If Blizzard has big $ signs permanently on its collective mind as you suggest then perhaps you can explain why it lets people play its games online for free rather than charging a single penny for the privelege?
Aside from MMOGs, which include additional content and constant patching, name a game that charges for online play?
Are the whores at Atari gracious for providing for online play for UT2k4? How about EA with MOHAA?
Providing a free online gaming environment isn't some generous move on behalf of the developers and producers, it's a lynchpin for selling their games.
And speaking of Blizzard titles that are bad, just about everything since Warcraft 2 and Diablo has been uninspired tripe. Starcraft is Warcraft with a space theme, and requires about as much of a tactical mindset as walking and breathing at the same time do. Diablo 2 was years late and still came with one of the most wretched skill systems I've ever seen. The 1.10 patch has improved it drastically, but synergies still feel like a cheap fix for a fundamentally FUBARed skill tree. Nevermind the fact that Diablo 2 is (literally) nothing but a skinner box. Click the button, stuff pops out.
And then there's Warcraft 3, a game with brilliant art but gameplay so antithetical to an actual game, it's a wonder people actually consider it RTS.
Don't get me wrong, I respect Blizzard for their willingness to put out a sufficiently polished release. I don't think we'll ever see a buggy piece of shit (like EA's constant stream of shovelware) from Blizzard, but they certainly aren't beyond reproach, and definitely don't deserve the pedastal so many gamers place them on.
I remember very fondly playing LAN games of Quake back in high school during my C++ class, while the teacher read to us out of a For Dummies book and sounded confused.
Then Quake 2 came out; it had some cool mods, and better graphics, but Quake 2 fundamentally was Quake. Same weapons, exact same gameplay.
Then Quake 3 came out; it was, well... Quake 2, which was just Quake. Same weapons, exact same gameplay, slightly better graphics.
I don't mean to troll, but is there really even a point to Quake 4? The gameplay experience hasn't changed since the original was released back in, what, 1995? It's been so long since I've even known anyone who's given a rat's ass about Quake that by now, I'd just assumed it was dead, and Id had moved on to the tech demo that is Doom 3.
Yeah, because right clicking on the executable and selecting "run as..." would be way too tough, right?
I've said it a million times on Slashdot -- there are too many legitimate gripes with Microsoft and Windows for people to be pissing and moaning about problems that haven't been around since NT 4.0.
They've been playing EQ for 5 years and never left.
As I understand it, though, EQ's tone, so to speak, is entirely different from just a couple years ago. Granted, it's 3rd-hand knowledge; I certainly won't touch the game, again, but a friend plays, and says that the days of whiney uber-guilds that dominate entire servers are largely past. The players seem older, more mature, and more laid-back. That definitely wasn't the case when I last played, shortly after Luclin launched.
It'd seem to indicate that the player base has undergone a fairly significant change since then. I agree; the remaining old-timers are probably pretty stalwart holdouts. But it would seem that it's not the same population of whiney, selfish, loot whoring pre-teens and adolescents I remember when I last played.
That this is case makes me think that even the hard-core populations will change from game to game, and over time.
Many of them have yet to put down roots - but that, I feel, may be more an effect of personal preference not being beared out in the currently available designs.
I couldn't agree more. I think the large problem is that the current MMO experience panders to one crowd alone; every game is fundamentally the same experience with some new, minor gimmick to set it apart. It's little wonder the market is so stagnant, and players are so nomadic (for lack of a better term).
The strong attachment to the characters makes these hardcore players much more likely to 'tough it out' for fixes/patches/expansions.
I know it comes across as excessively idealistic to say, but to me, this seems to be a mechanism for companies that know they have uninteresting gameplay, and need a hook. It's almost like an admission of their failure at the design table. I can just hear the pitch to the publishers now: "Yeah, we know our gameplay sucks; it's not compelling, it's not interesting, and it's not innovative, and has few, if any redeaming qualities. And we don't feel like putting forth the effort, or even bringing on some creative talent to change that, so instead, we're going to compensate by turning the entire game into a Skinner Box. We'll make it as psychologically addictive as possible!"
I think the whole addictiveness factor is a crutch for extremely weak gameplay. Maybe if any of these games had even remotely interesting combat systems, it wouldn't be so necessary.
And I know, it's being semantic, but to me, players' attachment to their characters seems repulsively superficial. Games like typical MMOGs that don't required skilled input from the user turn every player into a power-gaming munchkin. Characters are characters, they're poorly-animated, walking spreadsheets.
Shifting the design in such a way that they are effectively never rewarded for having been there since day 1 might put them off.
I've actually had some ideas for dealing with this, but I'm hesitant to speak about them. As, like most of the ideas I've had, there's really nothing like it in existing MMOGs...
There has to be benefit to sticking around, and currently - I don't know what that is.
Community. Ostensibly, players interested in MMO type games are more interested in social interaction than someone sitting at home playing the latest excersize in androgenous character design gone awry that Japan has crapped onto the PS2 and called a role playing game. So, I'd say, give 'em what they're there for: better social interaction. Design a game that facilitates community and comraderie, not loot whoring, bickering, and class whining.
Servers with predominantly casual players results in no-one recognizing anyone, no-one taking ownership, no-one setting consistent tone -- most people feeling alone in the crowd.
Although, in all fairness, DAoC was very small, game-wise. The land masses were small, animations and art very simplistic, there are very few abilities, and there just plain wasn't much content. Even class design was very simplistic, with each class being a slight variant on the other realms' analog. Even with both it's expansions, it still pales compared EverQuest at release (once again, in terms of content).
Not to bash DAoC, but there really doesn't seem like there was all that much to develop. I'd be more interested in the development times and budgets of the likes of FFXI or EverQuest, or even AC2.
DAoC has grown not by taking active players from EQ/UO/AC, but by catching the attention of players who had already left those games.
That's sort of the same effect I was speaking of. I've never necessarily seen a population drop off because of a new game's launch. But in the same vein, I've also seen populations drop ostensibly because there are so many new games out, and most people don't seem to keep subscriptions to multiple MMOGs. So I guess it's not so much cannibalizing as it's sort of a swingers club for gamers; there's a pretty static population that's sort of just shuffled around.
Still, there is no denying the attachment that hardcore players place on their irrationally-uber-characters.
I'd be interested to see what the actual numbers are. I agree, it's probably a fairly significant number of people, but is that something that can really be quantified ahead of time?
What happens when a community of the 'old guard' suddenly encounters 'fresh meat', who very quickly, change the entire way the game is played due their new tactics and skill.
Honestly, I believe a perpetual shift in gameplay would be a really good thing. Constantly evolving warfare would be awesome; a hook to keep the game challenging and at least somewhat innovative.
And quite bluntly, screw the old players. I don't think action-based games cater to the old codger crowd, anyways; the level 50 guys in DAoC with a dozen master skills who think they're automatically entitled to beat the living snot out of everyone who has even a single less skill. You don't see that in UT; you don't see so_and_so raving that he should've killed some_random_newbie01 because so_and_so's been playing longer. So_and_so may be (hell, he probably is) raving, but at least it's not for that reason.;)
It's actually funny you should mention that, because I had planned to (in my game that while almost assuredly never see the light of day) perpetuate such an effect by regularly updating technology, and having weather effects and a host of variables that not only reward the experienced players, but the smart players.
How do we know there is demand for persistent games that can be played a few hours a week?
Where are these gamers who don't play any persistent world now, but would like to?
What do they play now, and how would a persistent game appeal to them?
I think there's fairly strong evidence of a player base for one main reason: the box sales of MMOGs relative to their subscription numbers. Even the most successful games, such as EverQuest, tend to have dismally low suscriptions to sales numbers.
Additionally, take a look at game populations as newer games come and go, and how MMOGs cannibalize each others' players. There are obviously large number of players who enjoy the genre, but can't find a game they enjoy enough to stick with.
Skip to anecdotal evidence: I can't tell you how many people I've heard complain about the lack of customization, the lack of uniqueness, the lack of purpose, and the lack of skill in existing MMOGs irritates them. Couple that with the absolute ridiculous popularity of FPS, platformer, stealth, RTS, and shooter titles... People aren't just playing one genre; a lot of those people drifting from MMORPG to MMORPG are also pre-ordering UT2k4 while they play MOHAA and Warcraft 3.
You see, it helps to think of MMO as less of a genre of its own and more of a value-add to an existing genre.
And in that regard, who wouldn't want to play an MMO game? MMOs can add depth to virtually every genre. From truly meaningful, interactive wars with living people to a constantly changing political environment. It's all the allure of playing any traditional game online, with added freedom, added interaction, and most importantly, added depth.
If we remove meaningful character advancement, do we obviate the primary benefit of persistence (growth)?
Well, that's sort of a loaded question. Are levels really meaningful? I would argue that they're not. They're shallow, contrived, and serve no real purpose.
There are other methods of advancement that don't involve a bunch of sociopathic, serial-murderer 'heroes' run around, waging genocide against the local bat, rat, and snake populations. For example, skill-based advancement could be used. Ultimately it still favors the more hard-core players, but that could be solved by addressing the problem of scale, which is as simple as removing some of the rampant stupidity of design decisions.
Take, for example, the grizzled veteran against the newbie squire. Obviously, the veteran is tougher. He's more experienced, more aware, and more skilled than the squire. However, in practical terms, you can take the rustiest, nastiest piece of shit sword, and if you gut either one of them with it, he'll die. However, according to traditional MMORPG convention, the grizzled veteran could be unconscious, hog-tied, and naked, while the newbie whacks away with 1337 Sword of Ass Sniffing and the newbie wouldn't even manage to hit the veteran.
Can someone offer any rationale behind that design decision? Is there a reason a longsword made from steel hits five times as hard as one made out of iron? It's all a bunch of bullshit, borne of that sickening concept of levels D&D saddled all RPGs with. They were originally designed to be an indicator of a characters' ability in primitive RPGs, but skill-less MMORPGs have co-opted the concept to be some sort of status symbol for a bunch of e-penis waving troglodytes, thriving in an environment that requires little more than simply being there.
And that's the problem of scale; striking the balance between realisim, where a newbie can kill that veteran almost as easily as the veteran can kill him, and still allowing for enough advancement that the player feels like he has something to accomplish; to grow his character.
I'm thinking of something more along the lines of like a RIFTS or Robotech MMOG. Maybe something like an MMO Armored Core meets Savage.
No doubt Puzzle Pirates is a good game; I've heard many, many good things about it. But it's a puzzle game. That's not the same sort of skill as, say, an FPS, or any other real action game. Besides, it's too cutesy. Not that it has to be dark and bloody, but the game looks like ass, and based off my initial impressions, it feels a lot more like one of those budget Asian MMOGs like Priston Tale or Fairyland than anything that's going to appeal to casual gamers at large.:P
So the action-based MMOG genre is zero for one. What's the boring non-action market?
See, I can understand why Planetside's comparitive failure is off-putting for some (stupid) investors, but what's the success rate of EQ-styled games? For every one successful game, a handful of others tank. The only ones that've enjoyed any real commercial success at this point are Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot. That success can be mainly attributed (at least it would seem) to being the first MMOG to the market, being the first 3D MMOG, and being the first MMOG to feature organized PvP, respectively.
AO's barely hung on, and its spectacular failure of a launch nearly destroyed it. Horizons, Asheron's Call 2, Earth and Beyond, Shadowbane, and many other games have been major losers.
Others, like SWG and Asheron's Call have been moderately successful. And then there's Final Fantasy XI, which, while doing well worldwide, is not exactly a sweeping success in the United States, and has a freakishly high rate of cancellations (anecdotal evidence: I started playing with a group of 30-some people on release day, and currently none of them have active subscriptions anymore, and haven't for months).
The risk isn't necessarily greater with action-based MMOGs than traditional MMORPGs. Certainly there have been more flame-outs amongst traditional games. And on top of that, the potential revenue from a very large, untapped market is much greater than the current, competetive market.
Besides: think of it as a good thing. The supposed risk will frighten off the likes of EA and other penny-pinching investors that are more interested in rushing some shovelware EQ clone out the door. When such a game does get made, it'll most likely be free of the types of people responsible for bug-addled crap like Horizons and Earth and Beyond.
The problem with the idea of just selling boxes for an MMOG is the cost inherent in developing the game.
I don't have any hard numbers to support it, but it seems to be that with development times on MMOGs taking so much longer than other games, selling them at the same price point, which is the current practice* as other games would mean less profit, or possibly even taking a loss per unit sold.
And I know, more box sales will ultimately lead to more subscriptions, but at this point, the MMOG market is largely cannibalizing itself. The market for MMOG games with non-skill based combat systems that require hundreds upon hundreds of hours of tedious monster-slaying, with game engines that handle like a 14th-hand rip off of Chainmail is completely saturated. To that end, I think the idea of pulling off what SWG did is only going to work for huge titles. Middle Earth Online may be able to do it too, but aside from WoW, I really can't think of another title that's even been announced that'll have enough clout to pull that off.
The future of MMOG design is going to change drastically. There's an absolutely massive untapped audience of more casual gamers that want more action-based games and don't have thousands of hours to invest in a game, and don't want to be alienated from their friends because they went to bed early one night, missed an awesome experience grind group, and now they can't group anymore because there's a 3-level difference.
Planetside, conceptually, was a great stab at that market. Unfortunately, the fuckups at SoE mismanaged it into the ground. They ruin everything they touch...
Anyways, without getting into a rant about what's wrong with MMOGs, just watch: the first person to make a more skill-based MMOG (be it FPS-style, or more sim-ish) that appeals to casual gamers (i.e. no systems like "levels" that only fragment the player base, or absurd time requirements to advance) will be a very, very wealthy individual.
While I was unemployed, I actually wrote up some design documents for such a game... got a 'real' job before I had the chance to pitch it, though, and I haven't had time to work on it since.
*At least until they realize they're about to tank and start offering free downloads of the client online.
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles was nothing but a typical Gauntlet-styled, 3D isometric brawler, like Dark Alliance or a score of other games. The alamringly stupid decision to make GBAs necessary as a (gimpy) controller for multiplayer gaming was hardly a boon for the game, and didn't serve any purpose an eloquent menuing system couldn't have. And even at that, the idea was hardly new; many Dreamcast games had similar functionality with the VMU.
Pikmin was essentially a RTS, and Animal Crossing was nothing but a cute and cuddly version of the SNES' Harvest Moon.
Gunbound has a feature like that, now, where there are a couple newbie servers, and a bunch of other intermediate to advanced servers (advanced players are usually referred to as pros).
The newbie servers are always packed, with most of the games being full of so-called pr00bs; advanced players who continually recreate their accounts to circumvent the rank limitations in the newbie servers. They're only there to grief newbies, and you'd be amazed how often a bunch of those dipshits are sitting there, on the newbie server, calling everyone n00b.
Hell, my very first game in Gunbound, I was taken down in a matter of seconds by one of those damned pr00bs using a boomer from across the map.
Having match-making services to pair up players of similar skill levels is cool and all, but it's not particularly effective if it's not enforced in some way.
As was covered in the earlier thread regarding the Xbox 2's backwards compatibility, while backwards compatibility with the PS2 was a nice feature, it was a far cry from a major selling point. It was only even included because it was so simple, given the PS2's I/O controller is a PS1.
Anyone with games for the PS2 is already going to have a PS2 that can play those PS2 games just fine. And traditionally, backwards compatibility is non-issue amongst successful consoles. The N64, SNES, and NES didn't feature it, nor did the Master System, Genesis, or Dreamcast. Sure, the GBA features backwards compatibility with the Gameboy, but the handheld market's not the same as the console market.
I'm not saying backwards compatibility is a non-issue, but be realistic: it's almost entirely an issue of not wanting to have an additional box sitting next to the TV. It's definitely a convenience for people with a large back library that like to scream with righteous indignation about needing an extra box to play a game, or people just getting into gaming who'd like to try an older game, but are either of those market segments large enough to cause sales to "plummet?"
I was thinking of EBX; it's a local store (that used to be an Electronics Boutique, I think) that was bought-out by Gamestop, but for whatever reason, still has an EBX name. The store I worked at has a number of fliers with the EBX logo on it... I never quite stopped thinking of it as an Electronics Boutique. Although now that you mention it, it makes me think of the common occurence of employees in my store referring people to the (much larger) EB store in the local mall in a different light.;)
That being said, there's more competition now. Mammoth Video buys and sells new games, and so does Blockbuster's new Game Rush, but that still seems to be a test market thing.
This past holiday season, I was out of work, so I picked up a few hours at the local Gamestop (same company as EBgames), and after dealing with their store policies, I'm honestly suprised this doesn't happen more often.
The entire company is poorly run. They're still using an ancient, convoluted, DOS-based PoS system that appears to pre-date the existance of the company. District and regional managers play slash and burn with a store's allotment of employee hours, and then throw a fit and fire the store managers when secret shoppers complain that the one employee running the store by herself for 8 hours didn't manage to get through the daily 20-some box delivery from UPS. Orders for specific products are placed at a corporate level, not a store level, meaning that it's extremely common for stores to get in a glut of products they already have an excess of, or products they have no floor space for that won't sell anyways (like all their crappy collectibles, figurines, and trading cards). The store I worked at literally had Playstations and Xboxes and Gamecubes stacked up 6 to 8 feet in the employee bathroom for lack of anywhere else to put merchandise.
There's little to no emphasis placed on knowledge of games or gaming, and communication regarding the availability of new products to the store's emplyees is non-existant. Customer's are viewed as if they're some sort of problem, and treated with agreat deal of disrespect. They're routinely lied to and mislead, either out of contempt or ignorance. I've seen employees tell mom's shopping for their kids that Gameboy Advance games work in the old (circa 1990) model Gameboy, and employees routinely tag a Game Informer subscription on to a customer's order after the customer said he didn't want the subscription. I've personally been chewed out by a manager for talking a guy out of buying Halo (for the Xbox) for his kid's PS2. And of course, all this behavior is reinforced because the managers do it, too.
Gamestop/EB is a terrible chain. Seeing how they're run, I'm amazed they manage to stay in business. And seeing that they've ripped off a customer... well, that's a daily occurance.
The realism in CS is laughable. Early-on, the devs were receptive to suggestions, and really tried to make their game true-to-life. Then, right around beta 4, beta 5, right around the time it started to become popular, the devs took this attitude of 'we know it's not realistic, we don't care.'
These days, CS can't even remotely claim to be realistic. Everything from the guns' mechanics to the game's idea of buying weapons, (lack of) locational damage, to the way damage is handled in the game is extremely unrealistic. And it's not like the game's realism is entirely limited by the engine; they just aren't even trying anymore.
The problem with 'realistic' mods these days is that games like Rainbow 6 3/Raven Shield, BF 1942, and SOCOM pretty much have the lock on the realistic FPS market right now.
Nothing against Red Orchestra; it's a great mod, and definitely has more polish than tripe like Counterstrike. But compared to a game like Rainbow 6 3, it still doesn't feel like it plays well.
I think Unreal's real advantage is just that: it's unreal. It's designed for bunny-hopping and overblown action, and even though that's not really my thing, Unreal is the best at what it does.
Granted, the original Tribes is still the mother of all FPS games, but hey... it's nice to see all the newer games try.;)
Honestly, though, I think UT2k4 has the best vehicle implimentation since Tribes 2.
So your design doesn't include a case, or a power supply. Your mainboard is for a Shuttle - certainly not a high-performance board. And Shuttle XPCs barely manage to fit a more reasonably-sized video card, much less an FX 5900, which, coincidentally, kicks out enough heat to cause serious problems in such a small case even if you could manage to make it fit. That, and it sounds like a leaf blower. And just out of curiosity, after the shit nVidia pulled with the benchamrking drivers, why the bloody hell would anyone every buy their over-priced, over-hyped, under-performing products again? nVidia's last solid product was the GeForce 4 (non-MX) line. They haven't done anything worth a damn since.
You're presumably using some sort of no-name RAM, and for some odd reason, only half a gig of it, when that's the bare minimum for many games these days. To top it all off, you're using an Athlon XP 2700, which is still good enough, speed-wise, but given the lack of decent cooling in a Shuttle, or even the ability to add decent cooling, it will most likely run into serious heat-related problems.
As for Pricewatch, you're right, not all the dealers are shady. But until Pricewatch impliments some sort of dealer rating and comments system, I won't use it. There are way too many horror stories of people ordering from these no-name shops getting RMAed parts, OEM when they ordered retail, or something just flat-out wrong. I'll stick to GameVE and NewEgg.
Here's a real gaming system (and no, I haven't done any bargain hunting, just grabbed prices off my favorite site):
Sapphire ATi Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB -- $364 @ GameVE Abit IC7-G MAX3 Mainboard onboard everything that matters, SATA, hardware RAID -- $184 @ GameVE Intel P4 2.8ghz 800 mhz FSB -- $271 @ GameVE 2x Western Digital Raptor (74GB 10,000 RPM SATA) -- $254 each @ GameVE 1GB Kingston PC3700 Dual-channel Hyper X -- $245 @ GameVE
...and that's $1500, and I haven't even touched on optical drives, a case, or power supply, yet. Granted, you may get a year out of a system like that before you need to start lowering settings or upgrading parts. But it'd be nice to know that a PC like this won't be out-performed by a little $150 console.
You are forgetting the PC prices have plummeted. You can get a decent bare bones system for $400 that can play many games
For $400, you can forget about playing any new games. I know the idea of 'gaming rig' to most slashbots includes anything that can run Tux Racer or Chromium. Nothing against you if that's your idea of a good game, but those games aren't even remotely in the same league as, say, UT2k4 or Lineage 2. Be reasonable; $400 is barely a good mainboard and processor (even by the prices listed by all the shady dealers on pricewatch), much less a video card, decent power supply, case, and RAM.
In fact I am going to update my PC soon and I have alloted about $500 and that will make it a VERY fast PC(new mobo, graphics card, cpu and ram)
Like I said above... for that price, replacing all those parts, you're buying extremely out-dated and/or no-brand parts from unknown or disreputable dealers. A high-end video card alone would eat up at least half of your budget.
A good gaming rig for playing new games runs a bare minimum of $1500, not including a monitor, speakers, a souncard, or any peripherals. You might be able to knock ~$100 off that if you buy a cheap case and don't mind your system sounding like a ShopVac when it's running.
Console games are only going up.
New games were $50 at least as far back as the NES days. They still are today.
I think the PSX is going to retail for around $400-500.
Why don't you base your claims on current consoles relative to current PC specs, rather than specualting about the cost of next-gen consoles and PCs specced to play years-old games.
Games are cheaper for PCs too.
That's bull. Virtually every major retail outlet sells new games, regardless of the platform, for $50.
EQ/DAOC/AO are pulling in millions a month, and have no real console equivalent (don't even try and suggest EQ on the PS2). These tend to work more through social interaction than gameplay.
Take a look at True Fantasy Live Online for the Xbox. Not only is it a 'true' MMORPG, but it's attempting to address some of the most problematic issues in MMOGs, namely stupd, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid concept of levels and their stratifying effect on the player base, preventing friends from playing together unless they happen to keep the exact same playing schedule.
Quake, UT, BF1942 are providing the gameplay. Quite simply there isn't anything on a console to match the adrenaline rush you can get from these games, every day, for months at a time.
Yes there are: Rainbow 6 3, Crimson Skies 2, SOCOM, and Jedi Academy to name a few.
I haven't even mentioned the top online game, Counter Strike. Not seen that on any consoles recently.
Then you haven't been looking. Counterstrike is on the Xbox, playable on Xbox Live. And unlike the PC version, it's not full of whiney 13 year-old cheaters bitching about lag and how much they hate the game.
Personally I'm happy for developers to take the approach that Rockstar do - develop for the console cash cow, then add in proper mouse support, beef up the graphics and release the game on the PC.
Enjoy it while you can.
Not to sound like one of those *BSD is Dying!!! alarmists, but do you really think that PC gaming really has the staying power for companies to employ that method for much longer?
Your first point was dead-on: as it stands, PCs still dominate online gaming. But Xbox Live is an amazing online platform; far superior to anything the PC has, and it's just starting to catch on. So with it setting the bar for online console gaming, just think of what the next-gen consoles are going to be able to do. And then ask yourself: why the bloody hell would any spend the absurd premiums for PC hardware when consoles offer a superior gaming experience?
Think about it... for the same price you could have either:
1) A custom-built gaming PC with all the latest bells and whistles that'll be struggling to run games released only months later, and a library of games reknowned for their lack of QA and bug-ridden releases.
Or
2) All three major consoles, a 36"-ish HDTV, a surround sound system, component inputs and switches for all your consoles, and probably 5-10 games per console.
And that's just right now; imagine a few years from now when console manufacturers all (well, not Nintendo; they're more interested in telling consumers what they want than giving consumers what they want) have services like Xbox Live. The only people left playing PC games will be those blowhards that honestly think a mouse is the only viable way to play an FPS.
PC gaming may not be dying, but it's a pretty safe bet that the next generation of consoles will be happy to usher it out of the party.
GTA is fabulous in that in manages to blur the distinction between genres, something that many have tried but few have succeeded.
How? Be being a really shallow driver, a really crappy shooter, and employing the most generic elements of every other "shocker" game on the market?
I don't understand the allure of GTA/Vice City. Sure, it's a nice change of pace to play a bad guy, but after you've beat a few hookers, carjacked a couple cars, and shot a few cops, you've seen everything the game has to offer. Yeah, the soundtrack's killer, but it alone hardly justifies dealing with one of the most shallow games on the market with the most clumsy combat system ever developed.
Something tells me that the same people driving GTA's sales are the same people who call every new excersize in androgenous character design and cliched plot devices Square throws a Final Fantasy logo on a masterpiece.
While I'm still reading through the article you linked, I took me about two paragraphs to be nodding in agreement. I'm actually writing up design documents for an MMOG that addresses a number of those problems, but that's a rant for another time.
Anyways, I think you make some very valid points. I still think the core design of MMOGs being so hostile towards casual gamers is a significantly larger problem than the monthly fees, but you're right: a micropayment system could, in theory, bring in additional gamers. And so long as it was not a direct replacement for monthly fees, it couldn't be a bad thing.
imo (given these similar numbers across all persistent worlds) - these monthly fees of $10-15 are the primary barrier for most gamers. Anyone less than wholly-devoted to the product is extremely unlikely to find these monthly fees acceptable. Everquest's fans may well seem to all be obsessive-compulsive primarily because only obsessive fans can justify $13/mo for that one game.
First off, think about the fee. It's less than $15/month. What's that? Half what it costs to take a date to the movies for a couple hours? One less case of beer? One less order of pizza and wings? Eating at home one extra night instead of going out? One third of a new game you'll most likely finish in a weekend and never play again? A DVD (assuming it's on sale)?
The argument that price is a barrier for entry is absurd. Even young kids can cut an extra lawn once a month, or shovel snow off one more driveway to make that kind of money. Chances are, if anything in the ballpark of $15/month is too much of a barrier for entry, you're talking about someone with so little disposable income that the marketers for these games are most likely completely ignoring that demographic. And that's not necessarily a bad thing; the 400k people already playing EverQuest shouldn't be gouged in price because 10k people out there are naive enough to think they'd actually be able to enjoy that sort of game without investing a significant amount of time in it.
And that's the second point: have you ever played EverQuest? You realize that high-level players literally have months of time logged-in? Sure, you could not have any desire to play at the high end of the game, but with a game that places so much importance on socializing, making friends, and mandated grouping, playing an hour here and there is pointless; it'd take you a month to get past level 5, and then beyond that point, you'd spend all your time logged in just trying to find a group, because you don't play regularly enough to have any friends to group up with.
I'm not arguing against micropayments so much as the absurdity of your argument that such a ridiculous amount of money poses a significant barrier to entry. A micro-payment system won't fix that. Sure, it may get a few more cheapskates playing the game, but you'd see the hard-core gamers leaving in droves.
Unless, of course, micropayments were offered as an alternative to monthly fees, rather than a replacement. But I honestly don't see that happening; there are too many penny-pinching execs in the gaming indistry that are completely out of touch with gamers, and would attempt to unilaterally enforce their micropayment structure on everyone just because there's the potential to make a few bucks more.
Would it really be that much trouble to switch to a web-based forum?
I know it's be some trouble, and it wouldn't have the exact same functionality. But unless I'm missing something, it'd be close enough. I mean, I'm sympathetic to people on or operating mailing lists and all, but let's be honest: their concerns are downright insignificant in the face of the spam problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from MMOGs, which include additional content and constant patching, name a game that charges for online play?
Are the whores at Atari gracious for providing for online play for UT2k4? How about EA with MOHAA?
Providing a free online gaming environment isn't some generous move on behalf of the developers and producers, it's a lynchpin for selling their games.
And speaking of Blizzard titles that are bad, just about everything since Warcraft 2 and Diablo has been uninspired tripe. Starcraft is Warcraft with a space theme, and requires about as much of a tactical mindset as walking and breathing at the same time do. Diablo 2 was years late and still came with one of the most wretched skill systems I've ever seen. The 1.10 patch has improved it drastically, but synergies still feel like a cheap fix for a fundamentally FUBARed skill tree. Nevermind the fact that Diablo 2 is (literally) nothing but a skinner box. Click the button, stuff pops out.
And then there's Warcraft 3, a game with brilliant art but gameplay so antithetical to an actual game, it's a wonder people actually consider it RTS.
Don't get me wrong, I respect Blizzard for their willingness to put out a sufficiently polished release. I don't think we'll ever see a buggy piece of shit (like EA's constant stream of shovelware) from Blizzard, but they certainly aren't beyond reproach, and definitely don't deserve the pedastal so many gamers place them on.
I remember very fondly playing LAN games of Quake back in high school during my C++ class, while the teacher read to us out of a For Dummies book and sounded confused.
Then Quake 2 came out; it had some cool mods, and better graphics, but Quake 2 fundamentally was Quake. Same weapons, exact same gameplay.
Then Quake 3 came out; it was, well... Quake 2, which was just Quake. Same weapons, exact same gameplay, slightly better graphics.
I don't mean to troll, but is there really even a point to Quake 4? The gameplay experience hasn't changed since the original was released back in, what, 1995? It's been so long since I've even known anyone who's given a rat's ass about Quake that by now, I'd just assumed it was dead, and Id had moved on to the tech demo that is Doom 3.
Next up should be Michael Moore vs. Ann Coulter...
Yeah, because right clicking on the executable and selecting "run as..." would be way too tough, right?
I've said it a million times on Slashdot -- there are too many legitimate gripes with Microsoft and Windows for people to be pissing and moaning about problems that haven't been around since NT 4.0.
As I understand it, though, EQ's tone, so to speak, is entirely different from just a couple years ago. Granted, it's 3rd-hand knowledge; I certainly won't touch the game, again, but a friend plays, and says that the days of whiney uber-guilds that dominate entire servers are largely past. The players seem older, more mature, and more laid-back. That definitely wasn't the case when I last played, shortly after Luclin launched.
It'd seem to indicate that the player base has undergone a fairly significant change since then. I agree; the remaining old-timers are probably pretty stalwart holdouts. But it would seem that it's not the same population of whiney, selfish, loot whoring pre-teens and adolescents I remember when I last played.
That this is case makes me think that even the hard-core populations will change from game to game, and over time.
I couldn't agree more. I think the large problem is that the current MMO experience panders to one crowd alone; every game is fundamentally the same experience with some new, minor gimmick to set it apart. It's little wonder the market is so stagnant, and players are so nomadic (for lack of a better term).
I know it comes across as excessively idealistic to say, but to me, this seems to be a mechanism for companies that know they have uninteresting gameplay, and need a hook. It's almost like an admission of their failure at the design table. I can just hear the pitch to the publishers now: "Yeah, we know our gameplay sucks; it's not compelling, it's not interesting, and it's not innovative, and has few, if any redeaming qualities. And we don't feel like putting forth the effort, or even bringing on some creative talent to change that, so instead, we're going to compensate by turning the entire game into a Skinner Box. We'll make it as psychologically addictive as possible!"
I think the whole addictiveness factor is a crutch for extremely weak gameplay. Maybe if any of these games had even remotely interesting combat systems, it wouldn't be so necessary.
And I know, it's being semantic, but to me, players' attachment to their characters seems repulsively superficial. Games like typical MMOGs that don't required skilled input from the user turn every player into a power-gaming munchkin. Characters are characters, they're poorly-animated, walking spreadsheets.
I've actually had some ideas for dealing with this, but I'm hesitant to speak about them. As, like most of the ideas I've had, there's really nothing like it in existing MMOGs...
Community. Ostensibly, players interested in MMO type games are more interested in social interaction than someone sitting at home playing the latest excersize in androgenous character design gone awry that Japan has crapped onto the PS2 and called a role playing game. So, I'd say, give 'em what they're there for: better social interaction. Design a game that facilitates community and comraderie, not loot whoring, bickering, and class whining.
I'll have to check those out...
Although, in all fairness, DAoC was very small, game-wise. The land masses were small, animations and art very simplistic, there are very few abilities, and there just plain wasn't much content. Even class design was very simplistic, with each class being a slight variant on the other realms' analog. Even with both it's expansions, it still pales compared EverQuest at release (once again, in terms of content).
Not to bash DAoC, but there really doesn't seem like there was all that much to develop. I'd be more interested in the development times and budgets of the likes of FFXI or EverQuest, or even AC2.
That's sort of the same effect I was speaking of. I've never necessarily seen a population drop off because of a new game's launch. But in the same vein, I've also seen populations drop ostensibly because there are so many new games out, and most people don't seem to keep subscriptions to multiple MMOGs. So I guess it's not so much cannibalizing as it's sort of a swingers club for gamers; there's a pretty static population that's sort of just shuffled around.
I'd be interested to see what the actual numbers are. I agree, it's probably a fairly significant number of people, but is that something that can really be quantified ahead of time?
Honestly, I believe a perpetual shift in gameplay would be a really good thing. Constantly evolving warfare would be awesome; a hook to keep the game challenging and at least somewhat innovative.
And quite bluntly, screw the old players. I don't think action-based games cater to the old codger crowd, anyways; the level 50 guys in DAoC with a dozen master skills who think they're automatically entitled to beat the living snot out of everyone who has even a single less skill. You don't see that in UT; you don't see so_and_so raving that he should've killed some_random_newbie01 because so_and_so's been playing longer. So_and_so may be (hell, he probably is) raving, but at least it's not for that reason.
It's actually funny you should mention that, because I had planned to (in my game that while almost assuredly never see the light of day) perpetuate such an effect by regularly updating technology, and having weather effects and a host of variables that not only reward the experienced players, but the smart players.
I think there's fairly strong evidence of a player base for one main reason: the box sales of MMOGs relative to their subscription numbers. Even the most successful games, such as EverQuest, tend to have dismally low suscriptions to sales numbers.
Additionally, take a look at game populations as newer games come and go, and how MMOGs cannibalize each others' players. There are obviously large number of players who enjoy the genre, but can't find a game they enjoy enough to stick with.
Skip to anecdotal evidence: I can't tell you how many people I've heard complain about the lack of customization, the lack of uniqueness, the lack of purpose, and the lack of skill in existing MMOGs irritates them. Couple that with the absolute ridiculous popularity of FPS, platformer, stealth, RTS, and shooter titles... People aren't just playing one genre; a lot of those people drifting from MMORPG to MMORPG are also pre-ordering UT2k4 while they play MOHAA and Warcraft 3.
You see, it helps to think of MMO as less of a genre of its own and more of a value-add to an existing genre.
And in that regard, who wouldn't want to play an MMO game? MMOs can add depth to virtually every genre. From truly meaningful, interactive wars with living people to a constantly changing political environment. It's all the allure of playing any traditional game online, with added freedom, added interaction, and most importantly, added depth.
Well, that's sort of a loaded question. Are levels really meaningful? I would argue that they're not. They're shallow, contrived, and serve no real purpose.
There are other methods of advancement that don't involve a bunch of sociopathic, serial-murderer 'heroes' run around, waging genocide against the local bat, rat, and snake populations. For example, skill-based advancement could be used. Ultimately it still favors the more hard-core players, but that could be solved by addressing the problem of scale, which is as simple as removing some of the rampant stupidity of design decisions.
Take, for example, the grizzled veteran against the newbie squire. Obviously, the veteran is tougher. He's more experienced, more aware, and more skilled than the squire. However, in practical terms, you can take the rustiest, nastiest piece of shit sword, and if you gut either one of them with it, he'll die. However, according to traditional MMORPG convention, the grizzled veteran could be unconscious, hog-tied, and naked, while the newbie whacks away with 1337 Sword of Ass Sniffing and the newbie wouldn't even manage to hit the veteran.
Can someone offer any rationale behind that design decision? Is there a reason a longsword made from steel hits five times as hard as one made out of iron? It's all a bunch of bullshit, borne of that sickening concept of levels D&D saddled all RPGs with. They were originally designed to be an indicator of a characters' ability in primitive RPGs, but skill-less MMORPGs have co-opted the concept to be some sort of status symbol for a bunch of e-penis waving troglodytes, thriving in an environment that requires little more than simply being there.
And that's the problem of scale; striking the balance between realisim, where a newbie can kill that veteran almost as easily as the veteran can kill him, and still allowing for enough advancement that the player feels like he has something to accomplish; to grow his character.
The solution is very simple: lateral advancement.
I'm thinking of something more along the lines of like a RIFTS or Robotech MMOG. Maybe something like an MMO Armored Core meets Savage.
:P
No doubt Puzzle Pirates is a good game; I've heard many, many good things about it. But it's a puzzle game. That's not the same sort of skill as, say, an FPS, or any other real action game. Besides, it's too cutesy. Not that it has to be dark and bloody, but the game looks like ass, and based off my initial impressions, it feels a lot more like one of those budget Asian MMOGs like Priston Tale or Fairyland than anything that's going to appeal to casual gamers at large.
So the action-based MMOG genre is zero for one. What's the boring non-action market?
See, I can understand why Planetside's comparitive failure is off-putting for some (stupid) investors, but what's the success rate of EQ-styled games? For every one successful game, a handful of others tank. The only ones that've enjoyed any real commercial success at this point are Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot. That success can be mainly attributed (at least it would seem) to being the first MMOG to the market, being the first 3D MMOG, and being the first MMOG to feature organized PvP, respectively.
AO's barely hung on, and its spectacular failure of a launch nearly destroyed it. Horizons, Asheron's Call 2, Earth and Beyond, Shadowbane, and many other games have been major losers.
Others, like SWG and Asheron's Call have been moderately successful. And then there's Final Fantasy XI, which, while doing well worldwide, is not exactly a sweeping success in the United States, and has a freakishly high rate of cancellations (anecdotal evidence: I started playing with a group of 30-some people on release day, and currently none of them have active subscriptions anymore, and haven't for months).
The risk isn't necessarily greater with action-based MMOGs than traditional MMORPGs. Certainly there have been more flame-outs amongst traditional games. And on top of that, the potential revenue from a very large, untapped market is much greater than the current, competetive market.
Besides: think of it as a good thing. The supposed risk will frighten off the likes of EA and other penny-pinching investors that are more interested in rushing some shovelware EQ clone out the door. When such a game does get made, it'll most likely be free of the types of people responsible for bug-addled crap like Horizons and Earth and Beyond.
The problem with the idea of just selling boxes for an MMOG is the cost inherent in developing the game.
I don't have any hard numbers to support it, but it seems to be that with development times on MMOGs taking so much longer than other games, selling them at the same price point, which is the current practice* as other games would mean less profit, or possibly even taking a loss per unit sold.
And I know, more box sales will ultimately lead to more subscriptions, but at this point, the MMOG market is largely cannibalizing itself. The market for MMOG games with non-skill based combat systems that require hundreds upon hundreds of hours of tedious monster-slaying, with game engines that handle like a 14th-hand rip off of Chainmail is completely saturated. To that end, I think the idea of pulling off what SWG did is only going to work for huge titles. Middle Earth Online may be able to do it too, but aside from WoW, I really can't think of another title that's even been announced that'll have enough clout to pull that off.
The future of MMOG design is going to change drastically. There's an absolutely massive untapped audience of more casual gamers that want more action-based games and don't have thousands of hours to invest in a game, and don't want to be alienated from their friends because they went to bed early one night, missed an awesome experience grind group, and now they can't group anymore because there's a 3-level difference.
Planetside, conceptually, was a great stab at that market. Unfortunately, the fuckups at SoE mismanaged it into the ground. They ruin everything they touch...
Anyways, without getting into a rant about what's wrong with MMOGs, just watch: the first person to make a more skill-based MMOG (be it FPS-style, or more sim-ish) that appeals to casual gamers (i.e. no systems like "levels" that only fragment the player base, or absurd time requirements to advance) will be a very, very wealthy individual.
While I was unemployed, I actually wrote up some design documents for such a game... got a 'real' job before I had the chance to pitch it, though, and I haven't had time to work on it since.
*At least until they realize they're about to tank and start offering free downloads of the client online.
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles was nothing but a typical Gauntlet-styled, 3D isometric brawler, like Dark Alliance or a score of other games. The alamringly stupid decision to make GBAs necessary as a (gimpy) controller for multiplayer gaming was hardly a boon for the game, and didn't serve any purpose an eloquent menuing system couldn't have. And even at that, the idea was hardly new; many Dreamcast games had similar functionality with the VMU.
Pikmin was essentially a RTS, and Animal Crossing was nothing but a cute and cuddly version of the SNES' Harvest Moon.
Gunbound has a feature like that, now, where there are a couple newbie servers, and a bunch of other intermediate to advanced servers (advanced players are usually referred to as pros).
The newbie servers are always packed, with most of the games being full of so-called pr00bs; advanced players who continually recreate their accounts to circumvent the rank limitations in the newbie servers. They're only there to grief newbies, and you'd be amazed how often a bunch of those dipshits are sitting there, on the newbie server, calling everyone n00b.
Hell, my very first game in Gunbound, I was taken down in a matter of seconds by one of those damned pr00bs using a boomer from across the map.
Having match-making services to pair up players of similar skill levels is cool and all, but it's not particularly effective if it's not enforced in some way.
As was covered in the earlier thread regarding the Xbox 2's backwards compatibility, while backwards compatibility with the PS2 was a nice feature, it was a far cry from a major selling point. It was only even included because it was so simple, given the PS2's I/O controller is a PS1.
Anyone with games for the PS2 is already going to have a PS2 that can play those PS2 games just fine. And traditionally, backwards compatibility is non-issue amongst successful consoles. The N64, SNES, and NES didn't feature it, nor did the Master System, Genesis, or Dreamcast. Sure, the GBA features backwards compatibility with the Gameboy, but the handheld market's not the same as the console market.
I'm not saying backwards compatibility is a non-issue, but be realistic: it's almost entirely an issue of not wanting to have an additional box sitting next to the TV. It's definitely a convenience for people with a large back library that like to scream with righteous indignation about needing an extra box to play a game, or people just getting into gaming who'd like to try an older game, but are either of those market segments large enough to cause sales to "plummet?"
Not a chance.
You're right... sort of.
;)
I was thinking of EBX; it's a local store (that used to be an Electronics Boutique, I think) that was bought-out by Gamestop, but for whatever reason, still has an EBX name. The store I worked at has a number of fliers with the EBX logo on it... I never quite stopped thinking of it as an Electronics Boutique. Although now that you mention it, it makes me think of the common occurence of employees in my store referring people to the (much larger) EB store in the local mall in a different light.
That being said, there's more competition now. Mammoth Video buys and sells new games, and so does Blockbuster's new Game Rush, but that still seems to be a test market thing.
Anyways, I fucked up; sorry for the confusion.
This past holiday season, I was out of work, so I picked up a few hours at the local Gamestop (same company as EBgames), and after dealing with their store policies, I'm honestly suprised this doesn't happen more often.
The entire company is poorly run. They're still using an ancient, convoluted, DOS-based PoS system that appears to pre-date the existance of the company. District and regional managers play slash and burn with a store's allotment of employee hours, and then throw a fit and fire the store managers when secret shoppers complain that the one employee running the store by herself for 8 hours didn't manage to get through the daily 20-some box delivery from UPS. Orders for specific products are placed at a corporate level, not a store level, meaning that it's extremely common for stores to get in a glut of products they already have an excess of, or products they have no floor space for that won't sell anyways (like all their crappy collectibles, figurines, and trading cards). The store I worked at literally had Playstations and Xboxes and Gamecubes stacked up 6 to 8 feet in the employee bathroom for lack of anywhere else to put merchandise.
There's little to no emphasis placed on knowledge of games or gaming, and communication regarding the availability of new products to the store's emplyees is non-existant. Customer's are viewed as if they're some sort of problem, and treated with agreat deal of disrespect. They're routinely lied to and mislead, either out of contempt or ignorance. I've seen employees tell mom's shopping for their kids that Gameboy Advance games work in the old (circa 1990) model Gameboy, and employees routinely tag a Game Informer subscription on to a customer's order after the customer said he didn't want the subscription. I've personally been chewed out by a manager for talking a guy out of buying Halo (for the Xbox) for his kid's PS2. And of course, all this behavior is reinforced because the managers do it, too.
Gamestop/EB is a terrible chain. Seeing how they're run, I'm amazed they manage to stay in business. And seeing that they've ripped off a customer... well, that's a daily occurance.
The realism in CS is laughable. Early-on, the devs were receptive to suggestions, and really tried to make their game true-to-life. Then, right around beta 4, beta 5, right around the time it started to become popular, the devs took this attitude of 'we know it's not realistic, we don't care.'
These days, CS can't even remotely claim to be realistic. Everything from the guns' mechanics to the game's idea of buying weapons, (lack of) locational damage, to the way damage is handled in the game is extremely unrealistic. And it's not like the game's realism is entirely limited by the engine; they just aren't even trying anymore.
The problem with 'realistic' mods these days is that games like Rainbow 6 3/Raven Shield, BF 1942, and SOCOM pretty much have the lock on the realistic FPS market right now.
;)
Nothing against Red Orchestra; it's a great mod, and definitely has more polish than tripe like Counterstrike. But compared to a game like Rainbow 6 3, it still doesn't feel like it plays well.
I think Unreal's real advantage is just that: it's unreal. It's designed for bunny-hopping and overblown action, and even though that's not really my thing, Unreal is the best at what it does.
Granted, the original Tribes is still the mother of all FPS games, but hey... it's nice to see all the newer games try.
Honestly, though, I think UT2k4 has the best vehicle implimentation since Tribes 2.
So your design doesn't include a case, or a power supply. Your mainboard is for a Shuttle - certainly not a high-performance board. And Shuttle XPCs barely manage to fit a more reasonably-sized video card, much less an FX 5900, which, coincidentally, kicks out enough heat to cause serious problems in such a small case even if you could manage to make it fit. That, and it sounds like a leaf blower. And just out of curiosity, after the shit nVidia pulled with the benchamrking drivers, why the bloody hell would anyone every buy their over-priced, over-hyped, under-performing products again? nVidia's last solid product was the GeForce 4 (non-MX) line. They haven't done anything worth a damn since.
...and that's $1500, and I haven't even touched on optical drives, a case, or power supply, yet. Granted, you may get a year out of a system like that before you need to start lowering settings or upgrading parts. But it'd be nice to know that a PC like this won't be out-performed by a little $150 console.
You're presumably using some sort of no-name RAM, and for some odd reason, only half a gig of it, when that's the bare minimum for many games these days. To top it all off, you're using an Athlon XP 2700, which is still good enough, speed-wise, but given the lack of decent cooling in a Shuttle, or even the ability to add decent cooling, it will most likely run into serious heat-related problems.
As for Pricewatch, you're right, not all the dealers are shady. But until Pricewatch impliments some sort of dealer rating and comments system, I won't use it. There are way too many horror stories of people ordering from these no-name shops getting RMAed parts, OEM when they ordered retail, or something just flat-out wrong. I'll stick to GameVE and NewEgg.
Here's a real gaming system (and no, I haven't done any bargain hunting, just grabbed prices off my favorite site):
Sapphire ATi Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB -- $364 @ GameVE
Abit IC7-G MAX3 Mainboard onboard everything that matters, SATA, hardware RAID -- $184 @ GameVE
Intel P4 2.8ghz 800 mhz FSB -- $271 @ GameVE
2x Western Digital Raptor (74GB 10,000 RPM SATA) -- $254 each @ GameVE
1GB Kingston PC3700 Dual-channel Hyper X -- $245 @ GameVE
For $400, you can forget about playing any new games. I know the idea of 'gaming rig' to most slashbots includes anything that can run Tux Racer or Chromium. Nothing against you if that's your idea of a good game, but those games aren't even remotely in the same league as, say, UT2k4 or Lineage 2. Be reasonable; $400 is barely a good mainboard and processor (even by the prices listed by all the shady dealers on pricewatch), much less a video card, decent power supply, case, and RAM.
Like I said above... for that price, replacing all those parts, you're buying extremely out-dated and/or no-brand parts from unknown or disreputable dealers. A high-end video card alone would eat up at least half of your budget.
A good gaming rig for playing new games runs a bare minimum of $1500, not including a monitor, speakers, a souncard, or any peripherals. You might be able to knock ~$100 off that if you buy a cheap case and don't mind your system sounding like a ShopVac when it's running.
New games were $50 at least as far back as the NES days. They still are today.
Why don't you base your claims on current consoles relative to current PC specs, rather than specualting about the cost of next-gen consoles and PCs specced to play years-old games.
That's bull. Virtually every major retail outlet sells new games, regardless of the platform, for $50.
Take a look at True Fantasy Live Online for the Xbox. Not only is it a 'true' MMORPG, but it's attempting to address some of the most problematic issues in MMOGs, namely stupd, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid concept of levels and their stratifying effect on the player base, preventing friends from playing together unless they happen to keep the exact same playing schedule.
Yes there are: Rainbow 6 3, Crimson Skies 2, SOCOM, and Jedi Academy to name a few.
Then you haven't been looking. Counterstrike is on the Xbox, playable on Xbox Live. And unlike the PC version, it's not full of whiney 13 year-old cheaters bitching about lag and how much they hate the game.
Enjoy it while you can.
Not to sound like one of those *BSD is Dying!!! alarmists, but do you really think that PC gaming really has the staying power for companies to employ that method for much longer?
Your first point was dead-on: as it stands, PCs still dominate online gaming. But Xbox Live is an amazing online platform; far superior to anything the PC has, and it's just starting to catch on. So with it setting the bar for online console gaming, just think of what the next-gen consoles are going to be able to do. And then ask yourself: why the bloody hell would any spend the absurd premiums for PC hardware when consoles offer a superior gaming experience?
Think about it... for the same price you could have either:
1) A custom-built gaming PC with all the latest bells and whistles that'll be struggling to run games released only months later, and a library of games reknowned for their lack of QA and bug-ridden releases.
Or
2) All three major consoles, a 36"-ish HDTV, a surround sound system, component inputs and switches for all your consoles, and probably 5-10 games per console.
And that's just right now; imagine a few years from now when console manufacturers all (well, not Nintendo; they're more interested in telling consumers what they want than giving consumers what they want) have services like Xbox Live. The only people left playing PC games will be those blowhards that honestly think a mouse is the only viable way to play an FPS.
PC gaming may not be dying, but it's a pretty safe bet that the next generation of consoles will be happy to usher it out of the party.
How? Be being a really shallow driver, a really crappy shooter, and employing the most generic elements of every other "shocker" game on the market?
I don't understand the allure of GTA/Vice City. Sure, it's a nice change of pace to play a bad guy, but after you've beat a few hookers, carjacked a couple cars, and shot a few cops, you've seen everything the game has to offer. Yeah, the soundtrack's killer, but it alone hardly justifies dealing with one of the most shallow games on the market with the most clumsy combat system ever developed.
Something tells me that the same people driving GTA's sales are the same people who call every new excersize in androgenous character design and cliched plot devices Square throws a Final Fantasy logo on a masterpiece.
While I'm still reading through the article you linked, I took me about two paragraphs to be nodding in agreement. I'm actually writing up design documents for an MMOG that addresses a number of those problems, but that's a rant for another time.
Anyways, I think you make some very valid points. I still think the core design of MMOGs being so hostile towards casual gamers is a significantly larger problem than the monthly fees, but you're right: a micropayment system could, in theory, bring in additional gamers. And so long as it was not a direct replacement for monthly fees, it couldn't be a bad thing.
First off, think about the fee. It's less than $15/month. What's that? Half what it costs to take a date to the movies for a couple hours? One less case of beer? One less order of pizza and wings? Eating at home one extra night instead of going out? One third of a new game you'll most likely finish in a weekend and never play again? A DVD (assuming it's on sale)?
The argument that price is a barrier for entry is absurd. Even young kids can cut an extra lawn once a month, or shovel snow off one more driveway to make that kind of money. Chances are, if anything in the ballpark of $15/month is too much of a barrier for entry, you're talking about someone with so little disposable income that the marketers for these games are most likely completely ignoring that demographic. And that's not necessarily a bad thing; the 400k people already playing EverQuest shouldn't be gouged in price because 10k people out there are naive enough to think they'd actually be able to enjoy that sort of game without investing a significant amount of time in it.
And that's the second point: have you ever played EverQuest? You realize that high-level players literally have months of time logged-in? Sure, you could not have any desire to play at the high end of the game, but with a game that places so much importance on socializing, making friends, and mandated grouping, playing an hour here and there is pointless; it'd take you a month to get past level 5, and then beyond that point, you'd spend all your time logged in just trying to find a group, because you don't play regularly enough to have any friends to group up with.
I'm not arguing against micropayments so much as the absurdity of your argument that such a ridiculous amount of money poses a significant barrier to entry. A micro-payment system won't fix that. Sure, it may get a few more cheapskates playing the game, but you'd see the hard-core gamers leaving in droves.
Unless, of course, micropayments were offered as an alternative to monthly fees, rather than a replacement. But I honestly don't see that happening; there are too many penny-pinching execs in the gaming indistry that are completely out of touch with gamers, and would attempt to unilaterally enforce their micropayment structure on everyone just because there's the potential to make a few bucks more.
Would it really be that much trouble to switch to a web-based forum?
I know it's be some trouble, and it wouldn't have the exact same functionality. But unless I'm missing something, it'd be close enough. I mean, I'm sympathetic to people on or operating mailing lists and all, but let's be honest: their concerns are downright insignificant in the face of the spam problem.