Slashdot Mirror


Tabula Rasa To Shut Down

NCSoft announced today that it will be closing down Tabula Rasa on February 28th. The sci-fi shooter-flavored MMO struggled for quite some time, despite recent attempts to draw in new players by announcements of new features, price reductions, and using Richard Garriott's trip into space as a promotion. We discussed Garriott's departure from NCSoft a couple weeks ago. This is NCSoft's second failed MMO, and apparently layoffs are in the works. They seem to be making an effort to make the game's last few months as fun as they can for their remaining players, though. "Before we end the service, we'll make Tabula Rasa servers free to play starting on January 10, 2009. We can assure you that through the next couple of months we'll be doing some really fun things in Tabula Rasa, and we plan to make staying on a little longer worth your while."

45 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Last time the marketing department springs for a t by ZeekWatson · · Score: 4, Funny

    Last time the marketing department springs for a trip into space ...

  2. Truth in advertising ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    They really WILL become a "tabula rasa".

    1. Re:Truth in advertising ... by RupW · · Score: 2, Informative

      did somebody say "free"??? I like "free". :-) Alright. I'm new to online gaming. What do I need to play this game? Is dialup good enough or do I need broadband? Is the software downloadable?

      According to TFA it will be free next year but it isn't yet. Yes, I'm fairly sure you'd need broadband. You can get the client here but the installer is a few versions out-of-date and will need to download patches before you can play - you're looking at about 3.2GB all in.

  3. Beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is why you spend 60 bucks on MMO's or other locked down games: just to see it disappear as the company goes under.

    1. Re:Beautiful by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      being locked down has nothing to do with it. relying on a central server for gameplay when they go under is the problem. Such is the nature of the beast.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Beautiful by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least with a MMO you pay far more over the months than for the original game; when they cut off service it saves you money. What does it matter if you play for a year or so then never really play it again or if they shut it down totally?

    3. Re:Beautiful by Macthorpe · · Score: 4, Informative

      This got insightful?

      NCSoft isn't going under - far from it. TR was just not making them anywhere near enough money to keep it going. Not only that, but for people who stick with the game till the end, every player will get:

      - 3 months free on City of Heroes
      - 3 months free on Lineage 2
      - beta access to Aion
      - a pre-order key for Aion
      - 1 month free and a paid-for client for Aion

      Not a bad deal for 'wasting' 60 bucks on a failed MMO - a free game and about 100 dollars in free game time.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    4. Re:Beautiful by billcopc · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if hell froze over, pigs flew, and Bush found WMDs in Iraq ?

      Yeah. Not gonna happen.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  4. Sad but true... by www.blogLinux.org · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Asking around, no one so far has even heard of this game. I watched the intro video, looks cool. Too bad it's already over; I would say next time, look into advertising.

    1. Re:Sad but true... by Tharsman · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It was not just publicity but the type of publicity it got.

      I got this game expecting an exciting alien warfare scifi reminiscent of Starship Troopers, that was what the ads sold me.

      Once I started playing, though, what I found was that I landed in a planet filled with fantasy-like tribal race, with a "religous" thing about some magic like technology that I had the power to use... it was nothing but a fantasy game sold as a sci-fi one. THAT was the biggest issue with the game, that was what made me cancel the subscription just after 1 week. I even gave it a second chance and despite the few technological structures and mechs that were around, the entire thing still felt like a fantasy game. Heck, I'd go as far as granting the game 90% Fantasy/10%Sci-Fi on a box that spelled 100% neo-apocalyptic, human-alien warfare.

      In short, it was like ordering a Burger and getting a Hotdog, may be a good hotdog, but I wanted a frigging burger.

  5. Re:Last time the marketing department springs for by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's like when Bill Gates swam in a pool of money to promote Microsoft!

  6. Not all that surprising by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From what I read of it and the little I saw it was trying to kinda be a sci-fi World of Warcraft. Ok... But the problem is World of Warcraft is really good. Blizzard really did a lot right in that game, things other games had failed miserably at (like having a very easy, engrossing introduction to the game). So if you are going to try and take on WoW, well you'd better be damn good. They weren't so there you go.

    The MMOs other than WoW that seem successful are the ones that try and offer a real different gameplay experience. Something like Eve Online or Warhammer. They aren't trying to be WoW, they have their own idea of what a game should be. Now that may not get you 10 million players, but it can get you a comfortable niche. There are people who don't like WoW's way of doing things. If you make a game for them, you've got a good chance.

    While I certainly think a game can compete with WoW, and we will see one at some point that does, it is going to have to be really good, and good out of the gate. WoW does a whole lot right and is generally very polished. So you've got to get all that down. If you don't, well then you are going to have people try your game and say "Eh, WoW was better,' and migrate back. Just changing the theme a bit or adding some bits won't help.

    Personally what I want to see is an MMO that is really good that isn't trying to be WoW. I'd really like a more PvP oriented MMO. Warhammer has potential, but right now really lacks polish. I'd like to see an MMO that is as good as WoW, but in a different area. That is going to have a much easier time succeeding than something trying to take on the king.

    1. Re:Not all that surprising by kungfugleek · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'm still waiting for an MMO that really feels like a living world. Where the quests I'm on are only mine: they haven't been done by anyone, and after me no one will do them again. A shared world, but the experience, the goals, and the journey are mine alone. When our paths cross, it isn't because we both clicked on the bright exclamation point over Quest Giver Cletus, but because our individual journeys have fallen in step for a time. And maybe I can develop my character not through killing and loot, but by making real moral decisions. Not the simplistic "Either take your reward (neutral), refuse the reward (good), or kill the guy and take the reward anyway (evil)" choices, but the ones that aren't very clear: Do you steal from the king, who you've sworn allegiance, in order to give some food to somebody who's starving? Do you kill one innocent child in order to save a village?

      Not that I don't mind a little level grinding now and then. It's just that sometimes I want something with a little more meat to it.

      Maybe someday I'll play a game that puts the "character" back in "character building".

    2. Re:Not all that surprising by Symbha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It IS that surprising.
      Garriott is a veteran, the whole Ultima Franchise, not to mention UO (more or less) started the whole (grahpical) MMO thing. To have created an epic fail like Tabula Rasa, is surprising.

      And, I'll say for the record, WoW is not the first to be designed like it is. WoW itself was trying to be so many other RPGs, and MMOs before it (but better.) WoW was fantastic, even though I'm highly critical of the endgame.

      The flipside of that is EVERY MMO is trying to be as successful as WoW. To your point, it is the reigning champion... but it's also getting old, just like every last one of them before it.

      And can I say FINALLY!

    3. Re:Not all that surprising by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think if you really want to do that the players have to interact more, and in more varied ways than a current MMO. You'd want players occupying roles usually held by NPCs, you'd want to have players be able to generate quests and you'd want to have players build up or tear down towns outside the core few provided by the game.

      I think Ultima Online was closer to providing that experience than WoW has been -- player owned towns were not uncommon and early on it was a constant battle with the forces of chaos since PvP was unavoidable and reds were always griefing.

      MUDs do an incredibly good job of providing an experience like that, since literally all the content is player generated and any NPCs are usually experimental AIs. The problem is it's not nearly as easy to generate graphical content as it is text content. Even if you did the whole game would probably eventually deteriorate into an MMORGY.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:Not all that surprising by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's interesting you mention Warhammer and Eve, when WoW's biggest competition (by far) is actually... Runescape.

      Blizzard toots it's horn about having 10+ million players, but Jagex hit that number back in 2007, and in 2008, an estimate was placed that the current RS community is over 16 million players.

      Unlike in WoW, RS is extremely difficult to make a powerful avatar (Less than 100 players have reached max level), the game almost encourages individualistic gameplay, the graphics are unimpressive, and playing is dangerous (dying means most all items, no matter what the value, are lost on death).

      What's the secret to success? Easy access. Unlike many other MMORPGs, Runescape doesn't require a 50$ upfront cost. The subscription fee is cheap at a little over $6.00 per month, and there is plenty to do for a willful individual in the free game.

      Most importantly though, the game can be played from almost any computer that can run Java. There are no hard requirements or lengthy installs. Most users choose to play the game through the web browser.

      Perhaps instead of making games that require a player jump through hoops to play, and fork out a stack of cash each month, developers should make the game easier to access and cheaper to play.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    5. Re:Not all that surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm still waiting for an MMO that really feels like a living world. Where the quests I'm on are only mine: they haven't been done by anyone, and after me no one will do them again. A shared world, but the experience, the goals, and the journey are mine alone. When our paths cross, it isn't because we both clicked on the bright exclamation point over Quest Giver Cletus, but because our individual journeys have fallen in step for a time. And maybe I can develop my character not through killing and loot, but by making real moral decisions. Not the simplistic "Either take your reward (neutral), refuse the reward (good), or kill the guy and take the reward anyway (evil)" choices, but the ones that aren't very clear: Do you steal from the king, who you've sworn allegiance, in order to give some food to somebody who's starving? Do you kill one innocent child in order to save a village?

      Not that I don't mind a little level grinding now and then. It's just that sometimes I want something with a little more meat to it.

      Maybe someday I'll play a game that puts the "character" back in "character building".

      You're looking for a pencil & paper RPG, in an MMO. Sure, it can and likely will be done.. in time.

      It won't require a huge team of content writers, constantly creating new quests and such. There's no way a company would put it together under those conditions. The only way it would truly succeed, is when the server is capable of functioning as a GM. Really, really in depth AI will be required.

      Its just not going to happen until the computer can do it without constant developer input. Nobody(almost nobody, at least) would be willing to pay the additional costs to have that many dedicated developers working on content.

    6. Re:Not all that surprising by LordLucless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I actually played it, and it was significantly different from WoW. The most obvious difference was the combat mechanism - it was rigged up like a first person shooter. You had targetting reticle, and you aimed at the enemy, and pulled the trigger to fire off bursts. It didn't have the usual timed-swing mechanism of most MMOs. It felt very dynamic. There were your usual RPG "dice"-rolls behind the scenes, but it felt very shooterish. There were some other differences, like the class tree, item creation mechanisms, etc, but that was the most obvious.

      What lead to Tabula Rasa's failure, I think, wasn't that it was too much like WoW. Firstly, it was not enough content. Seriously, I think there were about twenty different enemy creatures in the entire game, and you just see more and more of the same. Secondly, the graphics, while gorgeous, were very toned-down and muted. This suited the game, but I don't think it attracts people as much as the vivid, eye-catching, over the top cartoonish graphics of WoW.

      From what I hear, there was also very little endgame content. Unlike WoW, where the endgame brings a whole new level of gameplay, with Tabula Rasa, there was nothing really to do except start again with a new character. While a lot of players may not make it to endgame, I think an active endgame helps promote an enthusiastic community among the players. If all your most energetic players wander off after they cap out, your game is naturally going to fade away.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  7. VMK by OpenYourEyes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its not just spending the money... nor the company collapsing. Disney shut down their free MMO VMK for no apparently good reason except that they seemed to want to generate bad will among their customers. At least NCSoft is trying to "promote good will".

  8. Re:What? by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Who wants to be the first to suggest to open source the leftovers?

    Who wants to donate endless hours in development and management of the game? Who wants to pay for the servers? Who wants to contribute assets to the game: art, animation, story, dialog, etc?

  9. Re:Free to play by Fnord666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like they're trying to squeeze a few boxed copy purchases out of people

    Since the boxed sets are selling for $0.96 USD, they aren't going to recoup a whole lot of cash.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  10. This Is A Shame.... by Caraig · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a shame; TR had a lot of potential to be more than just another shooty take on MMOs. Ancient mysteries, xeno-archaeology, a strong theme of religion and myth, a dramatic war.... It could have been a lot more. Instead it was pretty bland at times. They had a lot of great ideas but they never seemed to implement them in time or well enough.

    I was in the closed beta, and I really really wanted to like this game. The music was cool, the settings were fantastic, the scaling was pretty nicely done, and it was open to the casual gamer... but it was flawed. It just didn't grab a person.

    As I said, it's really a shame. It could have been a lot more. Oh, well. I hope they learned something from it's failure. I just hope that 'Worlds of Starcraft' doesn't waltz in and take over the SciFi MMO slot.

    --
    "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    1. Re:This Is A Shame.... by haydon4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I really thought TR had potential. It's true that the launch was a little rocky and it was rough around the edges but as you really progressed through the game, the story was actually rather compelling.

      I had some misgivings about the limited character creation system where is was basically a cookie cutter system where you could only change the face as a whole, hair, skin color and a couple accessories; as well as the clunky and convoluted crafting system that they took way too long to fix. I think they really had the game to a point where they could tweak settings here and there and still add more content.

      I thought the graphics were great, the enemy character models looked real and had a lot of detail. Gameplay was almost constant out in the field. They even took player created events and made a separate zone for them to hold it. It was a prime example of the developers listening to the players and giving them what they want.

      I think ultimately where they failed was in the advertising arena. When I talked about the game to other gamers, 75% of them had no idea what I was talking about. It is a sad day indeed for TR fans, but I suppose I can invest more time into CoH now.

  11. takes me back by Leontes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back in 1997, I was playing a character on the old TrekMoo, when the Q (the admins) were in the process of moving to new servers. They decided to all scorched universe on the remaining players and I have to say, that was a heck of lot of fun. The Borg invaded, the Romulans and Klingons got their ass kicked and we intrepid few in the federation were forced to make some tough choices that included sacrificing our ship. It was a small community of text based adventurers, but the collaborative effort made it a hell of a lot of fun.

    I'm surprised there aren't more scorched earth games, where we build up communities just to have them torn down. I hope the loyal players of playing Tabula Rasa get to have the same kind of experience. I know it influenced me as to what good collaborative theaterical improvisation was all about.

  12. Re:What? by Bieeanda · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I knew that suggestion was going to pop up within the first twenty posts. Beyond the technical reasons for not bothering, there are plenty of legal ones too. Just ask any of NCSoft's shareholders, or the management hierarchy that would have to reach consensus in order to release the code. This isn't just a matter of one person's pet project, or a small company folding.

    And before anyone points Quake out, recall how long it took for them to release the source, and also recall that the release included none of the actual graphic assets or maps.

  13. Re:Historical record gone. by mog007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Firstly, I think you mean EMP not EMF. Secondly, EMP would have absolutely no impact on the bits that are stored on a hard drive platter, or a CD or DVD. Granted, those two forms of media won't last for thousand of years without severely degrading, but that property holds for paper also.

    Our historic records are a scant fragment of what actually existed at one point, and imagine if the only pieces of entertainment we have today that can survive an archeologist digging them up in 50000 years would be a copy of ET for the Atari 2600 from the landfill out in the desert.

  14. Re:MMO = fun? by LoneBoco · · Score: 4, Informative

    It WAS a lot of fun. It just couldn't shake the stigma attached to it when it went through the public beta. The game had VASTLY improved throughout the year. They resolved many of the issues people had with the game. It is sad really.

  15. Re:Historical record gone. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is exactly why MMO's don't lend themselves well to keeping a historical imprint on society.

    Of all the criticisms I've heard of MMOs, I have to admit... that's a new one.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  16. No community support FAIL by S77IM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure other posters will mention Tabula Rasa's bugs, lousy control scheme, poor class balance, etc (typical MMO grievances) but to me the thing that always stood out about TR was its abysmal support for building communities.

    Everyone's abuzz about Web 2.0 and "social networking," and somehow the TR devs didn't even see fit to have a Looking For Group feature in the game. The had on-line chat and a Friends list, and that's about it. The thing about massively MULTIPLAYER games is that they are only as good as the people you play with. Sure, a small percentage of MMO players exclusively solo, but for most people, the solo experience is basically a laggy, slightly glitchy single-player game, with extra monotonous grinding. In other words, you get bored of it after a month or two, max, just like any other single player game.

    "Players come for the game, but stay for the community." -- I forget who said it, but that sums up most MMOs today. Compared to single-player games, any MMO is mediocre at best. The only reason people will pay $15/month for the MMO is to play with their friends. Tabula Rasa made it very difficult for me to locate people I might want to team with, let alone befriend. There was more incentive to solo than to assemble PUGs.

    Suggestion to future MMO designers: Find a way to match up players with other players of similar game-play styles and compatible personalities. No, I'm not talking about in-game romance, just helping people find a good team. Match up Leeroy Jenkins with other Leeroy Jenkins, etc. Stop thinking of the players as an audience looking for "content." They're not. They're looking to hang out with friends and kill monsters.

    --
    Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
    Master: Well, yes and no.
    1. Re:No community support FAIL by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ask anyone who remembers how the global LFG channel went.

      /shudder

      And I just got done with therapy for that, too. Thanks for reminding me...

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  17. Hard to do by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For a lot of reasons not the least of which being such a thing would require a phenomenal amount of writing to be done to make all these unique quests and allow for all the branching. Hard enough to do something like that well in a single player game and in a huge multi player game, well it's near impossible. There's also technological hurdles to implementing such a thing.

    At this point the closest you'll find to a game world you change is, again, in WoW. There are some quests that deal with a phased world. There are literally multiple versions of a given area and you experience the one relevant to your quest progression. So you do something and the world changes permanently because of it. However each person gets to do it. You are all in the same world, but there are multiple versions. Works pretty well.

    At any rate the sort of thing you want isn't ever likely to come fully to fruition. You'd need something near a real artificial intelligence on the back end to deal with all this and a massive staff of writers and designers to try and implement this ever changing unique experience for millions of people.

    With games you need to be satisfied to live in a small sandbox. There are going to be rules and boundaries of various kinds. That's part of what makes it interesting, fun, and doable. It is just like cards, you have to have a set of rules, limits on the deck and so on. If you just got people together and started drawing random shit on paper and trying to make a game you'd have the card game equivalent of Calvin Ball.

    In terms of deep story and changing universe, you need to stick more to single player games, that's really the place it works. Play Mass Effect for a deep story, play WoW to kill night elves.

    1. Re:Hard to do by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I've been thinking on one way around this, and while I should save it and make a bazillion dollars off the idea, here it is:

      In many MMOs, the quest items are ethereal - you kill stuff and get things, but you never actually have those items on your person - the quest keeps track, and when you get them all, it goes "ding" and you turn it in for a reward. You don't actually tote around 15 horns of some beast, hides, etc.

      Make those items easier to get, real, but encumbering, and allow them to be traded. And make it so that at lower levels killing the things would be good XP, but at the level you get the quest they aren't very good XP. At first glance this seems like a stupid idea, but....

      The beauty is that there's a good chance you will ask someone lower level to go do your dirty work for you. You'll pay them for the goods, they'll get XP and gold, you'll turn in the quest. Thus, rather than you getting quests from NPCs, you'll get them from PCs. "Damn - that 37th level fighter just came by and offered to pay me a ton of gold to go kill swamp rats, if I bring him the tails. I guess some wizard he knows needs them."

      That is far more interesting than going to the tavern master six times in a row, or bouncing from NPC to NPC in town to get and turn in quests. The strength of a MMO is that there are lots of people playing. Make them part of the world, rather than "just another player".

      When the 57th level wizard rounds up the n00bs and has them party up to go hunting grass snakes for him, that will make the game far more engaging and interesting. If each one of those n00bs was hunting them for the alchemist next to the baker, it would be far less engaging and interesting.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:Hard to do by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In many MMOs, the quest items are ethereal - you kill stuff and get things, but you never actually have those items on your person - the quest keeps track, and when you get them all, it goes "ding" and you turn it in for a reward. You don't actually tote around 15 horns of some beast, hides, etc.

      You haven't played Everquest. The reason the new games don't do this is players are whining retards.

      1) "I accidently deleted my quest items/ sold them to a vendor/ dropped them on the ground" wah wah....

      2) "Quest items are taking all my backback/bank space, and they're too heavy, and I have to make trips back to town to unload them and I'm not levelling as fast..." wah wah...

      The beauty is that there's a good chance you will ask someone lower level to go do your dirty work for you. You'll pay them for the goods, they'll get XP and gold, you'll turn in the quest. Thus, rather than you getting quests from NPCs, you'll get them from PCs. "Damn - that 37th level fighter just came by and offered to pay me a ton of gold to go kill swamp rats, if I bring him the tails. I guess some wizard he knows needs them."

      That's how tradeskills ALREADY work. Except the player interaction is funnelled through the 'auction house' system. And it fucks up the game, because selling trade skill items to higher level players tends to be one of the most profitable things you can do. Kill 100 level 5 critters? make a couple silver. Mine 40 units of copper in WoW or farm 40 spiderling silks in Everquest... and you'll make 100x times that or more.

      That is far more interesting than going to the tavern master six times in a row, or bouncing from NPC to NPC in town to get and turn in quests. The strength of a MMO is that there are lots of people playing. Make them part of the world, rather than "just another player".

      No. Its far less interesting. You always go to the same place and you deal with a spreadsheet interface instead of an NPC or PC.

      Everquest, again, started out without an auction house, and resisted adding one for a long time, because they had a thriving player driven auction house, and the games had areas where people were standing around hawking their wares, traders roamed the servers with Want-to-sell and want-to-buy chatter, and honestly... its was very cool.

      But too many players wanted the easy route... they wanted a serverwide searchable database, they didn't want to actually travel to the vendor, they didn't want to acutally have to be online at the same time as the vendor... they didn't want to actually have to haggle and trade... they wanted ... well... WoW's spreadsheet system. Sure its more efficient and whatnot.

      The only thing close to a living world i've ever played was everquest during the first few expansions. The lack of an auction system, the travel challenges, the wandering high level mobs in newbie areas... it forced players to actually interact.

      What killed it? Most player really don't want to interact - it 'slows' them down.

    3. Re:Hard to do by vux984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be fair, most people play these games for diversion. So, they tend to want to get into the fun quickly. Being able to head to the auction house and then fly to my destination is easier than traveling for an hour or more to the accepted trading location and bartering with people.

      Why -bother- with the auction house at all? That's sort of my point. As a game mechanic its fundamentally FLAWED. Its there to appease the players that don't actually want to trade, that want that whole part of the game reduced to the absolutely most efficient and impersonal mechanism possible...so that they can spend the absolute minimum amount of time on it.

      So we gave them a global spreadsheet/database application interface six inches from their bankers?!?!

      I honestly think it would be better to simply remove trade from the game. If your players want to avoid it that badly, and consider it such a complete waste of their time to that extent, just take it out, and design your game around not having it.

      The trouble, or perhaps the beauty of WoW, is that they cater to a (massive) player base who really just want to "kill stuff and get loot" and -anything- that slows down either they want removed or mitigated. Minimal travelling with lots of easy/safe shortcuts, and certainly no "dangerous travelling", no trading, no juggling quest items, no reading, no hunting for NPCs.. they'll barely tolerate running from question mark to exclamation point, provided its on their mini map, and not too far and if it gives them lots of xp or loot.

      From my point of view though, its a pathetic ghost of an mmorpg.

      IMHO, the solution here is to start making smaller-scale MMOs. There are enough people that share your tastes that a game could be made to cater to you.

      I agree, and have advocated this in the past. I don't begrudge WoW players their game, I'm glad they have soemthing they enjoy, but its not for me... everquest, at one time was... but as it evolved, it catered increasingly to the now WoW playerbase, and gave up its soul in the process. (Not that early everquest wasn't flawed... there were PLENTY of flaws.)

      Eve proves that niche games can be successful, (though Eve itself does nothing for me, for a variety of reasons.) I have WAR subscription now, but I find it as uncompelling as WoW...

    4. Re:Hard to do by Psychochild · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a game mechanic [auction houses are] fundamentally FLAWED.

      It depends on what the goal of the mechanic is. In the case of WoW, it streamlines the experience and lets people get to the "fun parts" of building up a character faster. So, in this instance, it's actually a rousing success. You're arguing that it takes away something that you value: the feeling of a living world. But I don't think that goal, as you would define it, was ever an intention of WoW. Therefore, you can't say the auction houses are fundamentally flawed as the apply to WoW.

      The trouble, or perhaps the beauty of WoW, is that they cater to a (massive) player base who really just want to "kill stuff and get loot" and -anything- that slows down either they want removed or mitigated.

      Exactly. And, know what? A lot of old-school MMO game players heralded that as a success. It gets people to the "fun parts" of the game. It doesn't make the game feel like "a grind". People have welcomed this with open arms. WoW has, by far, the largest subscriber base in North America of any game; the masses have spoken, and they like that type of game. (Not to downplay the market power of the "Blizzard" and "Warcraft" names, though, since those helped a lot.)

      Unfortunately, the grim business reality is that most projects are going to want to aim for this market. Back when EQ1 was the king of the roost, people wanted MMO projects to be "more like EverQuest!" Now that WoW is top of the heap in terms of subscribers, people want that. Especially the people funding these projects, because they want to make what Blizzard is making off of WoW. That means things like having what feels like a "living world" is not usually a concern for MMO game developers, specially the ones getting big funding from game companies.

      Eve proves that niche games can be successful

      EVE proves nothing of the sort. EVE was a commercial failure when it launched, the publisher dropped the project quickly after launch. For most companies, this would have been death. CCP, the developers of EVE, got funding from the goverment of Iceland, and thus were able to re-acquire the rights to the game and stay in business. EVE was able to stick with development and enjoy some modest success for being a game that didn't try to directly copy EQ or WoW. But, it took a pretty special set of circumstances for the game to survive and thrive. A lot of niche games aren't so lucky.

      This is why I made a big deal about people having to accept that a niche game isn't going to be as large, high quality, and/or as cheap as mainstream games. WoW is like McDonalds: it serves millions and millions, but it's not the best food you'll ever eat. If you want something more healthy and tasty, you aren't going to be able to only spend 99 cents for your hamburger; likewise, if you want something that isn't built to cater to the largest market possible, get ready to have to accept some compromises.

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
    5. Re:Hard to do by vux984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It depends on what the goal of the mechanic is. In the case of WoW, it streamlines the experience and lets people get to the "fun parts" of building up a character faster.

      Precisely. It streamlines away part of the game the majority of the players don't want to play. Why not just finish the job, and streamline it right out of the game? Its not like anyone actually enjoys sitting there using the auction house. Its just a "housekeeping" chore that they attend to. It still takes time away from doing the "fun parts" of building up a character faster.

      To illustrate my point, if they added a smithing system, where you could walk up to a smith, design your equipment from the available options. (or even just choose from any piece of equipment that ever hits the AH), pay for it and leave the AH would be dead. The AH is simply a means to an end, nobody actually enjoys it. If something even more streamlined showed up, that would be the end of the AH.

      Exactly. And, know what? A lot of old-school MMO game players heralded that as a success. It gets people to the "fun parts" of the game.

      Those guys were NEVER really "MMO game players", what they really wanted is a first person shooter with an ability/equipment progression in a fantasy setting. A first person 3D diablo II.

      Unfortunately, the grim business reality is that most projects are going to want to aim for this market.

      No question about that.

      Back when EQ1 was the king of the roost, people wanted MMO projects to be "more like EverQuest!"

      I disagree. The challengers to everquest were ALWAYS about "improving" everquest by eliminating more 'downtime', being more solo-able, and allowing you get to the "fun parts" as you call them faster. WoW is really just the first game that "improved" Everquest by effectively removing everything that slowed people down. All the games Post Everquest moved in this direction. WoW just 'mastered it'. Food/water - gone. Difficult travel - gone. Death penalty - gone. Corpse recovery - gone. Trading - reduced to a spreadsheet. Questing difficulty - reduced to finding the exclamation points. Limited Spell slots - gone. Slow natural health/mana regeneration (aka downtime) - gone. Trains of mobs/chain aggro - gone. Faction - essentially gone.

      Turns out that in terms of attracting / satisfying a lot of players it was a good move. Blizzard distilled the mmorpg genre to the essense of what people "liked doing". Trouble is, its barely an rpg anymore. I think "first person diablo 2" is surprisingly close to the mark. (And there is nothing wrong with that of course... D2 is a fun game, and WoW obviously appeals to a lot of people. But its not really an MMORPG at all. All that housekeeping stuff - maintaining inventory, quest items, avoiding death, travelling around, figuring things out, etc are part of the genre.

      WoW is to an MMORPG what Need for Speed is to a real racing sim.

      PS - Interesting comments on the history of Eve. I didn't know that. Its discouraging to say the least.

  18. Re:Historical record gone. by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the Ultima Online boards a few years ago, there was a discussion about player memorials (once a game has been around ten years, when a notable player passes away, it can have a real impact on the community - especially in a game where player houses can become landmarks). One of the arguments against player memorials was that there was no guarantee that the game would always be there, so it didn't seem the right place a true memorial.

  19. Re:Historical record gone. by philspear · · Score: 3, Funny

    One big EMF smackdown on the earth and its as if we never even existed past the early 2000's.

    Well, much as I loved "Unbelievable," I don't think they're coming back, so we need not worry about that.

    And anyway, do we really WANT to preserve the history of MMOs for future generations? They might see "LOLZ!!! N00BZ got pwned by agro horde!!!" and decide not to clone us back to life. Worse yet, they might emulate it.

  20. I knew this was destined to happen by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Informative

    First, I was supposed to beta test it. The installer kept giving me a weird error about a FIPS cryptographic package. I was never able to install it. The NCSoft Support team didn't seem to have a clue as to how to solve the problem and install the game. If anyone deserves to be sued, it's NCSoft. People bought TR with the expectation that it would be an on-going experience. It is now shutting down. The value that was expect is no longer.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  21. Re:MMO = fun? by schon · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem is that it's not just the software industry.

  22. Re:MMO = fun? by garylian · · Score: 4, Informative

    It may be fun now, but when a public beta is one dimensional and boring, this is what happens. And that summed up Tabula Rasa in a nutshell. Considering that the last few Origin games weren't that great (it peaked at 3-5), Garriott had lost his fastball.

    MMOs are really about how good a game is at launch. The more bugs and poor gameplay there is, the worse the game will do. And it's hard to recover for a lackluster launch and first few months. Let's look at some examples.

    City of Heroes had one of the cleanest launches of an MMO that I've ever seen. Almost no bugs, and for the first 20-30 levels, you don't really pay too much attention to how monotonous the game really is. Then the monotony gets to you, and players pushed through it. Personally, I think it was the costumes that made this game playable beyond those first 20 levels or so, as the costume generator is second to none. But the number of players dropped quicly after launch, because of that monotony. You can only go through so many "caves" or similar looking "installations" before you're done.

    EQ2 launched, and the game was specifically designed to be just as hard as EQ, but with better graphics. There were a lot of interesting aspects to the game, but the #1 drawback is that you didn't play your real class until you hit lvl 20! You started off as a generic fighter/mage/healer/thief, and at lvl 10, you refined it down a little more, and at lvl 20 you finally gained your ultimate class. Well, nobody liked that part. While it was launched a week or two before WoW, EQ2 suffered for that initial stupidty. In many ways, EQ2 now is a better game than WoW is today, with a lot less downtime, a heck of a lot better with new content, and a more mature player base. But it is doubtful that it will ever recover from the blah launch it had. Maybe if Blizzard destroys WoW with some stupid expansion, EQ2 will explode, minues the PvP crowd.

    WoW launched after a pretty positive closed and open beta. And unless you were on one of the original "terrible 20" servers (I was on one), the game wasn't too bad. Sure, they took about 6 months to stop having the same exact problem after EACH update, but the game has a genuine "fun factor" to it that didn't wear off until you hit level cap, unless you enjoyed PvP. Blizzard made a LOT of mistakes, but what they didn't screw up was making the game flat out fun. There's a reason they have over 10 million subscribers world wide: it's fun to play. It will remain to be seen if Blizzard's continual push for more Arena style PvP starts to piss the player base off, but it's hard to get a large group of friends to switch games, and WoW has most of them hooked deep. The only things that will be a WoW-killer are Blizzard and time.

    LotRO was a pretty poor beta experience. When one class is completely dominant over all others, the game has problems. The primary healer class was also the best offensive spellcaster in the game. A group of 4 of them could handle pretty much all content easily in the early stages, leaving a poor taste in the player's mouth. It's not surprising that with all the history and the success of the LotR movies, the game saw decent numbers at launch. They didn't last very long.

    AoC was a disasterous beta, in the fact that the open beta only let you experience the first 20 levels, which happened to contain the only fun part of the game. Look at it now. It's going to be the next game to shut down their servers. I'd guestimate that over 75% of the players that bought the game for launch left within 2 months. That's a staggering number.

    Warhammer Online might make a decent dent in the market. For all the delays and the removal of content prior to launch, the game was actually a hell of a lot of fun in beta. I hate PvP for the most part, and even I enjoyed my beta experience a lot. I believe the game is doing well so far, from what friends are saying. The game didn't get a lot of good hype based on it's name alone, so the hype was all about the gameplay itself. This one could have staying power.

    We won't even get into SW:G and everything that went wrong with that game. We'll just cross that one off as a colossal mistake.

  23. Re:MMO = fun? by thoughtlover · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, it looks like a great game, actually. I would probably have played it, too. Would I have been upset with bugs, yes, but the genre of the game is what I like. In truth, there are so many games that it's hard to know what is out there at any one time.

    So my question is, if the game has improved drastically, why are they making it free for the last month, if only to say to all the new players, "Ha! we told you it would be worth it" ??

    If anything, they should make it free now and see how much play it garners till the end of the year. Enough mew players (and disgruntled early adopters) may come to like it enough to pay for more later.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
  24. Re:MMO = fun? by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Warhammer Online I would have to say will fall into your COH assessment. I played it up to level 26 and got bored and tired of the RVR content. It was repetitive and always the same. People were/are stupid and never worked together (on both sides.) Every match pretty much was the same, with the same tactics, and the same look. It was worse than sewers and buildings in COH. At least they changed layout in COH.

    Now, you take that formula and make end game out of that? No thanks! I was sick and tired of the game when I hit level 20 without playing RVR and had to go to the other areas and complete partial chapters just to level. Then I found out RVR experience was a pretty huge part of the game and I started RVR'ing more. Then the boring repetitive run Morkain's Temple (sp?) over and over and over again until you got sick of it.

    Granted, I'm not a fan of PVP/RVR content. I think it inspires all the wrong in people and they become competitive rather than cooperative. The type of people that play PVP games are generally less inclined to help other people. Nowhere better did this show than in Public quests. It wasn't about helping people complete it. It was about who could heal/damage/tag/collect more than everyone else. Then you toss in the random loot roller and you had a situation like I had with my friends. You see that a PQ was near completion, you'd jump in and get a few shots to have the opportunity just to get loot and out roll the players that had been there progressing the quest from the start.

    Games like these make me absolutely hate PVP. Not because of all the good things that COULD come from it... but because of all the bad that DOES.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  25. Re:Power of community + run by the community? by Psychochild · · Score: 2, Informative

    It makes me wonder if an open-source MMO might one day not only rival the current big commercial ones, but even become far more long lived than any of them because its community would last forever, and it could never get shut down, regardless of perceived success or failure.

    In a word: No. This has been tried many times before. Perhaps the most notable project has been WorldForge (http://worldforge.org/).

    For a bit of background, I've been developing MMO games professionally for over a decade, and did text MUD coding in college starting in 1993. I currently own and operate the MMO Meridian 59 , a game that originally launched in 1996. So, I have some idea of what is required for making an MMO game. I'm also a professional who has shown a personal interest in maintaining an online game world even after it was originally shut down; 3DO shut down the game in 2000, and my business partner and I bought the rights to the game and re-launched it. Let me tell you, that has turned out to be a somewhat thankless task.

    The main problem with a "community MMO" as you suggest is that you need a strong, central vision for the game. You can't just have a bunch of people working on things and hope it comes together as a cohesive project at the end. You need someone like Linus with Linux, someone who can direct the path of the project. These types of people tend to be fairly rare, though.

    Another major problem is that MMO games aren't just technological, they're also creative. One part of being a professional game designer is being able to realize that most of your ideas suck. It's easy to sit around and spitball ideas all day, but refining them and turning them into something that can be implemented into a fun game is a pretty rare skill. And, most people contributing to the project probably don't want to hear, "Your game ideas suck, stick to coding." The reason a coder would work on a game rather than another project is probably because you want to have input on the formation of the game. Again, you need that strong, central vision to keep things going.

    Finally, game development is really hard. I've tried to start up a lot of small-scale projects in the past, bootstrapping the project instead of getting a questionable deal on funding form publishers. Of the few dozen people I've interacted with in the past few years, about 95% of them have flaked out on me. Most of them weren't experienced game developers, so when the real work reared its ugly head, they were suddenly scarce. As I said above, it's easy to sit around and spitball different ideas to see what might stick, but actually turning that idle chatter into an actual game is much more difficult than people realize. Without a paycheck, it's hard to keep people productive when the "real work" starts.

    ...the MMO feeling is there despite the server requirements being not much different to those of an IRC server.

    You're pretty off-base here. I'm not saying MMO servers are horribly complex (the server for Meridian 59 can be (and has been) run on my laptop), but they require a bit more than your typical IRC server, particularly if you want to support more than a few hundred people on a server. Most of the gameplay is calculated on the server, mostly to help reduce the effects of cheating. That's one of the reasons why a "distributed peer-to-peer" MMO is unlikely to work, unless you come up with some sure-fire way to prevent cheating. Given how much people have complained about WoW's Warden system on Slashdot in the past, that's a tall order to fill.

    Some thoughts from someone who has some experience.

    --
    Brian "Psychochild" Green
    MMO developer's blog
  26. Re:Power of community + run by the community? by Psychochild · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's a great response, thanks Psychochild!

    My pleasure. I enjoy a good discussion about an area I'm pretty passionate about.

    Let me give you a concrete counter-example to what you suggest is a fundamental problem.

    I don't know much about Cube/Sauerbraten, so I can't comment on it directly. I will say that it's nowhere near as complex as an MMO. The game boasts 7 weapons, whereas Meridian 59, which is hardly the largest game, has 13 melee weapons, 4 ranged weapons, and over 150 individual spells that all have to be balanced against each other. It has many, many rooms, which are about as complex as DOOM 1 levels, all interconnected. Now, imagine a game like WoW that has hundreds of weapons, armors, spells, stats, etc.

    But, let me give an example of what I was talking about: MUDs.

    Text MUDs were the predecessors to modern MMO games. They were entirely text-based, but they shared a lot of features with modern MMO games. The two primary game-focused ones were LP-MUDs (which allowed user programming on the fly) and DIKU MUDs. DIKU MUDs were a lot more popular for two reasons: there was only one administrator and the popular verions had a game world right out of the box. LP-MUDs had a tradition of allowing the top players to become Wizards (coders) on the game, and you usually had to write most of the game world yourself. The shared administration duties caused a lot of schisms, and probably at least half of the LP MUDs out there were formed when someone got into an argument and took a copy of the existing game to create their own version of the game.

    And, in games where you had a variety of people working on them, you often had special issues. For example, every new player wanted to have the "best" area, which mean that you had to have something special in your area that was more desireable. Perhaps the most powerful weapon or armor, so you had the original cause of "mudflation". Or, you had one person working on an X-Men themed area right next to one area with Ninjas and another area parodying My Little Pony. A far cry from the (mostly) coherent storylines found in current graphical games.

    MUDs used to be what people who wanted to do an online game made back in the day. There were a lot of them, and the best ones (and most of the ones that still exist today) had very strong, central authorities to support them.

    One other thing to consider: What is the weakest area of open source development? Usually the documentation. It's not sexy and few people really want to do it. However, game development is about 50% documentation (that is, the game design). I noticed Sauerbraten has a Wiki, so it's ahead of that game. But, look at the documentation the vast majority of open source projects out there; the documentation only becomes mature once the project has been out there long enough. That's death for a large scale game like an MMO.

    [Y]ou could always just play with people you trust instead. That's been a good strategy to use in countless online games, and works a treat when they're instanced. Not a showstopper.

    We're talking an MMO here, though, not something like a personal Neverwinter Nights server. The difference is trying to run a D&D game for your friends vs. trying to run D&D games for a convention. If you just want to play with your friends, then you're not talking about an MMO anymore. Not to say that something like a game server where you could play with your friends wouldn't be cool, but it's not the same.

    So, there's some clarification on my points. I think the differences between a multiplayer FPS and an MMO is important. In fact, the first "M" stands for "massively", which was intended to separate these games from the 16 player FPS servers that were available back in the day.

    Now, all this isn't to say that I think a community project would never work or that I wouldn't support one. I know a few of the WorldForge people and really respect them for the work they've done. But, I've heard from them first-hand about the issues they've faced.

    More of my thoughts.

    --
    Brian "Psychochild" Green
    MMO developer's blog