Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GDC: 10 Reasons NOT to Make MMOGs

Posted by chrisd on from the he-tasks-me dept.

Warrior-GS writes "Gordon Walton, who helped create such games as Ultima Online and the Sims Online, is at the Game Developers Conference giving a seminar on "Ten Reasons You Don't Want to Run a Massively Multiplayer Online Game". GameSpy has been providing coverage of GDC, with several game previews and several conference reports. They also have a hands-on report of the Nokia N-Gage from four of their editors, and a somewhat unorthodox report of the Game Developer Choice Awards, where Metroid Prime was named Game of the Year. The convention continues through Saturday."

32 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. Metroid Prime by FortKnox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before naysayers come out through the woodwork, know that serious gamers that have played through have absolutely loved the game. Me, being a hardcore Metroid player on the NES loved all aspects of the game, and loved how they stayed true to the franchise (including the music) in all aspects, except one very minor one.

    And, yes, Metroid Prime alone is worth buying a 'cube for (hey, super mario melee makes for an excellent side game, too).

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Metroid Prime by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, Metroid Prime was a great game, and they did a great job turning it into an FPS.

      I was worried they'd ruin it, but it still felt like metroid, with all the exploring and powerups. The graphics and sound were incredible with lots of variety, and the gameplay was smooth and easy to master.

      It definately knocked Halo out of the 'best console FPS ever' position in my book.

      So far I've liked my GCN better than PS2 or Xbox, so far as quality of the games at least.

      Of course to say such is to start a goofy flamefest that noone wants to be involved in.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  2. EQ2 by goldspider · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Somehow I don't see Sony halting development of Everquest 2. They seem to have overcome all, if not most of those barriers and have created a pretty flexible, dynamic, enjoyable game.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  3. Electronic crack by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why should MMPORPGs be restricted? These things are perfect for dropping GPAs, especially for freshmen at high-pressure universities like Cal Tech and MIT where numerous freshmen who've never had an internet connection finallu get a chance to play "Quake" or "Everquest" at 1+GBPs or something ridiculous. I remember one of my friends at Vanderbilt got slapped with academic probation and complained that he had no time to get his work done in Engineering. Six-Eight hours a day of Counterstrike and Ultima Online will put a crimp in the ol' calendar. And it becomes like an electronic crack or alcohol for the users, especially if they're anti-social or unpopular to begin with. Trying to tell them they have a problem only leads to fights and arguments. Oh well, regulating these things is almost out of the question entirely but there should be careful consideration of how to deal with the "addicts" and how to best manage these systems.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
    1. Re:Electronic crack by argmanah · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They shouldn't be regulated for one very good reason.

      Personal responsibility!
      At one point, I might have agreed with you. Now, I think I have a slightly more grounded outlook on the issue.

      I used to play EQ... a lot, an unhealthy amount.

      At the high point in my addiction, I took a week off to fly out to L.A. for E3. I had never been addicted to anything in my life before, but I can tell you without a doubt I know what withdrawl feels like. I couldn't sleep well, I couldn't eat well, I was jittery and just desperately wanted to get back to the game. I was at E3, probably my favorite geek convention of all time, and I was miserable.

      Yeah yeah, I was pretty pathetic. Everyone has their moments of weakness. That was mine. But my point is, EQ is a drug. It's a drug where there are no warning labels, no program during high school to tell you the consequences of becoming addicted. It just looked like a game, no one knew at the time that playing it would slowly entice you into a downward spiral.

      The lack of education is the problem. You can bitch and moan that people should have personal responsibility all you want, but you can't blame them if they don't know. Nor can you blame people for wanting to put the word out on the street.

      Designing a game where you psychologically induce people to play 40+ hours a week is akin to producing cigarettes. In fact, I would argue it's even worse in the MMOG industry because the public isn't educated about the psychological impact.

      It's very easy for those of you who've never suffered from an addiction to sit on your high horse and say "Well, you should've just quit." You have no clue how much mental anguish one has to go through to make a break from something so addictive.

      Where am I today? I graduated college and I have a nice job at a software company. I did manage to fix my life, but "personal responsibility" is what got me out of the hole. Don't use it to blame how people got there in the first place.

      I'm not blaming Verant or Sony for my situation. Perhaps they didn't know any better either. But the important thing is, now that we DO know the effects of these kinds of games, the risks need to be made known, to the kids playing these games and their parents. If it takes government regulation to do that, perhaps it is needed.

      I'm a libertarian and a card carrying member of the ACLU. I hate the idea of legislating morality, but in this case, I see it more of a case of legislating corporate responsibility.

      God knows some people will take advantage of you anyway they can. Sometimes, unfortunately, the government does need to step in.
      --
      Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
    2. Re:Electronic crack by sweetooth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I used to play EQ... a lot, an unhealthy amount.

      And I played AC a lot. Quite an unhealthy amount also.

      Yeah yeah, I was pretty pathetic. Everyone has their moments of weakness. That was mine. But my point is, EQ is a drug. It's a drug where there are no warning labels, no program during high school to tell you the consequences of becoming addicted. It just looked like a game, no one knew at the time that playing it would slowly entice you into a downward spiral.

      Anything done in an unhealthy amount is bad. This is common knowledge. EQ is NOT a drug and neither is any game. Some people are susceptible to addiction. Some are alcoholics, others junkies, some can't control thier gambling and others can't step away from a game. These are common of people with this particular trait.

      The lack of education is the problem. You can bitch and moan that people should have personal responsibility all you want, but you can't blame them if they don't know. Nor can you blame people for wanting to put the word out on the street.

      You didn't know? People have been saying the SAME thing about MUDs for years. They said the same things about Ultima Oline. Again, doing anything to excess like playing EQ, is unhealthy. This is common knowledge.

      Designing a game where you psychologically induce people to play 40+ hours a week is akin to producing cigarettes. In fact, I would argue it's even worse in the MMOG industry because the public isn't educated about the psychological impact.

      The comparison doesn't hold a lot of water. There isn't a lot of public education about the troubles with gambling yet there are plenty of people that gamble responsibly and plenty of people that are addicted to gambling and can't control themselves.

      It's very easy for those of you who've never suffered from an addiction to sit on your high horse and say "Well, you should've just quit." You have no clue how much mental anguish one has to go through to make a break from something so addictive.

      Ah yes, the typical whining of the addict. You really should go read up on addiction and or get some couseling if you really feel this way. Addiction is a horrible thing. My father is an alcoholic, my step father is an alcoholic, my mother is classified as an enabler (or co-dependant). I've seen addiction and understand first hand some of it's consequences. My father didn't clean up his act, my step father did. I realize the difficulty, but the only way for it to happen is if the addicted person does something about it. Belive it or not that means JUST QUITTING! Maybe not without help, but that is what it boils down to.

      Where am I today? I graduated college and I have a nice job at a software company. I did manage to fix my life, but "personal responsibility" is what got me out of the hole. Don't use it to blame how people got there in the first place.

      Wait?!?! You are making my point for me. Personal responsibilty got you out of your hole. So, once you actually _started_ taking some personal responsibility you were able to retake control of your life. Wow, now if only more people would do the same.

      I'm not blaming Verant or Sony for my situation. Perhaps they didn't know any better either. But the important thing is, now that we DO know the effects of these kinds of games, the risks need to be made known, to the kids playing these games and their parents. If it takes government regulation to do that, perhaps it is needed.

      Verant and Sony are in the business of making money. The fact that you have a problem with addiction is not their problem (no really!), nor is it their fault. They provide a service that you were not forced to play. The same goes for an alcoholic. or drug addicts. You may have become phsycologically addicted to the game, but it is not Sonys or Verants responsiblity to solve that problem for you. The game isn't the problem, the behavior is. The government doesn't need to regulate gaming, players need to exhibit self control. Parents need to be involved in the lifes of thier children and set reasonable limits on how much time they play games like this. Government regulation is not the answer to all the worlds problems.

      I'm a libertarian and a card carrying member of the ACLU. I hate the idea of legislating morality, but in this case, I see it more of a case of legislating corporate responsibility.

      Once again, this corporations didn't force you to purchase or play the game. The game in and of itself isn't addicting. You exhibited an unhealthy behavior, and are probably predisposed to addiction, that isn't the corporations fault. Nor should they have to take responsibility for thier customers behaviors. ie: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

      God knows some people will take advantage of you anyway they can. Sometimes, unfortunately, the government does need to step in.

      You weren't taken advantage of. Though you may feel that way. I strongly recommend speaking to someone that specializes in addiction therapy.

      Here is a small text from a wired interview done a while back that I like to use in these discussions about game addiction.

      MIT's Games-To-Teach project studies how gaming technology can be incorporated into education.

      The project's research manager, Kurt Squire, has found that games sharpen players' critical thinking, improve their social skills and increase their empathy (by choosing the opposite sex for their character's gender).

      "The notion that games are powerful enough to ruin someone's life is just ridiculous," said Squire. "The main concern people have is that technology is overpowering people and making them helpless. That's happened with every new medium that has come along -- even books were once regarded with suspicion."

      In the final analysis, almost anything can be called an addiction if it routinely interrupts life's basic components, including school, work and relationships, he said. The important thing is balance. So align your chakras -- and remember, it's just a game.

    3. Re:Electronic crack by Konowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has nothing to do with the game?

      Check it Out.

      "What the scientists believe they found through this rather laborious process was that dopamine production in the brain doubles during video game play."

      You know, there IS a reason people get addicted to these games, and it IS physical. We crave certain chemicals, ingested or created internally.

  4. credit cards are hard to get from customers? by garcia · · Score: 1, Interesting

    7: Getting a Credit Card from a Customer is Hard

    Never mind, for example, the chunk of the gaming audience that's lost entirely because they don't have access to a credit card. People who have a credit card are wary to give it up. Right now, Walton theorizes, the model works in the United States because it's based off of a packaged goods model - people have already invested $40-50 to buy the box and take it home, so they're more willing to justify that expense by subscribing. "We need other ways to bill people that's more convenient," he explained. (For example, rolling up your MMOG fees into a phone bill, something that's done in places like Korea.)

    Oh bullshit. #1, it's not hard to get someone's credit card, they consider that "rolled in". #2, I don't want ANYTHING except my phone charges (services included such as LD and CallerID) in my phone bill. I want a seperate bill for everything. I want to know exactly who to contact for my billing bitches. EVERYONE fucks up billing.

    Credit cards are GREAT for fucked up billing. I was getting charged twice a month for something, I told the Credit Card company to deal w/it. It's their responsibility not mine.

    these multiplayer games are cropping up all over the place b/c companies realize that people today are fucking stupid and addicts. They see the incredible success of games such as Sims and EQ and they want to cash in.

    Dealing w/customers is fucking outsourced to stupid companies like Convergys who have shitty employees w/little or no training (yeah I worked there while attending school).

    -1 Troll on this guy's article.

  5. Two things: by Wind_Walker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First off, that guy looks like the Heaven's Gate cult leader from a few years ago. The bald head really does it for me.

    Secondly, and more seriously, he brings up valid points. I just started playing Asheron's Call 2 last month as part of a psychology experiment run by the University of Michigan. I found that the lower level game was very intense and packed with content, but as I gained levels over the course of a month, the content tapered off and turned into merely hack-and-slash. This makes sense, because the game is only a few months old and should thus have more content for low levels than high.

    Unfortunately, high levels are relatively easy to attain. I played for 1 month, a few hours a night, and I'm currently at level 32, right where the content stops. But there are people who were level 50 only 3 weeks after the game was launched. What do they do now? They sit around, or create alternate characters until the 50 level cap is released.

    1. Re:Two things: by sweetooth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunatly you are seeing a problem with that particular game. I played the first Asherons Call for close to three years. The game started out with tons of low and mid level content. Then as the game got older and the majority of the populace started to gain higher levels there seemed to be nothing but high level content. A few months before I stopped playing the game for good they finally started adding low level content again. Unfortunatly you could get to the highest levels in no time at all so many people never saw the low level content that was added without starting new characters. The content issue is probably the hardest one.

  6. They are successful by Khalidz0r · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't see most of the points valid since many of such games ARE successful.

    As of being hard to impelement, or lots being around, that's where challenge comes, and the best only survives.

    As of requiring you to pay, if someone wants to play the game they will find someway to "pay", and there are some of these games that are free online (at least for now!).

    Putting secrets in the game might not be very useful, but that applies for both single and multiplayer games, if someone wants to find it, they will, and the fact that the game is played ONLINE does not have anything to do with its SECRETS being posted online, these are two irrelated things.

    We need to be real people, if it wasn't successufl, more companies wouldn't have went for it.

    Khalid

    --
    "What you 'seek' is what you get!"
  7. Next up: BF1942 clones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You hear that sound? Every massively multiplayer game maker is suddenly trying to switch business plans to moderately-multiplayer, cloning Battlefield 1942. BF1942 is hugely popular, so it "makes sense" to do something like that.

    Of course, like lemmings, there'll be a few dozen BF1942 clones, and most will die due to too much competition.

    Game makers: go AWAY from what's suddenly popular.

  8. Interesting points... by Kr3m3Puff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    His points are quite interesting, but the question I have is that if no one gets into the arena (and obviously 100 is a lot) then who will supply the demand? He has obviously figured out what challenges there are, but you have to be able to overcome them, because there is such a huge demand for interactive group fantasy. People want to escape.

    What about a decentralized approach. A grid based or peer to peer for persistant worlds. You might have to increase the bandwith to double check nodes and the like to prevent hacking, but some of the problems (DOS, investment in infrastructure) would go away.

    In the world we live in we can only see clearly and understand the world that is near by, that doesn't mean we have to be connected to a server that is one giant persistant world. There could be areas of the world hosted on several region peers. The client would be required to take on some function of the world and it could be totally decentralized.

    Any thoughts comments?

    --
    D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
  9. Re:And his most compelling reason... by $$$$$exyGal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I won't be surprised if some company attempts to "unify" all the MMOG's in the near future. Right now, many people are trying to unify AIM, ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, etc., but what about the MMOG's? This is obviously quite different, but I'm sure someone will start pitching this soon.

    --
    Very popular slashdot journal for adul
  10. Earth and Beyond by DenOfEarth · · Score: 3, Interesting
    so I got the five day demo disc, and rebooted into XP to try it out. I was immediately impressed. Cool science-fiction worlds, great graphics, pretty standard everquest-style gameplay. Then, after a bit of time, I realized exactly why this game wasn't worth my money.

    The world is too static. I can imagine a space game like this one that allows people to travel all over the place, trying to find new things. Granted, it's impossible to allow an infinite amount of places to explore and stuff, but they simply have to start rotating servers, starting the exploration from zero again every once in a while...not let the game get stagnant as it seems to be now.

    This follows exactly from what this guy says. To make a game world that's as dynamic and as exciting as I would want would require a huge amount of support, something a lot of people would like to see, but not something that a lot of people would like to pay for.

    I guess that those ten reasons to not make an MMOG are simply those, but the more people that waste their time and money trying to make it better, eventually will bring along, not to use a silly pop-culture reference, 'the one' that brings it all together. Then we'll be rocking as everyone else will have to copy that one to make success for themselves.

    well, here's hoping that afer the earth and beyond team moves they can start to juice up the sci-fi world they have created in such a way that they really impress people. I've got my fingers crossed.

    1. Re:Earth and Beyond by Maul · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah... this is what I meant by my last sentence...

      EVERYONE wants to be able to kill enemy generals and get all the ph4t l3wt. People want dynamic worlds, but they also want a world in which everyone can be the hero.

      Which leads to another problem of MMORPGs... EVERYONE in the world, with the exception of NPC Shopkeepers, is an adventurer. Walk around EQ and you'll notice that there are no "commoners."

      When you play a D&D game with a similar "kill the orcs" plot, the members of your party are likely to be the only adventurers in town. Everyone else is a merchant, farmer, etc. and would get mowed down the moment they step into the orc lair. You are the ones who have to do it. The end experience is more rewarding for the players, and you don't really have to worry about other players, because there are none.

      --

      "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  11. To explain by Yokaze · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is not a summary, but a list of his item-titles and misses the purpose and meaning of the article.

    Well, all those points are true.
    It is like the list of 10 Reasons not to Develop a Newsreader, or How To Optimise: "Don't do it".
    This list doesn't mean that one shouldn't do it. But probably you shouldn't do it. At least in the majority of the cases.

    All those important issues are probably most often ignored or underestimated.
    It is a good advice at his fellow developers to keep this list in mind, before they start on their (probable) odyssee.

    And my opinion in point ten, he makes already clear that such a reminder is necessary.

    Over 100 persistent-state worlds are in development, many by small independent shops with limited resources

    --
    "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
  12. A big reason left out... by Tofino · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A huge reason for not making a MMORPG, especially on a shoestring, is that your game at release cannot possibly hope to compete with games that have been balancing and adding content for a year, or three, or more.

    A good example of this is Asheron's Call 2 vs. the original Asheron's Call. AC2 is a beautiful game that you can run through and just appreciate, while AC1's graphics are merely functional. AC2 has brand spanking new crafting and town building systems, while AC1 has the same old ones. AC2 offers individualized dungeons so groups can go hunting and questing without running into packed "camped" dungeons, and AC1 does not.

    Which game has more subscribers and active players? AC1, by a wide margin, despite never having received anything in the way of advertising from Microsoft (as opposed to AC2 which was widely and aggressively marketed). AC1 simply has more content -- more stuff to do. It may not be eye candy like AC2, but the eye candy effect wears off after a week or two anyway. To catch up to AC1's three years of monthly (free) expansions, AC2 would have to -- well, be out three years. Or hire a MUCH larger content team (the AC2 content team is basically the old AC1 content team).

    EQ2 will face the same problem compared to EQ1. People are going to buy EQ2, go "ooh, ahh", log in, appreciate New Freeport's amenities, walk outside and fight a couple of rats, and go back to their level 65 guys in EQ. Why would they want to level up on rats again in a game with 1/10 the content of EQ?

    Games without the brand recognition of AC and EQ have it even worse off. Dark Age of Camelot somewhat sidestepped this phenomenon because they were the first "next generation" MMORPG out of the gate (Anarchy Online was too buggy at release, so doesn't count ;)), and got the disgruntled AC/EQ/UO players. The newer games, such as Shadowbane, have a LOT to live up to. Current MMORPG players will compare everything to their current game, and if the new game doesn't REALLY shine, they have no reason to leave. They have too much time invested in their characters. And The Sims Online's tepid sales show that the market isn't ready to expand much yet -- you're dealing with the same bundle of players that you have to lure away from their current addiction.

  13. BBSs by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I read the article, the first I thinked that this guy should not have been running a BBS in the old days. Most of this points could be correlated to an (hypotetical? there was ever one published?) list of 10 reasons you don't want to run a commercial BBS (specially if you programmed it, as myself). Of course, this list is more actual and have problems that are not fully related to the BBS ones, but anyway, gived me some sort of deja-vu.

  14. #11 by cyrax777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People like me refuse to pay to play. We already bought your damn software now just let me play the damn game. Yeah I know the monthly fees go towards the servers and stuff but I personly refuse to pay to play software i already payed for! and for the record I dont play any MMPORPG's

  15. Re:One of the reasons: by unicron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everquest has got that shit down to a science. It took them 3-4 years, but they've done. Here's how:

    *Get 30 bullet-proof servers to run the games on.
    *Make leveling such a baffling hard ordeal that it will take even the most dedicated player(barring PLing) years to get to the max level.
    *Release expansions that take uber guilds a year to beat.

    In other words, you make the end game so difficult to reach that that portion of content will always be just beyond your grasp. With that, people will pay and play forever.

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  16. Interesting comment about shorter gameplay. by TheKodiak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's interesting that he mentions shorter gameplay - one of the online games I've enjoyed the most is (Although not an online RPG) Magic: The Gathering online. I really like it because I can sit down, log on, play a game, and log back out - all in the space of 10 minutes. There's no "I need to go get something to drink, let me wait for a 30 second logout animation, a 20 second 'connecting to character server' screen, and then another 20 second login animation when I get back," and there's no "I want to play, but it's going to take me 10 minutes to get my character ready to play, and another 5 minutes to run to the place I want to hunt (or another 10 minutes to try to find a ride there) and then there's really no point if I don't play for at least 20 minutes."

    --
    -=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
  17. Re:MMOCR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A bunch of people I knew were raving about these games (the furniture delivery guy said "Everquest is awesome! It is so addictive, I have got into major fights with my girlfriend over it..."), and so I decided to try them out.

    I tried Everquest and then Dark Age of Camelot. The problem was that I wasn't willing to put in the 3-4 hours a night playing them. Thus, it became hard to get to know people since I wasn't a consistent member of the community. In addition, I didn't advance that far that fast, and didn't know the ins and outs of the games like other players. Eventually I decided to just drop out since I wasn't enjoying it enough and paying 13 bucks a month wasn't worth it.

    For the most part, these games are built and geared towards the obsessive players. Those willing to pay the recurring charges. They are geared to those people willing to spend hours on end leveling their character, getting new items, and whatnot. The game is all about the 'when-I-get-to-the-next-level', or 'when-I-get-my-next-power' addiction so that the gamers keep interested.

    But its precisely that kind of game that turns me off. I enjoy playing video games a couple hours a week, but in a casual way. A persistent world game is definately not for me. However I do like massive video game worlds that I can explore and immerse myself in (for short periods of time).

    The point is that I think very quickly the obsessive gamer well is going to dry up, as those people are most likely to get laid off in these harsh economic times, or have their gaming time cut back dramatically by increased workload as others in their company do get laid off.

  18. I REALLY hope developers take this to heart by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I really hope developers take what he has to say to heart. As an EQ player and a moderator of a fairly large Everquest and MMoRPG board, I understand many of these issues. Many game companies look at Everquest, see enormious revenue and think it'd be a great idea.

    In truth, sony pours TONS of money into Everquest. Their bandwidth alone is huge. Add onto that that they have a full development team for dealing with the implimented game, (the live team: fixes bugs, etc), and then another whole development team that builds expansions and such to add content. They are contuiously changing the core code of the game, (such to add features not implimented in the original game such as 2 new user interfaces since the game was released).

    They have 50ish servers compromising, (from what I understand), of roughly 30 computers per server, which means for every patch they are possibly updating around 1500. (Though it should be noted that I doubt they patch every computer every patch.) Also, these servers are located in both the United States and in Europe. And they are expected to have minor patches done in 2 hours, major patches, (for things such as expansions), done in 8. And no loss of any amount of data, (such as what character has which items), is tollerated in any way. Because of this their network administration must be near flawless.

    Now lets look at what we have down the pipe. We have games that are being thrown together by people who come from single player games instead of MUDs and D&D. We have people who design games with out the backing of the enormious companies it takes to supply the capital required for a 4 to 5 year development cycle, implimentation of the enormious amount of hardware, the marketting, and the payroll for the support staff. We have people who don't realize that they must either be perfect at what they do, (see blizzard), or tap a previously untapped nitch, (Star Wars Galaxies) of MMoG potential. It would be wise that they make sure that the nitch exists and that the model for advancement in the game actually holds water first though (The Sims: Online).

    In the end, we will have many companies that put 2/3rds of the work and money into making the games all competing with each other for a very small populace of people who are not already commited to as many games as they can afford time wise and monitarily. Most of them will die out, just like the dot-com bust.

    But many games will pervail. Star Wars Galaxies will likely be as big, if not bigger than Everquest. Worlds of Warcraft shows amazing promise. Horizons seems to be a crowd favorite. And whatever product is being build by Sigil will be one of the leading contenders. (For those who don't know, the company is run by the people who made the decisions about Everquests form and is funded by microsoft. They also have recruited alot of the senior staff that had previously worked for the Everquest team.)

    But with the majority of the market for Online RPGs and D&D type worlds already accounted for through Everquest, (or soon to be picked up by the above mentioned games), Developers better have a spot for their game to fit and they better do a DAMN good job of designing it, populating it, and supporting it if they plan on recouping their losses.

    --
    I do security
  19. Let the users create by Spazmania · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The amount of content required is IMMENSE.

    Duh. That's why you don't try to build it yourself. Make a game in which the players build the world. And then encourage them to do so. I suppose this ties in with:

    Everything You Know about Single-Player Games is Wrong

    That's right Dave. One of the "wrong" things is the premise that the game creator creates the world. That doesn't work! The game creator has to create the rules of the universe and start the world. Then, if he expects to not be swamped, he has to sit back and let the players take it from there.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  20. I'll tell you why they suck... by Mullen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I never have been into MMO (Massive Multi-Player Onlines) and I'll tell you why:

    1) Recycled games themes; You get either Dungeon and Dragons or Future Space SciFi. No one is really breaking out of the box on this. Of the 100 games on the market, they fall into these two catagories.
    2) Too restrictive, Narrow play. Stop making the game so static. Just make a world that has rules and let the players do the rest. Don't make it so you have to do missions to advance.
    If players want to be in a clan that raids other clans, then let it be. You can make protection zones (No fighting in the zones), but once out of the zone, go at it. For exmaple, let players set the price of items by supply and demand.

    I am still waiting for a Fallout (Post apocalyptic) style MMOG where I can be evil or nice or anything in between. Just create the world and let the players do the rest.

    --
    Linux O Muerte!
  21. Re:MMOCR by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've contemplated this idea for a long time (I've run a mud for several years now).
    With a good set of rules, I think its possible:
    1.) Remove levels. Everything is based on attributes and skills.
    2.) Put in aging (including death date from old age, character is gone forever).
    3.) Allow players, on creation, to start from either a young age, middle age, or old age.
    You're maniac 50+hours a week players will go for the young age, and can build up better skills when they reach a middle age than any player that starts at middle age. You're 'casual' players start at an older age, which includes a ton of skills, have fun, but don't have to worry about really working on skill development or getting thrashed by the maniac players.
    And if maniacs stay maniacs, they'll eventually die.

    Of course, this won't work well with games that require tons of monthly fees, because your maniacs give you your steady income, but its a great idea for free games like MUDs, etc...

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  22. Maximum Charisma's Spectacular Online Game failure by lanner · · Score: 4, Interesting


    This guy has got this issue right on.

    I worked for a computer gaming software development company called Maximum Charisma Studios in 2001-2002. I was the systems and network engineer, doing all of the production and corporate infrastructure -- desktops, servers, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, WAN and LAN networking.

    Maximum Charisma actually produced their first software title called Fighting Legends to store shelves, which was a huge accomplishment considering that we were independent. We had Sony manufacture the CDs and a few other things, but we handled distribution. We outsourced some customer service agents for the anticipated needs of customers, but that was about it. The company consisted of about 30 people at it's height.

    Fighting Legends was supposed to be a Multiplayer Online Real Time Strategy (MMORTS) game. It required a network connection that I metered out to be an average of something like 25Kbps bursting to 80Kbps per user for the persistent connection. Latency was a big issue, with the edge of enjoyment being about 250ms.

    There was trouble with Fighting Legends. The big mistake was design. The game was designed poorly because the company was inexperienced. It lacked story, it lacked refinement of play, and it lacked fun. The game was not fun, so nobody played it. I know the actual statistics of how many players we had, how many at one time, etcetera, but I am not going to quote them. Instead I will just say that we didn't have enough.

    The overhead to keep the company going without the subscription cost meeting the break even point is what killed the company. We could have gotten more money, we could have really cut down on spending, we could have probably made it for the second title if it was not for the overhead costs of Fighting Legends. It was the data center costs that were the killer -- $900 per month per cabinet, and about $5K+ per month for power data and other service costs.

    Maximum Charisma took about 2.5 years of development time. The product was on the shelf on November 1st of 2001. The company called it quits on January 29th 2002, even though the servers stayed up for almost two months after.

    Here are is a picture from Maximum Charisma Studios of our data cabinets. This is off of a 1.5Mbps VDSL line, so be wary. And don't even tell me about cable management. We got those 65 some odd servers out of box, software loaded, and in the rack within 72 hours. It was a break neck operation. As for the hardware costs of all of this equipment that you see, it was something like $450K -- I still have the receipts to prove it.
    http://www.Opendreams.net/jesse/images/Maximu m_Cha risma_Studios/20011030_MaxCha/P1010045.JPG

    Here is the Maximum Charisma death notice;
    http://pc.ign.com/articles/354/354578p1.h tml

  23. Re:To summarize by ggwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    mrnick posted the list of reasons given in the article. I feel these are all things an open source model would address well:

    10: Too Many are Being Built ...eventually code and experts will leak out into the open source sector. Once the tons of people required to code these monsters realize they could get paid to write one that will fail or donate a few spare hours to one that will last the ages, enough may donate some time to make an open source one viable.
    9: It Requires a Mastery of Too Many Disciplines ...but with open source development an artist can say "gee the art sucks...I'll redraw it" and an programmer can say "gee the AI sucks...I'll rewrite it"
    8: A Huge Team is Required ...can't get bigger than the whole user base
    7: Getting a Credit Card from a Customer is Hard ...so you give it away for free or if you don't, just go through a service like PayPal or something. I would pay for an open source MMORPG because I can't possibly host the whole thing myself - but my friends and I could get together and host it (see below).
    6: The Online Industry is Counter-Intuitive to Packaged-Goods Company Management ...so you don't use a Packaged-Goods company
    5: Everything You Know about Single-Player Games is Wrong ...thus don't use those people to write it. Sure the current MMORPG's have serious problems - problems they likely won't worry about working out. But in an open source context, many more ideas can be tried and we can see what survives.
    4: The Internet Sucks as a Commercial Delivery Platform ...thus don't deliver it as a commercial good. Let 1000 people host games and the strongest will survive.
    3: Customer Service is Hard ...so have no CS. The example given is players loosing items. If it pisses you off that you are loosing items, rewrite the code so you *don't* loose items. If it pisses you off that you can't find a monster, or an item, look at the code and find out how the system works. Should that system be changed?
    2: There are Lots of Legal Issues ...which would be relieved if we didn't *pay* for a service
    1: They Cost Too Much money to Build and Launch! ...so distribute the costs over many, many people: let me host one "zone" on a spare Linux box in the corner and my friend Dave will host one zone on his spare box and so on. Sure, we will not be able to have 500 people in one zone at one time, but is that a bad thing?

    --
    a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
  24. Animal Crossing by mcc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just a thought: i rented Animal Crossing from blockbuster a couple of days ago, and it really does a good job of fitting what you describe.

    The game is basically The Sims, except from the perspective of a Sim rather than the perspective of God. The game takes place in realtime-- it works off the Gamecube's internal clock-- and even if you aren't there, stuff happens and changes in the town.

    The reason the game is interesting is that after the 30-40 minute tutorialish session of setting up a new character, it is basically designed such to make you want to play it for about ten minutes every day-- however, after about ten minutes, there really won't be much to do. You basically sign on to see if anything changed in the town, see if you got any mail, check with your neighbors and see what's up, *maybe* do something to get some money to help toward eventually paying your mortgage and see what's new in the store. And then there really isn't much else to do, usually, unless you want to just sit around and fish. This is brilliant becuase it keeps you from getting sick of it. And, of course, every few days something will actually be *happening*, or every so often you'll decide to plant some trees, and you'll be playing for a couple hours maybe. But you generally won't overdose on it: you can't sit through and experience the entire game in one solid weeklong gaming session. The game *forces* you to take it in small bites, yet ensures there is something special worth signing on for every single day-- yet doesn't *penalize* you if you just stop playing for a month.

    This is an example the MMORPG world would do well to follow. As you note, a system like this would lead to some community "issues", but it would make content creation, system maintenence, etc, an order of magnitude easier.

    Interestingly, shigeru miyamotu is on record as saying that Animal Crossing 2 will have "network support". I assume this means internet support. As of now, it's possible to "take the train" to a friend's town with your character if you either borrow their memory card with their saved town on it, "take the boat" to an "island" if you plug in a GBA with the GBA version of animal crossing saved on it. I'm very curious how they'd implement internet features.. it could wind up being like a kind of p2p MMORPG.

    (Note to everyone: make sure if you rent this game, you either have a spare memory card or rent it from somewhere that includes with the rental the memory card that came with the game. An animal crossing savefile takes up a full 57-block memory card.)

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
  25. Exactly (rambling follows) by mcc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem with MMORPGs is that they very very closely resemble paper and pen RPGs, but cover exactly one end of the traditional roles within that game: the player. There is no place for a GM in everquest.

    This is a problem that you rarely saw with, say, MUDs, because most MUDs you had an average of maybe 30 people on at once, and if you wanted to make your own MUD, or MUSH, or MUCK, why then, you just had to get some hardware that could handle 30 heavy text connections at once, and type descriptions of an intricate world. You could easily play the GM if you wanted to, long as you owned hardware. And then with MUSHes, even a non-administrator player could play GM as long as they could learn a simplified version of Forth.

    I think "There" has the best idea, at this point: they have an open-ended world with the ability to be extended by users, programatically. People can recreate the world in any way they want, and interact with it however they want, even in ways that the people who made the game never foresaw. The community can build itself and entertain itself without the company having to build 3d models for everything that happens. And, of course, it empowers the user.

    People want to be able to tell their own stories, there are a *lot* of people with the technical and creative expertise to come up with perfectly entertaining content on their own (as long as someone gives them some stock art to work from..) and i think users are a lot happier with the traditional MUD two-admins-and-28-players ratio than the Everquest "log a complaint and we'll schedule you with an admin appointment in two days time, after the other 10,000 requests are dealt with" ratio.

    What i think is going to be the killer app as far as MMORPGs go is when someone figures out how to make it is as easy to make an everquest-style "graphical MUD" as it is to set up a Diku MUD, and then somehow links together all the player-created worlds so that you can let characters drift between them. The only problem i see with this system is accountability-- if you can transfer characters between worlds, what's to stop someone from creating a "everyone immediately levels to 99" world? Most likely, some kind of system would have to be implemented whereby each world would just have policies as to what they will and won't allow, similar once again to traditional pen and paper RPGs-- like, you try to bring in your 50th level Godlike Jedi Master into a star wars game around here, and everyone will go "Um, no, here's a piece of paper. Everyone else in the game at the moment is at *about* level 10, dumb your stats down to level 10 or so and give us a backstory for a character of that experience."

    Of course, the problem there is that then you start going less toward a persistent multiverse and more just toward a series of played-online pen and paper RPGs with some kind of associated community.. at which point you might have just as much fun with an *actual* play-by-email pen and paper rpg, or just finding some kind of database of active MUSHes. So i'm not sure how this would work out. But it's definitely something I think is worth experimenting with.

    Also, i'm not quite sure how Yiffing would be implemented within such a system.

    Any thoughts?

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
  26. Re:Ode of the Terminally Uninformed by Cam+Wheeler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "9: It Requires a Mastery of Too Many Disciplines
    Oooh, I thought that was half the fun. It's like saying "the tech tree is just too darned big!" in MoO3"

    I have to wonder if you actually read the article since it's very clear that he is not talking about the mastery of disciplines by players of the game, rather, the actual game creators.

    I don't agree with everything this guy says by any means, but you sound pretty ill informed yourself and that lowers the credibility of your other points.