Up until a few years ago, my brother would still play Modem Wars via modem under DOS. The game was quite addictive and yet amazingly simple. Modem Wars is also recognized as one of the first PC "remote" (as opposed to hotseat) multiplayer games.
Those are non-massive games. That's the difference. They are small teams, who have flexible schedules, and can usually change team members without a problem since there's no persistance.
First of all, many people have already pointed out, you have to get people to play all the positions. Not just that; you need people to play BENCH players, too. Who's going to do that?
Second, they all have to be at the games at the same time. You're talking co-ordinating anywhere from 25 to 50 to 100+ people to all show up at the right time, every day or every week, to play a game. That's going to be a nightmare. What do you do when a team doesn't show up, or doesn't show up with all its players? Modifying the schedule will be a nightmare.
Thirdly, what happens when a guy gets disconnected during the middle of a game? Does he disappear? Is the game suspended until he returns? Do you replace it with some lame AI player? Great, now you have to go code AI players somehow. What if the guy comes back?
Finally, what do you do about seasonal rosters, trades, and so on? If you require the guy to be on the same team all season, he may just not want to play anymore when his team is 0-12. What do you do when all of your QBs quit the game? Can you get a new QB? They're not retired; what if they suddenly come back? On the other hand, if you let players just move around all the want and play on whatever team all season, the league will be a joke, not to mention very confusing to follow.
You could do this at the managerial level, but then it's not really a MMOG. But having everyone control their own player? No way. (It should be noted, however, that there are some MMOGs in development that are trying to solve these issues.)
Bruce
That would be true except that EQ was really originally developed by Verant, which Sony then bought and combined with 989 Studios (sort-of) to make the current SOE. So SOE wasn't really the original developer of EQ.
And PlanetSide? Actually, it was Verant's John Ratcliff who started developing it, in the obscure St. Louis studio (which existed solely because John Ratcliff didn't want to move).
Bruce
Might as well mention my report as well, which was posted on f13.net
http://www.f13.net/2.php?subaction=showfull&id=109 4976204&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&am p;
Bruce
Unfortunately your position has been well-analyzed in philisophy and found to be wanting.
Free Will is often used as the excuse for how an all-loving God can allow evil in the world. However, if God were also omnipotent (all-powerful), then he should be able to create people who indeed HAVE free will, and yet nevertheless never CHOOSE to do evil.
The only way to refute this is to say that you believe in the "actual choice" concept of free will; that is, one does not truly have free will unless one chooses to sometimes do one thing and other times and other times another in the same circumstance. But this seems quite silly.
Let's say you go get ice cream every week. The parlor only has two flavors, chocolate and rocky road. You don't like rocky road, so you always order chocolate. Do we conclude that you didn't really have the power to choose ice cream flavors, simply because you always chose chocolate? Indeed, that you might actually choose a flavor you DON'T LIKE seems to reduce Free Will to some sort of randomness. What good is Free Will if we do not use it to choose those things we actualyl want to do?
So, it's impossible for there to be Free Will and for God to be BOTH all good/loving and all powerful. You have to drop one of the three. Or come up with a better explanation of how Free Will works.:)
Bruce
My problem with the Bablefish puzzle was the crucial "move satchel" step, which you had to do AFTER you put the satchel in place (but, supposedly, not in exactly the RIGHT place). There was no feedback or difference in the fish's trajectory that even hinted at such a maneuver, and as far as I can recall nothing else in the game reqired such an action, either. The puzzle was needlessly complex.
Bruce
I'm still waiting to see the release of Dave Arneson's _Dragons In The Basement_ which we got a preview of back in GenCon 2000. That's 4 years ago, and still no word on it. There was talk the Sci-Fi channel might pick it up.
No, sorry, the numbers aren't guesses. Each one has a source, although often those sources are private, not public. If I'm forced to use something I consider a "derived figure" that I have little confidence in, I reduce the confidence rating until I can confirm it later.
That being said, there's no claim that the numbers are wholly accurate. They are simply the best available. It is in the industry's own interest to provide better numbers if they want the chart to more accurate reflect reality.
The 5xpeak rule is not hard and fast; as I've said before it varies from 10 - 30% depending on the MMOG.
But I do not use those for the basis of my numbers to begin with; only for verfication to make sure they are in the ballpark. The 20,000 figure comes from the very Horizon bankruptcy documents you cite, so you know they are not just "shouting/boasting".
Many companies are proud of their numbers but still won't release them because of old company policies. This is changing, but slowly.
Bruce
It was Runescape's own parent company that announced they did indeed have over 100,000 bona-fide real subscribers. Remember, these people are only paying $5 a month, and you don't have to have a top gaming rig to run it, so I find the number plausible if higher than I would have guessed.
The ratio of peak online users to total subscriptions varies from game to gave, but is generally in the 10% - 30% range. That's still a large variation, but at least you can verify if you are in the ballpark. I don't know that your measurement of 10,000 was taken at a "peak" time, but even if it was, a 10:1 ratio is not that unusual.
Bruce
Harry Potter Online has been worked on by EA for years. The first one was cancelled at the same time they cancelled UO2 (OWO:O) and Privateer Online. I've heard the second attempt was cancelled, too. The current version under development is called "Hogwarts Online" which gives you an idea of where they are headed with it.
Battletech 3025 was also developed previously by EA, and cancelled.
The Matrix Online is coming out this fall.
There are several other IP franchises that are worth considering: Traveller, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, Mad Max, Terminator, etc.
Bruce
Nobody told me I got slashdotted. No wonder my web site exceeded its bandwidth.
Not much to comment on here since there aren't many questions that others haven't already addressed. I do have a better estimate for Lineage now; they have somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000 legitimate "subscribers" that could be compared with other games. I'm still waiting for some better historical data, however.
WWII Online isn't a flat line; it just looks like it. I'm thinking about breaking the chart into two, one for large and one for small, so you can better see the movements of the smaller MMOGs.
I didn't divulge my connection to WWIIOL since it's a pretty open "secret" in the MMOG industry and the article was initially targeted for people who already knew this. My goal in the article is purely that of a research journalist, so I try to avoid any bias. However, I'll probably mention it in an updated version of the article sometime this month.
EQ: Online Adventures has 50,000 subscribers now. Still looking for data on ShadowBane.:)
Bruce
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, Cat, you beat me to it. :)
Up until a few years ago, my brother would still play Modem Wars via modem under DOS. The game was quite addictive and yet amazingly simple. Modem Wars is also recognized as one of the first PC "remote" (as opposed to hotseat) multiplayer games.
Bruce
Collect underpants + ??? = Profit!
Bruce
Those are non-massive games. That's the difference. They are small teams, who have flexible schedules, and can usually change team members without a problem since there's no persistance.
Like I said, it just doesn't scale.
Bruce
First of all, many people have already pointed out, you have to get people to play all the positions. Not just that; you need people to play BENCH players, too. Who's going to do that? Second, they all have to be at the games at the same time. You're talking co-ordinating anywhere from 25 to 50 to 100+ people to all show up at the right time, every day or every week, to play a game. That's going to be a nightmare. What do you do when a team doesn't show up, or doesn't show up with all its players? Modifying the schedule will be a nightmare. Thirdly, what happens when a guy gets disconnected during the middle of a game? Does he disappear? Is the game suspended until he returns? Do you replace it with some lame AI player? Great, now you have to go code AI players somehow. What if the guy comes back? Finally, what do you do about seasonal rosters, trades, and so on? If you require the guy to be on the same team all season, he may just not want to play anymore when his team is 0-12. What do you do when all of your QBs quit the game? Can you get a new QB? They're not retired; what if they suddenly come back? On the other hand, if you let players just move around all the want and play on whatever team all season, the league will be a joke, not to mention very confusing to follow. You could do this at the managerial level, but then it's not really a MMOG. But having everyone control their own player? No way. (It should be noted, however, that there are some MMOGs in development that are trying to solve these issues.) Bruce
That would be true except that EQ was really originally developed by Verant, which Sony then bought and combined with 989 Studios (sort-of) to make the current SOE. So SOE wasn't really the original developer of EQ. And PlanetSide? Actually, it was Verant's John Ratcliff who started developing it, in the obscure St. Louis studio (which existed solely because John Ratcliff didn't want to move). Bruce
http://www.fatman.com/
Bruce
Dammit, why didn't that format correctly?
Anyway, I also gave my report on AGC over on f13.net:
http://www.f13.net/2.php?subaction=showfull&id=109 4976204&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&am p;
Bruce
Might as well mention my report as well, which was posted on f13.net http://www.f13.net/2.php?subaction=showfull&id=109 4976204&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&am p;
Bruce
Unfortunately your position has been well-analyzed in philisophy and found to be wanting. Free Will is often used as the excuse for how an all-loving God can allow evil in the world. However, if God were also omnipotent (all-powerful), then he should be able to create people who indeed HAVE free will, and yet nevertheless never CHOOSE to do evil. The only way to refute this is to say that you believe in the "actual choice" concept of free will; that is, one does not truly have free will unless one chooses to sometimes do one thing and other times and other times another in the same circumstance. But this seems quite silly. Let's say you go get ice cream every week. The parlor only has two flavors, chocolate and rocky road. You don't like rocky road, so you always order chocolate. Do we conclude that you didn't really have the power to choose ice cream flavors, simply because you always chose chocolate? Indeed, that you might actually choose a flavor you DON'T LIKE seems to reduce Free Will to some sort of randomness. What good is Free Will if we do not use it to choose those things we actualyl want to do? So, it's impossible for there to be Free Will and for God to be BOTH all good/loving and all powerful. You have to drop one of the three. Or come up with a better explanation of how Free Will works. :)
Bruce
If they didn't have the virtual trains, they wouldn't have gotten the idea for the big trains!
If they didn't have then virtual trains, they wouldn't have gotten the idea for the big trains!
My problem with the Bablefish puzzle was the crucial "move satchel" step, which you had to do AFTER you put the satchel in place (but, supposedly, not in exactly the RIGHT place). There was no feedback or difference in the fish's trajectory that even hinted at such a maneuver, and as far as I can recall nothing else in the game reqired such an action, either. The puzzle was needlessly complex. Bruce
Hmmm, my previous comment was deleted?
m l
Again, the web page is currently up at an alternate URL:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~sirbruce3/Subscriptions.ht
Bruce
Thanks to slashdot again for overloading my bandwidth quota. I got 17,290 hits in one day, which is a new record.
i ons.htm l
Here's a temporary backup site, but it won't last very long at this rate:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~sirbruce3/Subscript
Bruce
I'm still waiting to see the release of Dave Arneson's _Dragons In The Basement_ which we got a preview of back in GenCon 2000. That's 4 years ago, and still no word on it. There was talk the Sci-Fi channel might pick it up.
Bruce
No, sorry, the numbers aren't guesses. Each one has a source, although often those sources are private, not public. If I'm forced to use something I consider a "derived figure" that I have little confidence in, I reduce the confidence rating until I can confirm it later.
That being said, there's no claim that the numbers are wholly accurate. They are simply the best available. It is in the industry's own interest to provide better numbers if they want the chart to more accurate reflect reality.
Bruce
The 5xpeak rule is not hard and fast; as I've said before it varies from 10 - 30% depending on the MMOG. But I do not use those for the basis of my numbers to begin with; only for verfication to make sure they are in the ballpark. The 20,000 figure comes from the very Horizon bankruptcy documents you cite, so you know they are not just "shouting/boasting". Many companies are proud of their numbers but still won't release them because of old company policies. This is changing, but slowly. Bruce
It was Runescape's own parent company that announced they did indeed have over 100,000 bona-fide real subscribers. Remember, these people are only paying $5 a month, and you don't have to have a top gaming rig to run it, so I find the number plausible if higher than I would have guessed. The ratio of peak online users to total subscriptions varies from game to gave, but is generally in the 10% - 30% range. That's still a large variation, but at least you can verify if you are in the ballpark. I don't know that your measurement of 10,000 was taken at a "peak" time, but even if it was, a 10:1 ratio is not that unusual. Bruce
Harry Potter Online has been worked on by EA for years. The first one was cancelled at the same time they cancelled UO2 (OWO:O) and Privateer Online. I've heard the second attempt was cancelled, too. The current version under development is called "Hogwarts Online" which gives you an idea of where they are headed with it. Battletech 3025 was also developed previously by EA, and cancelled. The Matrix Online is coming out this fall. There are several other IP franchises that are worth considering: Traveller, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, Mad Max, Terminator, etc. Bruce
Nobody told me I got slashdotted. No wonder my web site exceeded its bandwidth. Not much to comment on here since there aren't many questions that others haven't already addressed. I do have a better estimate for Lineage now; they have somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000 legitimate "subscribers" that could be compared with other games. I'm still waiting for some better historical data, however. WWII Online isn't a flat line; it just looks like it. I'm thinking about breaking the chart into two, one for large and one for small, so you can better see the movements of the smaller MMOGs. I didn't divulge my connection to WWIIOL since it's a pretty open "secret" in the MMOG industry and the article was initially targeted for people who already knew this. My goal in the article is purely that of a research journalist, so I try to avoid any bias. However, I'll probably mention it in an updated version of the article sometime this month. EQ: Online Adventures has 50,000 subscribers now. Still looking for data on ShadowBane. :)
Bruce