Slashdot Mirror


Rubies of Eventide MMO Shutting Down?

Bruha writes "Over at Rubies of Eventide Warcry it has been announced that the fantasy-based PC MMO Rubies of Eventide will be shutting down operations in December unless they can find some way to pay the bills. The owner of the company sent out an announcement where he said those paid up to that point will be receiving refunds and pointed out that they just did not have enough players anymore to continue: 'Our customer base continues to decline; as of yesterday we had only 806 paying customers (we lost another 41 over the weekend).'" Are there just too many MMOs out there, thus spreading players too thin, or are these problems down to the state of this particular game?

60 comments

  1. Ouch by phlyingpenguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That kind of sucks... I played that MMO for awhile and liked it. It was a bit lacking on excitement I think, but overall a solid and engrossing game. Having a free download really helped it's image in my mind as well.

    It was kind of sparse on players after the newbie's area. I agree that MMOGs are getting spread thin as I've basically been playing a new game every month looking for a good online home which I haven't discovered yet. There are a lot of options. Every time I've switched I've found that the grass is always greener on the other side.

  2. It means there are at least enough games. by jefft · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Are there just too many MMOs out there, thus spreading players too thin, or are these problems down to the state of this particular game?

    This is not necessarily a sign of too many games. If no MMO games ever closed, that would be a sure sign that there weren't enough of them.

    1. Re:It means there are at least enough games. by Draigon · · Score: 1

      Doh, that's sad news :(

      "Are there just too many MMOs out there, thus spreading players too thin, or are these problems down to the state of this particular game?"

      I think it's more of a sign that RoE had their scope set too high. A MMOG doesn't have to have millions of players to stay afloat (afterall M59 was successful for years and their top was roughly ~15,000 or ~20,000?). If M59 was designed to accomodate 20 players or 20 million players it probably would have failed from the start, but through alpha/beta they determined a good population estimate to accomodate for.

      "If no MMO games ever closed, that would be a sure sign that there weren't enough of them."

      Possibly. One thing to keep in mind is that MMO's are still somewhat niche (for America at least) and on top of that gaming in general doesn't reach as large of an audience as it could. If more games were marketed for non-gamers or non-MMOGers there's a good chance we could have thousands of MMOGs without spreading people too thin.

      Just my humble opinion.

      --
      -Rabbit
  3. ummm... by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Has anyone even heard of this thing?

    There really aren't that many Fantasy mmorpg's out there. Everquest, Dark Ages of Camelot, The Realm, Asheron's Call, and that pretty much covers it.

    4 Games hardly covers "just too many".

    1. Re:ummm... by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1

      Actually I see the occasional ad placement for it on Gamespy, and quite often it's on the rotation at PvP

    2. Re:ummm... by jwilloug · · Score: 1

      Ultima Online, Shadowbane, AC2, Final Fantasy XI, and at least a half dozen other major names I'm forgetting, and who knows how many independant works like Rubies.

      This one died from poor word of mouth, as far as I'm concerned. The only postive reviews I saw were from places RoE had bought advertising from, the current and ex-EverQuest players I hang out with who tried were all unfailingly negative.

    3. Re:ummm... by Pedro+Picasso · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is quite a glut. I say the more the merrier!

      List of MMOGs

    4. Re:ummm... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      maybe I should clarify, just my opinion, but it hardly qualifies as MM if there are less than 100,000 players. Otherwise it's just morpg ;)

    5. Re:ummm... by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      Then according to your opinion, Asheron's Call, AC2, Planetside, the Sims Online, Eve Online, Everquest: OA and others aren't MMORPGs. I think the current subscriber base is hardly as significant as the intent.
      (Source: Sir Bruce's Subscription page)

    6. Re:ummm... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Gee. My definition of "Massively Multiplayer" is any game big enough that you can't comfortably fit everyone into a single adventuring party.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    7. Re:ummm... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      ok again, I'd call Asheron's anything made by microsoft to qualify as ONE game, same with Everquest anything you want to call it. So you lump those subscriber bases together. The rest of them yes. The sims online may be multiplayer but it's not exactly a role playing game, therefore it can't be a massively muliplayer roleplaying game regardless of the subscriber base.

      You believe it's more important that the games desigers wanted to have a massive subscriber base than whether or not the game actually does have a massive subscriber base in determining if the game is massively multiplayer or merely multiplayer?

      Just the base everquest has a subscriber base of aprox 450,000 according to the page you referenced. THAT is massively multiplayer, as in there are a massive number of players in a multiplayer environment. It's a roleplaying game, so now it qualifies as a MMORPG (massively multiplayer role playing game).

      Massively multiplayer and obviously something affected by whether or not there are a massive number of players!!!

    8. Re:ummm... by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      Except I disagree. There are a massive number of quake players, it is not a MMOG. It is the intent and design of the game which determines whether it should be categorized as MM, not the actual results, otherwise the terminology is useless for defining a genre. When one takes a finished product to a publisher, one wouldn't say 'well, its a multiplayer online rpg. We hope one day it'll be massively multiplayer.' The distinction of massively vs non massively indicates the scalability of the game, it's capability of handling more than 8 or 16 or 64 users in a single setting.
      If you were to judge by current subscriber base, the genre of a game could change based on transient factors. Certainly you can see this is not a useful thing when trying to classify a game?

    9. Re:ummm... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      you right, RPG is a genre. MMORPG is an rpg which both has a massive number of players and is multiplayer. Quake has alot of players but isn't MMOG because they are spread across hundreds of servers and therefore there are not a massive number of players to interact with. Otherwise it would be an MMOG regardless of the games creators intent.

      I can scribble on a piece of paper and intend it to be a drawing of a horse. It's still not a drawing of a horse unless someone can recognize it as such.

      The labels for genre haven't change. There is no new MMORPG label that can be safely tacked on by publishers before the fact, they have the same one they always did, RPG or even ORPG. MM comes later when a number of people decide to start calling it that.

    10. Re:ummm... by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      Everquest players are spread across hundreds of servers. A typical server on Everquest has players. Is that still massive? It's less than 100k players in a single environment...

      If at some particular time of the day, nobody happens to be logged in to any Everquest server, or perhaps only 30 people are, is the game therefore not at that moment considered a MMORPG? Woops, nobody logged in right now, we're downgraded to just an RPG.

      Rubies of Eventide was designed and implemented with the intent of having a large number of simultaneous, interacting players. The vagaries of marketing and business have led to their goal number of players per 'server' not being attained. I don't feel that this in any way causes them to cease to be the type of game they intended to be, a MMORPG.

      Stating "Oh, they never had a lot of customers, they aren't a MMORPG" in my opinion has little communication value. If someone asked you "What genre of game is Rubies of Eventide?" would you seriously go and count the subscriber base before answering? I do not believe the majority of people asked that question would hesitate, given a brief description of the game, to answer MMORPG. So perhaps you need to inspect your definitions?

      The labels for genre haven't change. There is no new MMORPG label that can be safely tacked on by publishers before the fact, they have the same one they always did, RPG or even ORPG. MM comes later when a number of people decide to start calling it that.

      Simply looking at the term as used by publishers, the media and development companies will show this to be untrue. Games are labeled MM before they're even in beta. Gamespy lists MMOG as a distinct genre, and in its listing of games which fall under this genre has many games (City of Heroes and Dragon Empires) which are as of yet unpublished, so certainly they don't have over 100k subscribers... MMOG is a buzzword, publishers and the like don't hesitate to apply it when it'll benefit them. While you might not consider it to apply to games less than an order of magnitude of the number of players on a typical quake server. This is massive? A typical conceptual 'server' on everquest has only a few thousand concurrent with less than 100k subscribers, most everyone else does.

    11. Re:ummm... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      ok lets try this again, THE GENRE OF A MMORPG IS RPG, RPG IS THE GENRE OF THEM ALL. If a game of the RPG genre is online, you could abbreviate it by saying ORPG, but the genre is STILL just rpg. The same for MM. Everquest does not have hundreds of servers, it has more to the tune of about 15-20ish, I could log in an count them but I'm too lazy. The majority of the players group on about 10 of those. The average everquest server has between 10-50k players at any given time.

      The genre of Everquest is RPG, not MMORPG because that is an abbreviated way of saying it's an online game with a massive amount of players (and yes massive is a relative term with a different meaning based on who you ask, that again is beside the point) of the genre RPG.

      Everquest has over half a million subscribers, not less than 100k. Get your facts straight. Niether gamespy nor game publishers decide what qualifies as a MMOG, therefore the references you listed are not any more authoritive than your or my post. It's game PLAYERS who get to decide what these terms mean.

    12. Re:ummm... by Sulihin · · Score: 1

      Well, let's be consistant here. Who decides what the definition of a genre and what genres exist? Unlike you, I certainly consider genres to be defined by the artist and media, not by the players. Or if you prefer, the publishers and the media reflect the consensus of the players as to determining what genres exist and what defines them. I could say that Everquest is a RTS, that doesn't make it any more true. Also, just because Everquest is in the RPG genre doesn't mean that it cannot also be in the MMOG genre, as the MMORPG genre is a sub-genre of RPG.

      Everquest has over half a million subscribers, not less than 100k. Get your facts straight. Niether gamespy nor game publishers decide what qualifies as a MMOG, therefore the references you listed are not any more authoritive than your or my post. It's game PLAYERS who get to decide what these terms mean.

      Given that I was the one who originally posted the subscriber information link, you might give me credit for knowing that and attempt to read the statement I actually made.

      I said there are less than 100k players in a single environment. Number of subscribers has already been shown to be unimportant to whether a game is massively multiplayer as otherwise Quake or Diablo or NWN or Warcraft III or starcraft would all be considered such. It was your statement which denoted that number of players in a single environment was what determined whether it was to be considered MM.

      And in case you missed it, I used the terms sever and 'server' to make a distinction. A 'server' on everquest, such as Bristlebane, is comprised of a number (10-20) of physical servers communicating on a high speed backbone network. You also need to define 'interaction' because if simply sending a text message is interaction then MSN is an MMOG. From what I recall, a zone in EQ can handle maybe 300 players before things start being a problem.

      If you're going to insist that only PLAYERS (apparently meaning you) can define the terms involved and aren't willing to have a rational debate, then you can just flame me and get your parting shot, I won't respond again. Otherwise perhaps you could contend my points with something other than 'your sources are invalid because I say so.'

    13. Re:ummm... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      *sighs* your the type that just keeps replying and replying, debating simply for the purpose of debate.

      You do realize this entire discussion has evolved from you debating a technicality in my original Post which had very little to do with what we are discussing now, and neither of us being willing to let it go ;) I'm not going to endlessly debate you on the meaning of MMORPG or who defines it, especially since my opinion is that individuals define it for themselves and that includes you. I've debated myself out of the debate.

      My original point was although there might be many online games designed for multiple players, those with significant development and enough popularity to make it on the typical gamer's radar are relatively small.

  4. Extra, extra! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Slashdot: News for 806 Nerds. Stuff that Matters to a theoretical maximum of 806 people on the planet.

  5. Impending joblessness... by Gorgo+the+Slow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I predict that this is the first of many of these stories. The industry is saturating the market with these games. I haven't played Everquest. or any of it's ilk. What I have gleaned from others complaints is that this genre demands LOTS of time. There must be a fixed amount of people in the world with the time and determination to keep playing. Flooding the market with these games is only going to disrupt the available pool of people willing to pay a monthly fee. IOW, if X amount of people are ever going to be paying a monthly fee for a massively time consuming online game, having a glut of titles nets less total players per game. We will soon see a digital "darwinism" thinning the herds of these games. Of course, it has always worked this way, with FPS and RTS games showing the pattern. However, none of these games were relying on monthly fees to make their money. Where it was easy to make a quick cash in on the RTS or FPS craze, the developers relying on subscriptions for profit are in for trouble.

    1. Re:Impending joblessness... by GodHead · · Score: 1

      I haven't played Everquest. or any of it's ilk.

      Insightful? From someone that's never played any of these games? Yah... sure..

      --
      Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
  6. Not even a thousand paying customers? by tickticker · · Score: 2, Funny
    It doesn't sound so massive anymore!

    How about a TMO (tiny multiplayer online)

    1. Re:Not even a thousand paying customers? by pelsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>How about a TMO (tiny multiplayer online)

      Now that is a good idea, and I will bet it is one that we eventually settle into.

      I'm not talking about the 16 player maps, or even the 64 player maps. I am talking about a server specifically designed to house about 400 people, with a guesstimated 100 playing at any given time. Games designed to operate at this level will be able to cover every possible genre.

      First though, the finances must be nailed down and publicized. Once everyone has a basic game plan on how to pay the ISP charges while still staying small, the uber-geeks with a lot of talent and passion and time on their hands will get together with their best story telling buddy and create amazing limited scope adventures.

    2. Re:Not even a thousand paying customers? by realdpk · · Score: 1

      I bet you could make a decent 400-people game using minimal bandwidth, with a P2P distribution and server model. IE everyone connects to everyone else, instead of always connecting to your servers.

      It would be really amazing to see, though. What we need is a decent turnkey MMOG engine (clientside) with a well documented interface, and some story tellers like you said.

    3. Re:Not even a thousand paying customers? by TrippTDF · · Score: 1

      A TMO is not really a bad idea... I was in the Beta for Uru: Ages Beyond Myst. Although they want it to be an MMO, I think it could work really well if you had fewer people on a server. Then you could have people hosting games on their own boxes... why not create an MMO style game where the server-side portion is designed to run on a single box? I don't play MMOs, so I don't know if it's feasible... anyone else know?

  7. Where they went wrong... by OneFix+at+Work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets see...from the FAQ:

    Can I download the game, or is it on a CD?
    Rubies Of Eventide is no longer being offered on CD during open beta. Any updates are automatically downloaded after the installation of the game. All updates are mandatory to run Rubies Of Eventide.


    Oh, so this never got out of beta...yet...in the same FAQ...

    What do I need to play this game? What are the system requirements?
    You will need an Internet connection to play Rubies Of Eventide. There is no single player version planned at this time.

    Minimum System requirements are:

    Pentium 4 or faster Processor
    256 MB of RAM (512MB recommended)


    Yet the screen shots look real bad (like something from the '90s)...and I'm certain this has to be their best screenshots...

    And the whole try before you buy thing seems to have eluded them...as in the same FAQ...

    Rubies of Eventide Pricing for 2003
    1 month - $14.95
    $35.85 for 3 months ($11.95/m) Save 20% off the standard rate!!
    $65.70 for 6 months ($10.95/m) Look, over 25% off!!
    $119.40 for a year ($9.95/m)Best deal for almost 35% off at $9.95 a month!!


    Ok, so for a recap...

    You want me to pay $15/mo to play a beta of a game that I've never heard of and obviously never played with high system requirements that looks like it's about 5 years too late with the graphics...

    Ok, I can't tell why this company is having problems selling their beta game to everyone...must be the start of another games crash...

  8. Re:Yeah loki games proves your theory by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1

    Uhhh dude, neither OpenVMS nor OS/2 is a unix operating system. And it was not an attempt to improve my karma, it was a karma-burning attempt at humor.

    --
    Ron Paul 2012
  9. I have played ROE a little by Sparr0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This game has potential, but was never really finished beta. It needs more content, and more fleshed out skills. The engine is also somewhat dated, pre-Everquest quality graphics. I hope something good comes of this, they seem to have good developers and good ideas, just general problems along the way.

    1. Re:I have played ROE a little by zenobr · · Score: 1

      I played it a bit too. Their class make ups and things were really cool sounding on paper, but when you actually tried to play the game and found that half of the classes weren't available yet, and half of the ones that were available's defining skill was NOT available... kinda got to feeling like I was playing beta... so I never started my payed subscription, just played the free one for like 3 days and quit because of the lack of features and the extremely cumbersome interface. I hope someday someone does release a full featured game with a class system similar to this though, because it really did have a lot of potential in that respect.

      --
      If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick-boxing.
    2. Re:I have played ROE a little by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Oh, but the Barber kicked ass! A-hort.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    3. Re:I have played ROE a little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking about barbers.

      http://www.rubiesofeventide.com/forums/showflat. ph p?Cat=&Board=gendiscussion&Number=35420&Forum=All_ Forums&Words=nerfed&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpa ge=0&Limit=25&Old=1month&Main=35420&Search=true#Po st35420

      http://www.pvponline.com/rubies.php3

    4. Re:I have played ROE a little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes exactly. I've never played the game, but I read PVP. Thank you for getting the joke. Ha ha ha.

  10. It was a clunker by Kirby · · Score: 3, Informative

    I got a beta CD (quite a long time ago) and loaded this sucker up. The first thing I noticed was the terrible graphics - only somewhat better than Bards Tale era. This isn't necessarily the kiss of death.

    But the game was just so generic. It was just another fantasy game in a crowded market, with the only interesting thing about it being that it was massively multiplayer.

    I vaguely recall spending about an hour playing with it, before concluding that it was terrible, and not comparable to Asheron's Call or Everquest or Ultima Online. And when you're talking about games with a monthly fee, not to mention a sizeable time commitment, MMORPGs compete head-to-head more than traditional games do for players. There's very little reason to have chosen this one. It wasn't a hidden gem, just hidden.

    --
    -- Kate
    1. Re:It was a clunker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Rubies was a decent enough game, but it wasn't exactly unique. Further, it was incomplete. By incomplete, I mean that there were a ton of classes and sub-classes and careers and specialties which were in the player configuration menu but were "not yet implemented". Additionally, there was virtually no documentation so you had no clue how to build your character since you had no idea what specific skills really mattered.

      I've wasted so much money buying MMORPG installers only to find out that the games themselves were underwhelming. PlanetSide, Dark Ages of Camelot, Anarchy Online, Rubies of Eventide, A Tale in the Desert and others... some have their own unique twists but none, in the long run, are compelling enough to make me eagerly await some free gametime so I can log in and play. At best, they're a click-fest-chore. ATITD is unique and fun, but despite it's claim to fame - it's still a click-fest. Instead of hacking things to death (click click click) to level-up, you (click click click) grow and harvest things. Of course, the goal is community growth rather than personal growth, so that is very unique.

      Rubies simply failed by... well... being just another MMORPG. Nothing more and nothing less. I really want to find an MMORPG that I am dying to play and can't put down and get hooked on for years straight... but there just aren't any yet...!

  11. Re:It was bound to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use VMS daily. I hate it, but I use it. I also kind of liked this game but it wasn't really finished. Certainly didn't warrent 15 bucks a month. Character models and graphics were weak, locations were fine. If it had been a bit more polished and had a bit less of a fee I might have played past the 10 days.

  12. Re:It was bound to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is well known that the only people using windows are computer-illiterate morons, which is NOT the correct audience for a game that requires intelligence.

    Hmm.. well your comment seems illiterate enough if you ask me.

    I take it you are using windows/AOL, a MAC or maybe... a tv webtv?

  13. Pretty clear solution to me... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    turn the servers (and the source code?) over to hardcore fans.

    Apparently a few of them don't mind it being beta... maybe they'll get some people in on it to polish it up.

    I mean, even if it has to be under an NDA so the people who steward it don't sell the ideas to competing game publishers.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Pretty clear solution to me... by Thinko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Open Source it!

      If it's going to die, might as well allow the world to reap the rewards and improve it, host it ourselves, and give it a second chance at life, in the open. Having it rot on a shelf in the basement is a terrible end for a game with such great potential.

      By giving it to the world, you solve the problem of the ideas/code being sold, we can port it to a dozen platforms, improve the graphics, and add a vast amount of story/plot to it. Give the editing / modelling tools to the community (or at least detailed specs on the models and maps) and we'll happily be on our way, keeping this dream alive.

    2. Re:Pretty clear solution to me... by svvampy · · Score: 1

      I have to agree, even if it's just a late spiteful gesture - 'If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine'

  14. It's shakeout time! by TerryAtWork · · Score: 1

    and its not over yet!

    There's gonna be a lot of these, then the industry will mature.

    Happens in everything.

    In the fallout, we are bound to pick up a lot of source code and models and textures! Excellent!

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
  15. CyberWarrior by molo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I used to use Cyber Warrior back in the day (the company that does Rubies). They were an ISP located in Fair Lawn, NJ with a POP in Ridgewood that I used. I used to know the sysadmin there (Hi Rich) and even got to visit the facilities. This was back in 1995 or so, and they were running the ISP on a fractional T1.

    They have been developing this game the whole time too. I was just happy to have a shell account and a dialup, and never tried the game. Unfortunately, they never made much progress with the game. They had a limited following and only like 4 people working on the game. One or two developers and a couple artists.

    I kinda got the impression that they were going nowhere fast. After Rich left, it seems they went downhill quickly on the ISP side of things. I'm not sure about the game side.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    1. Re:CyberWarrior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's the other thing about Rubies. It looked dated because it *was* dated. The game already existed as a MUD for years. They just slapped on a graphical front-end to the existing game and tweaked things a bit. So most of the 800 players who are still paying members were probably also players back when it was just a text-based game.

  16. Dransik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still waiting for that MMO Dransik to go under. No clue how that's still afloat.

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

      Changes are afoot for that game. Don't count it out just yet.

  17. Sign of the Times? by Bruha · · Score: 1

    We'll it appears that projections in the late 90's of the market being over x millions of players have yet to pan out. The current giants are not even US built games but ones from more broadband developed countries such as South Korea and Japan.

    Once again we lag the world in broadband access where other countries are well over 60% of the population. We will continue to see this trend and the smaller games will fall off.

    Even a giant such as Turbine Games is having trouble resurrecting Asheron's Call 2 from the ultimate screwup MS made of it.

    WoW is following the right path. "When we are ready" and if they bone up to the claim of "More content than ACv1 today at launch" then EQ/AC2/AC/Horizons better look to their features and subscriber counts.

  18. Market Saturation by Liselle · · Score: 1

    When I first saw this story, that's what my initial thought was: market saturation. But the numbers don't play out. The MMO industry is a gravy train for certain kinds of people, and apparently there's still a lot of room left.

    I remember when DAoC was first coming out, and you had EQ fanbois on one side of the fence claiming that DAoC would die a slow death, and DAoC fanbois on the other side claiming that EQ's days were numbered. Of course, two years later, both games are wildly successful. Earlier this year, along comes SWG, and while the entry of a new MMO always dings subscriber numbers a bit, they always seem to come right back up. I'll admit that Lucasarts could put a brick in a box, and it would sell a million copies if it had a Wookie on the cover, but offline success doesn't equate to MMO success (see The Sims Online for a perfect example).

    Now we have four or five major players (EQ, DAoC, SWG, FFXI), three of which are essentially clones of each other, all dominating the market. I wonder if industry experts are as confused as I am. Where are all of these people coming from? The games aren't cannibalizing from each other to any significant degree, even though logic would dictate they should. It reminds me of Tab vs. Diet Coke, I suppose I will never understand the mind of the consumer.

    What does this have to do with Rubies of Eventide? It sounds as if their problem is mostly related to a poor-quality game, not a saturated MMO market. Game-stopping bugs are the calling card of the MMO, but at least they look pretty. I think RoE fails the second test.

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  19. Skotos? by herderofcats · · Score: 1

    It appears that www.skotosnet is possibly a good place for games like these -- they currently have 10 games, including to 90's era games Meridean 59 and Underlight.

    As I understand their business model, they can be less expensive for the smaller 'niche' games because they handle all the backend stuff.

    -- Herder of Cats

  20. Sorry to see it go by Kirruth · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Well, I came into the game in the last two months, and found it to be alot of fun.

    I guess they made a few mistakes, like putting unimplemented skills in the skills list, rather than doing what other games do and bringing them in later and charging for them. But it probably had more skills actually implemented than many other such games. The content was all there, but a little hard to find. Cool if you like that kind of thing, but not if you're the typical l335t gamer. Graphics were fine when I got there.

    The thing about it was it wasnt put out by an huge, evil megacorp, but a small independent company. We need to get our heads around the fact that games are like movies or bands. Little indy games are cool, like little indy movies or unsigned bands that nobody has heard of. They are not going to be as slick as stuff from the big guys perhaps, but then you are not handing over a cheque to people who would sue you at the drop of a hat.

    I am amazed that people who will have nothing to do with Microsoft or Sony on the PC, will own a Playstation or XBox. It's time we wised up.

    --
    "Well, put a stake in my heart and drag me into sunlight."
  21. I used to work for cyberwarrior by Chrome3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Basically this is exactly what I expected from the company.

    This game has been in development for ~7 years. I worked on it for a little while about 2 years ago and it had no chance of shipping. Feature creep had pushed the release date out for years. The rest of the market at the time was using 3d hardware while we still had a ray casting engine similar to doom. The combat system was horrible. The servers could barely stay online for 4 hours with 20 users before memory leaks took them down.

    The company had no focus on shipping a product and was content to stay beta for half a decade.

    Overall there were a lot of reasons this project didn't work out.

    I'm sad to see the company go under, and I hope my old co-workers find new positions, but I can't say that it's a surprise.

    1. Re:I used to work for cyberwarrior by Chrome3 · · Score: 1

      sorry to reply to myself, but I had one more thing to add.

      While working for cyberwarrior we had a bug tracking system. You can type in a description of the defect and when a developer fixed it he could close the bug. Some bugs on this software were open for years. One of my favorites was bug #2 or 3 which was still open even after new bugs were ~#500.

      I don't remember the exact details but the bug was basically titled "make the game not suck" and the bug description was "this game sucks, fix it".

      All of these bugs are entered by the design or development team. It was funny to see that even the original deevlopers thought the game was crap.

  22. Market Saturation is BS by BadCable · · Score: 1

    It didn't fail due to market saturation at all. I wish they listed the number of people who tried the free trial of Evertide but didn't sign up. I personaly know 8 people (including myself) who tried RoE and canceled within 5 days.

    We're all MMORPG veterans, we've all loved the genre, we all played EQ and DAoC till we 'exausted' those games (reached max lvl, had uber gear etc). We were starved for something new. (SWG is a joke. There is nothing to achieve in that game)

    RoE failed simply because it sucks and nobody signed up after their trail. (Believe me a LOT of people tried it, the noob area was packed.

    Having played RoE I am not one bit surprised that nobody signed up for the game after the trial. Here's why:

    The game felt like a MMORPG aimed at the bargin bins of Walmart.

    The graphics are horrid. By that I do not just mean the visual quality, which does suck pretty bad. Bad graphics are nothing new to Everquest or DAoC. No it's much worse, the game has NO sense of scale. For example you will find a castle and a warrior about 20% taller than the 'caste' door standing next to it. Walking into the said 'castle' puts you into a MUCH larger area than it looked from the outside.

    The characters are not drawn anatomicaly correct. Humans have HUGE feet, all the faces are hideous etc.

    Pretty bad so far, but good gameplay and enviroments could save it right?

    Sadly the game has neither. The enviroment is a joke, mostly level terrain with a few shrugs here and there. It's more borring than South Ro in EQ (It's a frickign desert. But it has hills..)

    Gameplay? Don't make me laugh. Combat is turn based. A first for MMORPGs, but its' also tediously dull and your control of it is very very limited. In a two words. "Not Fun". Combat needs to be fun. Say what you will but EQ combat WAS fun (unless you soloed..than it was thrilling)

    Group play? Ha. You wish. You can't find groups. Half the people I found online either couldn't play or didn't want to group.

    Fact is..the game just sucks. The market isn't saturated. This is just another Neocron or Mimisis headed to the MMORPG graveyard.

    1. Re:Market Saturation is BS by phlyingpenguin · · Score: 1

      Nice opinion. I know several people who disagree though. The biggest reason that I/my friends liked it so much is because it's a much smaller scale. Personally I don't want to play with my ten million closest friends. It really is too bad that it didn't work out.

    2. Re:Market Saturation is BS by BadCable · · Score: 1

      Ah..but that's the catch.

      You can't really make a small scale MMORPG.

      Yet at the same time you CAN play 'small scale' in a full blown MMORPG.

      While I played EQ I knew plenty of people who never wanted to go over lvl 45 and spent YEARS in the game doing nothing but roleplaying, hanging out with friends, etc.

    3. Re:Market Saturation is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you play FFXI? Its has a fairly good graphics engine, awsome gameplay and the best archtecture of any MMORPG...it also has an engrossing quest/mission system and a pseudo-storyline...

    4. Re:Market Saturation is BS by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      DSO was turn-based. Don't you remember it?

  23. PVP Effect by DeLabarre · · Score: 1

    Everyone wanted to play a barber.

    --

    In the Star Trek evil Mirror Universe, virtuoso cellist Yo-Yo Ma is gangsta hiphop star DJ Yo Ma-Ma.

  24. Some problem by Nohbi · · Score: 1

    I recall using a free trial to play this game. It was good assuming I didn't go into any towns. For some reason I'd suffer amazing lag getting in and out of towns/building/dungeons whatever. There are better games out there on the market for about the same price.

  25. Major addict here. by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    Snowblind (boards) a.k.a. Tinrock (toon), a player of the game for the last few months.

    This is a "I am the Content" kinda game. We interact alot ala MUD's especially on the RolePlay server Opals.

    Currently I am trying to organize WACOS We Are Content Online Society to save the game as a hobby.

    We will see if it works. Core user community may drop to the 500 range, but this is enough given the quality of players. Go look at the material we have created in the Tavern. Good stuff.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra