing between traditional studios (doing regular PC and console games) and companies building MMPs.

    Now back to the current game industry.
    The hardest part with the model I just described is making "step 1" happen while still retaining the control of your creation. That, from my painful experience, means avoiding to be financed by either game publishers or vulture capitalists, as they will find a way to wrest control from you. The problem, as it has been said before, is that making a professional MMPs is expensive.

    Sure, they are ways to get the numbers down if you know the trade secrets, but it's still going to be expensive.

    That's where Free Software can help.

    My initial idea for Nevrax was that Free Software and MMPs were a perfect match.
    You get all the benefits of Free Software, but keep a strong business model where you can avoid having a competitor piggyback on your work as you stay in control of all the "data" (art assets mostly).
    One of the big cost associated to running an MMP is due to maintenance. Also, having a robust tech on launch helps a lot. Those are things that Free Software can help alleviate tremendously. This is why we created NeL. A Free Software engine for MMPs.

    As an added benefit, now that I am starting a new company out of the hands of the VCs, I can freely reuse all the tech we did at Nevrax. My software development costs just got divided by a factor of 10. Imagine that...
    And the best thing is: you can do it to! :)

    One last thing I would like to say to people who think that Everquest & co are boring and ugly: you are right. But real communities formed around these games, and that's what is truly fascinating about MMPs. As time goes, you will see MMPs that are more and more geared towards fostering these online communities, and less and less "games" in the sense that we understand it today. Just because you don't see the point of playing today, doesn't mean that you won't see the point of playing tomorrow...

    And I know I'll be working hard to make that happen ! ;)

  50. fees for online playing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I myself favor a flat fee, even though I will rarely play (I don't now) because of time. I play a flat fee for my ISP, flat fee for my phone, etc.

    HOWEVER! It would be nice if there where different packages for paying. One way would be a simple per-hour package system. Another would be per-zone perhaps (although I would not like this myself unless it was done very carefully).

    What annoys me though is to pay full price for the initial game that DOES NOT ALLOW CLIENT PLAY. With a game like NWN (assuming you can play without crashing constantly and have the required super-cluster for your hardware to avoid slowness and stuttering) you have a single player game AND a toolset. Well worth the money. With UO and EQ type of games you only have the online service (unless they 'allow' some ingenious folk to make their own server that is free). Also, as with my case, I buy two copies for my wife and I. That is crap. Bad enough for one, two is stupid so I will simply not shell out the dough for two full price games if I cannot use them without playing online (and with the fee of course). One fee or the other, they should not charge for both. However if people want to support that, so be it. It is not really a loss to me.

    Now if I ever find a REAL role-playing game, that might be another story. I would gladly invest more money in that if only to reward some real innovation.

  51. Battlenet costs by Synn · · Score: 2

    Don't forget to subtract the costs of battle.net from those figures. That's a huge cash drain that doesn't directly bring in any income, it's supported solely by box sales.

    I think that's why Blizzard is making World of Warcraft. It'll keep battle.net funded.

  52. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

    But, holy shit, to repeatedly play any game, or any number of games for 8-10 hours a day, strikes me as dysfunctional. Is this typical for gamers? How do you get anything else done?


    Let's see, on my average day I wake up between 6 and 7 AM, have a cigarette and a glass of juice while I scan CNN to make sure the world didn't blow up today (or that something isn't happening that would mean I don't have to go to work). I then drive to work where I stay until about 4PM. If I don't have to do any shopping I get home around 4:30 at the latest, open a beer and look around to see if anything needs to be done (dishes, trash, cleaning), all of which can usually be done by 5 or 5:30, which leaves 7-10 hours until I even have a chance of getting to sleep, regardless of whether or not I'm actually doing anything. Then again, this was the case when I didn't play any PC or console games (though, admittedly, that was all of maybe 3 months in high school). If I don't play games during that time, I read, watch TV/movies, write software, or just 'hang out' online in IRC/IM/etc while I surf the web and listen to music. Hell, the last woman I dated before leaving San Diego was someone I met online.

    Realistically, my biggest issue is the fact that work takes up 10 hours of the day due to the commute and lunch hour (which I rarely even take for lunch, but I have to be there during business hours), and only pays for 8 of them, which is exactly why I prefer to work from home whenever I can (besides the fact that it's much easier for me to sleep during the day than at nite, and I work more efficiently in the evening/nite hours).

    --
    -PainKilleR-[CE]
  53. Re:More MMORPGs == less bucks for EQ by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

    oh, and let's not even talk about the weekend, which can really skew the daily average. Seriously, even if I go out and spend all day doing something in the outdoors, I can still pull a 12+ hour gaming session when I get home without much more than my normal caffeine intake.

    --
    -PainKilleR-[CE]
  54. eq sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i used to play DAOC, my first mmorpg after years and years of muds/moos/m***s and plain jane rpgs. I loved daoc, i had some issues with the PK setup, though noble was a pain and unrealistic. ANd some other things. I drop daoc and planned to check out eq later on.

    A while later I did. I bought it, signed up...played for a week...found it unbearable and left.

  55. A little business eduction... for slashdot.... by AnyLoveIsGoodLove · · Score: 1

    Ok... there is much confusion in this day and age on Margin / Markup.. Let's discuss Margin first.

    Gross margin is (revenue - cost ) / revenue.

    With this basic formula in mind, let's examine the components. Revenue is relativitly easy to understand. Revenue = Money coming in the door.

    Cost: This is where it gets tricky. Usually its the cost to provide the service, not run the entire business.

    With the above definitions in mind we run into Net Margin.

    Net Margin is ((revenue -cost) / revenue)-Other expenses). Other expenses can add up, although a 40% margin is nothing to sneeze at. For example, most companies pay SG&A (Sales, General, and Administration) Usually SG&A works out to 5%, or maybe more depending on the comp plans for the sales folks. Don't forget taxes, insurance, and other factors that are not in the cost (HR, internal systems, etc..) Remember cost is Servers, developers, bandwidth, hw / sw, etc.... not the cost to run the complete business.

    So it's not a 40% of PURE PROFIT. After everything else they probably net 15 - 20%.. Which is AWESOME... don't get me wrong.

    I'd love to own a business that netted 15% or more. Warren Buffet has said: "

    --
    "It's technical in a psychometric kind a way" -- C. Parish
    1. Re:A little business eduction... for slashdot.... by crevette · · Score: 0

      > ((revenue -cost) / revenue)-Other expenses).

      Are you sure? I know nothing about economy, but it seems to me that a ratio minus an amount is not pretty math.

  56. Actually, the first hit IS free by Tarindel · · Score: 1

    normally the games come with one month of free service to get you started.

    After that, they generally try and lock you into 1 month, 3 month, or 6 month contracts (giving you discounts for the longer terms).

    1. Re:Actually, the first hit IS free by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      yeah, the first hit is free, if you buy the $50 crack pipe. Of AC, EQ, and UO, EQ is the most expensive to start playing today. UO and AC you can get for almost nothing (or nothing after rebate iirc with AC), while EQ sits on the shelf in the trilogy edition (EQ + first 2 expansions) for $50-60. You basically just paid 5 months subscription fees to start paying again in 30 days, and the game and each of it's expansions is more than paid for by 1 month of their subscription earnings.

      The only real bonus here is that the subscription guarantees that the servers will run until the amount of subscriptions coming in can't cover the service, or EQ2 picks up more subscriptions than EQ1, at which time you have to wonder whether or not they'll keep it up when they know shutting it down will bring the stragglers over to the sequel.

      On the other hand, if I wanted to play CounterStrike (a loathsome game imo, but it's the most played FPS game online), I'd simply load up my 4-year old copy of Half-life, download the mega-patch-from-hell, and the CS mod itself, and there's going to be a server running as long as people are willing to play it. My experience so far with online FPS games has been that a particular mod that is as popular as Counterstrike is will outlive almost anything, except it's own sequel or a radically new and catchy mod that sucks up an even bigger fan base, and even then enough people will continue playing it to keep a few servers running.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  57. Losing money? by NPE · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'd just like to point out that, for a smart few, MMORPG's aren't a money sink or a waste of time. Those of you who have actually played a game or two surely know that there are people in every game who sell in-game stuff (gold, items, etc.) for cold hard cash. Not only can you pay for your monthly subscription fee, you can also make back what you initially paid for the game and still put a tidy sum in your pocket. For example, I played Anarchy Online like a true addict (6-8 hours / day) for about 6 months. For this I paid $60 total for the monthly fees and $20 for the game itself, so a total of $80. At the end of my 6 month subscription, I sold my account for $150, almost double my "initial investment". The only bad things that came from all this was I lost about 10 pounds and my GPA went from 3.14 to 3.12. I know that my example is something of a special case on the whole, but I think it stands as proof that MMORPG's can be better than the hype surrounding them if approached correctly. And now, to completely sound like a hypocrite, I should add that I have completely sworn off MMORPG's, as the addiction factor coupled with the GPA drop scared the hell out of me.

    --
    ~NullPointerException
    1. Re:Losing money? by Maul · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While yo did make money, you only made $70 off of six months of work. Even working at Starbucks for minimum wage, you'd at least make a few thousand with the same time investment.

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

    2. Re:Losing money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making games in MMORGS is a pyramid scam at best. I refused to take part of selling non-existing stuff to vacuous addicts when quitting my enchanting EverQuest career.

    3. Re:Losing money? by forkboy · · Score: 2

      You fared better than most people I know, myself included.

      Everquest == 40 lbs gained, lost job and girlfriend, GPA went from 3.25 to 2.27 (stopped going to class, too lazy to withdraw by deadline) I'll never play an MMORPG again...I like my new school, job, and girlfriend.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    4. Re:Losing money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us see. You earned 70 dollars in 6 months at 6-8 hours a day. Sorry pal, but if this is not a waste of time and money, then I haven't seen one in my life. You can probably make more money working in a mine in africa, and those guys are basically slaves.

  58. Speaking of Money. Look at what former Enron execs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are doing.
    Greed has no bounds apparently and these thieves
    are looking for millions in severance pay.

  59. Does EverQuest make money by rcs1000 · · Score: 2

    Your figures are wrong. Sony, EA and every other MMORPG vendor have had terrible trouble turning interest into profits.

    About six months ago, Sony On-line Entertainment *laid-off* almost half its staff. Hardly the act of a company making too much money from on-line gaming. At EA, Ultima Online 2 has been canned.

    Video game vendors have no experience in running server centers with guaranteed up-times. They need to constantly patch offerings to prevent cheating (Sega's PSO has reputedly been spoilt by hacks which allow players to crash other players' boxes.)

    --
    --- My dad's political betting
    1. Re:Does EverQuest make money by Sisca · · Score: 1

      Actually they didn't *lay-off* anyone. Several of there senior devs left and a lot of EQ dev team went missing so people thought they had been laid off. According to posts on the EQ board by some of the supposedly fired workers they were still there just moved to different projects (EQ2, SW:G and the new Planes of Power expansion). Yes online games need to constantly patch but the vast majority of the patches are either to add content or to fix bugs. As for not having experience in runnin server centers with guaranteed up-times, I play both Dark Ages of Camelot and Everquest and the only real downtimes are usually scheduled maintenance and patch days and even those are usually around 4 hours. In the 3+ years I've been playing I've only experience 1 unexpected server crash when a drive array apparently ate itself with no warning. There have been numerous times where they took down certain sections of the games for an emergency repair but they were always able to give 10 or 15 minutes warning and were usually back within an hour.

    2. Re:Does EverQuest make money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes some compaines can do better with less. Ive seen it a few times...

  60. one comment on your last part by Stalcair · · Score: 5, Informative
    I agree that as they evolve, MMG's are fostering more of a community aspect of gaming than what we are familiar with currently in interactive games.

    What I would add is this: first, there are different mixtures if community and game that should be recognized, IMHO. This is an aspect of not just the game but the type of gamer. Many really do play for the community. There are many online chat communities that have an almost occult following, yet there is no interactive gaming. Look at the old BBS's. They added some games as afterthoughts, and when they did good it was usually because of a well designed (or just luck) integration and use of said community into the game itself.

    Which leads to my second comment. I feel that many of these games are a horribly made collage instead of a well engineered system of parts. While it is not new for this (movies and single player games) method of plugging in something as an afterthought in the hopes of attracting more people, the aspect of community is just now beginning to dawn on many designers' minds. Again... my opinion. (I feel I have to say that because of lurking trolls and other over sensitive folk :)

    To date, I have felt like these games are basically a graphical click fest game, overlaid with a chat room. That is great for many, but what about a true immersive world? Instead of a lame situation of "Hey, lets go raid Dungeon X" to which thousands of raids have already happened, along with current raids yet the environment never seems to acknowledge this, how about raiding a group of orcs that are players (most of them maybe)? They will definitely react to continual raids by dying, leaving or changing tactics like fortifying and having patrols.

    Basically, the problem I see is that the MMG's created to date are entirely too inflexible, limited and predictable so as to not work with the community aspect. It seems all the focus has been placed on things like shield symbols, colors of clothes and little cute floaty name things that tell what 'Guild' you are in. However, what about making a real community? I think that making it more natural and cutting back on the 'safety net' of unrealistic protections for players and their property is the main problem. Imagine if you will a mountain that is found to have rich veins of gold and high quality iron. Soon, many miners will settle there. However, where will they keep their stuff when selling unless a trade and logistics system is setup. Those trade carts sure are easy picking for evil characters/npc's! So they will need guards, or even better clear the surrounding areas. Soon, depending on choices and the environment an entire town will emerge that could become a kingdom based on its control of arms and trade in the region.

    Now compare this situation to what has been presented mostly to date. You have a very fake system of housing to where once you plop that house down, it invulnerable to harm, intrusion, etc. You just eliminated some naturally occurring quests and fun because of that. Sure you might have some static NPC that besides never leaving the same spot EVER and repeating their dialog/mantra endlessly without change will give a fake quest to find the 'orcish burgler' and return his magic gem of village shielding. Yet when you perform this mission, you are given a coin or two and NOTHING CHANGES. You will come across that orc later, as will someone else.

    Making a truly dynamic questing system is hard, but they make it harder because they hard code it all. Instead of just feeling for the game environment, the quests should integrate with it and be a part of the change. Quests should be based perhaps on economy, or security, or such, not hard coded to one particular 'named critter.'

    Well that is my rant and raving on this, forgive me if it is too odd or too long.

    --

    I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.

    1. Re:one comment on your last part by Mittermeyer · · Score: 2

      My particular MMG addiction is WWII Online. Many of the issues you note re: not mattering, things not changing and intelligent organized opponents are taken care of by creating an Us Vs. Them situation from the get-go. This setup creates meaning and teamwork.

      There is nothing that alters a town quite like a battle ripping through it. Shell furrows in the ground, bullet holes in the wall, buildings ruined, oh yes the environment will tell you a battle took place.

      And there are no magic powerups or twinkie bazookas- the closest thing to magic is a Char, an 88 or a Stuka and they can be taken down. Life is terrifyingly cheap in WWII, a typical day sees 5000+ deaths per side. You gain in rank due to successful missions but no one is going to have a Ring of Panzer Defense to sell.

      And since it is a realistic battle you cannot win on your own. So teamwork is literally built into the game. Many are very passionate about their squad, and work on them like softball teams. And because the company is open to suggestions, the forums are crammed full of history nuts clamoring to get ideas in about how to make a realistic game fun.

      So yes I'm sure there are nuts out there, but at it's best MMGs shouldn't be any more disruptive or 'wrong' then your bowling team.

      --
      ________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
    2. Re:one comment on your last part by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      Greets, fellow Rat enthusiast. :)

      -- Krenn, from the 116 PzDv "Windhund" :)

    3. Re:one comment on your last part by Mittermeyer · · Score: 2

      Greetings, oh mortal enemy!

      Kilemall, 4RCA, ArFr.

      --
      ________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
  61. EQ Free for almost 1 year now by Reductionist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're right about EQ being terribly unfun to anybody not hooked to it and how it's like crack to most of the regular players.

    My personal addiction to EQ lasted 2.5 years - from launch in March of '99 to 9/11 of last year. Yes 9/11 was the event that made me realize what EQ really is: a banal, empty escape from reality.

    I played on Mithaniel Marr, which is home to 'Afterlife', one of the most powerful guilds in the game. I wasn't in AL, but I used to visit Afterlife's website just to check out their accomplishments.

    Afterlife is for hardcore addicts only, the degree of their addiction must be mind boggling considering most of them play every single day 6 to 8 hours a day(or more). They literally have thousands of hours 'invested' in addiction, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of their characters had a 'played' time of 300 real world days or more.

    True to form they held a raid on the evening of 9/11, as nothing was going to keep them from their addiction, not evening the most horrifying attack on this country since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41.

    Something about that really disgusted me, as it made it painfully clear for once and for all that EQ is an addiction that's just as harmful as an addiction to alcohol or drugs.

    I never mentioned this to anyone on the discussion boards. I just quietly came to the conclusion that for the sake of my own health and welfare I needed to leave the game.

    Initially I considered just taking a break for a couple of weeks, but I never played EQ again after 9/11. In early October I logged on for the last time and gave all of my items and wealth to a couple of my closest in game friends. Once my characters were stripped I said my goodbyes and bid the world of Norrath farewell. I immediately camped out and deleted my characters(56 War, 56 Shm, 46 Mnk) to make sure I wouldn't be tempted to come back.

    It wasn't easy, but it turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made.

    Its been nearly a year since I left behind the world of Norrath. I don't have too many regrets since I always had a love/hate relationship with the game. In the end I decided the negative aspects outweighed the positive and that it just wasn't worth wasting my time.

    Since then I still occasionally play computer games, like Civ III, Medal of Honor, or RTCW, but they don't take over my life like the way EQ did. I started riding my bike again in March for fun/exercise, which helped my lose about 30 lbs of mush that I put on while playing EQ. I'm generally much more social with my friends in the real world, and I've even started dating again. I read a lot more and find it much easier to think clearly now that my mind isn't in a constant EQ induced haze.

    Being away from EQ has made me realize that reality is infinitely much more interesting and bizarre than anything I ever did in Norrath. Addictive MMORPGS such as EQ are ultiamtely a poor substitute for 'reality', 'community' or 'relationships'.

    This more than anything is the reason why I think MMORPGS will always be a niche category. Americans are already overworked and suffering from a society fraying at the seams. The last thing we need is a mass escape from reality that encourages people to once and for all drop out from society.

    Will most people will realize that it just isn't worth it?

    I'm not so sure..

    1. Re:EQ Free for almost 1 year now by kashmirzoso · · Score: 1

      Well said!

    2. Re:EQ Free for almost 1 year now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41

      As opposed to the times the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on 12/8/41, 11/4/46, or 9/11/01?

    3. Re:EQ Free for almost 1 year now by unicron · · Score: 2

      I'm an EQ'r, and I've read AL's site. Under requirements for membership they have line along the lines of "Must be able to raid from 6PM-3AM PST". That's ridiculous. I play EQ, and I've never considered myself and addict. I get home from work about 6ish, eat dinner, play with my daughter and chill with the wife until about 10pm, when the little one usually goes to sleep, then I play from 10pm-Midnight.

      These people that have 300 hours logged in are really, REALLY bad examples. Most people that have that kind of time played are farmers, which to non-players means they go somewhere where an uber mob drops and uber item, waits possibly hours to kill it, gets the item, and then goes into a commons/bazaar area and tells everyone they have it for sell until someone buys it. Or they're multiquesters, which means they'll go get one piece of a quest, and then sell it to someone actually doing the quest for a ridiculous amount of money just because the person doing the quest may have ample money, but little time and/or patience.

      The numbers are wildly inaccurate for people that actually PLAY the game. If you concentrate on nothing but actual leveling up your character, it will not take this long, under any circumstances. I have a lvl 60 character, maximum level possible, with a total playing time of about 700 hours, over a span of playing him for roughly two years, off and on.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    4. Re:EQ Free for almost 1 year now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude.

      that is addiction. you sound exactly like I did a few months ago with my internet connection. I only surf for a couple hours a day. Then my computer ate itself last month. My computer was only gone for a few days but I just HAD to have a fix. Dont belive me, have your wfie hide the power cord to your computer for 1 week. See how you do...

      Then think about this. Once you stop paying that character is GONE, Erased, no longer there. You just spent how long playing?

    5. Re:EQ Free for almost 1 year now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well put!

      I, too, am a recovering EQ-addict. I seriously screwed up my sleep cycle while playing Everquest -- It took so long to get into and out of the game, I was always tempted to play for "just a little bit longer". After all, sunrises are beautiful, right?

      My performance at work went to hell. Clinical depression set in, to the point where I wanted to kill myself. I found the game more and more frustrating, less and less enjoyable, extremely repetitive... Yet I still wanted more.. Maybe next time I'd do better...

      Giving it up was hard. Very hard. And the best damn thing I ever did for myself...

      (Fortunately Verant made it easy: They continued to bill me after I canceled. When I complained, they gave me a run around. Disputing the charges on my credit card convinced them to get their act together -- And burned my bridges...)

    6. Re:EQ Free for almost 1 year now by achurch · · Score: 2

      I think a large part of the "problem" with MMORPGs is that they're just too slowly paced--it takes too long to get anywhere useful. In an ordinary RPG, a month or so will usually be more than sufficient to beat the game, max out your characters' levels, etc., but in MMORPGs that will barely get you started.

      I signed up for the Final Fantasy XI beta on a lark earlier this year (more because I wanted to exercise my bug-hunting skills than anything else), and to my surprise the pacing was faster than I had expected, and in about a month and a half of play I had raised my character's level pretty close to the level cap (35). The final version, however, slowed things down considerably; I haven't been able to make as much progress in three months as I did in half that time in the beta, and it's become more of a chore than anything else. (I've already resolved to quit later this month once I pass my items and such on.)

      While I obviously don't know what Square is really thinking, I've heard rumors that they need to keep players paying for a year to recoup their costs, and it seems to me that they're doing their best to make sure players can't progress quickly and have to pour tons of time into the game in order to "enjoy" it. Since RPG players in particular have a tendency toward trying to maximize their stats, it's inevitable that this leads to the sort of addiction we hear stories about.

      Ironically, when you click "Play" on the FFXI title screen, a message pops up saying "don't let FFXI affect your real life" (or words to that effect), yet Square publicly congratulated the first players to hit the level cap. Perhaps the right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing?

    7. Re:EQ Free for almost 1 year now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Meridian 59.

      http://meridian59.neardeathstudios.com/

      It's old, but really fun. You can build up pretty fast and can drop out for a few days without getting left behind by your addicted friends.

      It has fun PvP (it's been balanced after years of playing), so the game isn't just a race to get to the top. Don't let PvP scare you, the game is very balanced and very fun, not the gankfests you saw in UO.

      Try it. It's not your typical online RPG.

      30 HP ToFer.

    8. Re:EQ Free for almost 1 year now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sympathise with your point of view regarding the tragedy on 11 September, but have you considered any of the following about the people who continued to play that day?

      1) While this was undoubtedly a tradegy for the US, many people who play EverQuest are not Americans. This event did shake the world, but when it is not in your own back yard, there is a distancing factor that lessens the impact to people in other countries. Maybe many of these players were not Americans? But people from Europe, Africa, Asia etc where "the most horrifying attack on this country since Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41" is not a consideration for them.

      2) Maybe these people who continued to play believe in the proverb which I am going to horribly mangle "the best revenge is to live a long, happy, prosperous life." Maybe as they saw it, the best way to deal with the tragedy was to get on with life.

      3) Different people grieve in different ways. Some people may have sat in front of the TV and cried, others may have gone to the gym and beat the sh*t out of a boxing bag, others logged into a world where they could beat the stuffings out of mythical beasts.

      4) Of course, they could just be irresponsible, addicted, unsympathetic little pr1cks.

      Having said that, I'm glad that you broke yourself out of your addiction and appear to be happier for doing so.

  62. your website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    At Nevrax, we believe software should be Free (as in Freedom).
    If I free someone from red chain and then bind them with a chain of another I have not freed them. While the concept of free software is great and very noble, the underlying tactics behind people like Stallman prove that Freedom is not what he desires.

    The GPL is not the only open license.

  63. Re:Ur MMPORG & U:How to lose money w/o even tr by Quixadhal · · Score: 2

    Hmmmm, but you are posting to slashdot. This implies that you have a computer (yes, you could be posting from a public machine, but if you read /. enough to post, you probably do own one). Computers require electricity. *GASP* You're paying to use something after you bought it!

    And, while I'm at it... how did you get your computer? Did you happen to drive somewhere in a car? Did you have to put gasoline in it? OMG! You had to pay for something after you bought it!!!!

    Sorry, you probably also have an internet connection of some sort... which you need to make use of your modem, which is yet again, paying to use something you already own.

    Yeah, it's called a "service". If you don't want services that interact with other humans (and thus usually cost money for their time), you need to be Self-Sufficient (TM). For examples of this, you could check out http://www.amish.net/ -- although that is itself a rather amusing contradiction and example of yet more interdependant services.

    Hmmm, perhaps being a lone trapper in the Canadian wilderness would get you away from those pesky "services"? Let's look at http://www.ranger1.ca/CNTA/issues.html AHHHH! They have a comitte, which means human interaction.. and... NOOOOO! $5/year membership fees.

    There is, at least ONE thing you can buy which will not entail any ongoing service contracts or other fees. A cemetary plot. Or is it????

  64. my DAOC experiences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I shared the same frustration as you. The overemphasis on that very artificial idea known as 'leveling' did not sit well with me. I think the RvR was a good step, however the level limitations hit it as well. True tactics and strategy fell to the factor of who had the most play time. Not that I am referring to 'twitchy' prowess, far from it. However just as on one end of the spectrum you have a system/game that rewards only player reactions, the other end is one in which nothing the user does matters except to spend more time building their character. Daoc mixed this, but seemed to mix all the bad parts.

    The idea of sieging is great, I think many will have tons of fun with Shadowbane. I also think that number of realms having impact on the realm is great (and especially the artifacts), but it was poorley implemented here. Due to the problems the dev's have with fixing or adding 'small' elements, it is obvious that the entire technical and non-technial (gameplay) design is flawed.

    I remember about 15 years ago, I saw a tape player deck that did this neato trick to reverse directions. See the front of the deck there was a cylindar in the middle so that you could see through its plastic the tape you were jamming too. When you hit the reverse, after a bit of an audible pop and a noticable wait, it jumped out and flipped around. Very cool. However, this trinket costs entirely too much to justify its purchase so it died out soon thereafter.

    The lesson was that while an eye catcher initially, people (often subconsciously) remembered that it was a TAPE DECK they were after. Had that feature been secondary to good sound, quality interface, etc, then it might have done better. As it was, the flippy thingy was the entire purpose of this deck, the sound was crappy, the price was hefty, there were limited i/o ports and connection types, plus it was heavy and big as a hog.

    DAOC... how the hell can it make sense to say "we are immersive and you have a real impact on the world with RvR" yet your char is a pale cookie cutter that is limited by the uber-level system they have. You have no real impact on the world. What I wanted to see was a marauding band of trolls to loose upon Hibernia and slaughter the stupid NPC's that just stand there day in and out. Wipe clean the map and then setup camp.... oh wait, you cant do that! There is no incentive for real conquest.

  65. Re:Ur MMPORG & U:How to lose money w/o even tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Bush's 1984? Did you even read the book? I can assure you, as long as there is a republican in the White House, 1984 will never come to fruition. Al Gore is much more of a communist technology hating (engines) government loving man than GW will ever be.

  66. thanks troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder, while you are slamming Bush (and rightly so) do you ALSO slam the dems that have are and have limited our freedoms? Or are you one of these slavering liberals that only points at others and never himself?

  67. Yup. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
  68. EQ allows player=character by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

    Nobody normal kills themselves just because of a computer game.

    Yes, Woolley had some problems. The question, and the reason behind the lawsuit, is whether any of the players Woolley interacted with encouraged or drove him to suicide.

    No, GTA3 probably isn't responsible for an increased number of carjackings. However, it does NOT tell you, the player, to go out and rip off cars. It encourages the "game character" to do so. GTA3 and other games rely on the ability of the player to distinguish between the "player" and the "game character".

    In EQ there is no clear distinction. It is RPG, so the "player" and the "game character". Some people really role-play. But many do not. Their "game character" becomes an ideal version of themselves. The player basically becomes the character, and there is no distinction between the two.

    I've told countless people to "f**k off" or "go sr**w yourself", not as an role-playing from my character to another character, but directed at the other player. Did someone annoyed with Woolley tell him "Why don't you kill yourself" or something along those lines?

    That's what the lawsuit is about. In this, EQ isn't the symptom, nor really the cause. Woolley's mom sued to try to find out if there were any players who encouraged or even drove Woolley to kill himself. To find out who he might have associated with online. I think it's a fruitless search, but a mom has to try.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    1. Re:EQ allows player=character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont you kill yourself?

      Are you going to sue me now?

    2. Re:EQ allows player=character by tx_mgm · · Score: 1

      i dont know which situation is worse

      killing yourself over a video game

      OR

      killing yourself because someone in a video game told you to

      either way, i see it as the guy's problem not everquest's

      --
      Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
      -Dr. Weird
    3. Re:EQ allows player=character by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

      Why dont you kill yourself? Are you going to sue me now?

      You? First I'd have to attempt suicide and survive. After that, I would have legal grounds to sue /. to trace back your post to your ISP, then sue the ISP to trace back to your account. Then have you arrested for promoting or encouraging my suicide. Once you've been convicted, then I could sue you for damages. I suppose with good laywers I wouldn't even have to attempt suicide but say you made me think about it and it led to severe depression and emotional damage and sue you anyway.

      At any rate, the first step would be to sue /. to get more info, which is what Woolleys mother is doing as I understand the case.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  69. amen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem is that instead of other corporations adapting to this. They instead say, "Hmmm... lets form a working group for this" which really means "let me make some new shit job that by nature will product shit from the lack of morale and direction". Their loss. That is why I am picky with my investments, because of the number of stupid people up top making decisions.

  70. Re:The truth why George Lucas introduced Ja-Ja Bin by Dirtside · · Score: 2

    No. At least in the launch product, Gungans are not a playable race (although they will be present in the game as NPCs; whether you can encounter Jar-Jar is unknown -- heck, whether he's still ALIVE during the time period SWG exists in, is unknown).

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  71. S/PDIF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the subject, it was a joint effort

  72. Re:Ur MMPORG & U:How to lose money w/o even tr by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    I knew I'd get it from this angle, so here goes:

    If I buy a CD, will I pay the RIAA everytime I listen to it?
    If I buy a painting, will I pay the artist everytime I look at it?
    If I buy a book, will I pay Simon & Shuster everytime I read it?

    The answer? A resounding, echoing NO.

    As for as gasoline, electricity, and internet access, yes, they cost money, and yes, I can't use my car, computer, browser effectively without them. Of course, this is a circular argument.

    I was referring to the subscription model of entertainment/content that is "hot" right now, and will become a pain in the ass when/if enough people migrate to it. But thanks for the www.amish.net tip BTW - I may have to buy a new hat.

  73. Re:Ur MMPORG & U:How to lose money w/o even tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Last April, when Sony raised the monthly subscription price 31 percent to $12.95, it hardly lost a player."

    Probably because most of us playing at the time went for the $100-ish ($109 maybe?) one-year renewal they offered, so we haven't been paying the new rate.

    Which does bring up a good point: with the discounts offered for paying several months in advance, if you simply take the number of players and multiply by $12.95 a month you're probably significantly over-estimating the game income.

  74. "We're not drug dealers . . ." by StefanJ · · Score: 2
    ". . . we're just giving people something to do while they're waiting to die."

    The above was the response of the designers of Magic: The Gathering when I jokingly called them pushers.

    They said it in unison; obviously a well-rehearsed line.

    Stefan Jones

  75. Re:Ur MMPORG & U:How to lose money w/o even tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If I buy a CD, will I pay the RIAA everytime I listen to it?
    If I buy a painting, will I pay the artist everytime I look at it?
    If I buy a book, will I pay Simon & Shuster everytime I read it?

    The answer? A resounding, echoing NO.

    Actually, the initial answer may be NO, but the echo is YES. While you're not paying every time your use these items, you ARE paying to store them during the times you aren't using them. Storage services for physical property are usually called rents, mortgages, or property tax. The change in terminology doesn't change the fact these are essentially subscription services.
  76. Anyone in 1990 would have told you by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    Big money:

    MMORPG
    Dune 2 with Multiplayer
    Instant messaging
    MMORTS(not made yet)
    Online auctions
    Online personals
    Online scams

    all big money makers. Too bad I tried to make the first MMORPG solo >:) DOesnt' work so well

  77. Re:Ur MMPORG & U:How to lose money w/o even tr by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    I would have to say that rent/morgatage payments would be incidental in this case, since I am paying to house *myself and whether or not I have Larry Niven's 'Ringworld' sitting on my bookshelf, or Badfinger's 'Straight Up' in the CD tower, has no effect on the price I pay.

    Now if I had 30,000 books, and 3,000 CDs, it may be a different story. 'Course if I had all that, I'd be reading and listening to CDs, rather than posting to /. ;)

  78. Is that a true story? by Nindalf · · Score: 1

    ...because that's the funniest comment from a game designer I've ever heard. I'll have to remember that one.

  79. Sony is a bunch of cockeaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I can't wait for every big corp to go titsup and the losers who have retirement plans can become monks. Fucked up world, soon it will all be over.

  80. one dimensional thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    imagine describing color to one who has never seen at all. Imagine describing three dimensions to an inhabitant of a one dimensional existence. I see here that this is the problem with people like you. You are the empty headed suit that fills their lack of comprehension with rhetoric and snotty 'see this is how it is' statements.

    Instead of saying, this is the way it is and blindly accepting that simply BECAUSE that is the way it is, why not ask yourself if that is the best process? You should also ask if the current method that many businesses employ is the same as it was 50 years ago, thus invalidating remarks like 'well it has obviously worked this long.'

    As for the FedEx paper, I don't know. I only heard rumours, but I did hear that the business plan was not much different than what was used initially in the real company. Perhaps the criteria for judging these methods is corrupt. If you had a criteria that told you that I was not kicking your ass, but I continually implant my foot on your bum then your method is flawed and you are a fool if you don't adapt.

    Instead of selectively hearing this and other similar messages as, "all business is wrong" and then _equally_ applying your own very limited and shallow thinking of "all business is right and you are stupid" you should look at it like a medical problem. A good doctor is both scientist and empath (not in the psycic sense). Even the best bed-side manner and understanding is useless without a proper method of finding out what is wrong and how to fix it. If said doctor is just a pissy suit that fills their head with documents, buzz words and rhetoric then well, they are useless and not a doctor.

    If the initial proposal for this was not presented well, that is one thing. However a responsible business leader would always strive for RESULTS, and notice perhaps that all the business communications and processes are currently a bunch of gobbly-gook with powerpoint slides. He would then as himself, "perhaps the process is flawed, and we are not listening instead of it being the fault of the presenters."

    I have noticed that the 'suits' have created their own language, grammer, syntax and lexicon over the years. This is fine if kept within themselves and limited to themselves ONLY. However, if one wants to get some actual WORK (as in progress) done, they now have to hire a team of bullshit artists to serve as translators. The top translators talk to each other, then on the other end it is filtered down and requires a re-translation back into a usefull language to be implemented. Let us cut out the middle man and get back to work.

  81. congratulations! by SethJohnson · · Score: 2


    This is perhaps the most insightful comment I've read on slashdot in a week or more. Don't get me wrong. I love video games. But I think Reductionist's experience should be considered by anyone who is heavily wrapped up in online gaming. The big question is, "How much is 'heavily' wrapped up?" Each person needs to figure that out for themselves. I guess the mature solution would be to ask oneself, "Do I have other things I need to really do instead of play this game?"

    Damn. 30 pounds in six months? That's impressive!
    1. Re:congratulations! by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

      I agree with you - this comment represents the type of information that should be gleened from forums such as /.

      I too was addicted - but never to EQ, to UO. It almost caused my divorce (which happened later - but for other reasons).

      The interesting thing is that sometimes you may think "God, wouldnt it be great to not have to work and be able to play this all the time" WRONG. I was out of work for a year and a half and just went back to work at the beginning of June. While I was not working I started to play Anarchy Online - thinking that it would be fun as I had no job and I could spend time - lots of time - playing the game. mistake. I liked the game, but man did I feel like a loser wasting the beautiful california summer days on that game. playing for 12 hours at times....

      this didnt last very long, luckily I knew that it was not good for me - so I only played for about a month.

      I play a lot of video games - I absolutely love them. and I know I will be playing till the day I die (hopefully far far in the future) - but I now see the importance of balancing my cyberspace thrills with meatspace reality. Now I have sert aside Tuesday nights for gameplay. My girlfriend knows this and agrees to it. It is much easier to have one night set aside for it - it causes less stress on relationships and you know what to expect. Some tuesdays a bunch of us get together and do paper D&D (which we recently started playing again - while drinking and playing and its actually more fun that I remember it as a kid) - and on alternating Tuesdays we play neverwinter nights online - same characters as the paper game for the most part....

      Since I love FPS games as well (sniping games really) I also recently started doing Paintball... thats a lot of fun as well.

  82. please don't bash terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    please refer to these as MMG's or MMOG's or just persistent worlds. It is confusing and lessons the power of the word to call a game like DAOC or such an RPG.

    Don't confuse fantasy setting with elves, dragons and swords with RPG. Also, the definition of RPG is NOT simply, "you play a role" otherwise super mario brothers would qualify in full. Until I can make a alcoholic sword salesmen that is haunted by his past as a mercenary and can make whatever he wants or sell whatever he wants at the price of his choosing, etc... there will be no MMORPG's. Instead it will continue to be a static world of click, click, click.

    1. Re:please don't bash terms by Invidious · · Score: 0

      www.eve-online.com

      The next, best hope for an actual MMPO with real RPG

  83. Re:The truth why George Lucas introduced Ja-Ja Bin by Wraithlyn · · Score: 2

    Have you tried the Phantom Menace video game? The second level is great.. it's the Gungan city, and using Obi Wan you can cut down every single last Gungan citizen if you like, women and children too. Great stress relief.

    One catch: The only Gungan you CAN'T kill is Jar-Jar... the purpose of the mission is to resuce him. Well.. you CAN kill him, but then you fail the mission. Over and over and over again. ;)

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  84. let me see if I understand this, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    if by your post, the point of the lawsuit was to see if anyone online urged him on, then that makes it even less of Verants fault. People are schmucks, and online people are even more so usually. There is no warning label floating above each persons head in RL that says, "Caution: approach fellow humans with caution"

    Common sense dicates that if a game is massively multiplayer, with players being fellow humans then is not the point or at least the chances high, that you will interact with other people? If I have a favorite bookstore to visit, but more and more assholes come there and harass me can I not leave, or perhaps break some heads? Sure! Unless there is some subliminal aspect that like a drug hidden in a food, actually keeps people against their will then Verant is not the responsible party here. In fact, even in a situation like my bookstore analogy it would be rather difficult to every press charges and win against the assholes there. (I can't imagine a bunch of latte sipping faggots being hard to deal with, just kick the shit out of the first 3 or 4 and the rest will leave you alone but sneer and talk about you... in other words, who gives a crap what other people think?)

  85. Doesn't Surprise Me by Etriaph · · Score: 1

    I know a lot of people who have been playing EverQuest for a really long time now. Personally, the only MMORPG I'm interested in playing is Earth and Beyond. I've been working on the Beta and it's bloody awesome. If any of you out there are Jen'quai Defenders and want to group up and go hunting, you let me know. I'll provide the Progen beat-em-up party favours. :)

    --
    "It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
    1. Re:Doesn't Surprise Me by Invidious · · Score: 0

      Take a look at EVE -- www.eve-online.com. E&B is Everquest in space (I'm in the beta too -- it's fun, but it's not something that's going to hold my attention.) EVE is something completely new and utterly un-EQ like.

  86. Try Neopets for obsessive addiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this isn't even a PC game - to buy items, you must game for points - or if you time things right, you can get them for free from certain parts of the site. It's aimed at all ages, and there is little violence. But I can really see people spending too much time on the site. I have an account and I play it occasionally - at first I was really entranced, but that has worn off :-)

  87. Profit generation in game by trepan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One MMORPG that is in beta right now, Neocron (www.neocron.com) is considering using in-game advertisements in order to generate revenue. The setting for the game is futuristic (though based on a 21st century environment), so the idea would be to have billboards in-game advertising to the target audience of the users (e.g., hardware / software manufacturers). While I'm not too keen on having my online gaming experience intruded upon by ads from AMD or NVIDIA, I might be willing to overlook the real-world intrusion if the monthly fee is lowered (or non-existent).

  88. Re:Ur MMPORG & U:How to lose money w/o even tr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go eat a dick cock sucker, Dubya's a dumbshit and wasn't even fairly elected..

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/ newsid_1174000/1174115.stm

    Now eat a cock.

  89. look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    movies have done this successfully over the years without trouble. Then there are movies that overdo it. The point is, that the Neocron dev's should be VERY careful lest they loose more money from driving away folk than they make up with advertisement. However this in of itself is not a new subject. Radio stations have known this for decades. If they had too many (or too many at once, or too long) commercials then people did not listen.

    If the game already has a slot for some ad, then who cares. Look at Fallout, it had a ton of fake advertisement that made it very realistic. What if a few of those were real. Not only would they get a bit more money back, but the player would feel more connected. This however, would backfire in a world/game setting far removed from our own. It would be very cheesy for Levarnian the elf to whip out a Pepsi next to the fire. Very cheesy, like when a show assigns names to animals like Mr. Bunny to the rabbit (Mr. Hoppy). WTF? Was King Arthur named, Mr. Asskickingswordofdestinygonnabeking? Hmmm, this could turn into one of those RPG naming rants, so I will stop at saying please name your chracters appropriately unless you want to look like an 8 y.o. kid. (i.e. not just 1337 names, but if you named your player DemonSlayer that is stupid, name him Jim... his title or nickname could be DemonSlayer however)

  90. here is your soma, now shut up and dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "not fairly elected"

    Sure he was. The facts state that even after multiple multiple multiple recounts and analysis, that Bush won fair and square. Not that I like that, but if you refuse to see reality and instead rely on rhetoric and malicious libel then you are worse then what you claim to hate. You are your own worst enemy.

    1. Re:here is your soma, now shut up and dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking stupid? Read that again, it had nothing to do with the recounts, it had to do with disenfranchising black voters by publishing false lists of felons by Database Technology, disenfranchising black voters. DT created a list with felons which were not allowed to vote. Only problem is they didn't have SS#'s for them so they found close matches with last names / geographic area.. an "80% match" was sufficient to deny someone the right to vote.. only problem is as a %, there are more black felons, so this convieniently denied black voters who weren't felons the right to vote. A judge will rule on it this month, but the judge already said there's enough evidence to go to trial:



      I love americans, you still think you live in a democracy lol

    2. Re:here is your soma, now shut up and dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (re post with formatting)

      Are you fucking stupid? Read that again, it had nothing to do with the recounts, it had to do with disenfranchising black voters by publishing false lists of felons by Database Technology, disenfranchising black voters. DT created a list with felons which were not allowed to vote. Only problem is they didn't have SS#'s for them so they found close matches with last names / geographic area.. an "80% match" was sufficient to deny someone the right to vote.. only problem is as a %, there are more black felons, so this convieniently denied black voters who weren't felons the right to vote. A judge will rule on it this month, but the judge already said there's enough evidence to go to trial:

      http://www.click10.com/mia/news/stories/news-12370 9220020215-110206.html

      I love americans, you still think you live in a democracy lol

    3. Re:here is your soma, now shut up and dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the reason some people voted incorrectly is not because they are really stupid and hurried along to get back to their jobs at KFC, but because of an evil conspiracy? wow, you're gone. I'm not even going to finish reading that tripe. Hurry and get out of school so you can contribute something to someone.

    4. Re:here is your soma, now shut up and dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol you will probably want to re-read that when the judge rules against Katherine Harris and Database Technologies. Dumbshit. The republicans used fraud to put Bush in power.. C'mon you can see it, if not the judge will make you see it, bitch.

    5. Re:here is your soma, now shut up and dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound like someone who has had massive head trauma, both in your wording and your arguments. Perhaps you had best get yourself triaged and looked at, stat.

    6. Re:here is your soma, now shut up and dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only trauma consists of traumatized republicans trying to deny that Bush was put into power via fraud. It's all very sad. :(

  91. Yes Re:Is that a true story? by StefanJ · · Score: 2
    I ran into the M:TG designers at a mid-90s CES (Consumer Electronics Show) where they were pushing the computer version of the game.

    They had obviously been accused of pushing addictive substances before, and had rehearsed a come-back line.

    Stefan

  92. Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A big corporation not grasping the possibilities of a new idea?

    Say it isn't so!

  93. mod parent up by tx_mgm · · Score: 1

    this is a very good point.
    i would mod you up if i had the points.
    anyone else care to? he deserves it.

    --
    Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
    -Dr. Weird
  94. Check out the greedy bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.fortune.com
    see who got the gold. look in the mirror to see who
    got the shaft.
    these numbers are unbelievable.

  95. 20 questions to see if you're an EQ addict by Reductionist · · Score: 1

    Substitute 'Everquest' for 'Gambling' and 'Time' for 'Money' and we get...

    Twenty Questions

    Did you ever lose time from work or school due to Everquest?
    Has playing Everquest ever made your home life unhappy?
    Did playing Everquest affect your reputation in the real world?
    Have you ever felt remorse after playing Everquest?
    Did you ever play Everquest to farm items which you could sell on eBay to pay debts or otherwise solve financial difficulties?
    Did playing Everquest cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency?
    After a particularly bad series of deaths in Everquest did you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your XP?
    After you won a rare item did you have a strong urge to return and win more?
    Did you often play Everquest until your free time was gone?
    Did you ever cancel social activities to obtain more time for playing?
    Have you ever skipped work to play Everquest?
    Were you reluctant to spend your free time doing normal, non-EQ related activities?
    Did playing make you careless of the welfare of yourself or your family?
    Did you ever play longer than you had planned?
    Have you ever played to escape worry or trouble?
    Have you ever committed, or considered lying or skipping work to obtain more play time?
    Did playing Everquest cause you to have difficulty in sleeping?
    Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations in the real world create within you an urge to play Everquest?
    Did you ever have an urge to celebrate any good fortune by a few hours of playing Everquest?
    Have you ever considered self destruction or suicide as a result of your playing Everquest?

    Most compulsive Everquest players will answer yes to at least seven of these questions.

    http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/20questions.htm l

  96. a stone makes ripples in a pond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    if I throw a stone in a crowd of people and hit a black person, (and I am white) am I then racist? What if I was blindfolded? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say I was a pathetic cretin for attempting to harm anyone? What if I hit a white person? Would the same groups protect that person and persecute me? What if I was black and willingly aimed at a whiteperson and then threw more stones while he was down? Would it be called a response of 'my oppression' and be dismissed?

    What if I was Jesse Jackson and made embarressingly wild claims that blacks were willingly kept out of the vote, yet when asked for facts and justification only responded with ramblings about the Republicans consipiring against the african american community? What if every time I was offered to give real facts, I either lied, willfully misrepresented the truth, or just did not answer?

    What if it turns out that despite all the stupidity of the voting system in many states, this was another one in which blacks were the majority of victims? Would anyone (including you) have cared had it been whites? Are you one of these that will gladly attack someone that dares to speak their opinion that they think homosexuality is wrong, that affirmative action is inneffective and actually is racism itself, etc, but then turn a blind eye to the racist, militant and bigoted black person that says all whites should be destroyed? That says that you are NOTHING about peace and tolerance and EVERYTHING about YOUR particular brand of hatred.

    I have seen a lot of people claim they fight for all, when lashing out against someone who says something they don't like to hear... that in of itself is a contradiction. There is _NOTHING_ more closed minded than an 'open minded' liberal. You are like stupid sports fans that get all up in arms over some stupid comment against 'their' team, claiming it is unprofessional and not in the spirit of the game yet turn right around and do it themselves or ignore fellow fans that do it against other teams. HYPOCRITES!

    I think it is great how apparently behind our backs, some have managed to create an artificial intelligent software entity that can discriminate.

    1. Re:a stone makes ripples in a pond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black people have the NAACP, why don't you, Jeb and Otis throw away the overalls, sport some suits and start fightin' for the poor oppressed white people?

    2. Re:a stone makes ripples in a pond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      easy, I there are two reasons for this:

      First, because we believe in personal responsibility and freedom. From that we believe that while not everyone gets what they 'deserve' or work for, that often it is the satisfaction of having worked hard that is more important. We certainly do not believe in legalizing racism, bigotry, hatred or discrimination and forcing others to feel sorry for us. Also, because we pride ourselves on our dedication and commitment, we would be ashamed if we had to be given special status and could not earn our places like others of equal skill and worth. In fact, we would be rather angry as it would tell the world that we cannot make it on our own merit and hard work, and must be given unfair advantage over others.

      Second, a suit does not make one a hard worker, a cunning businessman, nor a wise leader. We wear suits if need be, but usually can be found in jeans or those coveralls working hard at anything from the mill to the hospital (scrubs there of course) to designing and implementing the networks and servers your systems are running on now. We do sometimes get a little ticked when people consider us dumb because we aren't as superficially as sophisticated as others, yet in the end it doesn't matter what you think... only reality matters. We would rather be simple, hard working people that use our wits and skills to advance society as well as hold it up. Contrast this to a bunch of suit wearing monkeys that spend their time in meetings and behind computers producing only more red tape that justifies hiring even more suits to understand. We speak in plain and simple terms... it generally is more conducive to real results and 'high productivity'.

      To sum up... no we would never WANT an organization like the NAACP. If we made an organization, it would be for ALL people and would not focus on one particular race, sexual fancy, or gender. We also will try to continue to turn the other cheek when people say comments like 'Jeb and Otis throw away the overalls' or calling people redneck and hillbilly (we don't ourselves consider those bad, but you can make anything bad if you are using it in malice). Why? Because the more we hear that, or that we 'owe' someone who is another color, or should give up our hard earned money to support someone using foodstamp trades to buy liquor; well we tend to get a bit exhausted of it after awhile.

      You 'smart' city folk never have bothered to notice the correlation between discrimination against whites (affirmative action, quotas, people like Jesse Jackson, community acceptance of racist rappers, etc) and a rise in groups like the KKK, have you? You spend all this time touting yourselves as smart, enlightened and tolerant yet are the worst bunch of generalizing, stereotyping, discriminating, freedom stealing bigots the world has ever known. Chant with me now... "FOR THE CHILDREN" or "FOR THE PEOPLE" or "FOR THE WORKERS"

      Well, I am that worker and I pay attention to history. I care nothing for you socialism or legislated morality, your censorship or your egos. Let me be, and I will continue to produce the sons that fight your wars and then are used as target practice for your policing actions or even by you yourselves. I will help you up if you fall, just as you stab me in the back and steal my wallet. However, I am human and you should know that if you push me to far... eventually I will rip your head off and shit in your lungs.

  97. Star Wars MMORPG - ugh by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Would you want to live in a world populated entirely by rabid Star Wars fans? Ones with no life? That's what it's going to be like in there.

    I suspect this thing will have a huge churn rate. 90% of the users will drop out within a month. Remember the last time Lucas overestimated the fanaticism of his fans? 80 Billion Tons of Jar Jar Merchandise now 70% Off.

    With a movie-inspired game, everybody wants to go to the places from the movie. That's going to be a problem for an MMORPG. Sure, you can have a huge number of instances of the universe (shards), but then, what's the point of having a big shared online universe? Either the world is mostly empty, the world doesn't let you go where you want to, or there are lines like Disneyland on a bad day.

  98. That's odd. by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2

    Since sony had nothing to do with the publishing of EQ until the very end of production. EQ was produced by 989studios, and is continually "patched" by verant. The inital server infrastructure came from Sony, but I have no doubt that Brad et all could have found another buisness to get them off the ground.

    --
    I live in a giant bucket.
  99. SImple... by cyberwench · · Score: 1

    They've been paying attention to the good things in the games that have come out since EQ. An awful lot of people who could give a rat's ass about Star Wars will be trying out SWG (me, for example) because of the changes they've made to the EQ model. As for the housewives, I'm sure EQ-2 will be out soon enough. :)

    --
    ~ Leilah
  100. I post anon to save a friends face. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ". A game cannot make you commit suicide and it cannot make you mentally ill. "
    There are no studies on how the human brain is effected by the level of interaction new MMORPG effect the brain.

    I have noticed that these types of event are much higher then in MMORPGs then in any other type of game.
    I have a friend is is very responsible, I have never seen him neglect his family or resposibilities. Generally clean guy who like to go to scouting event with his son.
    He enjoyed comuter game throught he entire history of home computer games.
    After he started playing EQ, it all stared going to hell. His family started seewing him in font of his computer mnore and more, It started to be common for them to get up and find him on the computer. started coming up with excuses to stay home. He was allowed tomplay it at work, and since they had a fast connection, he started comeing home later and later, would only take quick showers while his character rested.
    His wife called me in tears, didn't know what to do. I went and talked to hime, he said he's lay off, 2 days later he was back at it. sure he had plenty of excuses.
    Finally I ripped his damn modem out and told him next time I'll put a hole through his damn motherboard. I think the fact that I was screaming at him may have made him relize there was a problem.I had known him for 20 years, and I had neverbeen angry with him.

    he cancelled his account, destroyed his disks, re formatted his had drive, and has since been rid of MMORPGS.

    This is wy I believe there is a facet of then nwe MMORPGs that are addictive, it is also why I'd like to see some studies done be 3rd party scientists.

  101. have you seen Rush this time around? by AnyLoveIsGoodLove · · Score: 1

    It was pretty good. 2:40 min show, I was impressed for a bunch of old geezers.

    --
    "It's technical in a psychometric kind a way" -- C. Parish
    1. Re:have you seen Rush this time around? by Thackeri · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not - they haven't toured over here (UK) for quite a while and I missed them that time round... :(

      --
      Better the pride that resides in a Citizen of the world, than the pride that divides when a colourful rag is unfurled
  102. Re:FYI 2 by mgblst · · Score: 2

    You Idiot, this proves nothing. Philips invented the CD, almost everybody know this, and if you care to do some real research, you will see this. Philips approached Sony, therefore, "they almost didn't invent the CD" is incorrect.

  103. Simutronics Whoring by mysterymeat · · Score: 1
    <Simutronics Whore>
    w00t! the article mentions Cyberstrike!
    </Simutronics Whore>
  104. I certainly hope so by JustShowMeTheFives · · Score: 1
    I'm operating a small board game server (OK, if you really want to know, it's this one).

    Step 1: Underpants. I mean, get people to come (this is hard)
    Step 2: ?
    Step 3: PROFIT!

  105. runescape = free 3d java (click and play) by gnalle · · Score: 1
    Recently I had good fun playing Runescape It is somewhat simple, but I like the idea that you start the game by pressing a button on a webpage. They always have around 5000 people logged in at the same time.

    It seems that theyget most of the money from commercials, but you can pay 5$ a month to get a few extra quests and spells. I don't plan to pay extra, but I still have good fun. Have a look at the fan page too.

  106. I still play Medievia for free... by krinsh · · Score: 1

    granted, I don't *get anywhere* in the game because despite my time investment I may die 2 or 3 times in a row, grow frustrated, and not come back to the game for six or eight months. If I ever get some consistent time enjoying the game - that may be 'gaining levels' or finding some interesting equipment or something; then I might donate to the cause.

    On the other hand, I never played EQ. Six months after it comes out and I decide I might like to play; I realize all of the people I know that play are already onto the expansion sets and have levelled extensively... and I'm not going to pay $200-300 for someone else's character in order to spend time with them.

    I got DAoC a week or two after it came out and *still* was in this situation. If you want to **play**, not just super-level, then you fall behind very quickly. Roleplaying seems to be discouraged even on the RP-format servers.

    --
    I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
  107. the problem is... by Stalcair · · Score: 1
    that the term 'roleplay' is thrown around like an old dirty sock (yeah, that 'special sock' :)

    Many forget that levels, as well as many other aspects now termed as defining Roleplaying, where merely implemented to simplify the gameplay while attempting to salvage as much realism as possible. That works great on paper. Look at how D&D evolved and branched. Many advanced sub-rule sets were adopted that really added a lot of depth to the game whilst keeping to the original rules. e.g. I played with a rather horendously 'accurate' and complicated critical hit/miss calculation method. It was great but required a lot more time and effort to implement than the core rules. Some people wrote detailed programs that would calculate this for you, but as they themselves became more complex it took a while simply to enter the correct input. I read on a forum however that there were some great programs out there that acted like DM assistants in which you fed in things like locations of items, players, monsters, etc. So since much of the data was there already the time and effort to input data was reduced. Of course there are MUDS, MOOS, etc, but those were more automated games I guess than assistants. (never played that many)

    Personally, I wish the focus would be on gameplay and robust rulesets instead of graphics. Thing is, we have these lovely 3D graphics cards and great API's to make much of the rendering work easier and take off cycles from the CPU, yet the AI, immersion, etc has seemed to dwindle actually. I remember an advertisement for an early nVidia card that said, "Now you can free up your code and your processor for things like AI, gameplay and immersion" Well... I am still waiting :)

    --

    I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.

    1. Re:the problem is... by krinsh · · Score: 1

      That's the clincher - MUDs, MOOs, etc. *have no graphics*. They should be able to dedicate a lot of time to plot (which Medievia seems to), gameplay and immersion. I guess I'm not an ubergamer inasmuch as after I die about 5 times in a row I quit - I'd rather not get suckered into paying a premium to be frustrated, pissed off, etc.

      --
      I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
  108. what does w00t mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    is there some mystical requirement to always have 1337 speak on hand at all times? Is it a technological quota?

    even if it was spelled woot or just said, why can't these leg humping puppies get a life and quit being cookie cut clones of each other. Yaaay! I am individual and unique... just EXACTLY like that clique of OTHER individual and unique people that dress in the same way I do... but, at least a non-conforming conformist is not a conformist. Errr, that didn't come out right. At least I don't blindly follow some pathetic, artificial mandate on how to talk, dress and act... oh wait! Hmmm, at least I can be who I am without having to resort to sheepish mimicry to fit in (or in with the OUT crowd)... hmmm.... DAMN! it sounded great in my head.

  109. depends who they design or cater to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is said just matter of factly, not necessarily to what will or should happen.

    If the focus of the game is for dedicated fans who want to experience the 'universe' of Star Wars then I think personally it would be great. If however it is catered to fanboys that simply want to be a ph4t Sith, then it will suck more than you predict. There are many out there that would love to simply be an occasionally wandering shop keeper in some remote section of the galaxy or of a popular planet like Coruscant. Some may want to be involved in smuggling operations or just be part of the rebel/imperial troops for the action and adventure.

    Then there will be also a ton of people who want to live the life of luke skywalker or darth vader. You know the type. They join various online RPG's with names like Aragon, Stryyyder, Arthuur, etc. Perhaps there should be a loser shard for these. No that is not nice, as many of these are new to it all and just don't know yet. Some will always be like that however.

  110. lots of addictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I had my point in the past where games became to overpowering. I won't say it isn't possible in the future, however any game since that time I have been much much better. If I find I am spending too much time on it, then I just quit for awhile. However, I found that sometimes I don't even miss the game. Those that I do, and I think about the story and inside involvement... I consider a good game. To this date, there are very few I consider to have that and _NONE_ of them have been MMOG's. I actually think that in the event that an actual immersive, robust roleplaying game is created (massive multiplayer type) I will not be addicted even if I love it. Why? Because a game like that will be a great escape but without the 'almost there' crap of leveling, bullshit quests, etc then I will treat it like I treat a good book. BTW, an example of bullshit quests are those in which you defeat the legendary troll of cowdung which threatens the fishing village of Volladallalalala. Having been told this troll was the reason for lack of fish traded, thus causing the problem of raiders in the area or whatever... you kill the troll and guess what? NOTHING HAPPENS! The troll pops back later for some other schmuck.

    DAOC is not only an example of this crap, but instead of innovating they actually made this crap WORSE!

  111. Just do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  112. Good Points by Luminous · · Score: 2

    To tell the truth, I haven't completed the NWN module that came with the game. It didn't hold my interest. I started work right away in creating modules. I think that is the essence of what I like and why I didn't like EQ or DAoC. In both games I wanted the simple ability to be able to write a note and leave it for someone. Heaven forbid they give you the simple ability to create your own stories within the framework of their world without having to resort to out-of-game websites.

    I'll be playing/building NWN for a long time, especially since there is no extra charge applied to playing and Bioware keeps coming out with new modules to play.

    --
    This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
  113. Amen by Stalcair · · Score: 2

    I think that the first game that really is a framework that supports players' ability to create their own adventures within, will be a blockbuster. I dont just mean modules, although I love that concept. I refer to a very large game world where what you do matters as much as need be... if you are a murdering scumbag, then your rampage of death will cause either an outflux of NPC's and players (and trade, economy, etc) or will force people to bring in goons and gaurds to track you down. If the gameplay, rulesets and mechanics allow you to really be whoever you want to be then I think people will create a great virtual existence where you can do all the things you can't or won't do in RL. As it is now, designers are stuck in this mode where they see my statement of 'be anything you can be' and say, "Hey! he wants us to add more classes and extend level times." Just as NWN is (in theory at least) a platform for creating adventures with the toolsets, I wait for a game that is the equivelent platform for actual gaming and involvement.

    --

    I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.