Slashdot Mirror


Mythic Rips SOE a New One

GameDailyBiz has a statement by Mythic's head honcho Mark Jacobs. The CEO of Dark Age of Camelot's developer takes great exception to the aforementioned EQII auction site. From the article: "I'm disappointed with the decision from a leader in the MMO industry to go down a path which in the past, has been an anathema to them and remains so to just about every other MMORPG company in the industry. I think that not only supporting the sale of in-game characters, items and currency, but also taking a 'cut' of those sales, is not only a mistake but one of the worst decisions in the history of the MMORPG industry..."

6 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. SOE will have bigger plans... by dhakbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SOE is always looking for a bigger slice of the pie. If they can be hypocritical enough to open a sanctioned auction site after years of banning players for auctioning things off in their games, they will do anything. Be prepared for a whole new breed of micropayment based MMORPGs.

    Would you like to loot this UberSword of Might +7? That will be $0.10, tyvm.

    1. Re:SOE will have bigger plans... by shoptroll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But apparently that's up to the devs.

      This is from Mike Capps, Epic Games President on downloadable content for Unreal Championship 2:

      "available via Xbox Live as downloadables. And no, we're not charging you for downloads, that's lame."

      http://www.beyondunreal.com/daedalus/singlepost. ph p?id=8113

      Regardless, this just looks like SOE being stupid with EQ2, especially in light of the /pizza command. If they think allowing in-game pizza orders and an official auction site are going to draw people to EQ2, they seriously need to get their head out of the sand and realize what's REALLY wrong with their game.

      --
      Insert Sig Here
  2. Could sales offset subscription prices? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting
    What if Sony made enough money from all these sales that they could discount the monthly costs of the service for everyone else? Or what if it was enough so that all the "peon" accounts would be free, though if you didn't want to toil through the dreary lower levels and work your way up, you would have to pay to power up?

    I think that really would be great! I mean, you sell a lot more crack when you fist hand it out for free. Oh, even better: Maybe all the free accounts would have perma-death (unless they can secure in-game means of resurrection) while the paid accounts have a "guardian angel" that auto-resurrects them. Or how about this: a flat-rate direct withdrawl of $5 from your bank account for every time you click "Yes, resurrect my character"? Mark my words, somebody is going to try this, and if they do it right, they will succeed!

    If they really use the crack model, they will even let you download the game itself without cost, knowing that sooner or later, you'll find something in the game worth paying for with real money.

    But before they do any of this, they need to get the bugs out of the in-game paying system, and maybe that's what this is.

    So is this a something we should fear? No way! It will be great!

    1. Re:Could sales offset subscription prices? by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the price would scale by level, $0.10 for a level 1; $5.00 for a level 50...

      reminds me of a 'potion vendor' I coded in a MUD:

      stats were scaled from 1-20, if a stat reached 0, you would die.

      my potions would add 4 to a stat for 100 turns, then subtract 1 for 2500 turns, once a stat was lowered, it made it more likely you would need to use a potion to survive a fight.

      and the price formula increased the price the lower your stat. That shop made a lot of gold, and killed quite a few players.

  3. The guy is right by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well I, for one, think that Mark Jacobs is 100% right.

    I don't want to get all nostalgic, but does anyone else in here remember the ancient days of yore when an RPG was played with maps, miniatures, and funny-shaped dice, when the object of the game was to have fun by escaping into fantasy worlds and pretending you're someone else, someone who may be like you or may be as different from you as night and day? We used to make fun of people who got too much into the game mechanics. We called them "roll" players.

    I feel sorry for people who have grown up recently and only know of RPG's as computer games. Something important has been lost when the creativity and imagination of a game master was replaced with a computer's unrelenting adherence to game rules and regulations. The goal is no longer to escape and have fun, it is to WIN. Now, players will do anything to have a bigger and better sword than the next guy has, who is trying to have a bigger and better axe than you have.

    Don't get me wrong, I like some of the games out there today. I play City of Heroes myself, and I enjoy it a lot, but it's not the same. It's hard to feel very heroic when you have to deal with typical conversations like, "Hey, can you help me with a sewer run? I'm trying to get to level 38 and need to farm some krakens. We don't need to kill the hydra, because I'm only two bubbles away." When I stick solely to roleplaying and completely avoid game-speak, I get accused of being a weirdo and generally avoided. (Disclaimer: Yes, there are exceptions, very few and far between.)

    The whole online auction stuff is a wonderful illustration of just how non-RP computer RPG's have become. I have a question for people who participate in such silliness: If you're not going to acquire your goodies by playing the game, why bother playing at all? Why not just stick to Progress Quest and save yourself all of that tedium of having to actually earn stuff?

    As for Sony, I guess Mark covered it pretty well. Can't you see that what you're doing is hurting the genre of RPG's more than they already have been? What the hell does buying a sword on "Station Exchange" have to do with role playing? Nothing. In the article, Mark says:

    We will gladly 'leave money on the table' to ensure that whether or not you like our games, that they remain as that, games and not an entertainment version of day-trading.

    I say hooray for him and for Mythic for not selling out, once and for all making the R in RPG meaningless. As for me, I've never played EverQuest, and now you can count me out for good. Apparently, there's a large market of people out there playing this game who believe owning virtual goodies is more important than role playing, and because of this, it is obviously not a game I would be interested in.

  4. Make leveling a positive experience by kongjie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Disclosure statement: I hate SOE for making Mac players eat the leftover crumbs off a very cold plate. That being said...

    The statement I find most damning by SOE's Smedley is this one:

    It is clear to us that we have many loyal and honest players who simply don't have the time to take multiple characters through the game's higher levels of play and want a sanctioned, secure means to broaden their play experience.
    Look, if you made those levels and the time spent attaining them worthwhile, instead of just grinding, then "loyal and honest" players would want to experience them.

    In my mind, the IGE-type solution sucks because

    • It encourages farmers, and a true farmer is not someone experiencing game for the entertainment value that most players are. That creates imbalances in the game universe.
    • It betrays a deficiency in gameplay. It creates the equation paying for weapon X is more desirable then spending Y amount of time attaining it. This is because, in the case of SOE, you're more than likely required to grind to obtain weapon X, senseless and boring.
    Make the game only a game. Don't allow people to buy their way through it.

    Either improve gameplay or accept that some people are not going to be willing to expend hundreds of hours in mindless grinding. I think the real problem is that SOE is not willing to lose customers who aren't happy with gameplay, and they think that by allowing said customers to buy content, they'll keep them in the fold.