I'll admit my biases up front: I own and operate the online game Meridian 59 which requires a monthly subscription fee.
If you really think about it, the subscription for an online game really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Of course, there's the usual comparison between movies and online RPGs (2-3 hours of entertainment vs. 1 month of entertainment), but even if you compare it to standalone games it's a good bargain. Even if you only buy one new release game every 4 months (3 times per year), you'll still spend more per month than a typical online RPG ($50/4 = $12.50 per month compared to $10.95/month for a game like Meridian 59). Even compared to ISP charges we're talking about chump change here; I have paid much more $10-15/month for internet connectivity for many years now.
And, what do you get for that fee? You get a game with a developer that has a vested interest in fixing problems ASAP. You have stable servers with as much uptime as humanly possible on a connection that most home users can't afford. You have in-game assistance for your problems.
In addition, the online games market is growing, not becoming saturated. It might be easy to forget that the U.S. isn't the only market for these games. The biggest game, Mu Online, claimed to have 5 million people playing their game during peak times at E3. You probably haven't heard about the game much unless you're in Asia or attend E3. Anecdotally, most developers don't see a change in subscriptions when other games launch; online populations might dip, but the number of subscriptions generally remains constant. Some games even see a growth in overall subscription figures as new players are introduced to online games.
But, to bring this post back on-topic: making and operating an online RPG is a huge task. They are generally expensive and difficult to make, and just when you think the work is done (shipping the game, but traditional game development standards), you find out that the real work is only beginning. Most game companies now realize that online games are a service, not just a product, but this has taken a long time for many companies to understand. You have to continue to support the game after launch, and a bad decision can leave a large legacy of problems.
As for Warhammer Online, this official post shows that they learned a lot about the online game space and essentially didn't like the risks. I disagree with their assessment as an indie online RPG developer, but it's a reasonable reaction.
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.
Actually, the original Might and Magic games are RPGs, just like the old Ultima games were. Heroes took the game in a turn-based direction.
To reward those that read the comments a bit later, I'll share some dark secrets from 3DO. Since 3DO's bankrupt, I doubt there will be any trouble caused by posting this.
It's a little-known fact that 3DO had plans to make a Might & Magic online RPG a very long time ago, before UO was even launched. 3DO bought Archetype Interactive, the company responsible for Meridian 59 (the game I currently own and operate). They also bought New World Computing (NWC) about the same time to get the valued Might and Magic franchise. They wanted to use the M59 technology (which was pretty cool back in '96) to take Might and Magic online.
Well, things didn't quite work out that way. 3DO was looking at the game as a game, not the service it really is. So, they neglected M59 in favor of working on their new project. In the end, M59 didn't do as well as it could have despite launching a full year before UO was launched. Meridian 59 got little internal support, no resources for expansion, and terrible marketing support, so it's little surprise that the game didn't do that well.
In addition, UO was widely panned by most critics when the game launched. The lag, the bugs, the design flaws, all these things helped the game win multiple "coaster of the year" type awards. The secret was that there were multiple thousands of Ultima fans that played the game despite the complaints the critics had. EA/Origin kept mum about their real subscription levels, and everyone assumed it was a collosal failure.
The "failure" of M59 and UO convinced the 3DO that online games were just not profitable. So, they scrapped the Might & Magic Online plans and laid off the whole team. Of course, many Meridian 59 developers left the company as well in sympathy for their friends that were just laid off, ensuring that 3DO would always be an "also ran" when it came to online games. This was about the time the dot-com bubble was heating up.;)
Interestingly enough, the concept that online games were a failure stuck with the 3DO management for a very long time. Trip repeatedly gave interviews saying that "the market isn't ready" for online games. Even after UO was proven to be a success and EQ entered the scene with a HUGE splash, 3DO still stuck to this story, even when I left the company in 2000. Denial is an ugly thing, really.
Personally, I'm not sure the cancellation was a bad thing. 3DO proved repeatedly they didn't know how to run an online game. I had to fight tooth and nail while working on Meridian 59 to get the resources necessary to fix and improve the game. Jumpgate, also published by 3DO, faded into a completely undeserved oblivion. (It's interesting to note that NetDevil, the studio making Auto Assault for NCSoft, was the developer for Jumpgate.) It might be better to have our memories of Might and Magic as they are, not tainted by another "failed" game.
On the other hand, it could have been different if 3DO had kept competent people. Meridian 59 is actually a really fun game with multiple innovative elements that have only just recently been copied by other games. If you like online games and want something a little different than the ordinary fare, I recommend Meridian 59. (The good news is that after we bought the game from 3DO, we were able to do a lot of the work that the game absolutely needed.) Those of you that remember Meridian 59 from before might want to check out the new rendering engine that we're working on. The game is getting a bit of a facelift from the old software renderer to a new hardware-accelerated renderer.
What's the cost of running a counterstrike server compared to one of these MMORPGs? It's the same! And yet they have managed to charge people a fee for providing the same service.
Uh, not really. I run my own online game, Meridian 59, and I know what it costs to run a server.
Although we keep costs as low as possible, it does cost quite a bit to keep the server connected. Players will use a lot of bandwidth when you're talking about a few thousand people all on at the same time. Keeping the server up also costs money for support in case some router decides it doesn't want to work overnight. (People get really cranky about the service going down if they're paying you.)
On the flip side, running a FPS server at that level of availability isn't exactly cheap, either. Consider the prices at this site; they do "professsional" hosting of FPS servers and charge between $5-10 per person for that. Considering the depth an online RPG provides, and the fact that regular updates are provided, a game like my own that only charges $10.95 is a pretty good deal. (Meridian 59 doesn't require an up-front box purchase, so it's an even better deal than usual.)
As for the topic on hand, I worked at 3DO for a while and remember JVC's interesting email commentary to some of the events there. I hope he finds a place where he can get good creative freedom and make some great games.
The folks who played rogue? They did OK, I guess. But I think they would have done much better if they'd taken the opportunity as seriously as I did.
It depends. I played a lot of text MUDs in college. Of course, I was lucky enough to play the LP types that have user programming, so that was a creative outlet to expand my programming ability.
After college I got a rather boring job working at a standard software company. After a year of that, I got a job in the games industry. I was able to draw upon those years of playing text MUDs and help maintain the classic online game Meridian 59. Later, I started my own business and bought Meridian 59 and currently administrate it. I make a fair living at it, and I'm recognized by many of my peers in the games industry as a talented developer. Seeing how I'm only 30, I've done pretty good so far.
As to the question in the article, I can speak with some authority. I have a very wonderful significant other that has put up with me for nearly 10 years, and she has accepted with my gaming obsession. I work on games for a living, so I'm pretty hard-core when it comes to gaming. It's a central part of who I am, but I also keep her happy. (She keeps me sane, too!)
I'll echo what a lot of people say here in that it's all about compromise. You need to compromise on the amount of time you spend playing the game, and your significant other needs to compromise in realizing that this is part of who you are. Make sure you let her know that she's still special. Set aside some time to spend with her and away from the game. Play in moderation, and learn that you can say "no" when there's something more imporant to do than gaming.
One nifty thing about City of Heroes, specifically, is that you can become the "sidekick" of another player and play as a higher effective level. This means that you can play with your friends that can play more often than you can. Alternatively, everyone can create multiple characters; play one character when you are together, and a separate character that can level faster without worrying about outdistancing the rest of the group.
One thing to remember is that just because you can play a game for endless hours doesn't meant you should. It's okay to play "only" a few hours per week when you can get together. There's a variety of great games out there that allow for a variety of play styles; Meridian 59, for example, allows for the "15 minute" gameplay by allowing you to log on and practice a few spells instead of requiring multiple hours in a single sitting. If you get tired of CoH, look around for other games that suit your needs.
Some interesting things in the interview, but I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment about team size, etc. There are a small number of online world that were built and are maintained by small teams. My own game, Meridian 59, is one example that is being maintained by about 4 people. A Tale in The Desert is another game that was built and is being maintained by a small team. Yes, these games are a bit smaller than the ones that get all the press, but they're still interesting virtual words that show it can be done.
I think the bigger problem is that everyone wants to be the "million seller" online game. I suspect There had its sights set too high, and when the million subscribers didn't show up, they became a bit disillusioned. But, I think it's interesting that he says smaller projects can lead to bigger things. I've been a firm believer in that; Meridian 59 is a niche product, and we offer it to the playerbase in order to scratch a particular itch they have, namely balanced PvP.
In short, I think it's quite possible to do a virtual world with a small team. You just have to be smarter about it and not expect to be an "EverQuest-killer" out of the gate. Target an audience and serve them well. That's my plan, at least.
One of the biggest things you can do is to support independent developers. There are a number of smaller developers out there that are trying to push the envelope in gameplay. Of course, with limited resources the smaller developers can't provide the flash and dazzle of the larger games.
I'm part of one of those smaller game development houses; we develop online RPGs. Our current game, Meridian 59, is a classic online RPG with open PvP. Yes, open PvP isn't for everyone, but many people wish to have this in their game. Our game is smaller and not as well-known as the larger online RPGs, but we get by.
Of course, the first reaction of most people is to judge the game by the graphics. Unfortunately for them, the graphics do not indicate the quality of gameplay. The combat is fun, there is not much of the "treadmill" you see in other games, and the PvP has been carefully balanced over the years. Meridian 59's gameplay is very fun, and we even charge less than most other games requiring no box purchase to play the game in the first place. But, people who judge games only on screenshots will never enjoy these finer aspects of Meridian 59.
Really, this is why many games go for the flash instead of substance; it sells more games. We're working on an engine upgrade to Meridian 59, but this is not going to affect the gameplay, it will only make the game look better in screenshots. And, we have many other upgrades in store as the game grows. However, think of the time and effort we could have poured into gameplay....
The point of this ramble is that if you want to see more innovative games, then start searching them out and playing (and paying for!) them. There are a number of great independent online games (I'm more familiar with them given that I work with online games), and there's a good number of quality single-player games out there as well. It's just a question of going a little bit off the beaten path and finding them for yourself.
I was at E3 and quite enjoyed Taiko game Namco was showing. I've never been a big fan of DDR, but I enjoyed Sega's Samba De Amigo (yay Dreamcast!). The music for Taiko is mostly classical from what I could tell, a genre of music I enjoy. The 1 UP article says it has J-Pop in there, though.
I think the demo was fun (Namco is the only booth I went back to multiple times to play the games), and am debating if I want to buy it when it (hopefully) comes out. I'm a big fan of innovative games like that. Wish I had more time between meeting with press people about my own game to see more of the cool games on the floor.
Crunch time as we have it now is a perversion of what originally made the industry great.
In the olden days of game development, you had people that were genuinely passionate about their project. These people were willing to go the extra mile to make the game great. That often included working insane amount of hours to put as much quality into the game as possible.
Somewhere along the lines, management decided this seemed to be the norm, so why not schedule for it? Just assume that game developers will work 60-80 hour weeks, and you can save a lot of money. So, "crunch" time went from being something developers did as a sign of pride in their work to something that managers just scheduled for.
Unfortunately, this change makes all the difference. If you don't care about the game you're working on and you're still expected to make 16 hour days for the next few months, then you're going to burn out quickly. Of course, there's a seemingly endless supply of fresh college grads willing to take the job, especially with the current economic conditions.
This is one of the main reasons why I started my own company. I wanted to feel passionate about the games I worked on, and I wanted my long hours to directly contribute to my own well-being. For the record, I work on the game Meridian 59.
Well, I'm one of those people you "hate"; I run an online RPG which charges a monthly subscription fee and feel it's a better deal than most other entertianment, games included. But, allow me to point out some fallacies in your argument.
First, let's get the money out of the way. You think $50k profit on 100k users is impressive? That's $6/year per customer. That's a shameful amount for any business. Many companies make at least that much profit off a customer in one visit without the costs of developing an online RPG that can hold 100k subscribers.
But, let's focus on games as you requested. So, let me ask you: when was the last time you negotiated a peaceful agreement between opposing groups in UT2004? What? Never? That's funny, because someone posted about doing that very thing on Meridian 59 just the other week. See, politics is an important force in some online RPGs, and an interesting way to engage in player vs. player competition. The problem with UT2004 is that the lack of persistence means that there is no reason for deeper interactions between players in the context of the game. My only options in UT2004 is to shoot my enemy before s/he shoots me.
It's the persistence that give online RPGs the depth you don't find in other games. Politics is just one thing, but meaningful conflict is another. When I kill a player in Meridian, that player suffers penalties. Those penalties don't go away once the game resets (except for some special events), so that player has a reason to hold a grudge against me. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions, which leads to interesting interactions between players.
In the end, it's that persistence you pay for in a online RPG. You're not just paying for the game, but also for the service that keeps the servers active and available for you to play on, and polices the game for cheaters, etc. This isn't to say that everyone has to love persistence and dealing with the consequences for their actions, but there are a lot of us that really do appreciate this and think that a monthly fee is well worth it.
And, to pimp my own game for a bit, some games are great bargains. Meridian 59 is only $10.95 per month (not $15 like City of Heroes will be), and does not require the purchase of a box or expansions. We keep expanding and improving Meridian; in fact, we're in the middle of a rewrite of the rendering engine to improve the graphics of the game. All as freely downloaded content to the players of the game.
In the end, you'll be hard pressed to find any other form of entertainment, including games, that has as low a buyin as $10.95 and is that cheap per month.
Oddly enough, the same philosophy fits computer games (MMPORGS) perfectly as well.
As an administrator of an online RPG and a former M:tG player, I think this is a bit of an unfair comparison.
The most obvious thing is price. My own game, Meridian 59 costs $10.95 per month with no boxes or expansions to buy. That's the equivalent of, what, 3-4 boosters? Who do you know that only bought 3-4 boosters per month while playing Magic?
Further, consider what you get for your payment. In M:tG, I'm getting printed pieces of cardboard that I hope will improve my deck or be worth enough for me to sell at a profit. I still have to find people to play with.
In an online RPG, on the other hand, you are getting a lot more. You get a dynamic world that is expanded on a regular basis. You get a group of ready players interested in the same game that you can interact with. You get a service that maintains the game and polices it for undesirable behavior, such as cheating.
If I could have remained competitive at M:tG by only buying 3-4 booster packs per month, and I would have had a guaranteed group of honest players from the publisher to play with, then I'd probably still be playing M:tG today. Admittedly, not all online games are as good a deal as Meridian, but that doesn't mean they're not worth the monthly fee if you appreciate the service.
Well, publishers aren't stupid. They're just more interested in getting the maximum return for investment regardless of other considerations. Ruthless? Yes. Stupid? Not in the slightest.
The biggest source of the publisher/developer rift, in my opinion, is the simple fact that the developer just wants to make a cool game and doesn't really want to be bothered by the business side of things. If I wanted to sweat the dollars and cents of a business, I would not have gone into game development. Business software consistently makes better and more constant returns on investment. I run a game company because I want to make cool games. (I've managed to bring my company to profitablility in only 2 years, so I'm not too shabby on the business side of things myself, but I would still rather focus more on making cool games!)
The publisher, on the other hand, expects you to be highly business savvy and will do whatever they can to take advantage of the developer. Ideally, the publishers should look at the relationship as a way to help the developer accomplish this goal. The publisher should look to fund developers with the right blend of innovation, experience, ability, and passion. Instead, they look for the developers they can get the best deal from, which doesn't always produce the best games.
Last week I attended the Game Developer's Conference in San Jose, CA. I attended a "Business Summit" at the GDC, where we talked about various problems with game development, and the developer/publisher relationship was, not surprisingly, a common topic for discussion. Many developers complained how antagonistic the relationship can be. A representative from a publisher responded to some of these concerns by stating, "I will not give any developer anything they do not ask for," meaning: the publisher will take any advantage over the developer they possibly can.
And, really, that sort of attitude is disgusting. While it is profitable in the short term, it encourages an attitude of "eating your young" which harms the long-term health of the industry. Publishers should really be looking to establish partnerships with developers in order to create quality games. The most notable game development studios are ones that have accumulated enough power to bargain with publishers as equals. Companies like Blizzard, id, or Valve are known for their quality games and work independent from the publishers for the most part (until they get acquired, then the founders leave;). But, if you look at the history of these types of game companies, they worked independent from publishers initially. id is a great example: They got their start through shareware. It wasn't until DOOM that they hit the big time, and publishers were falling over themselves to put the game on the shelves. Now id could have any publisher they wanted publish their games because they've retained enough autonomy that they were never indebted to the publishers.
So, really, the opposite needs to happen. More truth needs to be exposed between the publisher and the developer. The publishers need to stop viewing developers as expendable resources, they need to start fostering long-term relationships with developers, and they need to encourage truthfulness. Unfortunately, the current model is so profitable in the short term that it's unlikely to change until something forces the balance of power to shift.
The closest thing we have to any change in the status quo is smaller developers creating niche games and selling the directly to the market, like my own company. But, really, it's not that glamorous. I have thick skin because I have to continuously hear how my game is "too old" or "too ugly" to play even though Meridian 59, all humility aside, is the best PvP experience you can get in any online RPG. Yet, a lot of people simply cannot get past production values and really appreciate the gameplay. And, hey, I'd love to have the prettyest grap
Running a game company isn't as easy as it sounds. Given the huge creative effort that goes into these games, there are multiple failure points. I speak from a position of experience as the co-founder of Near Death Studios, Inc., current developers and administrators of the online game, Meridian 59.
The biggest sin mentioned in the article isn't the trips (which can really help to build team spirit and loyalty), but rather talking about they should have fired the "least qualified people" and kept paying the founders. In a small gaming studio, there's no room for "least qualified" people. All your developers need to be top-notch and should ideally have multiple skill sets. If there's an obvious person to fire when the budget cuts come, that person probably should have been fired before the budget got tight.
The article also highlights the problem with the current developer and publisher relationships in modern game development. In reality, the publisher cares very little about you or your company, and cares even less about the creative aspects of game development. They look at the developer simply in terms of income potential.
Now, before any publisher types get their panties in a twist about this, let me give an example. I was watching the Mallrats DVD last night and watched the retrospective with Kevin Smith. He talked about creating the movie, and how people insisted that the movie's budget be at least $6 million. Mr. Smith was perplexed by this, since his previous film, Clerks cost $27,000 (if memory serves); the people in charge of the budget knew what a movie like Mallrats would cost to develop and wanted to make sure they didn't fall short on the budget before finishing the movie.
Yet, if Kevin Smith were a game developer, he would have asked for less money than it really required to make the game and probably wouldn't have even gotten that. Then when the costs ran over budget, he would have had to go back to the publisher and renegotiate a less favorable deal in order to get the money he should have gotten in the first place to finish the game. I've personally been in the industry for over 6 years now, and I've never heard of a developer getting more money than they thought they needed as Kevin Smith did with Mallrats.
Unfortunately, the publishers are only too happy to eat their young in order to profit. The publishers care very little about the business health of game developers and only care about the bottom line of how much the game makes. Sure, it's their perogative as a business, but it hinders the long-term growth of the industry if it does not cultivate talent to expand the market in the future. One "failure" like Escape Factory shows and they're done for. In the movie business, the "failure" of Mallrats was followed up by a series of wonderful movies including Chasing Amy and Dogma. We'll never know if Escape Factory could have done bigger and better things.
Sadly, the problems don't just stop there. As the article points out, you have to make the publisher think you're making the greatest game ever. That often means you have to lie to them. A friend of mine was working for an online RPG ("MMOG") for a large publisher. He had worked on previous online RPGs, so he knew the pitfalls. So, when the publisher came around to ask the status of the project, he was honest about the shortcomings. Other online RPG projects run by the same publisher didn't have the experience; they weren't able to accurately gauge their progress and told the publisher everything was fine even though they were many, many months behind where they should have been. In the end, my friend's project got cancelled while the other projects were still funded. In the end, the other projects ran late, had terrible launches, and one has already been cancelled after launch.
In the end, running a game development studio is not an easy task. Publisher callousness towards the developers makes it even worse, causing problems for the long-term health of the game development industry. This is my view of things as a self-pubished, self-funded independent online RPG developer.
When Motor City Online (also an EA game) closed down, people were offered an account on other EA games. EA has done this before, so they're old hands at it.;)
Actually, in most cases it's damned hard to kill an online RPG. The game I own, Meridian 59 was originally developed by 3DO and launched in 1996. 3DO closed the game down in 2000, but it was relaunched quickly in 2001 after my company bought the rights to the game. The game has been running strong ever since. We have thousands of fans. It's no EverQuest, but it does pretty well for a game on a tight development budget.
Really, you only have to worry about this with the really big companies. Smaller, independent developers have a lot more investment into the game. Meridian 59 will never die as long as I have any say in it, and my business partner is even more adamant about this than I am!
It's notable that despite the difficulty in killing off these types of games, EA is the company that's had the most success in doing so. They closed down a lot of Kesmai's games when they bought that company, shut down Motor City Online, and have now shut down Earth & Beyond. That track record speaks for itself.
Anyway, give some of the smaller games a try. We're often cheaper than the bigger games; Meridian 59 doesn't even require you to buy a box to play the game, just pay a subscription fee. You'll find that these games will be around for a very long time because the developers see them as something more than just a cash cow. I went into serious personal debt during the dot-com crash just to buy Meridian 59 from 3DO; I'm pretty serious about keeping it available for people to play.
A public school teacher once explained it to us (paraphrasing from memory), "The goal of public education is not to raise the highest even higher, but to raise the lowest to an acceptable level." Translated: The goal is to get the "slow" kids to society-contributing levels, not help the smart get smarter. In cold, logical terms this makes sense; a group of at least average-performing people is better than a super-genius or two in terms of benefit to society.
In my opinion and personal experience, the best thing a super-smart kid can do is to get self-motivated to learn on his or her own. I wish I had been encouraged more to learn on my own. (I was in Talented and Gifted classes when I was young, but I was too distractable to really get into them.;) It wasn't until I got into programming in high school that I really started to come into my own. Interestingly enough, it was my interest in the computer games the grandparent post criticizes that really got me interested in programming. I'd breeze through my BASIC assignments and learn more about graphics manipulation in order to create a cool game.
My love of gaming really helped me in my life. I got into programming in high school, I got into creative writing, I made great friends with D&D players in college despite my introvert tendencies, I found a great significant other that enjoys gaming (her and I often play together), I got the motivation to find a job I enjoyed in the game industry, and I was given the impetus to start my own game development company. All from my love of gaming.
In the end, find something you enjoy and start learning what makes that "tick"; for me, it was video games, and I learned how different playing games was from developing games. Learn as much as you can about it and get into the deep details. Apply your intellect to that pursuit and you might be surprised where it takes you.
I'm going to reply to this instead of modding it down. Let's see how this works.
A heartfelt rant, I'm sure. The problem is that you ignore some very important facts.
First, while it is fair to say that companies look to profit from their copyrights, not every business interested in protecting their copyrights is some big business looking to pay those that already make a lot of money. I'm a small game developer that doesn't live in Bel-Air, that doesn't have any aspirations to buy golf clubs, and that considers it a financial treat to just eat out. Yet, I own copyright on Meridian 59 and would very much like to keep people from copying the work I've put my time, money, and effort into. People can create or buy their own work if they want it. The truly ironic thing is that the same copyright laws that make it illegal for you to download music also make it download for a large publisher to take music from an independent artist and sell it without compensation. Copyrights benefit the small businesses, too, and taking away copyrights will ensure that the large companies maintain their stranglehold on entertainment.
The second fact is that there are alternatives. There are a LOT of indie artists, developers, etc. out there that would love your support. For every overhyped Ms. Spears there's a handfull of hard-working bands that you'd probably enjoy. The problem is, of course, that looking for the independent is much harder than listening to the advertising singing the praises of the latest media darling. It's easy to listen to the ads that hype up some artist that sold his or her soul to the RIAA for superstar coverage. It's harder to go around town and find the small venues where the good local bands play.
The real solution to this problem is obvious once you consider these two bits: Go support the independent artists. The reasons for doing this are so numerous it boggles the mind. First you get originality, you provide a way for an artist to make money without having to sell out to a large marketing company like the RIAA, you don't pay more money so that the fatcat entertianment executives can buy more golf clubs, you don't have to break the law to enjoy entertainment, etc. The list just goes on and on.
This applies to most entertainment. Don't want to pay $18 for a CD? Hit an independent musician's site. Many times you can get free MP3's of their songs right off their websites. Check out some local bands at live shows in small clubs. Don't want to pay $50 for a game? Check out some quality independent games. The Independent Games Festival shows off some of the better games that were made without relying on publisher funding.
Don't want to pay for a box if you're going to pay for a monthly fee for an MMORPG? Check out one of the independent games that allow you to download the client instead of paying $50 in the stores. My own game, Meridian 59, only charges a $10.95 per month subscription fee with no startup fees. We intentionally kept the price low so that people would get a great deal from our game. Sure, it's not the most prettiest game out there, but it's fun like a good game should be. (If you just want to look at cool pictures, I might recommend a museum instead.)
In the end, there's alternatives to just taking what you want and applying flimsy justifications for it. There's alternatives out there, and lots of us independents that don't want to contribute directly to the large companies that harm entertainment would be more than happy to have your support. Consider checking us out instead of breaking the law next time you want something fun.
Really, it's up to the market to start supporting the alternatives. That's the only way that the executives will be unable to cover their Bel-Air mortgages and will have to re-evaluate their business model. Giving the independents the ability to compete with the lar
It's a bit funny, because at the 2001 GDC Mr. Rubin had a talk entitled "Coming Out Of the Garage". He spoke about how independent developers need to "grow up" in order to get out of the garage, and how they need to accept publishers as vital to the process of game development. Guess he's seen what happens from that attitude.;)
Make no mistake about it, the publisher holds most of the cards. The developer is at the publisher's whim for the most part, since the publisher holds the purse strings. The few developers you see that are recognized, namely id, Blizzard, etc, were first successful outside of publisher influence. Take id for example; they started with shareware games. Even before DOOM and Wolfenstein 3D they had Commander Keen. Once DOOM hit the big time through shareware channels, id was able to negotiate a favorable deal with publishers to get the game on shelves. Their next games were sweet deals with publishers because they were already recognized; the Quake games had practically guaranteed audiences, the publisher just needed to get boxes on the shelves.
And, for the apologists that say the developer takes big risks, I'll have to call you on that bullshit. Great game development studios go out of business all the time, so obviously some risk is assumed by the developers as well, even if they have a wildly successful game series.
The main problem, in my opinion, is that games cost a lot to develop these days, and small companies rarely have the money to create a modern game. In the past, creating a game like Wolf3D was the result of a fairly small team of people. These days you need lots of developers to create high production value assets; the market demands the shiniest graphics and the coolest explosions. A great game without the expected level of polish is going to be ignored for the most part.
Yes, I realize that some people can look past the exterior to see a great game, but it's SO much easier to market a prettier game. My own game Meridian 59 shows this perfectly. The game has a DOOM-type software rendering engine, and gets consistently passed over in favor of the newer, shinier competitor. We've tried to develop a game that offers what other games on the market lack, namely balanced and fun Player vs. Player (PvP) combat. Yeah, this is considered a niche market, but not as niche as our subscriber numbers might otherwise indicate. (As a note, we are working on a significant engine upgrade. [Warning: large images.])
In the end, publishers hold all the cards, and the developers aren't going to be able to do much about it. The real power lies in the game buyers, who can choose to either buy what's marketed to them, or they can go look for the independent game developers that are creating innovative products. But, for now, the alternative to taking publisher money is to focus on smaller-scale niche titles by developing a taste for Ramen noodles. There's a reason why the phrase "starving artist" exists.
There are games that work close to what you want; however, as other people have pointed out there are problems with latency in heavily "twitch" based games. Appropriate "twitch" mechanics require fast reactions, faster than the time it takes for the client to communicate with the server in most cases.
Another issue you run into is cheating. Think about the aimbots for most FPS games. When you're paying a monthly fee, there's the expectation that there won't be cheating in the game. Therefore, most online RPGs focus on mechanics that can be verified and can't be cheated.
However, there are some games that have compensated for this and offer some level of twitch gameplay. Planetside, World War II Online, and Neocron are two FPS-type games. Asheron's Call had some twitch-based elements in that you could "dodge" projectile weapons. My own game Meridian 59 has some twitch aspects to it since the game encourages a lot of movement, especially in Player vs. Player (PvP) combat. Knowing where to move in order to outmanuever your enemies is a key skill in M59's PvP. The lower system requirements of the game also means that you have pretty low latency which lends itself better to twitch style.
There's options out there if you care to look beyond the highly advertised games.
I have definitely been noticing this trend and I don't like it one bit, but it doesn't seem there is very much I can do about it apart from abandoning some web sites that are not too essential.
Actually, you could do something else. Start up your own site and provide your own content for free. Nothing's stopping you from doing that besides money and your own motivation.
Of course, doing that is expensive and you probably aren't in a position to lose money every month just to benefit others people. Not too surprisingly, neither are most businesses.
I charge $10.95 per month for the game I run. Not because I'm a greedy bastard, but because it's what keeps the ISP bills paid and the ramen noodles stocked in the pantry.
Don't want to pay? Do it yourself. Don't have the time? Then perhaps it's worth some money to save you the time.
You, and anyone else interested in talking about indie game development, can drop me an email at my Slashdot user name @neardeathstudios.com.
I think you're on to something, but there's a lot of pitfalls that way. For example, credit card fraud can kill a small business. Unlike a porn site operator, you can't just take your goods and re-open another site under a different company name as easily.
Interesting use of the word "independent" in that article. Usually I consider an independent game developer one that doesn't rely on an outside publisher for support. Yet, most of the people there talked about publisher contracts, etc.
Being an independent game developer that does not rely on a publisher and that has been around for three years this month (yay!), I know a thing or two about this topic. I have some stock rants that I like to recite when this topic comes up, too.
Some background, first. My game is Meridian 59, a fantasy online RPG. Our game is a bit unique in that it was previously owned by a larger company, the now defunct 3DO, but we bought the rights to the game from them. I worked on M59 for a few years before starting our company, Near Death Studios, Inc., so I had an emotinoal investment in the game before we bought it. My business partner, Rob "Q" Ellis II, is also one of the original developers of the game.
The biggest problem for a true indie isn't money (although there's plenty of money issues for the independent), it's actually exposure. It's tough to get attention for your game when you're competing with other games that spent a lot of money on production values and marketing. Just being a "good game" is often not enough to get noticed in market saturated with advertising.
For example, we went to the offices of a reasonably sized gaming magazine. The features editor had told us that we would get some good coverage if we showed off the new 3D hardware-accelerated rendering engine from the game. (Note: Warcry is one of the good journalist sites to work with, and not the company in question here.) So, two of my co-workers bought a suitable notebook computer and drove 2 states away to show off this game. Unfortunately, the editor we had talked to wasn't in the office that day (and didn't contact us about it), so we talked to someone else at the offices. End result: we get an unflattering description in a list of other names and no pictures of our new engine. But, you can quickly see the reason why we get ignored: flipping through the magazine to the big story about EverQuest 2, you pass by 3 double-page ads for EQ-based products. (There are plenty of other bad things you can say about games "journalism" as well. But, there are a few bright points to contrast the negative.)
But, let's say that someone does somehow notice my game. They head to our website and sign up for an account. When they log in, they see a graphics engine that's obviously dated. And, at this point, we lose a lot of customers because glitz does matter to many people. They don't care about the gameplay because they instantly equate "bad graphics" to "not fun to play". The big companies don't really help much with this; people that are happy with the game they were playing 10 years ago aren't going to be buying up new games as they come to market. Therefore, they work hard to convince gamers that "better graphics" = "more fun to play".
But, we get to the final reason why being an indie developer sucks: the current business models don't help us. Most people won't buy a downloadable game for nearly the price of a game they could buy at the local store. So, while the larger companies charge $50 for the box, the indie can only expect to sell his or her game for $20-30. Admittedly, a lot of the price tag for the boxed game goes to distribution charges, but there's other factors at work here, too; people, in general, view a $50 item (a game, in this example) as "better" than a $30 item.
This gets worse on the online RPG (MMORPG) side of things. Meridian 59 charges $10.95 per month for a subscription; we could not charge less, otherwise we would operate at a net loss given current expenses. Larger games charge a few dollars more than that. But, most players don't care about that minor price difference; they don't care that one
Writing this late in the day on the west coast, so it'll probably get ignored, but....
Not every copyright holder is a large corporation or association. The fact that artists don't get properly compensated from these large companies isn't the fault of copyright; the artists chose to give up their rights in exchange for the marketing these large companies provide. The real problem is that few people will take the time to look outside the heavily-marketed mainstream in order to find something that suits their tastes.
I run an online game, Meridian 59. It's a niche game that offers full PvP and character interaction. My game is profitable, but only because the employees (including myself) make about 13% of what I could make by working at a large gaming company. We make nowhere near as much money as the larger games do, however.
A lot of online gamers complain that games water down their PvP offerings in order to appeal to a wider audience. Many games either don't offer any PvP options, or relegate PvP to one server where the game operators ignore cheating and generally refuse to balance the game with PvP in mind. In theory, the audience is there for a well-run PvP game.
In practice, it's not going to come unless I spend a lot of money on advertising. My company can't afford to have a huge marketing blitz where we put full color ads in major gaming magazines. People are mostly content to sit around and only pay attention to what is aggressively advertised. So, my game gets ignored compared to the larger offerings out there that can afford these types of marketing blitzes.
Some might point to the relatively "ugly" graphics in the game. This is just another facet of this money problem. I'd have to spend a lot of money to update all the art, which would require taking more investement money. In the end, this would require me to give up some of my control and profits for this investment. (Further, no investor would give me money if there weren't some way to protect the investment, namely copyrights and trademarks.) This situation has exactly the same problems as when an artist signs their career away to a major label.
Now, an online game is really a service, not a product. While I might distribute software, that's just a convenient way to use the service. It's not practical to give away a service for free as the anti-copyright advocates suggest for products. It's like an accountant allowing other people to sign his or her name on tax returns. If the IRS finds a problem and finds out the accountant allows others to sign his or her name, then the problems are going to fall squarely on the accountant's shoulders. Similarly, someone running a bad service using my copyrights and trademarks will reflect poorly, in the customer's eyes, on the product as a whole. So, a lot of the advantages touted by the anti-copyright group simply don't apply in my situation.
So, what can we do? The best way to solve the problems of artists not getting compensated is to look for independent artists. If enough people supported independent artists, we'd see a real change in the industry. Artists wouldn't be forced into horribly lopsided contracts that favor the large associations. They'd have more freedom to allow their music to be copied freely. They'd get a LOT more money per record and would be able to support themselves doing what they love. But, until then the artist needs to have the exposure the labels can give them in order to make enough money to really do what they love.
Of course, this means a bit of sacrifice. You might have to put up with lower sound quality since the independent musician didn't have enough cash to get the record professionally produced in an expensive sound studio. You might have to put up with 2D sprites in an older game engine instead of having the latest high-poly count 3D models because the independent game developer couldn't afford the artists to update the game. You might have
Not quite. You also have to consider things like online venues. It's expected that you will have an online forum for people to discuss issues, and *everyone* will be participating in those. You'll have to police those just as you police your servers; more, in fact, since that's your public face to the world.
Plus, some games are going for a "single huge shard" for their games these days. 10k+ people stuffed into a single world instance at one time is going to create massive CS problems.
There's a lot of other costs that increase more than just linearly as you add more customers. Trust me on this. I've been working with online games for more than a decade, so I have quite a bit of experience to draw upon.;)
again, and i think i've said this before, kudos on bringing m59 back - and i'm glad to hear the economics work out so that it'll be able to persist. I can't imagine the financial risk you guys took, and I'm truly glad it worked out.
Many thanks. A severe love for the game helps.:) We've been doing some cool stuff with the game, including a new hardware-accelerated rendering engine to replace the old software engine. It's a lot of work, and a big financial risk. Even with our modest level of success, it isn't something I'd recommend to most people that don't want to figure out why the term "staving artist" exists!;)
Slashdot Mirror
I'll admit my biases up front: I own and operate the online game Meridian 59 which requires a monthly subscription fee.
If you really think about it, the subscription for an online game really isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Of course, there's the usual comparison between movies and online RPGs (2-3 hours of entertainment vs. 1 month of entertainment), but even if you compare it to standalone games it's a good bargain. Even if you only buy one new release game every 4 months (3 times per year), you'll still spend more per month than a typical online RPG ($50/4 = $12.50 per month compared to $10.95/month for a game like Meridian 59). Even compared to ISP charges we're talking about chump change here; I have paid much more $10-15/month for internet connectivity for many years now.
And, what do you get for that fee? You get a game with a developer that has a vested interest in fixing problems ASAP. You have stable servers with as much uptime as humanly possible on a connection that most home users can't afford. You have in-game assistance for your problems.
In addition, the online games market is growing, not becoming saturated. It might be easy to forget that the U.S. isn't the only market for these games. The biggest game, Mu Online, claimed to have 5 million people playing their game during peak times at E3. You probably haven't heard about the game much unless you're in Asia or attend E3. Anecdotally, most developers don't see a change in subscriptions when other games launch; online populations might dip, but the number of subscriptions generally remains constant. Some games even see a growth in overall subscription figures as new players are introduced to online games.
But, to bring this post back on-topic: making and operating an online RPG is a huge task. They are generally expensive and difficult to make, and just when you think the work is done (shipping the game, but traditional game development standards), you find out that the real work is only beginning. Most game companies now realize that online games are a service, not just a product, but this has taken a long time for many companies to understand. You have to continue to support the game after launch, and a bad decision can leave a large legacy of problems.
As for Warhammer Online, this official post shows that they learned a lot about the online game space and essentially didn't like the risks. I disagree with their assessment as an indie online RPG developer, but it's a reasonable reaction.
Have fun,
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,
Actually, the original Might and Magic games are RPGs, just like the old Ultima games were. Heroes took the game in a turn-based direction.
;)
To reward those that read the comments a bit later, I'll share some dark secrets from 3DO. Since 3DO's bankrupt, I doubt there will be any trouble caused by posting this.
It's a little-known fact that 3DO had plans to make a Might & Magic online RPG a very long time ago, before UO was even launched. 3DO bought Archetype Interactive, the company responsible for Meridian 59 (the game I currently own and operate). They also bought New World Computing (NWC) about the same time to get the valued Might and Magic franchise. They wanted to use the M59 technology (which was pretty cool back in '96) to take Might and Magic online.
Well, things didn't quite work out that way. 3DO was looking at the game as a game, not the service it really is. So, they neglected M59 in favor of working on their new project. In the end, M59 didn't do as well as it could have despite launching a full year before UO was launched. Meridian 59 got little internal support, no resources for expansion, and terrible marketing support, so it's little surprise that the game didn't do that well.
In addition, UO was widely panned by most critics when the game launched. The lag, the bugs, the design flaws, all these things helped the game win multiple "coaster of the year" type awards. The secret was that there were multiple thousands of Ultima fans that played the game despite the complaints the critics had. EA/Origin kept mum about their real subscription levels, and everyone assumed it was a collosal failure.
The "failure" of M59 and UO convinced the 3DO that online games were just not profitable. So, they scrapped the Might & Magic Online plans and laid off the whole team. Of course, many Meridian 59 developers left the company as well in sympathy for their friends that were just laid off, ensuring that 3DO would always be an "also ran" when it came to online games. This was about the time the dot-com bubble was heating up.
Interestingly enough, the concept that online games were a failure stuck with the 3DO management for a very long time. Trip repeatedly gave interviews saying that "the market isn't ready" for online games. Even after UO was proven to be a success and EQ entered the scene with a HUGE splash, 3DO still stuck to this story, even when I left the company in 2000. Denial is an ugly thing, really.
Personally, I'm not sure the cancellation was a bad thing. 3DO proved repeatedly they didn't know how to run an online game. I had to fight tooth and nail while working on Meridian 59 to get the resources necessary to fix and improve the game. Jumpgate, also published by 3DO, faded into a completely undeserved oblivion. (It's interesting to note that NetDevil, the studio making Auto Assault for NCSoft, was the developer for Jumpgate.) It might be better to have our memories of Might and Magic as they are, not tainted by another "failed" game.
On the other hand, it could have been different if 3DO had kept competent people. Meridian 59 is actually a really fun game with multiple innovative elements that have only just recently been copied by other games. If you like online games and want something a little different than the ordinary fare, I recommend Meridian 59. (The good news is that after we bought the game from 3DO, we were able to do a lot of the work that the game absolutely needed.) Those of you that remember Meridian 59 from before might want to check out the new rendering engine that we're working on. The game is getting a bit of a facelift from the old software renderer to a new hardware-accelerated renderer.
Some information for the curious out there.
Have fun,
What's the cost of running a counterstrike server compared to one of these MMORPGs? It's the same! And yet they have managed to charge people a fee for providing the same service.
Uh, not really. I run my own online game, Meridian 59, and I know what it costs to run a server.
Although we keep costs as low as possible, it does cost quite a bit to keep the server connected. Players will use a lot of bandwidth when you're talking about a few thousand people all on at the same time. Keeping the server up also costs money for support in case some router decides it doesn't want to work overnight. (People get really cranky about the service going down if they're paying you.)
On the flip side, running a FPS server at that level of availability isn't exactly cheap, either. Consider the prices at this site; they do "professsional" hosting of FPS servers and charge between $5-10 per person for that. Considering the depth an online RPG provides, and the fact that regular updates are provided, a game like my own that only charges $10.95 is a pretty good deal. (Meridian 59 doesn't require an up-front box purchase, so it's an even better deal than usual.)
As for the topic on hand, I worked at 3DO for a while and remember JVC's interesting email commentary to some of the events there. I hope he finds a place where he can get good creative freedom and make some great games.
Have fun,
The folks who played rogue? They did OK, I guess. But I think they would have done much better if they'd taken the opportunity as seriously as I did.
It depends. I played a lot of text MUDs in college. Of course, I was lucky enough to play the LP types that have user programming, so that was a creative outlet to expand my programming ability.
After college I got a rather boring job working at a standard software company. After a year of that, I got a job in the games industry. I was able to draw upon those years of playing text MUDs and help maintain the classic online game Meridian 59. Later, I started my own business and bought Meridian 59 and currently administrate it. I make a fair living at it, and I'm recognized by many of my peers in the games industry as a talented developer. Seeing how I'm only 30, I've done pretty good so far.
As to the question in the article, I can speak with some authority. I have a very wonderful significant other that has put up with me for nearly 10 years, and she has accepted with my gaming obsession. I work on games for a living, so I'm pretty hard-core when it comes to gaming. It's a central part of who I am, but I also keep her happy. (She keeps me sane, too!)
I'll echo what a lot of people say here in that it's all about compromise. You need to compromise on the amount of time you spend playing the game, and your significant other needs to compromise in realizing that this is part of who you are. Make sure you let her know that she's still special. Set aside some time to spend with her and away from the game. Play in moderation, and learn that you can say "no" when there's something more imporant to do than gaming.
One nifty thing about City of Heroes, specifically, is that you can become the "sidekick" of another player and play as a higher effective level. This means that you can play with your friends that can play more often than you can. Alternatively, everyone can create multiple characters; play one character when you are together, and a separate character that can level faster without worrying about outdistancing the rest of the group.
One thing to remember is that just because you can play a game for endless hours doesn't meant you should. It's okay to play "only" a few hours per week when you can get together. There's a variety of great games out there that allow for a variety of play styles; Meridian 59, for example, allows for the "15 minute" gameplay by allowing you to log on and practice a few spells instead of requiring multiple hours in a single sitting. If you get tired of CoH, look around for other games that suit your needs.
Some things to think about,
Some interesting things in the interview, but I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment about team size, etc. There are a small number of online world that were built and are maintained by small teams. My own game, Meridian 59, is one example that is being maintained by about 4 people. A Tale in The Desert is another game that was built and is being maintained by a small team. Yes, these games are a bit smaller than the ones that get all the press, but they're still interesting virtual words that show it can be done.
I think the bigger problem is that everyone wants to be the "million seller" online game. I suspect There had its sights set too high, and when the million subscribers didn't show up, they became a bit disillusioned. But, I think it's interesting that he says smaller projects can lead to bigger things. I've been a firm believer in that; Meridian 59 is a niche product, and we offer it to the playerbase in order to scratch a particular itch they have, namely balanced PvP.
In short, I think it's quite possible to do a virtual world with a small team. You just have to be smarter about it and not expect to be an "EverQuest-killer" out of the gate. Target an audience and serve them well. That's my plan, at least.
My thoughts,
One of the biggest things you can do is to support independent developers. There are a number of smaller developers out there that are trying to push the envelope in gameplay. Of course, with limited resources the smaller developers can't provide the flash and dazzle of the larger games.
I'm part of one of those smaller game development houses; we develop online RPGs. Our current game, Meridian 59, is a classic online RPG with open PvP. Yes, open PvP isn't for everyone, but many people wish to have this in their game. Our game is smaller and not as well-known as the larger online RPGs, but we get by.
Of course, the first reaction of most people is to judge the game by the graphics. Unfortunately for them, the graphics do not indicate the quality of gameplay. The combat is fun, there is not much of the "treadmill" you see in other games, and the PvP has been carefully balanced over the years. Meridian 59's gameplay is very fun, and we even charge less than most other games requiring no box purchase to play the game in the first place. But, people who judge games only on screenshots will never enjoy these finer aspects of Meridian 59.
Really, this is why many games go for the flash instead of substance; it sells more games. We're working on an engine upgrade to Meridian 59, but this is not going to affect the gameplay, it will only make the game look better in screenshots. And, we have many other upgrades in store as the game grows. However, think of the time and effort we could have poured into gameplay....
The point of this ramble is that if you want to see more innovative games, then start searching them out and playing (and paying for!) them. There are a number of great independent online games (I'm more familiar with them given that I work with online games), and there's a good number of quality single-player games out there as well. It's just a question of going a little bit off the beaten path and finding them for yourself.
My thoughts,
I was at E3 and quite enjoyed Taiko game Namco was showing. I've never been a big fan of DDR, but I enjoyed Sega's Samba De Amigo (yay Dreamcast!). The music for Taiko is mostly classical from what I could tell, a genre of music I enjoy. The 1 UP article says it has J-Pop in there, though.
I think the demo was fun (Namco is the only booth I went back to multiple times to play the games), and am debating if I want to buy it when it (hopefully) comes out. I'm a big fan of innovative games like that. Wish I had more time between meeting with press people about my own game to see more of the cool games on the floor.
My thoughts,
Soemtimes it's comforting to realize that you'll never be the biggest geek ever. This said by someone who develops computer games for a living. ;)
Crunch time as we have it now is a perversion of what originally made the industry great.
In the olden days of game development, you had people that were genuinely passionate about their project. These people were willing to go the extra mile to make the game great. That often included working insane amount of hours to put as much quality into the game as possible.
Somewhere along the lines, management decided this seemed to be the norm, so why not schedule for it? Just assume that game developers will work 60-80 hour weeks, and you can save a lot of money. So, "crunch" time went from being something developers did as a sign of pride in their work to something that managers just scheduled for.
Unfortunately, this change makes all the difference. If you don't care about the game you're working on and you're still expected to make 16 hour days for the next few months, then you're going to burn out quickly. Of course, there's a seemingly endless supply of fresh college grads willing to take the job, especially with the current economic conditions.
This is one of the main reasons why I started my own company. I wanted to feel passionate about the games I worked on, and I wanted my long hours to directly contribute to my own well-being. For the record, I work on the game Meridian 59.
My point of view,
Well, I'm one of those people you "hate"; I run an online RPG which charges a monthly subscription fee and feel it's a better deal than most other entertianment, games included. But, allow me to point out some fallacies in your argument.
First, let's get the money out of the way. You think $50k profit on 100k users is impressive? That's $6/year per customer. That's a shameful amount for any business. Many companies make at least that much profit off a customer in one visit without the costs of developing an online RPG that can hold 100k subscribers.
But, let's focus on games as you requested. So, let me ask you: when was the last time you negotiated a peaceful agreement between opposing groups in UT2004? What? Never? That's funny, because someone posted about doing that very thing on Meridian 59 just the other week. See, politics is an important force in some online RPGs, and an interesting way to engage in player vs. player competition. The problem with UT2004 is that the lack of persistence means that there is no reason for deeper interactions between players in the context of the game. My only options in UT2004 is to shoot my enemy before s/he shoots me.
It's the persistence that give online RPGs the depth you don't find in other games. Politics is just one thing, but meaningful conflict is another. When I kill a player in Meridian, that player suffers penalties. Those penalties don't go away once the game resets (except for some special events), so that player has a reason to hold a grudge against me. I have to deal with the consequences of my actions, which leads to interesting interactions between players.
In the end, it's that persistence you pay for in a online RPG. You're not just paying for the game, but also for the service that keeps the servers active and available for you to play on, and polices the game for cheaters, etc. This isn't to say that everyone has to love persistence and dealing with the consequences for their actions, but there are a lot of us that really do appreciate this and think that a monthly fee is well worth it.
And, to pimp my own game for a bit, some games are great bargains. Meridian 59 is only $10.95 per month (not $15 like City of Heroes will be), and does not require the purchase of a box or expansions. We keep expanding and improving Meridian; in fact, we're in the middle of a rewrite of the rendering engine to improve the graphics of the game. All as freely downloaded content to the players of the game.
In the end, you'll be hard pressed to find any other form of entertainment, including games, that has as low a buyin as $10.95 and is that cheap per month.
My take on things,
Oddly enough, the same philosophy fits computer games (MMPORGS) perfectly as well.
As an administrator of an online RPG and a former M:tG player, I think this is a bit of an unfair comparison.
The most obvious thing is price. My own game, Meridian 59 costs $10.95 per month with no boxes or expansions to buy. That's the equivalent of, what, 3-4 boosters? Who do you know that only bought 3-4 boosters per month while playing Magic?
Further, consider what you get for your payment. In M:tG, I'm getting printed pieces of cardboard that I hope will improve my deck or be worth enough for me to sell at a profit. I still have to find people to play with.
In an online RPG, on the other hand, you are getting a lot more. You get a dynamic world that is expanded on a regular basis. You get a group of ready players interested in the same game that you can interact with. You get a service that maintains the game and polices it for undesirable behavior, such as cheating.
If I could have remained competitive at M:tG by only buying 3-4 booster packs per month, and I would have had a guaranteed group of honest players from the publisher to play with, then I'd probably still be playing M:tG today. Admittedly, not all online games are as good a deal as Meridian, but that doesn't mean they're not worth the monthly fee if you appreciate the service.
My view on things,
Is it better to just lie to the publisher?
;). But, if you look at the history of these types of game companies, they worked independent from publishers initially. id is a great example: They got their start through shareware. It wasn't until DOOM that they hit the big time, and publishers were falling over themselves to put the game on the shelves. Now id could have any publisher they wanted publish their games because they've retained enough autonomy that they were never indebted to the publishers.
Well, publishers aren't stupid. They're just more interested in getting the maximum return for investment regardless of other considerations. Ruthless? Yes. Stupid? Not in the slightest.
The biggest source of the publisher/developer rift, in my opinion, is the simple fact that the developer just wants to make a cool game and doesn't really want to be bothered by the business side of things. If I wanted to sweat the dollars and cents of a business, I would not have gone into game development. Business software consistently makes better and more constant returns on investment. I run a game company because I want to make cool games. (I've managed to bring my company to profitablility in only 2 years, so I'm not too shabby on the business side of things myself, but I would still rather focus more on making cool games!)
The publisher, on the other hand, expects you to be highly business savvy and will do whatever they can to take advantage of the developer. Ideally, the publishers should look at the relationship as a way to help the developer accomplish this goal. The publisher should look to fund developers with the right blend of innovation, experience, ability, and passion. Instead, they look for the developers they can get the best deal from, which doesn't always produce the best games.
Last week I attended the Game Developer's Conference in San Jose, CA. I attended a "Business Summit" at the GDC, where we talked about various problems with game development, and the developer/publisher relationship was, not surprisingly, a common topic for discussion. Many developers complained how antagonistic the relationship can be. A representative from a publisher responded to some of these concerns by stating, "I will not give any developer anything they do not ask for," meaning: the publisher will take any advantage over the developer they possibly can.
And, really, that sort of attitude is disgusting. While it is profitable in the short term, it encourages an attitude of "eating your young" which harms the long-term health of the industry. Publishers should really be looking to establish partnerships with developers in order to create quality games. The most notable game development studios are ones that have accumulated enough power to bargain with publishers as equals. Companies like Blizzard, id, or Valve are known for their quality games and work independent from the publishers for the most part (until they get acquired, then the founders leave
So, really, the opposite needs to happen. More truth needs to be exposed between the publisher and the developer. The publishers need to stop viewing developers as expendable resources, they need to start fostering long-term relationships with developers, and they need to encourage truthfulness. Unfortunately, the current model is so profitable in the short term that it's unlikely to change until something forces the balance of power to shift.
The closest thing we have to any change in the status quo is smaller developers creating niche games and selling the directly to the market, like my own company. But, really, it's not that glamorous. I have thick skin because I have to continuously hear how my game is "too old" or "too ugly" to play even though Meridian 59, all humility aside, is the best PvP experience you can get in any online RPG. Yet, a lot of people simply cannot get past production values and really appreciate the gameplay. And, hey, I'd love to have the prettyest grap
Running a game company isn't as easy as it sounds. Given the huge creative effort that goes into these games, there are multiple failure points. I speak from a position of experience as the co-founder of Near Death Studios, Inc., current developers and administrators of the online game, Meridian 59.
The biggest sin mentioned in the article isn't the trips (which can really help to build team spirit and loyalty), but rather talking about they should have fired the "least qualified people" and kept paying the founders. In a small gaming studio, there's no room for "least qualified" people. All your developers need to be top-notch and should ideally have multiple skill sets. If there's an obvious person to fire when the budget cuts come, that person probably should have been fired before the budget got tight.
The article also highlights the problem with the current developer and publisher relationships in modern game development. In reality, the publisher cares very little about you or your company, and cares even less about the creative aspects of game development. They look at the developer simply in terms of income potential.
Now, before any publisher types get their panties in a twist about this, let me give an example. I was watching the Mallrats DVD last night and watched the retrospective with Kevin Smith. He talked about creating the movie, and how people insisted that the movie's budget be at least $6 million. Mr. Smith was perplexed by this, since his previous film, Clerks cost $27,000 (if memory serves); the people in charge of the budget knew what a movie like Mallrats would cost to develop and wanted to make sure they didn't fall short on the budget before finishing the movie.
Yet, if Kevin Smith were a game developer, he would have asked for less money than it really required to make the game and probably wouldn't have even gotten that. Then when the costs ran over budget, he would have had to go back to the publisher and renegotiate a less favorable deal in order to get the money he should have gotten in the first place to finish the game. I've personally been in the industry for over 6 years now, and I've never heard of a developer getting more money than they thought they needed as Kevin Smith did with Mallrats.
Unfortunately, the publishers are only too happy to eat their young in order to profit. The publishers care very little about the business health of game developers and only care about the bottom line of how much the game makes. Sure, it's their perogative as a business, but it hinders the long-term growth of the industry if it does not cultivate talent to expand the market in the future. One "failure" like Escape Factory shows and they're done for. In the movie business, the "failure" of Mallrats was followed up by a series of wonderful movies including Chasing Amy and Dogma. We'll never know if Escape Factory could have done bigger and better things.
Sadly, the problems don't just stop there. As the article points out, you have to make the publisher think you're making the greatest game ever. That often means you have to lie to them. A friend of mine was working for an online RPG ("MMOG") for a large publisher. He had worked on previous online RPGs, so he knew the pitfalls. So, when the publisher came around to ask the status of the project, he was honest about the shortcomings. Other online RPG projects run by the same publisher didn't have the experience; they weren't able to accurately gauge their progress and told the publisher everything was fine even though they were many, many months behind where they should have been. In the end, my friend's project got cancelled while the other projects were still funded. In the end, the other projects ran late, had terrible launches, and one has already been cancelled after launch.
In the end, running a game development studio is not an easy task. Publisher callousness towards the developers makes it even worse, causing problems for the long-term health of the game development industry. This is my view of things as a self-pubished, self-funded independent online RPG developer.
When Motor City Online (also an EA game) closed down, people were offered an account on other EA games. EA has done this before, so they're old hands at it. ;)
Some information,
Actually, in most cases it's damned hard to kill an online RPG. The game I own, Meridian 59 was originally developed by 3DO and launched in 1996. 3DO closed the game down in 2000, but it was relaunched quickly in 2001 after my company bought the rights to the game. The game has been running strong ever since. We have thousands of fans. It's no EverQuest, but it does pretty well for a game on a tight development budget.
Really, you only have to worry about this with the really big companies. Smaller, independent developers have a lot more investment into the game. Meridian 59 will never die as long as I have any say in it, and my business partner is even more adamant about this than I am!
It's notable that despite the difficulty in killing off these types of games, EA is the company that's had the most success in doing so. They closed down a lot of Kesmai's games when they bought that company, shut down Motor City Online, and have now shut down Earth & Beyond. That track record speaks for itself.
Anyway, give some of the smaller games a try. We're often cheaper than the bigger games; Meridian 59 doesn't even require you to buy a box to play the game, just pay a subscription fee. You'll find that these games will be around for a very long time because the developers see them as something more than just a cash cow. I went into serious personal debt during the dot-com crash just to buy Meridian 59 from 3DO; I'm pretty serious about keeping it available for people to play.
My thoughts as an indie online RPG developer,
A public school teacher once explained it to us (paraphrasing from memory), "The goal of public education is not to raise the highest even higher, but to raise the lowest to an acceptable level." Translated: The goal is to get the "slow" kids to society-contributing levels, not help the smart get smarter. In cold, logical terms this makes sense; a group of at least average-performing people is better than a super-genius or two in terms of benefit to society.
;) It wasn't until I got into programming in high school that I really started to come into my own. Interestingly enough, it was my interest in the computer games the grandparent post criticizes that really got me interested in programming. I'd breeze through my BASIC assignments and learn more about graphics manipulation in order to create a cool game.
In my opinion and personal experience, the best thing a super-smart kid can do is to get self-motivated to learn on his or her own. I wish I had been encouraged more to learn on my own. (I was in Talented and Gifted classes when I was young, but I was too distractable to really get into them.
My love of gaming really helped me in my life. I got into programming in high school, I got into creative writing, I made great friends with D&D players in college despite my introvert tendencies, I found a great significant other that enjoys gaming (her and I often play together), I got the motivation to find a job I enjoyed in the game industry, and I was given the impetus to start my own game development company. All from my love of gaming.
In the end, find something you enjoy and start learning what makes that "tick"; for me, it was video games, and I learned how different playing games was from developing games. Learn as much as you can about it and get into the deep details. Apply your intellect to that pursuit and you might be surprised where it takes you.
My thoughts,
I'm going to reply to this instead of modding it down. Let's see how this works.
A heartfelt rant, I'm sure. The problem is that you ignore some very important facts.
First, while it is fair to say that companies look to profit from their copyrights, not every business interested in protecting their copyrights is some big business looking to pay those that already make a lot of money. I'm a small game developer that doesn't live in Bel-Air, that doesn't have any aspirations to buy golf clubs, and that considers it a financial treat to just eat out. Yet, I own copyright on Meridian 59 and would very much like to keep people from copying the work I've put my time, money, and effort into. People can create or buy their own work if they want it. The truly ironic thing is that the same copyright laws that make it illegal for you to download music also make it download for a large publisher to take music from an independent artist and sell it without compensation. Copyrights benefit the small businesses, too, and taking away copyrights will ensure that the large companies maintain their stranglehold on entertainment.
The second fact is that there are alternatives. There are a LOT of indie artists, developers, etc. out there that would love your support. For every overhyped Ms. Spears there's a handfull of hard-working bands that you'd probably enjoy. The problem is, of course, that looking for the independent is much harder than listening to the advertising singing the praises of the latest media darling. It's easy to listen to the ads that hype up some artist that sold his or her soul to the RIAA for superstar coverage. It's harder to go around town and find the small venues where the good local bands play.
The real solution to this problem is obvious once you consider these two bits: Go support the independent artists. The reasons for doing this are so numerous it boggles the mind. First you get originality, you provide a way for an artist to make money without having to sell out to a large marketing company like the RIAA, you don't pay more money so that the fatcat entertianment executives can buy more golf clubs, you don't have to break the law to enjoy entertainment, etc. The list just goes on and on.
This applies to most entertainment. Don't want to pay $18 for a CD? Hit an independent musician's site. Many times you can get free MP3's of their songs right off their websites. Check out some local bands at live shows in small clubs. Don't want to pay $50 for a game? Check out some quality independent games. The Independent Games Festival shows off some of the better games that were made without relying on publisher funding.
Don't want to pay for a box if you're going to pay for a monthly fee for an MMORPG? Check out one of the independent games that allow you to download the client instead of paying $50 in the stores. My own game, Meridian 59, only charges a $10.95 per month subscription fee with no startup fees. We intentionally kept the price low so that people would get a great deal from our game. Sure, it's not the most prettiest game out there, but it's fun like a good game should be. (If you just want to look at cool pictures, I might recommend a museum instead.)
In the end, there's alternatives to just taking what you want and applying flimsy justifications for it. There's alternatives out there, and lots of us independents that don't want to contribute directly to the large companies that harm entertainment would be more than happy to have your support. Consider checking us out instead of breaking the law next time you want something fun.
Really, it's up to the market to start supporting the alternatives. That's the only way that the executives will be unable to cover their Bel-Air mortgages and will have to re-evaluate their business model. Giving the independents the ability to compete with the lar
It's a bit funny, because at the 2001 GDC Mr. Rubin had a talk entitled "Coming Out Of the Garage". He spoke about how independent developers need to "grow up" in order to get out of the garage, and how they need to accept publishers as vital to the process of game development. Guess he's seen what happens from that attitude. ;)
Make no mistake about it, the publisher holds most of the cards. The developer is at the publisher's whim for the most part, since the publisher holds the purse strings. The few developers you see that are recognized, namely id, Blizzard, etc, were first successful outside of publisher influence. Take id for example; they started with shareware games. Even before DOOM and Wolfenstein 3D they had Commander Keen. Once DOOM hit the big time through shareware channels, id was able to negotiate a favorable deal with publishers to get the game on shelves. Their next games were sweet deals with publishers because they were already recognized; the Quake games had practically guaranteed audiences, the publisher just needed to get boxes on the shelves.
And, for the apologists that say the developer takes big risks, I'll have to call you on that bullshit. Great game development studios go out of business all the time, so obviously some risk is assumed by the developers as well, even if they have a wildly successful game series.
The main problem, in my opinion, is that games cost a lot to develop these days, and small companies rarely have the money to create a modern game. In the past, creating a game like Wolf3D was the result of a fairly small team of people. These days you need lots of developers to create high production value assets; the market demands the shiniest graphics and the coolest explosions. A great game without the expected level of polish is going to be ignored for the most part.
Yes, I realize that some people can look past the exterior to see a great game, but it's SO much easier to market a prettier game. My own game Meridian 59 shows this perfectly. The game has a DOOM-type software rendering engine, and gets consistently passed over in favor of the newer, shinier competitor. We've tried to develop a game that offers what other games on the market lack, namely balanced and fun Player vs. Player (PvP) combat. Yeah, this is considered a niche market, but not as niche as our subscriber numbers might otherwise indicate. (As a note, we are working on a significant engine upgrade. [Warning: large images.])
In the end, publishers hold all the cards, and the developers aren't going to be able to do much about it. The real power lies in the game buyers, who can choose to either buy what's marketed to them, or they can go look for the independent game developers that are creating innovative products. But, for now, the alternative to taking publisher money is to focus on smaller-scale niche titles by developing a taste for Ramen noodles. There's a reason why the phrase "starving artist" exists.
My thoughts,
There are games that work close to what you want; however, as other people have pointed out there are problems with latency in heavily "twitch" based games. Appropriate "twitch" mechanics require fast reactions, faster than the time it takes for the client to communicate with the server in most cases.
Another issue you run into is cheating. Think about the aimbots for most FPS games. When you're paying a monthly fee, there's the expectation that there won't be cheating in the game. Therefore, most online RPGs focus on mechanics that can be verified and can't be cheated.
However, there are some games that have compensated for this and offer some level of twitch gameplay. Planetside, World War II Online, and Neocron are two FPS-type games. Asheron's Call had some twitch-based elements in that you could "dodge" projectile weapons. My own game Meridian 59 has some twitch aspects to it since the game encourages a lot of movement, especially in Player vs. Player (PvP) combat. Knowing where to move in order to outmanuever your enemies is a key skill in M59's PvP. The lower system requirements of the game also means that you have pretty low latency which lends itself better to twitch style.
There's options out there if you care to look beyond the highly advertised games.
I have definitely been noticing this trend and I don't like it one bit, but it doesn't seem there is very much I can do about it apart from abandoning some web sites that are not too essential.
Actually, you could do something else. Start up your own site and provide your own content for free. Nothing's stopping you from doing that besides money and your own motivation.
Of course, doing that is expensive and you probably aren't in a position to lose money every month just to benefit others people. Not too surprisingly, neither are most businesses.
I charge $10.95 per month for the game I run. Not because I'm a greedy bastard, but because it's what keeps the ISP bills paid and the ramen noodles stocked in the pantry.
Don't want to pay? Do it yourself. Don't have the time? Then perhaps it's worth some money to save you the time.
My thoughts,
You, and anyone else interested in talking about indie game development, can drop me an email at my Slashdot user name @neardeathstudios.com.
I think you're on to something, but there's a lot of pitfalls that way. For example, credit card fraud can kill a small business. Unlike a porn site operator, you can't just take your goods and re-open another site under a different company name as easily.
Take care,
Interesting use of the word "independent" in that article. Usually I consider an independent game developer one that doesn't rely on an outside publisher for support. Yet, most of the people there talked about publisher contracts, etc.
Being an independent game developer that does not rely on a publisher and that has been around for three years this month (yay!), I know a thing or two about this topic. I have some stock rants that I like to recite when this topic comes up, too.
Some background, first. My game is Meridian 59, a fantasy online RPG. Our game is a bit unique in that it was previously owned by a larger company, the now defunct 3DO, but we bought the rights to the game from them. I worked on M59 for a few years before starting our company, Near Death Studios, Inc., so I had an emotinoal investment in the game before we bought it. My business partner, Rob "Q" Ellis II, is also one of the original developers of the game.
The biggest problem for a true indie isn't money (although there's plenty of money issues for the independent), it's actually exposure. It's tough to get attention for your game when you're competing with other games that spent a lot of money on production values and marketing. Just being a "good game" is often not enough to get noticed in market saturated with advertising.
For example, we went to the offices of a reasonably sized gaming magazine. The features editor had told us that we would get some good coverage if we showed off the new 3D hardware-accelerated rendering engine from the game. (Note: Warcry is one of the good journalist sites to work with, and not the company in question here.) So, two of my co-workers bought a suitable notebook computer and drove 2 states away to show off this game. Unfortunately, the editor we had talked to wasn't in the office that day (and didn't contact us about it), so we talked to someone else at the offices. End result: we get an unflattering description in a list of other names and no pictures of our new engine. But, you can quickly see the reason why we get ignored: flipping through the magazine to the big story about EverQuest 2, you pass by 3 double-page ads for EQ-based products. (There are plenty of other bad things you can say about games "journalism" as well. But, there are a few bright points to contrast the negative.)
But, let's say that someone does somehow notice my game. They head to our website and sign up for an account. When they log in, they see a graphics engine that's obviously dated. And, at this point, we lose a lot of customers because glitz does matter to many people. They don't care about the gameplay because they instantly equate "bad graphics" to "not fun to play". The big companies don't really help much with this; people that are happy with the game they were playing 10 years ago aren't going to be buying up new games as they come to market. Therefore, they work hard to convince gamers that "better graphics" = "more fun to play".
But, we get to the final reason why being an indie developer sucks: the current business models don't help us. Most people won't buy a downloadable game for nearly the price of a game they could buy at the local store. So, while the larger companies charge $50 for the box, the indie can only expect to sell his or her game for $20-30. Admittedly, a lot of the price tag for the boxed game goes to distribution charges, but there's other factors at work here, too; people, in general, view a $50 item (a game, in this example) as "better" than a $30 item.
This gets worse on the online RPG (MMORPG) side of things. Meridian 59 charges $10.95 per month for a subscription; we could not charge less, otherwise we would operate at a net loss given current expenses. Larger games charge a few dollars more than that. But, most players don't care about that minor price difference; they don't care that one
Writing this late in the day on the west coast, so it'll probably get ignored, but....
Not every copyright holder is a large corporation or association. The fact that artists don't get properly compensated from these large companies isn't the fault of copyright; the artists chose to give up their rights in exchange for the marketing these large companies provide. The real problem is that few people will take the time to look outside the heavily-marketed mainstream in order to find something that suits their tastes.
I run an online game, Meridian 59. It's a niche game that offers full PvP and character interaction. My game is profitable, but only because the employees (including myself) make about 13% of what I could make by working at a large gaming company. We make nowhere near as much money as the larger games do, however.
A lot of online gamers complain that games water down their PvP offerings in order to appeal to a wider audience. Many games either don't offer any PvP options, or relegate PvP to one server where the game operators ignore cheating and generally refuse to balance the game with PvP in mind. In theory, the audience is there for a well-run PvP game.
In practice, it's not going to come unless I spend a lot of money on advertising. My company can't afford to have a huge marketing blitz where we put full color ads in major gaming magazines. People are mostly content to sit around and only pay attention to what is aggressively advertised. So, my game gets ignored compared to the larger offerings out there that can afford these types of marketing blitzes.
Some might point to the relatively "ugly" graphics in the game. This is just another facet of this money problem. I'd have to spend a lot of money to update all the art, which would require taking more investement money. In the end, this would require me to give up some of my control and profits for this investment. (Further, no investor would give me money if there weren't some way to protect the investment, namely copyrights and trademarks.) This situation has exactly the same problems as when an artist signs their career away to a major label.
Now, an online game is really a service, not a product. While I might distribute software, that's just a convenient way to use the service. It's not practical to give away a service for free as the anti-copyright advocates suggest for products. It's like an accountant allowing other people to sign his or her name on tax returns. If the IRS finds a problem and finds out the accountant allows others to sign his or her name, then the problems are going to fall squarely on the accountant's shoulders. Similarly, someone running a bad service using my copyrights and trademarks will reflect poorly, in the customer's eyes, on the product as a whole. So, a lot of the advantages touted by the anti-copyright group simply don't apply in my situation.
So, what can we do? The best way to solve the problems of artists not getting compensated is to look for independent artists. If enough people supported independent artists, we'd see a real change in the industry. Artists wouldn't be forced into horribly lopsided contracts that favor the large associations. They'd have more freedom to allow their music to be copied freely. They'd get a LOT more money per record and would be able to support themselves doing what they love. But, until then the artist needs to have the exposure the labels can give them in order to make enough money to really do what they love.
Of course, this means a bit of sacrifice. You might have to put up with lower sound quality since the independent musician didn't have enough cash to get the record professionally produced in an expensive sound studio. You might have to put up with 2D sprites in an older game engine instead of having the latest high-poly count 3D models because the independent game developer couldn't afford the artists to update the game. You might have
Not quite. You also have to consider things like online venues. It's expected that you will have an online forum for people to discuss issues, and *everyone* will be participating in those. You'll have to police those just as you police your servers; more, in fact, since that's your public face to the world.
Plus, some games are going for a "single huge shard" for their games these days. 10k+ people stuffed into a single world instance at one time is going to create massive CS problems.
There's a lot of other costs that increase more than just linearly as you add more customers. Trust me on this. I've been working with online games for more than a decade, so I have quite a bit of experience to draw upon.
Many thanks. A severe love for the game helps.
My thoughts,