EverQuest Sequel Shows Complexity, Ditches PvP

Thanks to GameSpy for its hands-on preview of Sony Online's forthcoming PC MMO EverQuest II, as the author discusses the graphics ("EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"), the play style ("EQ2 has a smaller, more intimate feel, more like tabletop roleplaying games centered on small parties"), and the complexity ("Everyone starts on the same island, then has to choose allegiance to one of two main cities (and belief systems!) From there, more and more options open up, sort of like an inverted gameplay pyramid.") Elsewhere, over at EQ2 Stratics there's further confirmation from devs that: "There are no plans for a PvP [Player vs. Player] server at release. There is no ETA on when or if we will ever have one."

Comments

So?

[obeythefist]

It's still going to be a levelling treadmill. People will still farm loot.

But it will look prettier and so it will garner more subscriptions for Sony.

Re:So?

[ADRA]

But instead of making it fun, will they take away some of the better parts of MMO's?

REAL Content?
Asherons Call 1 was the only game I could stand for longer than a month because there was always so much content.

Reason for dropping it:
Costs too much money to add more and more content into the game.

PVP for some edge?
If you havn't played in a PVP, You feel physically scared making a mad dash in & out of town fearing a random player coming around and taking a run at you. I wouldn't make PVP manditory, but its definitly an interesting piece.

Reason for dropping it:
Costs too much to balance PVP vs. non-PVP combat.

Re:So?

[AuMatar]

Add real content instead of artificially stretching it out by adding time wasting treadmills?

Not that I expect Sony to do this, but the first MMO designer to do so and not horribly fuck up the game (Shadowbane did so, but forgot to add the content qand realesed the 2nd most buggy game I've seen in my life) will rake in the cash.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll need much larger teams and much more robust content-generation tools to be able to even remotely continue to add enough content for the masses to consume. Look at a single-player game's (say, any RPG) development cycle. Those games have what, 40? 60? hours of game play? Maybe more. Lets be generous and say 100 hours of game-play. Lets be generous, again, and say that takes 2 months to get through.

Your general population would burn through that content much too quickly for your MMO to have any legs at all.

This is why repetative content is a must in MMOGs. I'm not saying EQ did it right; not saying EQ2 is going to do it right. But some sort of reusable content is absolutely necessary for these games to be able to survive without thousands of people working on them, or some very very sophisticated development tools. CoH, WoW are getting closer, but their mission 'types' are pretty few and far between. Plus their story arc is pretty short.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

No other genre outside of RPGs seems to need levelling treadmills to engage players.

They all have to use this thing called 'content' to keep players involved with their game.

Gameplay for Super Mario Brothers doesn't revolve around getting progressively bigger in order to jump onto progressively larger mushroom men. Grand Theft Auto tends to keep players engaged without giving Tommy Vercetti successively more armor and health so he can defeat successively stronger bad guys.

Power progression is fine, to an extent. But it is by no means a reasonable design for the entirety of gameplay. The Strategy genres have done well by unlocking additional units, and powers over time -- but they don't make players grind a map 10 to 20 times to unlock the next unit.

Sure, actual content is much more difficult to create, and there's a very definite end to it. But there's a definite end to the treadmill too. The only difference between the two, is that the treadmill can be slowed down so that you have to experience their distinct lack of content over and over and over again. It's very hard to slow down progression through actual content.

Power progression is dismissable in single player RPGs - but in an MMO it creates too many problems to be considered a harmless tradition.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

Your general population would burn through that content much too quickly for your MMO to have any legs at all

No, your hardcore population would burn through that in no time. But they'll burn through your treadmill in (comparatively) no time as well. The only benefit to a treadmill is that it is easy to tune to slow people down. Actual content -- well that has to be fun, and well crafted. The negatives of treadmills -- that could fill a book.

The rub is that the casual market, the people who have rejected the treadmill, is thus far undefined. Unfortunately every game to this point has either exposed casual players as victims in a harsh PvP environment, been a technical disaster, alienated them with treadmills, or some combination of the three.

Repetitive content is a sure thing to capture a known crowd -- but that doesn't make it a must. What it does, unfortunately, is make it a must for corporate funding. SOE, EA, and Vivendi won't very well sink $10m+ into an MMO that's aiming for an unproven market. Particularly not after The Sims Online.

But no other form of entertainment dares to subject their consumers to repetitive content just to slow them down. What author pads a novel with repetitive slag, just to ensure that speed readers don't finish in a day? What TV series pads its DVDs with timesinks to ensure that hardcore fans can't watch an entire season in a night? Is it really so awful if a subset of your fans finish?

The hardcore, obsessive, audience is not the audience; It is an audience. This subset of the potential audience should never be confused for the entirety of that potential audience.

Re:So?

[Number 110]

I would disagree. Games like Super Mario Brothers do not have statistics associated with the character and so do not have as clear a leveling concept as a game such as Everquest, however you are not able to start a completely new game of SMB, turn left and confront the final boss. You position within these games in very much akin to your level. Unfortunately this does not generally work for games like Everquest where the basic storyline is non-linear. Games by their nature have to give some form of reward. If they do not then people will grow bored and stop playing them. The leveling system of Everquest is the simplest but you could use a skill gains system similar to Sims Online or Starwars Galaxies or an item acquisition based system. In the end though people need to feel some form of forward progression or else they will soon stop playing. Now this isn't to say that a game necessarily requires grinding. It is entirely possible to make a game in which a character is able to move from well written quest to well written quest all the way through their life until they reach the end of their character advancement, but as you have said creating that much content is problematic (read: expensive).

Re:So?

[Number 110]

But no other form of entertainment dares to subject their consumers to repetitive content just to slow them down. What author pads a novel with repetitive slag, just to ensure that speed readers don't finish in a day? What TV series pads its DVDs with timesinks to ensure that hardcore fans can't watch an entire season in a night? Is it really so awful if a subset of your fans finish?

Really? Watch nearly any network television series. Assuming they even have an overall story arc that continues through the season you will still have a variety of 'filler' shows that have nothing to do with advancement of the character or promotion of the storyline.

The reason for this is simple, when you buy a book or watch a movie the company gets all your money up front. They don't get any more money whether you go through all their content in a day, week, or a year. In fact, they get the same money even if you never go through their content. All they need to do is sell you the book. TV series on the other hand need to keep you watching in order to make money. They trickle out just enough 'content' (storyarc episodes) to keep you watching and then pad out the rest with filler.

Online games likewise need to keep people playing in order to survive. The majority of their money is made in their subscription (though they make far less than most people realize). Because of this they need methods to make players continue to remain in the game. MMOs are expensive to make. Because of the client/server code that has to be written, a world that has to be built that is significantly larger than the world of a stand alone game, the much tighter balancing that need to be done and the customer support that has to be provided MMOs are an order of magnitude more complex than stand alone games, with budgets to match.

Currently the cost to produce an MMO is somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million. If you spent that much designing a game that sold 400,000 units (which is a lot) and most players completed it during their first free month the end retail price of the product would be around $200 (manufacturers typically see around 1/4 of the retail cost of a game after it passes through manufacturing, distribution, and retail), and that will only break even. That won't turn a profit or cover the costs of other games that are partially completed before being cancelled.

This isn't, of course, to say that grinding is the only way to keep people interested. There are other ways to slow the consumption of content. What it is saying, however, is that your idea of simply letting people proceed through the content at a breakneck pace does not work for an MMO.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

I think it's optimistic to call the storyline of Everquest 'non-linear'. I think 'non-existent' would be more fair. I think equating the position within a storyline or set of levels of SMB, to a set of numbers associated with an EQ character is a mistake.

It is precisely EQ's lack of context given to its gameplay that is the problem. It isn't 'levelling' per se, it's that true progression in EQ requires takes place outside of any sort of story context.

In a single player RPG, character progression and story progression are fairly neck-and-neck. You level as a matter of course while experiencing the world. You dont experience some story, then go camp gnolls until you're ready for the next bit.

In treadmill games, the context to progression is nonexistant, or too far behind character progression. Everquest requires repetition outside of the progressive context of the story, in order to unlock the next chapter.

The treadmill accusation isn't an indictment of levelling overall - because one could easily run into the same problems in a skill-based system. But rather a charge against levelling for the sake of levelling -- power gain for the sake of power gain.

The idea that a tangible reward at the end of play is required is another point of departure between us. My contention is that if the journey is good, the total enjoyment is enough of a reward. A player doesn't have to be given a pile of fake money or a bigger sword to validate the adventure of killing the dragon. He needs something to ensure that he's capable of meeting the next challenge - but the desire should be to meet the new challenge - not to get a widget that makes the current challenge easier.

As you note, doing levelling 'right', where it is a byproduct of having fun doing quests is expensive - but that's where persistent worlds are going. Blizzard is aiming to do exactly that with World of Warcraft, and for the most part City of Heroes offers that today.
Actually, CoH is something akin to what I'm advocating. It has no loot to speak of - and levels are largely a by product of going through the story. The EQ crowd isn't very fond of CoH -- because they burn through the content very fast, and there isn't any 'loot'. But the game has pulled in a very respectable number of subscriptions thus far - particularly for a nearly unmarketed game.

Now there's certainly a viable niche for games that have no predefined story. Free-form sandbox games closer to UO, and The Sims Online. But treadmills and 'loot' have even less of a place in such games.

Re:So?

[*weasel]

Really? Watch nearly any network television series. Assuming they even have an overall story arc that continues through the season you will still have a variety of 'filler' shows that have nothing to do with advancement of the character or promotion of the storyline.

Are you honestly suggesting that the non-big-conspiracy-plot episodes of X-Files are equivalent to camping a static spawn in Everquest?

A tangential episode may not progress the overall story arc - but it has a story and progression of its own. Mulder isn't just spawn camping El Chupacabra until the Smoking Man is ready to kick off the next step of a sinister plot.

He's presented with a smaller, perhaps self-contained or mini-arc mystery that he has to work through. People watch week-to-week. If a series actually employed 'filler' on par with EQ, it'd fail in a heartbeat. If 'filler' episodes of ER weren't engaging, no-one would care who is HIV positive, or has a brain tumor.

The lack of a central story arc is also fine -- provided that each episode is entertaining and the dramatic context is existent.

Online games likewise need to keep people playing in order to survive

Absolutely true. The incorrect assumption there, is that they need to keep the same people playing without any further development cost - and that if a hardcore subset 'finishes' before the next content expansion is available, everyone will quit.

I also don't buy into your pessimistic view of the profit margins of a persistent world game.

they need methods to make players continue to remain in the game

The content should do that. Providing them a string of slightly larger foozles to whack with slightly larger sticks unnecessarily limits your audience. It's more counterproductive than offering an achievable 'end'.

That won't turn a profit

Yes, your example is not fiscally sound. The solution there is not to spend $20m and not have a target of 400k copies. The solution is to spend $6-8m and have a break-even at somewhere around 200k copies. City of Heroes reportedly cost in the $8m range, and has sold very well to date. Though I cannot find exact unit numbers, the fact that it's been at NPD's number 1 spot for PC game sales in the US for the last 2 months bespeaks a genuine hit. (200k copies is not an unreasonable estimate for what its total run will be)

or cover the costs of other games that are partially completed before being cancelled

Come on now, these 'other games' should have their own theoretical $20m budgets. If you're going to suggest part of the revenue pie from one project has to float others - then you have to be honest about the cost. If there is more than 1 game in development to float, then it doesn't actually cost $20m to make one of these games -- and one game being unable to support the development of several isn't really indicative of its economic viability.

What it is saying, however, is that your idea of simply letting people proceed through the content at a breakneck pace does not work for an MMO.
And once again, you're assuming the entirety of the audience, or at least the fiscally significant portion, does indeed go through content at a breakneck pace.

You are ignoring that there is a large audience of gamers that simply does not have the time, nor the desire to spend 6 hours a day gaming, let alone with a single game. I'm saying the much larger audience will be consuming content at somewhere around 6 hours a week.

You are also ignoring that the mechanics of treadmill design disincentives new players. A treadmill game has to sell a ton of copies out of the gate, because the level stratification of players effectively alienates late-comers.

All good episodic content provides suitable hooks to let late-comers get up to speed fairly quickly, and have enough context to enjoy even a single episode -- even if it means they 'miss out' on old cont

Re:So?

[Number 110]

I think it's optimistic to call the storyline of Everquest 'non-linear'. I think 'non-existent' would be more fair.

Yeah, but it's also inflammatory and does nothing to progress a dialogue. Certainly you can complain about the amount of content but my point wasn't that EQ was content rich. It was that your statements that a game could be pure content without leveling (at least in some form) is false. EQ is non-linear. Overall you are not forced to go from Zone A to Zone B to Zone C. There may be some instances such as when you enter the zone containing a dungeon then move into the dungeon, but the overall design is that characters can go whichever direction they please.

I think equating the position within a storyline or set of levels of SMB, to a set of numbers associated with an EQ character is a mistake.

Certainly the two are not identical, but I think they are analogous. You can't take on the big Turtle Boss until you first defeat the big Goomba Boss. One could even make a claim that the areas that you have to transverse where there is either no puzzle to solve or else the puzzles are of a type the player has solved previously constitute 'grinding' and are simply there to pad out the game. I would not make such an argument however and would point out that just like any story has to have peaks and valleys a game has to have easier areas to help bring you back down a bit before the next big thing.

It is precisely EQ's lack of context given to its gameplay that is the problem. It isn't 'levelling' per se, it's that true progression in EQ requires takes place outside of any sort of story context.

In a single player RPG, character progression and story progression are fairly neck-and-neck. You level as a matter of course while experiencing the world. You dont experience some story, then go camp gnolls until you're ready for the next bit.

Actually I have played plenty of stand alone games where you are sometimes forced to go out and beat up on the random monsters just to level up a bit so you can undertake the next challenge. It is usually not to the degree that it's done in EQ however, so I think it is more an issue of balance than in having it occur at all.

In treadmill games, the context to progression is nonexistant, or too far behind character progression. Everquest requires repetition outside of the progressive context of the story, in order to unlock the next chapter.

The treadmill accusation isn't an indictment of levelling overall - because one could easily run into the same problems in a skill-based system. But rather a charge against levelling for the sake of levelling -- power gain for the sake of power gain.

Again, I think we are really somewhat on the same page here. It equates to balance. You would not be against the fact that leveling occurs or is even occasionally required. Your objection is that with weak storylines the main goal is to level and the storyline is only an afterthought.

The idea that a tangible reward at the end of play is required is another point of departure between us. My contention is that if the journey is good, the total enjoyment is enough of a reward. A player doesn't have to be given a pile of fake money or a bigger sword to validate the adventure of killing the dragon. He needs something to ensure that he's capable of meeting the next challenge - but the desire should be to meet the new challenge - not to get a widget that makes the current challenge easier.

Yes, if the journey is good then it is the reward in and of itself. However, this is notoriously tricky to do and rarely draws the same audience as a more traditional 'winning the prize' storyline. Look at the movies and see how many of them are about reaching and winning some objective (getting the girl, winning the race, defeating the Empire) and how many are simply about the journey (such as i

Why change a winning formula?

[BlueCup]

Everquest was by far the most popular mmorpg the US has ever seen... so why are they changing some of the formulas? The major thing that first drew me into the game was the different starting locations for races... it made it feel more like a world than an AIM Client with pictures...

"every square inch begs to be explored"

[scrytch]

One of the most beautiful ... games.

Bah. Got me all excited over a game?

Looking through the preview..

[CashCarSTAR]

I would say, that with a downgrade in graphics, and a few slight tweaks, this is basically Final Fantasy XI. Not that this is a BAD thing....

Actually, that guild system seems like too much of a pain. I like the Linkshell I'm in FFXI, tons of people, always helping each other out, like a strong large community, always growing, and there's no real motive for us not to grow, meet new people and join together.

No PvP is a big improvement 'tho...PvP attracts the immature set..

No PvP = no subscription for me

[Osmosis_Garett]

Its sort of sad to see games moving in this direction. There is nothing more challenging than playing vs another human being, and nothing more boring than fighting the same NPC mobs over and over to get the ph4t l00tz. I belong to a PvP guild, and our average member age (of around 140 members) is about 25 years old. I can assure Sony that none of my guild will be playing this game. To be honest, none of us were really considering playing it in the first place, because the EQLive team has never given any serious consideration to the PvP crowd as their crappy PvP servers can attest to. There are much more interesting PvP games on the way (Darkfall, Dragon Empires, or Guild Wars to name a few) to want to lose a few pounds on this level treadmill.

To the people who feel that 'pvp attracts the immature crowd', mabye you're just a bit too old (or too mature) to be playing video games. We'll be all practiced up and waiting for you when you get bored of kiting a_hill_giant01 for the 100th time to get that last bubble of lvl 35.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Golias]

There is nothing more challenging than playing vs another human being

Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being. There is no skill involved in the combat system of these games, apart from the group tactics of fighting large armies of NPC mobs. If you win a PVP match-up in Everquest, AC, or whatever, you have accomplished pretty much nothing. You won because you went into the fight with the more powerful PVP character.

If you want be "challenged" by other people, go outside and play golf, tennis, basketball, or at the very least play an FPS game on your computer. MMORPG PvP is a joke.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Psychochild]

Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased since I run my own PvP-focused game, Meridian 59, but I'm going to have to disagree with this assertion. While it may feel ultimately hollow in many games, there are some games out there that focus on providing an interesting experience when fighting against other players; it depends on the game.

Fighting against another player can be a lot of fun because other players can come up with creative strategies and use their abilities in interesting ways in order to fool their opponent. In Meridian 59, you can take over an opponent's guild hall if you can sneak in behind another player. So, one player used a polymorph spell to change himself into a small monster (a dreaded giant rat of all things!) and used the size difference to hide easier.

In another example, there's a spell called "Mark of Dishonor" which reduces the target's vigor if they are evil. Since vigor is important in regeneration, this can be a crippling blow to an opponent. However the spell is an enchantment that prevents you from recasting the spell. However, you can cast a spell that is normally helpful that removes negative enchantments to remove Mark of Dishonor and cast it on an opponent again. This strategy has the disadvantage that if an ally is trying to cast a harmful spell, like Hold, on the target, you could remove that as well. We simply can't program an A.I. to come up with strategies like that on the fly and realize the consequences of the strategy.

So, in M59 you have challenge, skill, and the accomplishment of vanquishing a worthy opponent. A bit contrary to your assertion.

Of course, there are games where this isn't true. Many games are dominated by character level and equipment. A weak opponent has no chance to fight against a much more powerful opponent. When your only strategy is to have a higher level and use your most powerful damage abilities repeatedly, then the game becomes shallow and superficial. Victory means nothing since it was mathematically guaranteed before the first blow was even landed.

Have fun,

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Ayaress]

Haven't played Everquest since my 7 free days I got when I bought the game (way back when it came out) expired, but that doesn't count for all MMORPGs.

The way Ashen Empire's PvP combat works, it comes down to skill, much as players say otherwise. A lot of people just fight it out by beating on each other and clicking their potions, switching to a staff and casting remedy, etc, but the experienced PvPers all know that if you time your movements, you can get in hits on your opponent without them being able to hit you.

The good PvP players (the old FU guild (Fear Us) being some of the best in their day) would regularly kill level 60's and 80's with level 16 and 20 newbie characters. That's harder now with the rebalances, but it's still more about timing than stats. Not very long ago, a major PKer actually quit the game when a dozen or so level 10's looted his Staff of Enervation. To loot, you have to keep a person away from their body for about three minutes, meaning this guy got killed at least two or three times by people 80 and 90 levels below him. It's rare, but not at all unheard of for high level characters to loose items to groups of newbies.

At least its better then a broken promise...

[JExtine]

"There are no plans for a PvP [Player vs. Player] server at release. There is no ETA on when or if we will ever have one."

Well, at least that's better then Sony telling everyone there is going to be PvP at release, then backing out on it, implementing it 3-4 months later, and debugging it a couple more months after that. Then again, with no ETA, who knows if it will ever be implemented or just another broken promise...

Ultima has an opening here

[voss]

A complete rework of Ultima Online adding Complexity and using the Ultima interface which is so much more sensible than that gawdawful EQ interface might topple EQ.

One step backward is two steps forward

[MMaestro]

Without complaining about EQ2 copying FFXI, I think its a good idea that they're taking the no PvP system seriously. Ever since the release of Ultima Online, PvP hs generated largely unpopular support. Yeah it was cool you could kill your friends or some random people you just ran into. But it wasn't cool if you were on the recieving end. Or if you got 'PKed' for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. PvP was largely, uncool in MMO games.

With the expection of the unique cases (Planetside and Lineage 2 FOCUSING on PvP) PvP has largely be unsuccessful in MMO games. GM support is woefully outstretched with most players takings matters into their own hands (spam in a high populated area and guess how many people will mute you... and leave you muted as long they play the game.) One of the most unbelieved results was when players in Ultima Online formed anti-PK clans and went around PKing PKers.

PvP

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think having no PvP is a very wise move. Since December, I've been a pretty heavy FFXI player and my experiences of PvP there have been quite amusing.

When I took up FFXI, there was no PvP, but everybody wanted it. For the first few months, every linkshell I joined was full of people demanding PvP, whining about needing PvP, moaning that they were going to give up the game if they didn't get PvP and saying "just wait until they bring in PvP" to everybody they didn't get along with. Even at the time, I could spot the obvious flaws in this, although I seemed to be in a pretty small minority.

Square-Enix seemed to take quite a lot of time develop PvP. Whether this was because it was a complex task, or because they had other priorities, I can't say. I suspect it was a bit of both.

Eventualy, PvP was introduced. It was fairly limited in scope... you had to go to specific areas and participate in special events to take part in it. "Never mind", thought the PvP crowd, "we can still kill all those people who've been annoying us". Then they found out that they couldn't. The outcome of PvP combat in a MMORPG is heavily dependant on the class and level of the participants. If you wanted to kill somebody and were able to, there was no way they'd let you get close enough to try. Of course, you couldn't spend all your time chasing them, as you had to watch out for all the people who wanted to kill *you*.

The result is that, on the server I play on at least, PvP is essentially dead in the water a couple of months after its launch. I'm glad they introduced it; it stopped a lot of moaning from the kiddies. Howver, I can see that Square-Enix wasted a lot of time and effort implementing a major feature which just doesn't get used now. It's not rocket-science for Sony to want to avoid making the same mistake.

Re:PvP

[Mongoose Disciple]

Disclaimer: I have, in the past, spent significant time as an administrator of a PK MUD. Obviously, this puts a certain spin on my opinions here.

The outcome of PvP combat in a MMORPG is heavily dependant on the class and level of the participants.

Historically, this has been true, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

It's possible to create a game in which one or two classes don't dominate PvP.

It's equally possible to create a game in which the higher level character does not win 90% of the time.

I'd further add that I believe that it's possible to do both without creating a game that's stupid or boring.

When I think about PvP, oddly, I often think of the movie My Cousin Vinny. There's a scene in there where Vinny explains that even though the prosecution's case seems very solid, it really can't be because the boys are innocent. He uses cards as an analogy for their witnesses, showing that while they look perfect and respectable taken from one angle, viewed from another, there's nothing there. I'm not explaining it very well, but those who have seen the movie will know what I'm talking about.

I think the balance of various character types in a PvP game needs to be like that. There should be no other character type in the game that yours can't beat with a little ingenuity and the proper setup. If you can engineer a situation that pits the "square" face of your card against some less ideal face of theirs, you should be able to win. The reverse, of course, is also true: there should be no character type in the game that yours can't lose to if you fight dumb enough.

Now, it's probably true that few, if any, MMORPGs currently in existence are deep enough, strategically, for that kind of class balance model to be possible. In my mind, that's a sign that we should be demanding more from games, rather than give up on the PvP model for this kind of game.

Bah...still same old EQ

[Lord_Dweomer]

"EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"

Right, maybe when you first start playing, but eventually you figure out where you need to run, and you don't even bother exploring every inch, because there's nothing worth looking for there. Your goal is to get from Town A to Zone B and camp so you can continue the level grind.

I'm sorry, but I'm extremely jaded from EQ. At least with Ultima Online you could wander around and forage for herbs, and find random wildlife, and harvest natural resources from *gasp* nature.

This is all without mentioning the fact that now people are able to host their own UO servers.

When EQ 2 comes out, they could make a LOT of money selling a dev kit for letting people make their own worlds/servers. They could even sell server space. But no...of course not, that would never happen.

Not immature, just different.

[Mongoose Disciple]

PvP attracts the immature set..

That's not entirely true.

Here's a paper written a long time ago about different player types in MUDs. It holds for other games as well. If you dig around, you can also probably find a test to tell you what type you are.

Granted, I think the author's own biases show. He describes the "killer" type, which would be the type drawn to PvP, as about griefing. I don't think that's true, though it might certainly seem so from an achiever standpoint. More, I think it's about competition, about an ideal that you're the best because you can and do go out and beat other people, not because you log more hours.

Players of the current crop of MMORPGs are almost universally achievers by Bartle's model. If you wonder why these games turn into super levelling treadmills, the answer is fairly simple: It's because that's what their core audience genuinely wants. They might bitch about the timesink that it is, but their choice to continue playing demonstrates more clearly than words that they anything but despise it.

PvP = no subscription for me

[metamatic]

Yeah, but PvP = no subscription for me.

And if you look at the top selling video games, PvP combat games are (a) the minority in terms of sales, and (b) a market that's glutted with competition.

It makes perfect sense for Sony to go for the non-PvP MMOG market. It's wide open.

The question for me is whether they'll do a Mac and/or Linux version, and offer a demo...