First, I don't imagine Rowling is sitting in her castle of money laughing at your suffering. It's probably the publisher that deals with what formats the books come out on. So, desiring to "punish" her for not putting out a book in the specific format you'd prefer seems misguided to me. As someone who writes, I suspect Rowling would prefer to get her work in the hands of every fan possible, whereas the publisher prefers to turn a profit.
Second, remember that the Harry Potter books are intended for children. In that context, it makes sense that the audio books would be "about as slow as your mother read to you as a child." Personally, I loved the audio books when I borrowed them from a friend and listened to them with my better half; the slow pace didn't bother me as an adult.
Third, you should realize that what you're asking for seems highly specialized. Listening to your example file, it nearly sounded like random noise to me. Not that I'll claim to have golden ears (far from it), but this is quite different than a large print book where someone without significant visual impairment could still enjoy it. This seems to be a step beyond, "I'm visually impaired and just want a version of the book I can enjoy."
Finally, have you contacted the publisher or a publisher association about this? Have you worked with the visually impaired community to demonstrate to publishers that there would be a sizable market for this specialized version? I honestly don't know, and perhaps you have. But, as you've pointed out, a lot of people don't keep in mind the needs of others so they may not be aware that a market for this exists. As a game developer, I know a lot of other developers don't even keep common things like color blindness in mind when designing games, so I know information is the first vital step.
I remember TV stars saying that Hulu was a system to turn human brains to mush to make them easier to consume. Charging for it is going to hinder that plan, it makes no sense!...wait a moment, did Hollywood lie to me?!?
Region locking also allows for licensing of content to different distributors. As a simple example, say I develop a game and get EA to publish it in the U.S., then later Ubisoft wants to publish it in Europe. Ubisoft will have to invest some effort in translating the game, so they want need to see a minimum amount of sales to recoup costs. This type of arrangement wouldn't be as appealing to Ubisoft if people could easily buy the other region's copies on the gray market.
Admittedly this is less of an issue as the larger publishers are more international and localization issues are being handled earlier in development. And, yeah, it still doesn't help the consumer. But, there is a real business reason behind this rather than just being mean to consumers.
Because it's an improvement of the old eBay feedback system biologists were using before. They found that system was open to "retribution" feedback if the prey didn't rate the predator highly enough.
Review by vole: (positive) Fox was an excellent predator!!!! Would be eaten again!!!!! A+++++++++++!!!!!
Actually, a friend of mine hides when we pull out Guitar Hero. He says the "twangs" and empty spaces when you miss a note grate on him something fierce. Not sure if that's what the GP meant, but there are some people out there that just don't like listening to the games themselves.
An expansion brings new interest to a game, because it puts new boxes in stores. So, the stores have a reason to sell the new version of the game, which could bring in more people. This really is the best way for them to try to gain more users through typical means.
Because when I see that people are actually PAYING someone else to play the boring parts of a game for them, it's easy for me to deduce that what we have is not a fun game[...]
This is like saying that any game with cheat codes is obviously unfun. There are a lot of different motivations for buying gold in an MMO, many of them similar to the motivations for using a cheat code in a traditional single-player game. Yes, it could be that the gameplay is fundamentally boring and unfun and people want to skip it, but I suspect if that were truly the case, they'd stop playing the game instead of paying money for some convenience to keep playing.
The solution to goldfarming should be to find out why earning gold in the game is so bloody tedious and focus your design efforts on making the game fun to play.
I don't care if you make your new RPG game $0.01, I am not interested.
Therefore, I suspect that the typical RPG conventions of "earning" money will probably never appeal to you. In this case, MMORPGs are not for you, and no amount of "design effort" is going to make the process any more fun for someone who doesn't like that type of game.
That's fine; lots of people enjoy the games anyway. Many of them don't even buy gold to get past the parts you find "bloody tedious"!
As a further point, almost all the games given as examples of free games are clones or derivatives of previous games. One of the things that makes a good indie game stand out is interesting, new types of gameplay or new takes on existing gameplay. Not to say that games like FreeCol are bad, but comparing an after-work project cloning an existing commercial game and someone trying to create new types of games from the ground up for a living and then wondering why they both can't be free seems a bit silly.
Just to be truly pedantic, Heroes V was done by Ubisoft. They bought the rights to Might & Magic from a bankrupt 3DO.
From my perspective, it is a moot point though.
It's something I remembered, having worked at 3DO at the time and having to deal with the copy protection. Ironically, it was for a game that nobody would have wanted to pirate anyway; that's what happens when you finish what is supposed to be a AAA PC game in only 6 months.
As a developer, I'm not fond of copy protection/DRM schemes either. I use Daemon Tools for checking CD images I've made for my game; it sucks that some DRM thinks I'm a dirty pirate just because I have that installed.
Heroes of Might & Magic 3 was published by 3DO. I worked at 3DO at the time it was released.
I don't think they used SecuROM. The copy protection software at the time was SafeDisc. I remember that distinctly because one of my last few tasks at the company was to built the installer using SafeDisc on another project. 3DO was really cheap, so I don't think they would have licensed multiple copy protection systems.
Chipping in my two cents. I hate SecuROM as much as the next gamer/programmer, but I don't think the hate is properly directed in this case.
No, the claim was that they offer "richer forms of entertainment" due to interaction. Now one can have of course different definitions of "rich", but for me its mainly the amount of variety in terms of what stories can be told and I see plenty of more of that in movies and books then I see in games.
Many people consider "entertainment" to be more than just stories. There are some things that are very entertaining without having any stories, including many games such as Tetris.
[T]he interactive parts of games doesn't really help that much when it comes to storytelling, in fact it often does exactly the opposite.
The interactive parts don't help when it comes to linear storytelling. Yes, games can tell a story, so can a painting, but neither are as well adapted to linear storytelling as books or movies. However, once we start considering non-linear (or interactive) stories, then games shine. The problem is that we've had a strong focus on linear storytelling for a very long time; the printed word replaced much of the oral traditions we had in the past. Games are now trying to re-capture some of that, mostly with clumsy results. In addition, games are going through a growing period where it tries to copy a previous medium poorly, just as movies tried to copy theater before developing its own techniques for telling stories. That's why some "epic" games feel like a mediocre movie with some combat button-mashing thrown in at odd times.
So, yes, you're right with some qualification. But, that doesn't mean it will always be the case that games suck at storytelling; I think they just haven't hit their stride yet. Personally, I think the realm of multiplayer games is the most fertile area, which is one reason why I'm an MMO developer.
There are many reasons for this. As you point out, one reason is that you're getting better at the types of games you enjoy. You also understand the conventions of the games you play. One time my sister-in-law was amazed as I was racing through a game it took her months to figure out. I knew what to look for while solving the puzzles based on other, similar games I've played.
There has been a trend in development to make games easier to appeal to a wider audience. One problem you get with some games is that if you build them to be challenging to fans of that type of game, they tend to exclude less hardcore players and newbies. FPSes were like this for a while; unless you had developed precise twitch ability, you weren't going to be able to play the game very well.
A difficulty setting is something that is really tough to balance out, though. The simplest way of modifying internal numbers (enemies get more hps, player does less damage, etc.) doesn't necessarily make the game harder, it just makes the game play differently. Truly changing the difficulty requires developing the game in a different way. In most cases, "harder" just means "less fair, easier to fail" which feels frustrating for a lot of players.
MMOs also show this trend, too. My own game, Meridian 59, is pretty hard-core. It's also a PvP game, which has its own level of brutality associated with it. But, play M59 and then play WoW and you'll see a world of difference in difficulty (as well as graphics, UI, etc.)
One could argue that they've pretty much already taken the jury box from us; what's the popular conception of jury duty? Something that you complain about disrupting your precious time. Something that you use any trick in the book to get out of. Something that isn't respected at all.
I had the opportunity to be on a jury a few years ago, and I was glad for it. Not only did I do my civic duty, but I also got to see a bit more about how insurance companies work (the case was dealing with an insurance company trying to recoup from the city government a settlement paid out). I had jury duty this week, even, but wasn't called in, much to my disappointment.
But, my feeling is that there has been an attempt to make jury duty unattractive to many people. You can argue if that's a good or bad thing, or if it's been intentional and coordinated or not, though.
I wonder how much better he could do financially if he would put together a bit more modern game engine.
As someone who as been there and done that, the answer is: he probably wouldn't do better. We worked on a major engine upgrade for Meridian 59; we upgraded the game to use 3D hardware acceleration instead of a software-based renderer, added dynamic lighting, and lots of other improvements to the engine. We didn't upgrade the art (I'll get to that in a moment), but the engine was a significant improvement, especially if you ran it at higher (read: modern) resolutions.
After a few years of work and a final big push, we saw pretty much no increase in interest after the upgrade. The problem is that while the presentation does improve, it still can't compete with the AAA level of quality. And the AAA games are what you will be compared to, no matter how much you improve your engine. The reality is that writing a more modern engine would probably cause the author to spend more time for very little return on investment.
"But, you should have improved your graphics, too!" We had to do some lovely hacks to get the 2D player art to work in the new 3D engine, so we had seriously discussed upgrading the art. The problem is that it was a huge amount of work. We'd have to replace a lot of artwork since the players (and all the variations of equipment we have) as well as monsters, items dropped on the ground, scenery, and lots of other things would all need to be upgraded. It's not something we could have done piecemeal and still have anything resembling a consistent look. And, inexpensive, quality 3D artists aren't as easy to find as a good engine programmer willing to work for free, unfortunately.
Ultimately, people play indie games because they like the gameplay. If you really enjoy old-school PC RPG type games, then the graphics shouldn't matter much. Heck, I still fire up Might&Magic 7 on an occasional basis because I enjoy the game, and that thing has graphics that are barely better than M59's old engine. Yes, there are going to be people that turn up their nose at the graphics but, to be honest, those people probably wouldn't be interested in the game anyway.
I'm an MMO developer with quite a bit of history in the industry. A few comments stand out to me:
It seems most of this industry is too caught up in trying to copy WoW rather than pushing the envelope with new paradigms for interactivity and gameplay.
That would be because WoW makes a metric fuckton of cash. For some reason, companies like making money.
Mythic's previous game, Dark Age of Camelot, was a souped-up version of the top game (EverQuest) at the time. Most of the people who talked about DAoC called it "EverQuest without the suck". While DAoC never quite beat EQ, it did very well for the company for many years. It's not really surprising that they tried to copy WoW; I'm more surprised they decided to license an IP this time around. Perhaps after their unsuccessful internal project, original properties leave a bad taste in their mouth.
[T]his game could hardly be called an RPG at all. Interaction was kept to a bare minimum, both with NPCs and other players. The only real interactions you have are taking on 1000s of mundane fetch quests from NPCs or PvPing with players.
Which is funny, because these are the elements a lot of people ascribe to WoW's success. The big win for WoW, according to many pundits, was the fact that you could play solo or with friends as you wanted. The quests were fairly simple, but they let you level faster than just grinding as previous games often required. Even these days I've noticed most people can't be bothered to read quest text in WoW, they just follow QuestHelper or yell for directions on zone chat. Your old-school definition of RPG doesn't apply to most MMORPGs.
I guess the people saying this were thinking too simply. Or, perhaps, that magic is only useful once and is now useless after WoW.
Unfortunately, the creator of MMOGchart.com doesn't consider Meridian 59 worthy of mentioning, but it was launched in September, 1996.
However, the problem is that the patent is an extension of a previous patent, number 6,219,045, dated November 12, 1996. A proper defense would require that that you go after that patent as well, as I was told by lawyer I know. There's still prior art to be had, but it's not quite so easy to find it.
If you want to read more about the NCSoft lawsuit issues and patent problems relating to game development, I posted up about this a little while ago on my professional MMO development blog: http://www.psychochild.org/?p=540
You'll run into a few problems, at least under the U.S. version of the DMCA:
1) you can't report copyright violation as an Anonymous Coward, you have to give a name. 2) you have to show specific violations and demonstrate ownership, which is one reason you have to give a name. 3) the person accused should be able to just as easily tell their ISP that they are not violating copyright and get access restored (if it was even taken away). 4) you will have legal liability for sending false notices (because you provided a name); the accused can recoup costs and damages as allowed by the DMCA itself.
It's not something one should take lightly, even if some people take a cavalier attitude. I can't speak for all jurisdictions, of course, but any proper geek should get informed.
Yeah, this is an issue of de facto vs. de jure rules. As I wrote in another comment, there is a fine line between the MPAA or ESRB rating content and the CCA accepting or rejecting content.
But, you are correct, it's pretty much impossible to get AO content into stores (and some won't even accept M-rated games). Again, the perception of a lot of people is that games are only appropriate for children, so we get these types of situations. It's something I'm hoping that educating people about the issue of legitimacy will help.
In the end, a lot of these ratings will stop mattering, assuming we keep a free and open internet. Lots of games don't have ESRB approval, just as there are a lot of YouTube clips that don't have MPAA ratings. But, in that type of environment, you might still get the "moral guardians" complaining about games and trying to legally restrict them.
You're being aggressively narrow-minded, presuming that my guardians were fundamentalists.
I made no such assumption; rather, I was trying to show that your guardians probably didn't worry about your exposure to unusual ideas or graphic violence in books or paintings. So, why would your guardians be so worried about exposure to these things from comic books? Why was the CCA a good thing, but there was no need for the equivalent for books or paintings?
This is the core of the issue of "legitimacy" I talked about in the article. I no more want the CCA to restrict comic book content than I want someone to censor Huckleberry Finn or throw out images of Goya's painting.
My point was not to give a complete history of the CCA, but rather to point out one of the dangers of the "let things work out at their own pace" philosophy of dealing with legitimacy. Most people think the problem will resolves itself; they may be right, but there are no guarantees. This is one reason why I bother to write articles like this one.
If you want to know more about the CCA, I recommend the book Tales from the Crypt: The Official Archives by Digby Diehl. Pages 91-95 in particular show that the CCA (or, more properly, the CMAA) were rather sleazy in how they were dealing with some companies, particularly one of the companies that sold a lot of horror and suspense comics.
[T]o me seems like you have an axe to grind against the CCA, whether or not you do.
I'm not a fan of censorship, whether directly from the government or through threats from the government. I encourage you to do your own research, perhaps buy the book I reference above, and find out why things like the CCA tend to be rather odious. As I've said in many other comments here, I'd rather not see the U.S. game industry fall to the same fate as the U.S. comics industry. Being a game developer, I'm motivated by some measure of enlightened self-interest here.
I love Sandman, too. But, understand that the comic wasn't published under the CCA. Vertigo is an imprint of DC Comics, actually. A lot of the big comic publishers started creating imprints during the waning years of the CCA in order to publish comics that wouldn't get CCA approval.
It was successful on both counts, much like movie and ESRB ratings.
I don't think you can really compare the CCA to the MPAA or ESRB ratings; movie and game ratings in the U.S. don't restrict what content can be in the work. A work might be a harsh rating and not be shown or sold in some markets, but that's not the same as the direct restrictions the CCA imposed to get approval. There were no ratings for the CCA, and lack of approval during the height of its power meant that the comic couldn't be distributed to the primary markets.
You can argue that this is a pretty fine distinction, but it is a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Do your companies send out goods before they are paid for?
If so, what are the names and addresses for each of your companies? ;)
A few thoughts.
First, I don't imagine Rowling is sitting in her castle of money laughing at your suffering. It's probably the publisher that deals with what formats the books come out on. So, desiring to "punish" her for not putting out a book in the specific format you'd prefer seems misguided to me. As someone who writes, I suspect Rowling would prefer to get her work in the hands of every fan possible, whereas the publisher prefers to turn a profit.
Second, remember that the Harry Potter books are intended for children. In that context, it makes sense that the audio books would be "about as slow as your mother read to you as a child." Personally, I loved the audio books when I borrowed them from a friend and listened to them with my better half; the slow pace didn't bother me as an adult.
Third, you should realize that what you're asking for seems highly specialized. Listening to your example file, it nearly sounded like random noise to me. Not that I'll claim to have golden ears (far from it), but this is quite different than a large print book where someone without significant visual impairment could still enjoy it. This seems to be a step beyond, "I'm visually impaired and just want a version of the book I can enjoy."
Finally, have you contacted the publisher or a publisher association about this? Have you worked with the visually impaired community to demonstrate to publishers that there would be a sizable market for this specialized version? I honestly don't know, and perhaps you have. But, as you've pointed out, a lot of people don't keep in mind the needs of others so they may not be aware that a market for this exists. As a game developer, I know a lot of other developers don't even keep common things like color blindness in mind when designing games, so I know information is the first vital step.
I remember TV stars saying that Hulu was a system to turn human brains to mush to make them easier to consume. Charging for it is going to hinder that plan, it makes no sense! ...wait a moment, did Hollywood lie to me?!?
All these mod points, and no (-1, Threw up a bit in my mouth) option....
Region locking also allows for licensing of content to different distributors. As a simple example, say I develop a game and get EA to publish it in the U.S., then later Ubisoft wants to publish it in Europe. Ubisoft will have to invest some effort in translating the game, so they want need to see a minimum amount of sales to recoup costs. This type of arrangement wouldn't be as appealing to Ubisoft if people could easily buy the other region's copies on the gray market.
Admittedly this is less of an issue as the larger publishers are more international and localization issues are being handled earlier in development. And, yeah, it still doesn't help the consumer. But, there is a real business reason behind this rather than just being mean to consumers.
Because it's an improvement of the old eBay feedback system biologists were using before. They found that system was open to "retribution" feedback if the prey didn't rate the predator highly enough.
Review by vole:
(positive) Fox was an excellent predator!!!! Would be eaten again!!!!! A+++++++++++!!!!!
Actually, a friend of mine hides when we pull out Guitar Hero. He says the "twangs" and empty spaces when you miss a note grate on him something fierce. Not sure if that's what the GP meant, but there are some people out there that just don't like listening to the games themselves.
An expansion brings new interest to a game, because it puts new boxes in stores. So, the stores have a reason to sell the new version of the game, which could bring in more people. This really is the best way for them to try to gain more users through typical means.
Both. After all, 1d12 trolls can appear at one time, according to the 2nd edition Monster Manual.
Because when I see that people are actually PAYING someone else to play the boring parts of a game for them, it's easy for me to deduce that what we have is not a fun game[...]
This is like saying that any game with cheat codes is obviously unfun. There are a lot of different motivations for buying gold in an MMO, many of them similar to the motivations for using a cheat code in a traditional single-player game. Yes, it could be that the gameplay is fundamentally boring and unfun and people want to skip it, but I suspect if that were truly the case, they'd stop playing the game instead of paying money for some convenience to keep playing.
The solution to goldfarming should be to find out why earning gold in the game is so bloody tedious and focus your design efforts on making the game fun to play.
You said in this thread:
Therefore, I suspect that the typical RPG conventions of "earning" money will probably never appeal to you. In this case, MMORPGs are not for you, and no amount of "design effort" is going to make the process any more fun for someone who doesn't like that type of game.
That's fine; lots of people enjoy the games anyway. Many of them don't even buy gold to get past the parts you find "bloody tedious"!
As a further point, almost all the games given as examples of free games are clones or derivatives of previous games. One of the things that makes a good indie game stand out is interesting, new types of gameplay or new takes on existing gameplay. Not to say that games like FreeCol are bad, but comparing an after-work project cloning an existing commercial game and someone trying to create new types of games from the ground up for a living and then wondering why they both can't be free seems a bit silly.
Just to be truly pedantic, Heroes V was done by Ubisoft. They bought the rights to Might & Magic from a bankrupt 3DO.
It's something I remembered, having worked at 3DO at the time and having to deal with the copy protection. Ironically, it was for a game that nobody would have wanted to pirate anyway; that's what happens when you finish what is supposed to be a AAA PC game in only 6 months.
As a developer, I'm not fond of copy protection/DRM schemes either. I use Daemon Tools for checking CD images I've made for my game; it sucks that some DRM thinks I'm a dirty pirate just because I have that installed.
My thoughts,
Heroes of Might & Magic 3 was published by 3DO. I worked at 3DO at the time it was released.
I don't think they used SecuROM. The copy protection software at the time was SafeDisc. I remember that distinctly because one of my last few tasks at the company was to built the installer using SafeDisc on another project. 3DO was really cheap, so I don't think they would have licensed multiple copy protection systems.
Chipping in my two cents. I hate SecuROM as much as the next gamer/programmer, but I don't think the hate is properly directed in this case.
At least my epeen doesn't turn orange when I eat Cheetos in front of the computer, though.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
Many people consider "entertainment" to be more than just stories. There are some things that are very entertaining without having any stories, including many games such as Tetris.
The interactive parts don't help when it comes to linear storytelling. Yes, games can tell a story, so can a painting, but neither are as well adapted to linear storytelling as books or movies. However, once we start considering non-linear (or interactive) stories, then games shine. The problem is that we've had a strong focus on linear storytelling for a very long time; the printed word replaced much of the oral traditions we had in the past. Games are now trying to re-capture some of that, mostly with clumsy results. In addition, games are going through a growing period where it tries to copy a previous medium poorly, just as movies tried to copy theater before developing its own techniques for telling stories. That's why some "epic" games feel like a mediocre movie with some combat button-mashing thrown in at odd times.
So, yes, you're right with some qualification. But, that doesn't mean it will always be the case that games suck at storytelling; I think they just haven't hit their stride yet. Personally, I think the realm of multiplayer games is the most fertile area, which is one reason why I'm an MMO developer.
Speaking as a professional game developer...
Games have gotten ridiculously easy....
There are many reasons for this. As you point out, one reason is that you're getting better at the types of games you enjoy. You also understand the conventions of the games you play. One time my sister-in-law was amazed as I was racing through a game it took her months to figure out. I knew what to look for while solving the puzzles based on other, similar games I've played.
There has been a trend in development to make games easier to appeal to a wider audience. One problem you get with some games is that if you build them to be challenging to fans of that type of game, they tend to exclude less hardcore players and newbies. FPSes were like this for a while; unless you had developed precise twitch ability, you weren't going to be able to play the game very well.
A difficulty setting is something that is really tough to balance out, though. The simplest way of modifying internal numbers (enemies get more hps, player does less damage, etc.) doesn't necessarily make the game harder, it just makes the game play differently. Truly changing the difficulty requires developing the game in a different way. In most cases, "harder" just means "less fair, easier to fail" which feels frustrating for a lot of players.
MMOs also show this trend, too. My own game, Meridian 59, is pretty hard-core. It's also a PvP game, which has its own level of brutality associated with it. But, play M59 and then play WoW and you'll see a world of difference in difficulty (as well as graphics, UI, etc.)
My thoughts,
One could argue that they've pretty much already taken the jury box from us; what's the popular conception of jury duty? Something that you complain about disrupting your precious time. Something that you use any trick in the book to get out of. Something that isn't respected at all.
I had the opportunity to be on a jury a few years ago, and I was glad for it. Not only did I do my civic duty, but I also got to see a bit more about how insurance companies work (the case was dealing with an insurance company trying to recoup from the city government a settlement paid out). I had jury duty this week, even, but wasn't called in, much to my disappointment.
But, my feeling is that there has been an attempt to make jury duty unattractive to many people. You can argue if that's a good or bad thing, or if it's been intentional and coordinated or not, though.
As someone who as been there and done that, the answer is: he probably wouldn't do better. We worked on a major engine upgrade for Meridian 59; we upgraded the game to use 3D hardware acceleration instead of a software-based renderer, added dynamic lighting, and lots of other improvements to the engine. We didn't upgrade the art (I'll get to that in a moment), but the engine was a significant improvement, especially if you ran it at higher (read: modern) resolutions.
After a few years of work and a final big push, we saw pretty much no increase in interest after the upgrade. The problem is that while the presentation does improve, it still can't compete with the AAA level of quality. And the AAA games are what you will be compared to, no matter how much you improve your engine. The reality is that writing a more modern engine would probably cause the author to spend more time for very little return on investment.
"But, you should have improved your graphics, too!" We had to do some lovely hacks to get the 2D player art to work in the new 3D engine, so we had seriously discussed upgrading the art. The problem is that it was a huge amount of work. We'd have to replace a lot of artwork since the players (and all the variations of equipment we have) as well as monsters, items dropped on the ground, scenery, and lots of other things would all need to be upgraded. It's not something we could have done piecemeal and still have anything resembling a consistent look. And, inexpensive, quality 3D artists aren't as easy to find as a good engine programmer willing to work for free, unfortunately.
Ultimately, people play indie games because they like the gameplay. If you really enjoy old-school PC RPG type games, then the graphics shouldn't matter much. Heck, I still fire up Might&Magic 7 on an occasional basis because I enjoy the game, and that thing has graphics that are barely better than M59's old engine. Yes, there are going to be people that turn up their nose at the graphics but, to be honest, those people probably wouldn't be interested in the game anyway.
My thoughts,
I'm an MMO developer with quite a bit of history in the industry. A few comments stand out to me:
That would be because WoW makes a metric fuckton of cash. For some reason, companies like making money.
Mythic's previous game, Dark Age of Camelot, was a souped-up version of the top game (EverQuest) at the time. Most of the people who talked about DAoC called it "EverQuest without the suck". While DAoC never quite beat EQ, it did very well for the company for many years. It's not really surprising that they tried to copy WoW; I'm more surprised they decided to license an IP this time around. Perhaps after their unsuccessful internal project, original properties leave a bad taste in their mouth.
Which is funny, because these are the elements a lot of people ascribe to WoW's success. The big win for WoW, according to many pundits, was the fact that you could play solo or with friends as you wanted. The quests were fairly simple, but they let you level faster than just grinding as previous games often required. Even these days I've noticed most people can't be bothered to read quest text in WoW, they just follow QuestHelper or yell for directions on zone chat. Your old-school definition of RPG doesn't apply to most MMORPGs.
I guess the people saying this were thinking too simply. Or, perhaps, that magic is only useful once and is now useless after WoW.
Some things to consider.
Unfortunately, the creator of MMOGchart.com doesn't consider Meridian 59 worthy of mentioning, but it was launched in September, 1996.
However, the problem is that the patent is an extension of a previous patent, number 6,219,045, dated November 12, 1996. A proper defense would require that that you go after that patent as well, as I was told by lawyer I know. There's still prior art to be had, but it's not quite so easy to find it.
If you want to read more about the NCSoft lawsuit issues and patent problems relating to game development, I posted up about this a little while ago on my professional MMO development blog: http://www.psychochild.org/?p=540
Have fun.
You'll run into a few problems, at least under the U.S. version of the DMCA:
1) you can't report copyright violation as an Anonymous Coward, you have to give a name.
2) you have to show specific violations and demonstrate ownership, which is one reason you have to give a name.
3) the person accused should be able to just as easily tell their ISP that they are not violating copyright and get access restored (if it was even taken away).
4) you will have legal liability for sending false notices (because you provided a name); the accused can recoup costs and damages as allowed by the DMCA itself.
It's not something one should take lightly, even if some people take a cavalier attitude. I can't speak for all jurisdictions, of course, but any proper geek should get informed.
Yeah, this is an issue of de facto vs. de jure rules. As I wrote in another comment, there is a fine line between the MPAA or ESRB rating content and the CCA accepting or rejecting content.
But, you are correct, it's pretty much impossible to get AO content into stores (and some won't even accept M-rated games). Again, the perception of a lot of people is that games are only appropriate for children, so we get these types of situations. It's something I'm hoping that educating people about the issue of legitimacy will help.
In the end, a lot of these ratings will stop mattering, assuming we keep a free and open internet. Lots of games don't have ESRB approval, just as there are a lot of YouTube clips that don't have MPAA ratings. But, in that type of environment, you might still get the "moral guardians" complaining about games and trying to legally restrict them.
You're being aggressively narrow-minded, presuming that my guardians were fundamentalists.
I made no such assumption; rather, I was trying to show that your guardians probably didn't worry about your exposure to unusual ideas or graphic violence in books or paintings. So, why would your guardians be so worried about exposure to these things from comic books? Why was the CCA a good thing, but there was no need for the equivalent for books or paintings?
This is the core of the issue of "legitimacy" I talked about in the article. I no more want the CCA to restrict comic book content than I want someone to censor Huckleberry Finn or throw out images of Goya's painting.
My point was not to give a complete history of the CCA, but rather to point out one of the dangers of the "let things work out at their own pace" philosophy of dealing with legitimacy. Most people think the problem will resolves itself; they may be right, but there are no guarantees. This is one reason why I bother to write articles like this one.
If you want to know more about the CCA, I recommend the book Tales from the Crypt: The Official Archives by Digby Diehl. Pages 91-95 in particular show that the CCA (or, more properly, the CMAA) were rather sleazy in how they were dealing with some companies, particularly one of the companies that sold a lot of horror and suspense comics.
[T]o me seems like you have an axe to grind against the CCA, whether or not you do.
I'm not a fan of censorship, whether directly from the government or through threats from the government. I encourage you to do your own research, perhaps buy the book I reference above, and find out why things like the CCA tend to be rather odious. As I've said in many other comments here, I'd rather not see the U.S. game industry fall to the same fate as the U.S. comics industry. Being a game developer, I'm motivated by some measure of enlightened self-interest here.
I love Sandman, too. But, understand that the comic wasn't published under the CCA. Vertigo is an imprint of DC Comics, actually. A lot of the big comic publishers started creating imprints during the waning years of the CCA in order to publish comics that wouldn't get CCA approval.
It was successful on both counts, much like movie and ESRB ratings.
I don't think you can really compare the CCA to the MPAA or ESRB ratings; movie and game ratings in the U.S. don't restrict what content can be in the work. A work might be a harsh rating and not be shown or sold in some markets, but that's not the same as the direct restrictions the CCA imposed to get approval. There were no ratings for the CCA, and lack of approval during the height of its power meant that the comic couldn't be distributed to the primary markets.
You can argue that this is a pretty fine distinction, but it is a difference.