Actually, archetypes are used because that's what the people willing to spend money on these games really want. The history of online RPGs is much longer than the graphical "MMORPGs" you see today, going back as far as text-based games in the 70's, and a wide variety of possibilities have been explored. Current games rely on archetypes because this is what has proven to be popular.
There was actually quite a bit of variety in even just the first few retail online RPGs in the mid to late 1990's. Ultima Online, as other people have replied, had a fairly open skill system. They had a system where you could do just about anything you wanted. Even earlier than UO was Meridian 59, the game I currently own and administrate. This game also had a fairly open skill system without levels and "archetypes" (or classes as us old-schoolers call 'em), although groups of skills were organized into levels; but, you could build a wide variety of characters with the system.
What happened? Well, people looked for "the best" character build, and those became the dominant archetypes. And, don't give me any bullshit about "poor design", this is just the way players are. The majority of players still stuck to what was "accepted" over what was really more powerful, even if the "accepted" builds had always been weaker! In addition, even the best designers have a hard time keeping track of everything. In Meridian 59, we have about 150 unique spells and skills. Testing each one isn't too hard. Now, consider that two skills could interact with each other: 150 choose 2 is 11,175. Now consider what happens if three individual abilities could work together: 150 choose 3 is 551,300. Do you think the typical overworked designer has the time to test over half a million possible combinations? Keep in mind that Meridian 59 is a fairly small game, overall; that figure could potentially go into several millions in a game with a lot more abilities.
As for allow players freedom, let's just say that there's a reason there's few game worlds offering deep Player vs. Player possibilities.
Does this mean we're doomed to having archetypes and shallow gameplay forever? I hope not. But there are certainly reasons why your ideas aren't being incorporated into new games, and it's not for lack of intelligence by us designers.
People that are interested in online RPG development might want to check out my professional blog where I discuss a lot of topics concerning online RPGs from a professional developer's point of view.
1. This doesn't include the cost of the box. A $50 boxed game does make at least a modest profit at the store, so they gained a bit of money from that. 2. The 5.5 million figure is worldwide, including places like China. The Chinese players do not (and could not) pay $13-15 per month as we do here in the U.S.
And, for the nay-sayers here, Blizzard claims those 5.5 million subscribers are current subscribers, not ones that have played and already canceled their account. So, there's probably a good number of people that have tried the game in addition to that 5.5 million.
But, yes, all in all they're still making a metric fuckton of money.
Some info from a smaller-scale online RPG developer,
I'm so sick of paying for a game that may not exist in the future.
Eventually everything fades into oblivion. I have a bunch of old console games (NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1) and if the console goes bad I can't play it anymore. Should Sony/Nintendo/whoever have to give me a refund? (And, yeah, PS1 games play on a PS2, but some games don't like my favorite Monster Rancher. Plus, will the PS3 play PS1 games?) So, this argument is really meaningless.
Anyway, I'm going to disagree with your assessment that games need to be released to the public. The game I currently own and operate, Meridian 59, was shut down by The 3DO Company. It took a while before 3DO was willing to sell, but we did finally acquire the game. The game would have been worth a lot less if it had been forced to be released.
We keep the game closed source for now because we want the game to remain as we, the developers that have poured a lot into the game, see fit. The game doesn't make us much money, but we're happy that the game is still alive and under our control. It'll never be the biggest, but we still love it.:)
Unfortunately, it looks like this won't happen with AC2. AC1 is still going strong as far as I know, and still making a profit. So, the name "Asheron's Call" still has value and you can't sell off a game with so much intellectual property in it. You could write up a license, but that's more expensive than just sitting on it all.
That said, I think it would be nice if there were a way for games to enter the public domain eventually. The whole purpose of the public domain is to make sure that everyone gets to benefit from the creative efforts of others. It's a shame that some important cultural works are tied up and will never been seen in even our children's lifetimes if things keep going as they have.
Some thought from the developer side of the fence.
Sadly, the problem seems to be that Nintendo isn't lying enough. I wrote about a bit of the hype over next-generation consoles on game development my blog. It references a great article over at CNN where the video games writer takes a look at the previous generation.
Take one quick example: Remember the "Emotion Chip"? Remember how Sony said that games developed on the PS2 would be so powerful that developers could make life-like characters to bring emotion to games? Yeah, right. You can go throw in just about any PS2 game and more likely than not the faces aren't even animated.
So while other console manufacturers are up to their old tricks, again, Nintendo decided not to give into hype. As such people are declaring them the losers even though the hardware isn't even out yet. Of course, Nintendo tends to get the last laugh by having a wildly profitable video games division.
Yet another reason to show why the games industry is messed up. Working Designs' problem is that they spent too much in order to provide quality. I've been a big fan of WD's games, and it's been a real treat to buy and play the games they put out. The omake (extras) they put in make the game stand head and shoulders above others. The extras from the Lunar game, like the amulet, were a nice addition; not some cheap plastic copy, but a real metal medallion that was in the game.
Sadly, it really comes down to the money. I'd love to make games for free, but I still need a place to plug in my computer and keep it safe from the elements. Oh, and eating is a good idea on occasion. But, the reality is that your income has to be greater than your expenses or you're screwed. With Sony likely restricting their income, WD had to either drop their expenses (that is, churn out crap, which means their games would probably get even less attention), or close up shop. Looks like they chose the latter in order to remain known for their quality.
The parent post also hit the nail on the head about the 2D vs. 3D thing. People seem to think that 3D is better because there are more 3D games than 2D. The sad fact is that the large console publishers have been pushing 3D in favor of 2D for a long time because it helps make their consoles seem more "advanced", which allows them to charge more. Think people would be spending $400-500 for a new console if most of the games were 2D?
The poster is correct about the relationship between reviewers and game publishers. Scores get inflated artificially in order to maintain their connections within the game industry. Reviewing games gets expensive when you consider that new games cost $50, and that dozens of mainstream games (and several more smaller scale games) are released every month.
Some sites try to buck the trend, such as GamersInfo.net (full disclosure: I've written reviews for them without direct compensation), but it's hard when you aren't taking publisher "advertising dollars" to supplement the site's income. And, if you have any seriously negative opinion about the game, the publishers get very angry with you.
I'm also a developer, so I've seen it on the other side. My game, Meridian 59 (M59), is a classic online game that launched back in 1996. We bought the rights to the game in 2001 and have worked hard to update the game. We did a rendering engine upgrade (comparison shots at the bottom of that page) about a year ago and tried to get a blurb in a print magazine. Now, M59 isn't the prettiest game, but it has some historical significance in being the first online game available at retail and having a monthly subscription fee. Anyway, we went to a magazine to show off the new engine, and we barely got a mention in the MMO issue of the magazine. Our game was called a "throwback" even though we had poured quite a bit of effort into improving the game. It probably goes without saying that we can't afford to buy print ads in these magazines, and the MMO games that did buy advertising got large articles dedicated to them. (To be fair, more recently we did get a half-page blurb about Meridian 59 in that same magazine recently, but this was quite a while afterwards.)
What's interesting is that while I worked at a game company, they repeatedly said that game reviews are largely meaningless, but that favorable game previews are what really drive sales. You'll notice that just about every game preview you ever read is very favorable, too. Since games are a hit-driven business, most of the sales happen right after launch. In other words, people will buy a game based on very little information. Few people really wait for reviews, but a good preview will give people a desire for a certain games. Something to think about.
So, yeah, there's a few troubles in the reviewing of games.:)
As a few of the parent's sibling posts say, it's essentially that people want more value for their money.
Consider this, if I sell someone a toy for $1 and it bores him or her, what is that person likely to do? Set it aside or even throw it away; the toy has little value to you because that person paid almost nothing for it. Now, if someone paid $50 for the same toy, he or she might spend more time with it even if it bores that person initially. The person wants to get their money's worth, and many people don't want to face the fact that perhaps they paid too much for the toy. (Of course, it helps to make the $50 toy prettier to draw the attention of people spending money.)
The relates to these types of games, too. In my own game, Meridian 59, we give away the client and you pay $10.95 per month to play. In essence, the first month costs $10.95 whereas it costs $50 for other large games. The smaller price is much less than the normal price, so if someone gets frustrated with the game they are much more likely to set it aside. On the other hand, the game that charges $50 might have exactly the same type of experiences, but people are willing to "grin and bear it" in order to justify their purchase.
The point is that while more people will be willing to try the free (or cheap) game, the people who spent more money will likely be more dedicated customers. Of course, the free (or cheap) game has to spend more money on bandwidth and customer service costs as people flood to try the game. The more established game probably makes about the same amount of money on the box, but there are less players and they tend to be more dedicated, leading to less churn.
I talked a bit about this pricing psychology on my professional blog as it relates to online games. A very interesting topic, especially for someone like me that has to deal with it on a regular basis.
Some thoughts from someone who's been there, done that.
Actually, the AGC is useful for networking. It's actually one of the better conferences for MMO developers, since there's a high concentration of other MMO developers there. I've been in the online side of things for over 8 years now, and there's really not much new and interesting I'm going to learn. On the other hand, I had the opportunity to meet new people and get back in touch with old friends.
If you were truly in the games industry I suspect you'd already know that it's not just what you know, but who you know. I'm interested in working on exciting things either by working as management on a project or consulting on projects as I'm currently doing. So, networking is important if you want to do something besides be the grunt that works 80 hours per week to make someone else rich.
Read the post again: the poster most certainly did claim only dorks like escapism, at the very least by implication. "Dorks" read fantasy books to escape because they're immature, whereas normal adults read "mainstream literature" which concerns itself with reality (too much for a RPG fan's comfort, of course).
He also pointed out that almost invariably these people are looking to be more important than they actually are, or ever will be.
It's not just "these" people, it's everyone. Or, perhaps you have an alternate explanation for why celebrity tabloids and TV shows are so popular? Because people are deeply curious on an intellectual level about Demi Moore and Aston Kutcher's wedding? Or, perhaps because they wish they were rich and famous as well, and want to live vicariously through the descriptions? I'm not sure, I don't go for celebrity gossip all that much myself.
Reading about a spy getting shot at by the bad guys is one thing, actually getting shot at yourself is quite another....
And, similarly, reading about a knight wearing heavy armor and getting stabbed by his opponent is one thing, but actually getting stabbed at yourself is quite another. Listen, I've ridden horses before, and I have no desire to use them as my primary form of transportation even though that's about all they ride in fantasy books.
And, I think that brings up the primary weakness of the thesis that fantasy fans and RPGers want fantasy to be reality: why would we want to live in a world without electricity? The original question was that coders seem to be into roleplaying; so why would people interested in coding want to give up computers? I may be an RPG fan and designer, but I'm quite happy with modern conveniences and luxuries, thank you very much.
I can't see how anyone could think otherwise, especially if you've been exposed to a plethora of RPG fans.
Could it be that you have too insignificant of a sample size, or you took a sample in a location where the group was self-selected (such as a gaming conference)? I suspect that as a game developer, I've met a lot more RPG fans than you have. Most of them are fairly decent people that are well-grounded in reality. If you're considering the behavior of people at a gaming conference as "normal", consider that as the same as looking at the fanatics at a sports event that are painted up (often shirtless) with crazy hats and that shout at the top of their lungs. Yes, the crazy-crazies (not a technical term) are out there, but judging the entire population based on these people is invalid.
[...]in inability or unwillingness to interact with others in an appropriate fashion
According to what definition? You do realize that the people have to be at least marginally social in order to meet up for the first time, right? I posted elsewhere in this thread about The Introvert Advantage, which is a wonderful book about introversion that I recommend people read. Introversion is not about hating people or just being socially inept, it's about what your brain chemistry wants and rewards you for. Introverts are often described as what you've written above because extroversion is seen as "normal". Introverts tend to internalize things more which means they tend to be more thoughtful and contemplative, which are great attributes for RPGing. Small surprise that they tend to be attracted to them. However, extroverting can be learned by introverts, but it's like learning to write with your off-hand: you can even get pretty good at it, but it still doesn't feel "normal" and it can be very tiring. I'd recommend you educate yourself a bit more before trying to play psychologist.
1. Firstly what consideration are you providing that I don't already have? I've paid the software vendor to use the software, what additional consideration are you providing in exchange for my agreeing to your EULA? A contract *does* require an consideration on both sides.
My company's consideration is that you can install the software from the media you purchased to your computer. Yeah, it's splitting hairs; welcome to the wonderful world of business and lawyers.
In the case of Meridian 59, we don't charge for the client software. So, the consideration is the installation of the software since you were able to download it freely from our site.
I think the answer here is to post the EULAs on a public website as we have, that way people can consider the contracts before they've spent the time and money to go to the store and purchase the box. I agree that springing a EULA on someone only at the point of installation isn't the best option. But, that doesn't mean that EULAs can't be contracts, especially if you can read it before you spend any money.
2. Secondly the idea that I can return the software if I don't agree is a non-sense. Most shops won't take back software if it's been opened. And you know what: they're more in the right than your EULA: they've provided something for my cash the EULA is irrelevant. In any case, see 1), I've already paid for what I want: the right to use the software.
Send it back to the company, then. If the contract states that you have the right to return the software, then exercise that right. Yeah, maybe you're out a dollar or so in postage, but you can return it. Also, many stores will take back opened software if you raise a stink about it. Explain that you didn't agree to the EULA and that you don't want another copy; ask to speak to a manager, then that manager's manager, etc. Eventually they'll give you your money back. At least, that's been my experience.
this may sound harsh, particularly as i'm a programmer and have been a roleplayer quite extensively myself,
Sounds like you had some really boring roleplaying, though, and possibly a terrible GM.
You should perhaps try playing some modern games where you don't put your intentions on the top of the page in the form of "Lawful Good" or "True Neutral". For example, in White Wolf's World of Darkness game settings, everyone is generally in the same group, but they could be working at cross purposes. Some of the best events in the game are when you pull off the perfect political maneuver to spite a character you don't see eye-to-eye with; or when you have to cajole, threaten, or negotiate to get a bit of vital information. Of course, this is on top of the challenge of considering things from the point of view of a completely separate character with different morals and motivations than you might have personally.
As for the "formalness" of the worlds, that really depends on the players and the GM. What's the modifier for turning over a table during a bar fight and using it as cover? What happens if an opponent in heavy steel armor crashes into the front of table? What if an acrobat leaps over the table and pins you against it? What if a mage sets the table on fire? I don't know what game you were playing, but these situations happened often in our role-playing and there were no hard and fast rules for them. The DM had to come up with rules and we collaborated to make a great session.
Finally, you should consider that not everyone is the same. In particular, there are introverts and extroverts, although these terms are very often misunderstood. I highly recommend the book, The Introvert Advantage which talks about these things in depth. I credit RPGing with allowing me to learn to extrovert as an introvert; this isn't something that comes naturally to introverts, so it's good to have a practice area where you can "just claim you're roleplaying" to ease anxieties. Learning to extrovert well has helped me a tremendous amount as a business owner. Of course, not everyone is as willing to learn and grow; people are often happy to fall back on old, comfortable, familiar patterns.
How did this garbage get modded "Insightful"? Wow.
First of all, creating a fantasy world in a computer game is an incredibly collaborative effort these days. The days of some lone geek sitting in his garage making a game is long over. Even small casual games have teams of at least 3 people. You need a minimum amount of people skills if you're going to create a fantasy world in the medium I'm most familiar with.
Now, let me give you some real insight: a book doesn't have to be set in a "magical fairy realm" or "deep space" or "an alien planet" to be escapist. Hell, most "mainstream literature" is escapist; why do you think people read books like The Hunt for Red October or Patriot Games? Because they're fascinated by Russian sub or missile technology? No, because they want some adventure and excitement in their lives. They live vicariously through the spies, CIA operatives, and other characters as much as the person reading A Game of Thrones lives through the knights, schemers, nobles, and other characters in that book. Of course, that book isn't all "pleasant", and hopefully you didn't identify too closely with the character that gets beheaded or died of a seemingly minor wound....
So, stop with the tired "lolz @ teh dorks!" attitude already. Everyone engages in a bit of escapism once in a while. And sometimes people read a book because it's genuinely a good story, whether it's fantasy, science fiction, or "mainstream".
Of course, you're making sweeping assumptions about what EULAs are or are not. Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, but I do retain quite a few of them for my business. This isn't legal advice, just my interpretation of things.
It has to be an exchange of things.
Not under any definition I know of. A quick Google search turned up this page on FindLaw.com. It states:
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties. The core of most contracts is a set of mutual promises (in legal terminology, "consideration"). The promises made by the parties define the rights and obligations of the parties.
It says nothing of an exchange of things. Further, that's silly because a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a contract, but there's no "exchange of things" there. Just the promise that one party won't go blabbing (not a legal term) about the information another party agrees to share.
All these are freely available for you to read before you buy our game or join our service.
If you take a moment to read our EULA, you'll see that at the top it says, "WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT." That was written by the lawyer that drafted our EULA.
It has to be mutually agreed upon.
That's what "I agree" means, and it's written button you click on. At the very least I figure this is equivalent to a verbal contract; verbal contracts are usually valid, but usually not used because it can be hard to prove consent of both parties without a written records (which is why signatures are usually preferred). If you don't agree, then you shouldn't use the software. Clicking "I agree" then claiming it wasn't a valid agreement is the worst option, really.
Along those lines, it has to be open to negoation.
What are you doing to that goat for the contract? *shiver* Oh, wait, negotiation. Right....
Have you ever tried to negotiate? For my company, we have contact info posted on our website. You could revise any of our agreements and send it to us before you sign up and play the game. Of course, many companies will probably reject any revisions, but that's their prerogative as with any contract negotiations. And, nobody is forcing you to agree to the EULA. In most cases you can send the software back and get a refund. At the end of our EULA, we state:
If you do not agree to these terms and conditions, promptly return or, if received electronically, certify destruction of the Game Software within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the Game Software and receive a full refund of any license fee paid if you: (a) Do not use the Game Software, and (B) return it with proof of payment to the location from which it was obtained.
Given my counters to your objections, it looks like our EULA is a valid contract, hmm?
It comes down to this: companies use the EULA to cover their liabilities and to assert their rights. If you don't like the EULA, you have the ultimate recourse: don't use the software. There's not much software out there that is essential, so whining about how the unfairness of the EULA solves nothing. Unless you're willing to not use the software nothing will change. Think Microsoft's OS EULAs are crap? There's a few alternatives out there, I've heard. Don't like the EULA on my game? Don't play. I promise not to be too hurt by your rejection, personally. Of course, I think our EULAs
Black = Destructive, mostly damage-causing. White = Healing and protective. Red = A combination of Black and White. Blue = Learns from watching others.
Blue would also be known as a "Script Kiddie". It's appropriate that Microsoft is focusing on Blue Hats.
Not surprising. People always act like development teams are these monolithic beasts that hate the players. In truth, many devs can easily see the truth of the matter, and they often are just as torn up by what's happening as anyone else is. The "official word" comes from managers that try to put the best spin possible on things, and don't necessarily reflect the opinions of the people in the trenches.
Having been on an ignored project in a large company, I can sympathize with the developers. Often the developers will be doing their best work in spite of all the problems. They often believe that they can do something, ANYTHING, to turn the game's future around. I'm sure most of the developers are more devastated than anyone else to see the game close down. I know most of the former developers literally cried when Meridian 59 closed down at the hands of 3DO. I made the financially irrational decision to resurrect the game mostly out of love instead of a real desire to make gobs of money from it (HA!).
This isn't to pain the management as the bad guys, either. Sometimes your job as a manager is to make a hard decision like closing down a game like this. I don't think it's necessarily an easy decision for anyone that's involved in the development of the game in any meaningful way.
Some perspective from someone who's been there, done that before it was cool.:)
The market does not support innovation
on
The Ultimate MMORPG
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Let me explain why online RPGs aren't so easy to develop. In essence, players don't know what they really want. I know this is going to piss off a lot of people, but let me explain.
Let Us Lose
See, you say you want to be able to lose. The problem is most players don't want to lose. In my own game, Meridian 59, you can lose. If you die you drop your inventory and lose a percent in a variety of your skills. This means that if you die repeatedly, you can actually go backwards in character progression. Luckily, the game isn't quite as equipment-focused as other games are, so losing your inventory isn't as bad as it might be in other games. Plus, the monsters are dumb and it's fairly easy to get out of a bad situation if you are smart about playing, so multiple deaths isn't all that common.
Yet, when people look at this they cringe. They don't want to be "punished" by the game. Many will complain that they don't want to "lose" the "work" they put into their character. They want to gain power then enforce that power on other people without consequence. I have to admit, this is a compelling argument. It sucks to have a limited amount of time to play these types of games and it kinda sucks to have to spend a lot of your limited time rebuilding from your previous losses. It doesn't feel "fun" to rebuild, even though it is part of the a game that is fun because there's the risk of meaningful loss.
And this is just one issue like this. There are multiple other issues like this that keep developers from experimenting too much. Frankly, people are used to the way the games currently are, and until people are willing to pay for other types of games we'll see more and more clones made.
And, this is what it really boils down to: what will the market support? We already have people trying cool and innovative games, but they fall to the wayside. Meridian 59 has a very well-balanced and unique character development system in an original world. But, I suspect that most people clamoring for "innovation" won't be able to look past the outdated graphics long enough to see the cool PvP system at the core. It's all well and good to hope that one of the high-budget games will do something innovative, but let me put it this way: If I were given a budget of $30 million and told to make an online game, I would do the safest game possible. I would take almost no real risks, because it's my job and reputation on the line if the game doesn't make back its investment.
And, frankly, this is the smart thing to do. World of Warcraft followed the usual Blizzard technique of synthesizing the good parts of other games, polishing the gameplay and presentation to an amazing degree (ignoring issues like stability for now), and releasing a fun but hardly original game. World of Warcraft now boasts 3.5 million players worldwide (1.5 million of those Chinese), and is the most successful western online RPG ever. They followed the safe road and were rewarded for it. Unlike half a dozen other games I could mention that offered more innovation and have essentially faded into oblivion.
Once again, the developers do what the market tells them to do. They will provide the type of games that people will pay for and that will make a profit. Until the people who want innovation show themselves to be a large enough force with enough money to make a difference, we'll continue to see the types of games we have previously.
Listen, personally I agree with you, but people haven't been falling over themselves to financially reward my company for running a game that tries to buck the trend. And, if you're not supporting my current title with a bit of innovation, I'm not going to have the resources to do any other titles with more innovation. Hell, I'd love to do a game full of politics and set in something but a medieval fantasy setting, but I don't have the resources to do that anytime soon. And if you're waiting for one of those $30 million budget games to do something innovative so you can have your pretty graphics, too, you're going to be waiting a long, LONG time.
I recommend pen+paper RPGs if you want to create your own character:-)
I already play paper RPGs every other Friday, thanks. When I play paper RPGs I want a social experience of hanging around with friends and having fun. I want to say, "Where's the Mountain Dew?" and get everyone laughing.
On the other hand, sometimes I want to just kill things. Combat simulation with dice gets a bit boring after a while, so paper RPGs aren't all that great for this. I want to create a party, flex my tactical ability, and stomp the monsters. I want to sigh in relief as my cleric gets off that healing spell just in time so that the fighter doesn't bite the dust. I want to manage my limited resources and try to defeat the situations before me the best I can.
On the other hand, I don't want sprawling games that have pretentions of being a movie. I don't want to sit through half an hour of cutscenes before I get to wander along a linear path and collect goodies. I don't want to play a game so deep with foreign cultural references that I don't understand half of those cutscenes, anyway. I don't want to play what the designer thought was a "good party" or be restricted in what characters I can have in my party due to some deus ex machina reason. I certainly don't want to play any strange dress-up side games in order to grow my characters.
As I said, this is the future of RPGs, and I'm not a huge fan. I'll go back and play my old RPGs and enjoy it. For me, the older RPGs are more satisfying, as was the topic of this post.
My issue with mediation (online or offline, the latter being much worse than the former) is that when used in lieu of unmediated communication it can prevent us from accessing the human being on the other side.
I disagree. I think that you can connect with people if you choose to. Allow me an anecdote, if you will.
Recently a person who I had met online (and have met offline a few times) sent me some chat logs she had kept. She was online and I started bothering her with a name she didn't recognize. After a bit of that I admitted who I was and we both had a laugh. The fact that she emailed me this didn't change the fact that we were exchanging a memory of what happened to us in the past. I felt the same way about her email that I feel when I talk about some of our college hijinx with my old college pals.
I suspect we're a bit early in the curve to really tell the future accurately. I suspect that as the children of today grow up they'll view IM and email the same way we view a phone call today. Back when phones were first around, people treated them as special and ranted about how phones were destroying relationships. Why, people didn't even go out to visit each other anymore, they just called each other on the telephone!
This isn't to say that there aren't some important issues to consider about these technologies. Every disruptive technology requires thoughtful analysis. It's interesting to note that we're becoming more disconnected with our peers in the offline space; most Americans don't even know their neighbors. But, I remember this happening before people even knew what the WWW stood for. I think people do need to connect to each other more, but demonizing online "social" software as the primary culprit strikes me as a bit simplistic.
I just gave a talk at a conference which talked briefly about this. One of the my points was that the large companies have no incentive to advertise about older games. Activision makes more money for every copy of DOOM 3 that is sold than they do when someone fires up the original DOOM. (There are also issues with losing the history of the industry, but that's a whole other rant.)
In the end, the newer games get more attention than the older games. Companies spend a lot of money convincing people to keep track of the new games and that technology drives "fun". This is how the companies make more money.
This is actually a very backwards way of thinking of some games. For example, online RPGs (aka MMORPGs) actually get better with age. A game like my own Meridian 59 has had several expansions and tweaks done to the game over the years. These games tend to be very bug-free and well-balanced. The game grows and expands over the years, and the game you can play now is often quite different than the game it originally was.
Finally, sometimes games change. I'm a huge fan of computer RPGs, but the games released these days are hardly RPGs. Instead of being able to create a character (or party), I'm forced to deal with a pre-made character and run him (or rarely, her) through a pre-set adventure. Sometimes I just have to fire up a Wizardry game or the original Final Fantasy as an antidote to the mostly passive games that are released these days. I guess they sell really well, but it's not the type of game I want to play.
I'll post the slides to my conference talk on my professional blog (http://blog.psychochild.org/) when I get the chance.
I'll agree with you, the term "social" gets thrown around a lot. However, I think sometimes it is a good title. My professional blog does get some good discussion on there about game development issues. It's like sitting at a coffee shop discussing issues, but it's not just limited to people who like coffee in my immediate location.
I think you need to consider a larger issue: what is "real" socialization? You mention in your replies that you aren't an absolutist, but your attitude here seems to say that you don't believe that anything over the computer can be "real" socialization.
Of course, you seem to accept the telephone as socialization even though that puts distance between people and aspects of communication, notably body language, are missing. You might even consider letter writing to be socialization; people before the telephone certainly did, even though there were distances between people.
Your attitudes are a bit simplistic. I prefer email to phone calls not because I want more distance between me and the other person, but because I prefer the more thoughtful pace of email. Both people can take a bit of time to put some thought into their email instead of being put on the spot in a phone call. I once had an interview with someone who insisted on calling instead of emailing. We had a fairly empty phone conversation because neither of us could think of meaningful questions. Yet, once we finally did do email we had a very meaningful conversation and were able to cover a lot of topics.
In addition, technology helps bridge those gaps between people instead of emphasizing them. I run my own business and some of my employees are on the other coast from me. I use IM, email, and the telephone to keep in touch. I simply could not manage them without all these tools at my fingertips. IM in particular is more useful than a phone call because I don't have to balance the IM client between my shoulder and my ear while I'm writing code and trying to compile it.
I also think you are quick to write off the interaction in "networked video games" (you probably saw this coming once I said I develop games for a living). At a recent conference I attended, one of the officers of Yahoo! gave a talk about how he learned valuable management skills from running a guild of people on an online RPG (aka MMORPG). He told how he went into job interviews talking intelligently about management issues like dispute resolution, motivating others, managing peer opinions, and so on based on his experiences in the game. These issues are largely based on communication, relationship management, and other social elements.
In addition, many of these games encourage teamwork in order to overcome a challenge. This is exactly the same concept that allows soldiers to bond together in a combat unit. Yes, it's not live combat, but working together as a team in a game could be one of the most stressful things a typical American teenager has faced in his life. So, when that teenager says he feels some type of kinship with other people, even people he might not know offline details about, there may be something more to it than some sort of mental disorder as you imply.
At the end of the day, the person at the other end of the line is still a person. Honestly, some of the most hurtful people are the ones who take your attitude, the ones that believe online socialization isn't "real". They're the ones who don't realize that there are other human beings out there that can be affected by their words. Real feelings can be hurt, just as real feelings can develop between people, and all too often I see people completely ignorant of this fact. Taking a broader view of communication and socialization can help with interacting with others, including through online "social" software.
I'm probably feeding the AC troll by posting this, but....
See, this is the attitude that keeps the games industry stagnated. I assume you've never even tried Puzzle Pirates with that attitude. What I if I wanted to play puzzle games but interact with other people by role-playing? Popcap doesn't even have a chat room to talk while playing games. WoW doesn't have puzzles, unless you consider "GO KILL FOOZLES TO THE NORTHEAST" to be a puzzle, since you have to find the monster labeled "foozle".
Puzzle Pirates is actually a superb game that combines a lot of different aspects into a unique game. Sure, maybe you don't like it because you can't do headshots or see pixel boobies, but there are a lot of people that do like it. And there's probably a lot more people that would like it if they knew about it.
One of the biggest problems for independent games is one of exposure. Large publishers can buy ads in magazines; hell, they can even buy good reviews (directly or indirectly). A small game created by a self-funded small team doesn't have that luxury. The developers at Three Rings made this game on a shoestring budget, and they rely on people getting the good word out in order to let people know the game.
Of course, there's a bit of irony here. It's funny that Gamespot is just now reviewing a game that has been available for over a year. It took making a deal with a publisher to get boxes into stores for Gamespot to even pay attention to the game. And that's why getting mention on a place like Slashdot games is important for an independent developer; the large sites like Gamespot aren't going to touch you until you've danced with the devil and gotten a publishing deal.
Unfortunately, then there's the "gamers" that are ruining games. They think that unless a game has the latest cutting-edge graphics it's just a "second or third tier game". They forget that games are about fun, and that the graphical presentation should complement the fun instead of subsuming it. A pretty but boring game is still a boring game. A plain but fun game is still a fun game. And, really, aren't games supposed to be fun? Unfortunately, the market keeps buying the pretty but derivative games and then people turn around and wonder why only clones and sequels get made.
Don't like Puzzle Pirates? Fine, go back to pwning n00blers on the prettiest game you can find. But, don't get in the way of other people finding out about a great game.
There's a lot of room between the 30 person console dev team and the lone wolf working in his bedroom. My own company, developers of the game Meridian 59, is staffed by 3 people, for example. Yeah, I have to wear a lot of hats to develop the game, but I don't have to be a master programmer, artist, administrator, CSR, marketer, etc, just to survive; there are other people able to help out with the workload.
This is what the industry really needs; it needs something between the 30 person/2 year development team and the single person/2 month puzzle game developer. There needs to be some middle ground so that we can have reasonable interesting games that don't necessarily have to have multi-million dollar budgets. Unfortunately, this is no man's land currently; it's too small for the publishers to deal with, and too large for true indie development houses (those not dependent on publisher money to develop games) to be able to reasonably handle. On top of that, publishers control the most effective means of distribution, so you can't just drop a million dollars on developing a game then hope to make money back without having access to distribution to game stores, where the vast majority of game purchases are made. (Direct download is an option, but many people are still hesitant to give out credit card information to just anyone on the internet.)
Until we start seeing these middle-sized houses start to flourish, we won't see real change in the industry. And while I think unionization would be a good thing for the industry as a whole, I think independent development, similar to the indie movie side of Hollywood, is best for long-term improvement of the industry.
Cool.:) Feel free to send me an in-game mail to "Psychochild". I'm goning to be at a conference next week, but I'll be glad to handle any questions you might have when I get a chance to read mail.
Feel free to email help@neardeathstudios.com if you have any problems getting online.
The problem is that exact numbers aren't easy to get. If you want to see the nitty gritty, then I'd recommend Developing Online Games as a good book to take a look at. I'd quote from it, but I don't have the book handy right this moment.
But, let's talk about some holes in the numbers you came up with.
First, box sales are a completely different issue from subscriptions. You're lucky to see a third of the money from the box sale; most of the rest is eaten up by retailer margins, "promotion fees" at the retail end, cost of making the boxes, etc. Remember, this is also a one-time income item. Yes, there are expansions, but not everyone will buy them. Also, expansions have a cheaper price point than $50.
Second, not everyone that buys the box actually signs up, and very few of those people will actually play a full year. We have what's called a "conversion rate", which is the rate at which people will become paying subscribers after their free month. We also have what's called "churn", which is a comparison of the number of people that sign up compared to the number of people that cancel an account. This means that you're not going to have that full 800k paying. Dave Rickey, an experienced developer, estimates that out of those 800k, you'll probably have 442,800 to 543,152 people per month, on average once you count conversion rates and churn.
Third, as you point out, people aren't going to all pay the full $15/month. Some people will be paying less if they sign up for more accounts. Ignoring discussions on the future value of money (take Econ 101 if you have a burning desire to hear more about that), this reduces income by several percent.
Already we see that the number is going to be considerably lower than your 800k x $15 equation.
Next, your estimation on the cost of the game's development cost are off by a considerable sum. I've heard it said that Blizzard spent $30 million on the game. Unfortunately, I don't have a reliable source to link right now, so you'll have to take my word for it. This is 3-6 times what you estimated. Hell, traditional single-player games have budgets that approach $10M; I don't even think you could make a game for only $5M anymore and expect to get it published on a console. It costs a lot more to make an online RPG like this because not only do you have to create assets and the game, you have to create more art assets (for a wider variety of player avatar options), a server, and hire network coders. Yes, single-player games sometimes have servers as well, but it's the difference between an elementary school baseball field (a few dozen people simultaneous) and a baseball stadium (tens of thousands of people simultaneous). Even if Blizzard got to keep 33% from each box sale (which is a crazy high number), they would have only made $13.3M, less than development costs.
Okay, now we come to bandwidth. Here's some numbers for you: Meridian 59 uses 1 kilobyte per player per second. Remember, this is for a game designed to be played on 14.4k modems on the client side; a game like WoW is going to require much higher rates. But, let's assume that players play an average of 10 hours per week (quite low, "hard core" players usually go 20-30 hours per week), there's 4 weeks per year, and use the numbers from Dave Rickey above, rounded to 500k to make my math easier.
M59 currently spends about $3/GB per month. That puts bandwidth costs closer to $200,000 per month, four times your number. Keep in mind that 1) WoW probably uses more bandwidth per player per second , and 2) this bandwidth usage is constant, not bursty like most network traffic is. This means you're going to be filling up fat pipes easier and longer than most other server types will. A
I'm familiar with this topic because I run my own online RPG, Meridian 59. It's not quite as large as WoW, but there's still a lot of basic costs that do scale up appropriately.
Essentially, these games take a lot of money to develop and then to maintain. The box fees help defray the costs of maintenance, and a large part of the subscription fees go towards maintaining the game world. Every time a gameworld in WoW goes down, there's a team of programmers and at least a few network center administrators working on the problem, most likely. These people don't come all that cheap, and a team of people working like this is fairly expensive. This is a necessary cost, because people expect unusually high uptime for these servers considering most people are only paying $15/month or so. I've had more broadband downtime over the past year than people would accept in M59.
I won't go too much into how good a price even $15/month is. You'd expect to pay that much if you watch pay-per-view shows a couple times per month. An online games will provide you with more than a few nights of entertainment per month.
There are alternatives out there, though. Meridian 59 doesn't require a box purchase and is only $10.95 per month. Sure you're not going to get the prettiest graphics and the slickest UI, but you will get a very balanced game that has superb uptime. You'll also get gameplay that's considerably deeper than most of the games out there. We don't have pre-defined classes and there's no levels.
One of the biggest things about the monthly fee is that no business runs at no profit. Every business needs a little bit to keep growing and developing, otherwise the company stagnates and eventually dies. One of the problems our company is having is that we feel our lower monthly fee is a better deal for players, and we want people to be able to play our game, but it's hard to make significant profit to fund development of new games. We'd love to do something a bit more modern than M59, but it's tough to do when you're on fairly thin margins.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, archetypes are used because that's what the people willing to spend money on these games really want. The history of online RPGs is much longer than the graphical "MMORPGs" you see today, going back as far as text-based games in the 70's, and a wide variety of possibilities have been explored. Current games rely on archetypes because this is what has proven to be popular.
There was actually quite a bit of variety in even just the first few retail online RPGs in the mid to late 1990's. Ultima Online, as other people have replied, had a fairly open skill system. They had a system where you could do just about anything you wanted. Even earlier than UO was Meridian 59, the game I currently own and administrate. This game also had a fairly open skill system without levels and "archetypes" (or classes as us old-schoolers call 'em), although groups of skills were organized into levels; but, you could build a wide variety of characters with the system.
What happened? Well, people looked for "the best" character build, and those became the dominant archetypes. And, don't give me any bullshit about "poor design", this is just the way players are. The majority of players still stuck to what was "accepted" over what was really more powerful, even if the "accepted" builds had always been weaker! In addition, even the best designers have a hard time keeping track of everything. In Meridian 59, we have about 150 unique spells and skills. Testing each one isn't too hard. Now, consider that two skills could interact with each other: 150 choose 2 is 11,175. Now consider what happens if three individual abilities could work together: 150 choose 3 is 551,300. Do you think the typical overworked designer has the time to test over half a million possible combinations? Keep in mind that Meridian 59 is a fairly small game, overall; that figure could potentially go into several millions in a game with a lot more abilities.
As for allow players freedom, let's just say that there's a reason there's few game worlds offering deep Player vs. Player possibilities.
Does this mean we're doomed to having archetypes and shallow gameplay forever? I hope not. But there are certainly reasons why your ideas aren't being incorporated into new games, and it's not for lack of intelligence by us designers.
People that are interested in online RPG development might want to check out my professional blog where I discuss a lot of topics concerning online RPGs from a professional developer's point of view.
Have fun,
Two points:
1. This doesn't include the cost of the box. A $50 boxed game does make at least a modest profit at the store, so they gained a bit of money from that.
2. The 5.5 million figure is worldwide, including places like China. The Chinese players do not (and could not) pay $13-15 per month as we do here in the U.S.
And, for the nay-sayers here, Blizzard claims those 5.5 million subscribers are current subscribers, not ones that have played and already canceled their account. So, there's probably a good number of people that have tried the game in addition to that 5.5 million.
But, yes, all in all they're still making a metric fuckton of money.
Some info from a smaller-scale online RPG developer,
I'm so sick of paying for a game that may not exist in the future.
:)
Eventually everything fades into oblivion. I have a bunch of old console games (NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1) and if the console goes bad I can't play it anymore. Should Sony/Nintendo/whoever have to give me a refund? (And, yeah, PS1 games play on a PS2, but some games don't like my favorite Monster Rancher. Plus, will the PS3 play PS1 games?) So, this argument is really meaningless.
Anyway, I'm going to disagree with your assessment that games need to be released to the public. The game I currently own and operate, Meridian 59, was shut down by The 3DO Company. It took a while before 3DO was willing to sell, but we did finally acquire the game. The game would have been worth a lot less if it had been forced to be released.
We keep the game closed source for now because we want the game to remain as we, the developers that have poured a lot into the game, see fit. The game doesn't make us much money, but we're happy that the game is still alive and under our control. It'll never be the biggest, but we still love it.
Unfortunately, it looks like this won't happen with AC2. AC1 is still going strong as far as I know, and still making a profit. So, the name "Asheron's Call" still has value and you can't sell off a game with so much intellectual property in it. You could write up a license, but that's more expensive than just sitting on it all.
That said, I think it would be nice if there were a way for games to enter the public domain eventually. The whole purpose of the public domain is to make sure that everyone gets to benefit from the creative efforts of others. It's a shame that some important cultural works are tied up and will never been seen in even our children's lifetimes if things keep going as they have.
Some thought from the developer side of the fence.
Sadly, the problem seems to be that Nintendo isn't lying enough. I wrote about a bit of the hype over next-generation consoles on game development my blog. It references a great article over at CNN where the video games writer takes a look at the previous generation.
Take one quick example: Remember the "Emotion Chip"? Remember how Sony said that games developed on the PS2 would be so powerful that developers could make life-like characters to bring emotion to games? Yeah, right. You can go throw in just about any PS2 game and more likely than not the faces aren't even animated.
So while other console manufacturers are up to their old tricks, again, Nintendo decided not to give into hype. As such people are declaring them the losers even though the hardware isn't even out yet. Of course, Nintendo tends to get the last laugh by having a wildly profitable video games division.
My thoughts,
Yet another reason to show why the games industry is messed up. Working Designs' problem is that they spent too much in order to provide quality. I've been a big fan of WD's games, and it's been a real treat to buy and play the games they put out. The omake (extras) they put in make the game stand head and shoulders above others. The extras from the Lunar game, like the amulet, were a nice addition; not some cheap plastic copy, but a real metal medallion that was in the game.
Sadly, it really comes down to the money. I'd love to make games for free, but I still need a place to plug in my computer and keep it safe from the elements. Oh, and eating is a good idea on occasion. But, the reality is that your income has to be greater than your expenses or you're screwed. With Sony likely restricting their income, WD had to either drop their expenses (that is, churn out crap, which means their games would probably get even less attention), or close up shop. Looks like they chose the latter in order to remain known for their quality.
The parent post also hit the nail on the head about the 2D vs. 3D thing. People seem to think that 3D is better because there are more 3D games than 2D. The sad fact is that the large console publishers have been pushing 3D in favor of 2D for a long time because it helps make their consoles seem more "advanced", which allows them to charge more. Think people would be spending $400-500 for a new console if most of the games were 2D?
Some things to think about.
The poster is correct about the relationship between reviewers and game publishers. Scores get inflated artificially in order to maintain their connections within the game industry. Reviewing games gets expensive when you consider that new games cost $50, and that dozens of mainstream games (and several more smaller scale games) are released every month.
:)
Some sites try to buck the trend, such as GamersInfo.net (full disclosure: I've written reviews for them without direct compensation), but it's hard when you aren't taking publisher "advertising dollars" to supplement the site's income. And, if you have any seriously negative opinion about the game, the publishers get very angry with you.
I'm also a developer, so I've seen it on the other side. My game, Meridian 59 (M59), is a classic online game that launched back in 1996. We bought the rights to the game in 2001 and have worked hard to update the game. We did a rendering engine upgrade (comparison shots at the bottom of that page) about a year ago and tried to get a blurb in a print magazine. Now, M59 isn't the prettiest game, but it has some historical significance in being the first online game available at retail and having a monthly subscription fee. Anyway, we went to a magazine to show off the new engine, and we barely got a mention in the MMO issue of the magazine. Our game was called a "throwback" even though we had poured quite a bit of effort into improving the game. It probably goes without saying that we can't afford to buy print ads in these magazines, and the MMO games that did buy advertising got large articles dedicated to them. (To be fair, more recently we did get a half-page blurb about Meridian 59 in that same magazine recently, but this was quite a while afterwards.)
What's interesting is that while I worked at a game company, they repeatedly said that game reviews are largely meaningless, but that favorable game previews are what really drive sales. You'll notice that just about every game preview you ever read is very favorable, too. Since games are a hit-driven business, most of the sales happen right after launch. In other words, people will buy a game based on very little information. Few people really wait for reviews, but a good preview will give people a desire for a certain games. Something to think about.
So, yeah, there's a few troubles in the reviewing of games.
As a few of the parent's sibling posts say, it's essentially that people want more value for their money.
Consider this, if I sell someone a toy for $1 and it bores him or her, what is that person likely to do? Set it aside or even throw it away; the toy has little value to you because that person paid almost nothing for it. Now, if someone paid $50 for the same toy, he or she might spend more time with it even if it bores that person initially. The person wants to get their money's worth, and many people don't want to face the fact that perhaps they paid too much for the toy. (Of course, it helps to make the $50 toy prettier to draw the attention of people spending money.)
The relates to these types of games, too. In my own game, Meridian 59, we give away the client and you pay $10.95 per month to play. In essence, the first month costs $10.95 whereas it costs $50 for other large games. The smaller price is much less than the normal price, so if someone gets frustrated with the game they are much more likely to set it aside. On the other hand, the game that charges $50 might have exactly the same type of experiences, but people are willing to "grin and bear it" in order to justify their purchase.
The point is that while more people will be willing to try the free (or cheap) game, the people who spent more money will likely be more dedicated customers. Of course, the free (or cheap) game has to spend more money on bandwidth and customer service costs as people flood to try the game. The more established game probably makes about the same amount of money on the box, but there are less players and they tend to be more dedicated, leading to less churn.
I talked a bit about this pricing psychology on my professional blog as it relates to online games. A very interesting topic, especially for someone like me that has to deal with it on a regular basis.
Some thoughts from someone who's been there, done that.
Actually, the AGC is useful for networking. It's actually one of the better conferences for MMO developers, since there's a high concentration of other MMO developers there. I've been in the online side of things for over 8 years now, and there's really not much new and interesting I'm going to learn. On the other hand, I had the opportunity to meet new people and get back in touch with old friends.
If you were truly in the games industry I suspect you'd already know that it's not just what you know, but who you know. I'm interested in working on exciting things either by working as management on a project or consulting on projects as I'm currently doing. So, networking is important if you want to do something besides be the grunt that works 80 hours per week to make someone else rich.
Something to think about.
Have fun,
The poster didn't claim otherwise.
Read the post again: the poster most certainly did claim only dorks like escapism, at the very least by implication. "Dorks" read fantasy books to escape because they're immature, whereas normal adults read "mainstream literature" which concerns itself with reality (too much for a RPG fan's comfort, of course).
He also pointed out that almost invariably these people are looking to be more important than they actually are, or ever will be.
It's not just "these" people, it's everyone. Or, perhaps you have an alternate explanation for why celebrity tabloids and TV shows are so popular? Because people are deeply curious on an intellectual level about Demi Moore and Aston Kutcher's wedding? Or, perhaps because they wish they were rich and famous as well, and want to live vicariously through the descriptions? I'm not sure, I don't go for celebrity gossip all that much myself.
Reading about a spy getting shot at by the bad guys is one thing, actually getting shot at yourself is quite another....
And, similarly, reading about a knight wearing heavy armor and getting stabbed by his opponent is one thing, but actually getting stabbed at yourself is quite another. Listen, I've ridden horses before, and I have no desire to use them as my primary form of transportation even though that's about all they ride in fantasy books.
And, I think that brings up the primary weakness of the thesis that fantasy fans and RPGers want fantasy to be reality: why would we want to live in a world without electricity? The original question was that coders seem to be into roleplaying; so why would people interested in coding want to give up computers? I may be an RPG fan and designer, but I'm quite happy with modern conveniences and luxuries, thank you very much.
I can't see how anyone could think otherwise, especially if you've been exposed to a plethora of RPG fans.
Could it be that you have too insignificant of a sample size, or you took a sample in a location where the group was self-selected (such as a gaming conference)? I suspect that as a game developer, I've met a lot more RPG fans than you have. Most of them are fairly decent people that are well-grounded in reality. If you're considering the behavior of people at a gaming conference as "normal", consider that as the same as looking at the fanatics at a sports event that are painted up (often shirtless) with crazy hats and that shout at the top of their lungs. Yes, the crazy-crazies (not a technical term) are out there, but judging the entire population based on these people is invalid.
[...]in inability or unwillingness to interact with others in an appropriate fashion
According to what definition? You do realize that the people have to be at least marginally social in order to meet up for the first time, right? I posted elsewhere in this thread about The Introvert Advantage , which is a wonderful book about introversion that I recommend people read. Introversion is not about hating people or just being socially inept, it's about what your brain chemistry wants and rewards you for. Introverts are often described as what you've written above because extroversion is seen as "normal". Introverts tend to internalize things more which means they tend to be more thoughtful and contemplative, which are great attributes for RPGing. Small surprise that they tend to be attracted to them. However, extroverting can be learned by introverts, but it's like learning to write with your off-hand: you can even get pretty good at it, but it still doesn't feel "normal" and it can be very tiring. I'd recommend you educate yourself a bit more before trying to play psychologist.
My thoughts,
1. Firstly what consideration are you providing that I don't already have? I've paid the software vendor to use the software, what additional consideration are you providing in exchange for my agreeing to your EULA? A contract *does* require an consideration on both sides.
My company's consideration is that you can install the software from the media you purchased to your computer. Yeah, it's splitting hairs; welcome to the wonderful world of business and lawyers.
In the case of Meridian 59, we don't charge for the client software. So, the consideration is the installation of the software since you were able to download it freely from our site.
I think the answer here is to post the EULAs on a public website as we have, that way people can consider the contracts before they've spent the time and money to go to the store and purchase the box. I agree that springing a EULA on someone only at the point of installation isn't the best option. But, that doesn't mean that EULAs can't be contracts, especially if you can read it before you spend any money.
2. Secondly the idea that I can return the software if I don't agree is a non-sense. Most shops won't take back software if it's been opened. And you know what: they're more in the right than your EULA: they've provided something for my cash the EULA is irrelevant. In any case, see 1), I've already paid for what I want: the right to use the software.
Send it back to the company, then. If the contract states that you have the right to return the software, then exercise that right. Yeah, maybe you're out a dollar or so in postage, but you can return it. Also, many stores will take back opened software if you raise a stink about it. Explain that you didn't agree to the EULA and that you don't want another copy; ask to speak to a manager, then that manager's manager, etc. Eventually they'll give you your money back. At least, that's been my experience.
Have fun,
this may sound harsh, particularly as i'm a programmer and have been a roleplayer quite extensively myself,
Sounds like you had some really boring roleplaying, though, and possibly a terrible GM.
You should perhaps try playing some modern games where you don't put your intentions on the top of the page in the form of "Lawful Good" or "True Neutral". For example, in White Wolf's World of Darkness game settings, everyone is generally in the same group, but they could be working at cross purposes. Some of the best events in the game are when you pull off the perfect political maneuver to spite a character you don't see eye-to-eye with; or when you have to cajole, threaten, or negotiate to get a bit of vital information. Of course, this is on top of the challenge of considering things from the point of view of a completely separate character with different morals and motivations than you might have personally.
As for the "formalness" of the worlds, that really depends on the players and the GM. What's the modifier for turning over a table during a bar fight and using it as cover? What happens if an opponent in heavy steel armor crashes into the front of table? What if an acrobat leaps over the table and pins you against it? What if a mage sets the table on fire? I don't know what game you were playing, but these situations happened often in our role-playing and there were no hard and fast rules for them. The DM had to come up with rules and we collaborated to make a great session.
Finally, you should consider that not everyone is the same. In particular, there are introverts and extroverts, although these terms are very often misunderstood. I highly recommend the book, The Introvert Advantage which talks about these things in depth. I credit RPGing with allowing me to learn to extrovert as an introvert; this isn't something that comes naturally to introverts, so it's good to have a practice area where you can "just claim you're roleplaying" to ease anxieties. Learning to extrovert well has helped me a tremendous amount as a business owner. Of course, not everyone is as willing to learn and grow; people are often happy to fall back on old, comfortable, familiar patterns.
My thoughts,
How did this garbage get modded "Insightful"? Wow.
First of all, creating a fantasy world in a computer game is an incredibly collaborative effort these days. The days of some lone geek sitting in his garage making a game is long over. Even small casual games have teams of at least 3 people. You need a minimum amount of people skills if you're going to create a fantasy world in the medium I'm most familiar with.
Now, let me give you some real insight: a book doesn't have to be set in a "magical fairy realm" or "deep space" or "an alien planet" to be escapist. Hell, most "mainstream literature" is escapist; why do you think people read books like The Hunt for Red October or Patriot Games? Because they're fascinated by Russian sub or missile technology? No, because they want some adventure and excitement in their lives. They live vicariously through the spies, CIA operatives, and other characters as much as the person reading A Game of Thrones lives through the knights, schemers, nobles, and other characters in that book. Of course, that book isn't all "pleasant", and hopefully you didn't identify too closely with the character that gets beheaded or died of a seemingly minor wound....
So, stop with the tired "lolz @ teh dorks!" attitude already. Everyone engages in a bit of escapism once in a while. And sometimes people read a book because it's genuinely a good story, whether it's fantasy, science fiction, or "mainstream".
It has to be an exchange of things.
Not under any definition I know of. A quick Google search turned up this page on FindLaw.com. It states:
It says nothing of an exchange of things. Further, that's silly because a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a contract, but there's no "exchange of things" there. Just the promise that one party won't go blabbing (not a legal term) about the information another party agrees to share.
It has to be before the fact.
Which is why you can see the various agreements before you sign up for my game, Meridian 59:
End User License Agreement
The Rules of Play (in-game rules)
Terms of Service
All these are freely available for you to read before you buy our game or join our service.
If you take a moment to read our EULA, you'll see that at the top it says, "WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT." That was written by the lawyer that drafted our EULA.
It has to be mutually agreed upon.
That's what "I agree" means, and it's written button you click on. At the very least I figure this is equivalent to a verbal contract; verbal contracts are usually valid, but usually not used because it can be hard to prove consent of both parties without a written records (which is why signatures are usually preferred). If you don't agree, then you shouldn't use the software. Clicking "I agree" then claiming it wasn't a valid agreement is the worst option, really.
Along those lines, it has to be open to negoation.
What are you doing to that goat for the contract? *shiver* Oh, wait, negotiation. Right....
Have you ever tried to negotiate? For my company, we have contact info posted on our website. You could revise any of our agreements and send it to us before you sign up and play the game. Of course, many companies will probably reject any revisions, but that's their prerogative as with any contract negotiations. And, nobody is forcing you to agree to the EULA. In most cases you can send the software back and get a refund. At the end of our EULA, we state:
Given my counters to your objections, it looks like our EULA is a valid contract, hmm?
It comes down to this: companies use the EULA to cover their liabilities and to assert their rights. If you don't like the EULA, you have the ultimate recourse: don't use the software. There's not much software out there that is essential, so whining about how the unfairness of the EULA solves nothing. Unless you're willing to not use the software nothing will change. Think Microsoft's OS EULAs are crap? There's a few alternatives out there, I've heard. Don't like the EULA on my game? Don't play. I promise not to be too hurt by your rejection, personally. Of course, I think our EULAs
No, no, you have to go to the authoritative source to understand the colors:
Black = Destructive, mostly damage-causing.
White = Healing and protective.
Red = A combination of Black and White.
Blue = Learns from watching others.
Blue would also be known as a "Script Kiddie". It's appropriate that Microsoft is focusing on Blue Hats.
Not surprising. People always act like development teams are these monolithic beasts that hate the players. In truth, many devs can easily see the truth of the matter, and they often are just as torn up by what's happening as anyone else is. The "official word" comes from managers that try to put the best spin possible on things, and don't necessarily reflect the opinions of the people in the trenches.
:)
Having been on an ignored project in a large company, I can sympathize with the developers. Often the developers will be doing their best work in spite of all the problems. They often believe that they can do something, ANYTHING, to turn the game's future around. I'm sure most of the developers are more devastated than anyone else to see the game close down. I know most of the former developers literally cried when Meridian 59 closed down at the hands of 3DO. I made the financially irrational decision to resurrect the game mostly out of love instead of a real desire to make gobs of money from it (HA!).
This isn't to pain the management as the bad guys, either. Sometimes your job as a manager is to make a hard decision like closing down a game like this. I don't think it's necessarily an easy decision for anyone that's involved in the development of the game in any meaningful way.
Some perspective from someone who's been there, done that before it was cool.
Let me explain why online RPGs aren't so easy to develop. In essence, players don't know what they really want. I know this is going to piss off a lot of people, but let me explain.
Let Us Lose
See, you say you want to be able to lose. The problem is most players don't want to lose. In my own game, Meridian 59, you can lose. If you die you drop your inventory and lose a percent in a variety of your skills. This means that if you die repeatedly, you can actually go backwards in character progression. Luckily, the game isn't quite as equipment-focused as other games are, so losing your inventory isn't as bad as it might be in other games. Plus, the monsters are dumb and it's fairly easy to get out of a bad situation if you are smart about playing, so multiple deaths isn't all that common.
Yet, when people look at this they cringe. They don't want to be "punished" by the game. Many will complain that they don't want to "lose" the "work" they put into their character. They want to gain power then enforce that power on other people without consequence. I have to admit, this is a compelling argument. It sucks to have a limited amount of time to play these types of games and it kinda sucks to have to spend a lot of your limited time rebuilding from your previous losses. It doesn't feel "fun" to rebuild, even though it is part of the a game that is fun because there's the risk of meaningful loss.
And this is just one issue like this. There are multiple other issues like this that keep developers from experimenting too much. Frankly, people are used to the way the games currently are, and until people are willing to pay for other types of games we'll see more and more clones made.
And, this is what it really boils down to: what will the market support? We already have people trying cool and innovative games, but they fall to the wayside. Meridian 59 has a very well-balanced and unique character development system in an original world. But, I suspect that most people clamoring for "innovation" won't be able to look past the outdated graphics long enough to see the cool PvP system at the core. It's all well and good to hope that one of the high-budget games will do something innovative, but let me put it this way: If I were given a budget of $30 million and told to make an online game, I would do the safest game possible. I would take almost no real risks, because it's my job and reputation on the line if the game doesn't make back its investment.
And, frankly, this is the smart thing to do. World of Warcraft followed the usual Blizzard technique of synthesizing the good parts of other games, polishing the gameplay and presentation to an amazing degree (ignoring issues like stability for now), and releasing a fun but hardly original game. World of Warcraft now boasts 3.5 million players worldwide (1.5 million of those Chinese), and is the most successful western online RPG ever. They followed the safe road and were rewarded for it. Unlike half a dozen other games I could mention that offered more innovation and have essentially faded into oblivion.
Once again, the developers do what the market tells them to do. They will provide the type of games that people will pay for and that will make a profit. Until the people who want innovation show themselves to be a large enough force with enough money to make a difference, we'll continue to see the types of games we have previously.
Listen, personally I agree with you, but people haven't been falling over themselves to financially reward my company for running a game that tries to buck the trend. And, if you're not supporting my current title with a bit of innovation, I'm not going to have the resources to do any other titles with more innovation. Hell, I'd love to do a game full of politics and set in something but a medieval fantasy setting, but I don't have the resources to do that anytime soon. And if you're waiting for one of those $30 million budget games to do something innovative so you can have your pretty graphics, too, you're going to be waiting a long, LONG time.
My thoughts,
I recommend pen+paper RPGs if you want to create your own character :-)
I already play paper RPGs every other Friday, thanks. When I play paper RPGs I want a social experience of hanging around with friends and having fun. I want to say, "Where's the Mountain Dew?" and get everyone laughing.
On the other hand, sometimes I want to just kill things. Combat simulation with dice gets a bit boring after a while, so paper RPGs aren't all that great for this. I want to create a party, flex my tactical ability, and stomp the monsters. I want to sigh in relief as my cleric gets off that healing spell just in time so that the fighter doesn't bite the dust. I want to manage my limited resources and try to defeat the situations before me the best I can.
On the other hand, I don't want sprawling games that have pretentions of being a movie. I don't want to sit through half an hour of cutscenes before I get to wander along a linear path and collect goodies. I don't want to play a game so deep with foreign cultural references that I don't understand half of those cutscenes, anyway. I don't want to play what the designer thought was a "good party" or be restricted in what characters I can have in my party due to some deus ex machina reason. I certainly don't want to play any strange dress-up side games in order to grow my characters.
As I said, this is the future of RPGs, and I'm not a huge fan. I'll go back and play my old RPGs and enjoy it. For me, the older RPGs are more satisfying, as was the topic of this post.
My issue with mediation (online or offline, the latter being much worse than the former) is that when used in lieu of unmediated communication it can prevent us from accessing the human being on the other side.
I disagree. I think that you can connect with people if you choose to. Allow me an anecdote, if you will.
Recently a person who I had met online (and have met offline a few times) sent me some chat logs she had kept. She was online and I started bothering her with a name she didn't recognize. After a bit of that I admitted who I was and we both had a laugh. The fact that she emailed me this didn't change the fact that we were exchanging a memory of what happened to us in the past. I felt the same way about her email that I feel when I talk about some of our college hijinx with my old college pals.
I suspect we're a bit early in the curve to really tell the future accurately. I suspect that as the children of today grow up they'll view IM and email the same way we view a phone call today. Back when phones were first around, people treated them as special and ranted about how phones were destroying relationships. Why, people didn't even go out to visit each other anymore, they just called each other on the telephone!
This isn't to say that there aren't some important issues to consider about these technologies. Every disruptive technology requires thoughtful analysis. It's interesting to note that we're becoming more disconnected with our peers in the offline space; most Americans don't even know their neighbors. But, I remember this happening before people even knew what the WWW stood for. I think people do need to connect to each other more, but demonizing online "social" software as the primary culprit strikes me as a bit simplistic.
Thanks for an interesting conversation.
I just gave a talk at a conference which talked briefly about this. One of the my points was that the large companies have no incentive to advertise about older games. Activision makes more money for every copy of DOOM 3 that is sold than they do when someone fires up the original DOOM. (There are also issues with losing the history of the industry, but that's a whole other rant.)
In the end, the newer games get more attention than the older games. Companies spend a lot of money convincing people to keep track of the new games and that technology drives "fun". This is how the companies make more money.
This is actually a very backwards way of thinking of some games. For example, online RPGs (aka MMORPGs) actually get better with age. A game like my own Meridian 59 has had several expansions and tweaks done to the game over the years. These games tend to be very bug-free and well-balanced. The game grows and expands over the years, and the game you can play now is often quite different than the game it originally was.
Finally, sometimes games change. I'm a huge fan of computer RPGs, but the games released these days are hardly RPGs. Instead of being able to create a character (or party), I'm forced to deal with a pre-made character and run him (or rarely, her) through a pre-set adventure. Sometimes I just have to fire up a Wizardry game or the original Final Fantasy as an antidote to the mostly passive games that are released these days. I guess they sell really well, but it's not the type of game I want to play.
I'll post the slides to my conference talk on my professional blog (http://blog.psychochild.org/) when I get the chance.
Some thoughts,
I'll agree with you, the term "social" gets thrown around a lot. However, I think sometimes it is a good title. My professional blog does get some good discussion on there about game development issues. It's like sitting at a coffee shop discussing issues, but it's not just limited to people who like coffee in my immediate location.
I think you need to consider a larger issue: what is "real" socialization? You mention in your replies that you aren't an absolutist, but your attitude here seems to say that you don't believe that anything over the computer can be "real" socialization.
Of course, you seem to accept the telephone as socialization even though that puts distance between people and aspects of communication, notably body language, are missing. You might even consider letter writing to be socialization; people before the telephone certainly did, even though there were distances between people.
Your attitudes are a bit simplistic. I prefer email to phone calls not because I want more distance between me and the other person, but because I prefer the more thoughtful pace of email. Both people can take a bit of time to put some thought into their email instead of being put on the spot in a phone call. I once had an interview with someone who insisted on calling instead of emailing. We had a fairly empty phone conversation because neither of us could think of meaningful questions. Yet, once we finally did do email we had a very meaningful conversation and were able to cover a lot of topics.
In addition, technology helps bridge those gaps between people instead of emphasizing them. I run my own business and some of my employees are on the other coast from me. I use IM, email, and the telephone to keep in touch. I simply could not manage them without all these tools at my fingertips. IM in particular is more useful than a phone call because I don't have to balance the IM client between my shoulder and my ear while I'm writing code and trying to compile it.
I also think you are quick to write off the interaction in "networked video games" (you probably saw this coming once I said I develop games for a living). At a recent conference I attended, one of the officers of Yahoo! gave a talk about how he learned valuable management skills from running a guild of people on an online RPG (aka MMORPG). He told how he went into job interviews talking intelligently about management issues like dispute resolution, motivating others, managing peer opinions, and so on based on his experiences in the game. These issues are largely based on communication, relationship management, and other social elements.
In addition, many of these games encourage teamwork in order to overcome a challenge. This is exactly the same concept that allows soldiers to bond together in a combat unit. Yes, it's not live combat, but working together as a team in a game could be one of the most stressful things a typical American teenager has faced in his life. So, when that teenager says he feels some type of kinship with other people, even people he might not know offline details about, there may be something more to it than some sort of mental disorder as you imply.
At the end of the day, the person at the other end of the line is still a person. Honestly, some of the most hurtful people are the ones who take your attitude, the ones that believe online socialization isn't "real". They're the ones who don't realize that there are other human beings out there that can be affected by their words. Real feelings can be hurt, just as real feelings can develop between people, and all too often I see people completely ignorant of this fact. Taking a broader view of communication and socialization can help with interacting with others, including through online "social" software.
Another viewpoint for you to consider.
I'm probably feeding the AC troll by posting this, but....
See, this is the attitude that keeps the games industry stagnated. I assume you've never even tried Puzzle Pirates with that attitude. What I if I wanted to play puzzle games but interact with other people by role-playing? Popcap doesn't even have a chat room to talk while playing games. WoW doesn't have puzzles, unless you consider "GO KILL FOOZLES TO THE NORTHEAST" to be a puzzle, since you have to find the monster labeled "foozle".
Puzzle Pirates is actually a superb game that combines a lot of different aspects into a unique game. Sure, maybe you don't like it because you can't do headshots or see pixel boobies, but there are a lot of people that do like it. And there's probably a lot more people that would like it if they knew about it.
One of the biggest problems for independent games is one of exposure. Large publishers can buy ads in magazines; hell, they can even buy good reviews (directly or indirectly). A small game created by a self-funded small team doesn't have that luxury. The developers at Three Rings made this game on a shoestring budget, and they rely on people getting the good word out in order to let people know the game.
Of course, there's a bit of irony here. It's funny that Gamespot is just now reviewing a game that has been available for over a year. It took making a deal with a publisher to get boxes into stores for Gamespot to even pay attention to the game. And that's why getting mention on a place like Slashdot games is important for an independent developer; the large sites like Gamespot aren't going to touch you until you've danced with the devil and gotten a publishing deal.
Unfortunately, then there's the "gamers" that are ruining games. They think that unless a game has the latest cutting-edge graphics it's just a "second or third tier game". They forget that games are about fun, and that the graphical presentation should complement the fun instead of subsuming it. A pretty but boring game is still a boring game. A plain but fun game is still a fun game. And, really, aren't games supposed to be fun? Unfortunately, the market keeps buying the pretty but derivative games and then people turn around and wonder why only clones and sequels get made.
Don't like Puzzle Pirates? Fine, go back to pwning n00blers on the prettiest game you can find. But, don't get in the way of other people finding out about a great game.
My rant as an independent game developer.
There's a lot of room between the 30 person console dev team and the lone wolf working in his bedroom. My own company, developers of the game Meridian 59, is staffed by 3 people, for example. Yeah, I have to wear a lot of hats to develop the game, but I don't have to be a master programmer, artist, administrator, CSR, marketer, etc, just to survive; there are other people able to help out with the workload.
This is what the industry really needs; it needs something between the 30 person/2 year development team and the single person/2 month puzzle game developer. There needs to be some middle ground so that we can have reasonable interesting games that don't necessarily have to have multi-million dollar budgets. Unfortunately, this is no man's land currently; it's too small for the publishers to deal with, and too large for true indie development houses (those not dependent on publisher money to develop games) to be able to reasonably handle. On top of that, publishers control the most effective means of distribution, so you can't just drop a million dollars on developing a game then hope to make money back without having access to distribution to game stores, where the vast majority of game purchases are made. (Direct download is an option, but many people are still hesitant to give out credit card information to just anyone on the internet.)
Until we start seeing these middle-sized houses start to flourish, we won't see real change in the industry. And while I think unionization would be a good thing for the industry as a whole, I think independent development, similar to the indie movie side of Hollywood, is best for long-term improvement of the industry.
My thoughts as an indie developer,
Cool. :) Feel free to send me an in-game mail to "Psychochild". I'm goning to be at a conference next week, but I'll be glad to handle any questions you might have when I get a chance to read mail.
Feel free to email help@neardeathstudios.com if you have any problems getting online.
Have fun,
The problem is that exact numbers aren't easy to get. If you want to see the nitty gritty, then I'd recommend Developing Online Games as a good book to take a look at. I'd quote from it, but I don't have the book handy right this moment.
But, let's talk about some holes in the numbers you came up with.
First, box sales are a completely different issue from subscriptions. You're lucky to see a third of the money from the box sale; most of the rest is eaten up by retailer margins, "promotion fees" at the retail end, cost of making the boxes, etc. Remember, this is also a one-time income item. Yes, there are expansions, but not everyone will buy them. Also, expansions have a cheaper price point than $50.
Second, not everyone that buys the box actually signs up, and very few of those people will actually play a full year. We have what's called a "conversion rate", which is the rate at which people will become paying subscribers after their free month. We also have what's called "churn", which is a comparison of the number of people that sign up compared to the number of people that cancel an account. This means that you're not going to have that full 800k paying. Dave Rickey, an experienced developer, estimates that out of those 800k, you'll probably have 442,800 to 543,152 people per month, on average once you count conversion rates and churn.
Third, as you point out, people aren't going to all pay the full $15/month. Some people will be paying less if they sign up for more accounts. Ignoring discussions on the future value of money (take Econ 101 if you have a burning desire to hear more about that), this reduces income by several percent.
Already we see that the number is going to be considerably lower than your 800k x $15 equation.
Next, your estimation on the cost of the game's development cost are off by a considerable sum. I've heard it said that Blizzard spent $30 million on the game. Unfortunately, I don't have a reliable source to link right now, so you'll have to take my word for it. This is 3-6 times what you estimated. Hell, traditional single-player games have budgets that approach $10M; I don't even think you could make a game for only $5M anymore and expect to get it published on a console. It costs a lot more to make an online RPG like this because not only do you have to create assets and the game, you have to create more art assets (for a wider variety of player avatar options), a server, and hire network coders. Yes, single-player games sometimes have servers as well, but it's the difference between an elementary school baseball field (a few dozen people simultaneous) and a baseball stadium (tens of thousands of people simultaneous). Even if Blizzard got to keep 33% from each box sale (which is a crazy high number), they would have only made $13.3M, less than development costs.
Okay, now we come to bandwidth. Here's some numbers for you: Meridian 59 uses 1 kilobyte per player per second. Remember, this is for a game designed to be played on 14.4k modems on the client side; a game like WoW is going to require much higher rates. But, let's assume that players play an average of 10 hours per week (quite low, "hard core" players usually go 20-30 hours per week), there's 4 weeks per year, and use the numbers from Dave Rickey above, rounded to 500k to make my math easier.
1 kilobyte/s/player * 500k players * 40 hours/month * 60 minutes/hour * 60 s/minute = 67 Terabytes per month.
M59 currently spends about $3/GB per month. That puts bandwidth costs closer to $200,000 per month, four times your number. Keep in mind that 1) WoW probably uses more bandwidth per player per second , and 2) this bandwidth usage is constant, not bursty like most network traffic is. This means you're going to be filling up fat pipes easier and longer than most other server types will. A
Why is there a monthly fee? I already talked about this before. But, let's give it another go, shall we?
m l which was written by Raph Koster of UO and SWG fame.
I'm familiar with this topic because I run my own online RPG, Meridian 59. It's not quite as large as WoW, but there's still a lot of basic costs that do scale up appropriately.
A discussion on about the monthly fee for larger games can be found at http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/busmodels.ht
Essentially, these games take a lot of money to develop and then to maintain. The box fees help defray the costs of maintenance, and a large part of the subscription fees go towards maintaining the game world. Every time a gameworld in WoW goes down, there's a team of programmers and at least a few network center administrators working on the problem, most likely. These people don't come all that cheap, and a team of people working like this is fairly expensive. This is a necessary cost, because people expect unusually high uptime for these servers considering most people are only paying $15/month or so. I've had more broadband downtime over the past year than people would accept in M59.
I won't go too much into how good a price even $15/month is. You'd expect to pay that much if you watch pay-per-view shows a couple times per month. An online games will provide you with more than a few nights of entertainment per month.
There are alternatives out there, though. Meridian 59 doesn't require a box purchase and is only $10.95 per month. Sure you're not going to get the prettiest graphics and the slickest UI, but you will get a very balanced game that has superb uptime. You'll also get gameplay that's considerably deeper than most of the games out there. We don't have pre-defined classes and there's no levels.
One of the biggest things about the monthly fee is that no business runs at no profit. Every business needs a little bit to keep growing and developing, otherwise the company stagnates and eventually dies. One of the problems our company is having is that we feel our lower monthly fee is a better deal for players, and we want people to be able to play our game, but it's hard to make significant profit to fund development of new games. We'd love to do something a bit more modern than M59, but it's tough to do when you're on fairly thin margins.
Some information, as usual.