No discussion of UO ever happens without people arguing about PvP, but that's not what this post is about or what one should take from UO when comparing it to WoW and other contemporary games.
The thing that made UO way ahead of its time was personalization. You could wear whatever you wanted, color it however you wanted, and surround yourself with personalized items. People made gold from selling their creations. There's a lot of talk about casuals and how you can't have a UO-like game succeed because casual players won't like it. That's absurd. You don't think all those gamer girls (and most gamers in general) want to dress up their internet dolls? WoW is a very fun game but it's depressing how it not only does not support personalization, it seems to actively resist it. Everyone looks the same in WoW - and maybe that's largely due to technology limitations, but it's still something that they should attempt to address.
Second Life is an awful cesspool of porn and spam, but the only activity that is creative, flourishing, and profitable is the selling of player-designed clothes and other customization for avatars. Personalization is something people want in MMOs, and UO had a ton of it 15 years ago. Not that Blizzard really needs any help digger deeper into the player's psyche, but if they wanted to hook even more casuals, that could certainly learn from UO.
Many of us that read Slashdot are used to the idea that the internet provides anonymity and that we can keep our "real lives" separate and private from what we do online. Perhaps this comes from the fact that the internet, for us, began as minor and very much separate part of our everyday lives. But things have changed. The internet is now pervasive. Today many people, young people especially, do not recognize a separation between the internet and real life because there is no separation.
My point is that people are willing to give up their privacy online because they are used to doing so in "real life." Talking to strangers, telling people your name, letting people see what you look like are all part of being social. Not everyone understands why this should be different online, especially since the opportunities to be social online are often more abundant. Are there dangers from this? Of course there are. Are they different and new (and OMG SCARY!) compared to the dangers of being social offline? Yes, but that doesn't mean they are worse. It just means that people need a different skillset to deal with the dangers.
Privacy is important, but so is being social. Just because something done voluntarily erodes privacy, it isn't necessarily bad.
This has been done before by 3D0 when they still owned and operated Meridian 59. After costing $9.95/month for a couple of years, they switched to a "metered plan." Basically, you would buy play periods which lasted 24 hours and you could play as much as you wanted in that 24 hour period. If you bought 4 play periods in a week, you got the rest of the week free. Each play period cost $2.95. This was all done transparently. You didn't have to go to any website to buy these, you just had to log in and start playing and you would be charged appropriately.
This is what doomed Meridian 59. With UO already out and EQ in beta, a game built on the Build engine couldn't survive when unlimited play cost $35/month. It may have been cheaper than the original $9.95/month for very few people, but for the vast majority of players it was a $25/month price hike.
AOL/Time Marketing Tactics
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 1
These companies were meant for each other...
About 9 months ago I subscribed to Time, for the first time ever. The first thing I ever got from them, a good two weeks before I got my first issue, was a letter warning me that my subscription was about to run out and I should resubscribe.
Two months after cancelling an AOL Trial account I had for 3 days, citing a desire for broadband as my reason, I got a call from their broadband department. After the usual sales drivel, it went something like this:
Me: I'm not interested, I already have DSL.
Them: I see. Do you have it through BellSouth?
Me: No.
(pause)
Them: hmm... Perhaps you mean you have cable. Do you have service with RoadRunner or Comcast?
Me: No.
(pause)
Them: well, I'm looking at information for your zipcode, and if you don't have service with BellSouth, RoadRunner, or Comcast, you don't have broadband.
Me: Yes, I do.
Them: No, you don't.
Me: Yes, I do.
Them: No, you don't.
Me: Yes, I have service with--
Them: He's making it up. *click*
Yes, AOL hung up on ME this time.
Anyway, I did have DSL service with a local ISP. They may resell BellSouth's service, but they're not BellSouth. I've been with these guys since 9600bps dialup and they've always been great.
Your knowledge of history seems to be bit...backwards. TVA (Tennesee Valley Authority) was created to provide jobs and electricity to the region of the country hardest hit by the Great Depression. If it helped or not is very debatable, but to say that it caused the Depression is just stupid.
Also, it was just one of many public works project instituted by the FDR administration to try and alleviate the effects of the Depression.
I've read the "Dvorak Myth" article and think it's a bunch of bull. I might not agree with every "scientific" statement from Dvorak and others, but I know from personal experience that the Dvorak layout is far superior to Qwerty.
It takes time to get comfortable with Dvorak (though considerably less than Qwerty), and if you are willing to give it time, it's well worth it.
I can do about 130 words per minute consistanty with Dvorak while still maintaining 65+ on Qwerty keyboards. Two years ago, before switching to Dvorak at home, I could do 85 wpm with Qwerty, but had to sacrifice that speed to learn Dvorak. I learned both on my own without any of that touchtyping nonsense they try to teach in schools. My error rate is relatively low on both, but the greatest benefit to me is the low strain on my hands when using Dvorak.
Slashdot Mirror
No discussion of UO ever happens without people arguing about PvP, but that's not what this post is about or what one should take from UO when comparing it to WoW and other contemporary games.
The thing that made UO way ahead of its time was personalization. You could wear whatever you wanted, color it however you wanted, and surround yourself with personalized items. People made gold from selling their creations. There's a lot of talk about casuals and how you can't have a UO-like game succeed because casual players won't like it. That's absurd. You don't think all those gamer girls (and most gamers in general) want to dress up their internet dolls? WoW is a very fun game but it's depressing how it not only does not support personalization, it seems to actively resist it. Everyone looks the same in WoW - and maybe that's largely due to technology limitations, but it's still something that they should attempt to address.
Second Life is an awful cesspool of porn and spam, but the only activity that is creative, flourishing, and profitable is the selling of player-designed clothes and other customization for avatars. Personalization is something people want in MMOs, and UO had a ton of it 15 years ago. Not that Blizzard really needs any help digger deeper into the player's psyche, but if they wanted to hook even more casuals, that could certainly learn from UO.
My point is that people are willing to give up their privacy online because they are used to doing so in "real life." Talking to strangers, telling people your name, letting people see what you look like are all part of being social. Not everyone understands why this should be different online, especially since the opportunities to be social online are often more abundant. Are there dangers from this? Of course there are. Are they different and new (and OMG SCARY!) compared to the dangers of being social offline? Yes, but that doesn't mean they are worse. It just means that people need a different skillset to deal with the dangers.
Privacy is important, but so is being social. Just because something done voluntarily erodes privacy, it isn't necessarily bad.
This is what doomed Meridian 59. With UO already out and EQ in beta, a game built on the Build engine couldn't survive when unlimited play cost $35/month. It may have been cheaper than the original $9.95/month for very few people, but for the vast majority of players it was a $25/month price hike.
About 9 months ago I subscribed to Time, for the first time ever. The first thing I ever got from them, a good two weeks before I got my first issue, was a letter warning me that my subscription was about to run out and I should resubscribe.
Two months after cancelling an AOL Trial account I had for 3 days, citing a desire for broadband as my reason, I got a call from their broadband department. After the usual sales drivel, it went something like this:
Me: I'm not interested, I already have DSL.
Them: I see. Do you have it through BellSouth?
Me: No.
(pause)
Them: hmm... Perhaps you mean you have cable. Do you have service with RoadRunner or Comcast?
Me: No.
(pause)
Them: well, I'm looking at information for your zipcode, and if you don't have service with BellSouth, RoadRunner, or Comcast, you don't have broadband.
Me: Yes, I do.
Them: No, you don't.
Me: Yes, I do.
Them: No, you don't.
Me: Yes, I have service with--
Them: He's making it up. *click*
Yes, AOL hung up on ME this time.
Anyway, I did have DSL service with a local ISP. They may resell BellSouth's service, but they're not BellSouth. I've been with these guys since 9600bps dialup and they've always been great.
Your knowledge of history seems to be bit...backwards. TVA (Tennesee Valley Authority) was created to provide jobs and electricity to the region of the country hardest hit by the Great Depression. If it helped or not is very debatable, but to say that it caused the Depression is just stupid.
Also, it was just one of many public works project instituted by the FDR administration to try and alleviate the effects of the Depression.
Calm down. Not everyone is out to get you.
I've read the "Dvorak Myth" article and think it's a bunch of bull. I might not agree with every "scientific" statement from Dvorak and others, but I know from personal experience that the Dvorak layout is far superior to Qwerty.
It takes time to get comfortable with Dvorak (though considerably less than Qwerty), and if you are willing to give it time, it's well worth it.
I can do about 130 words per minute consistanty with Dvorak while still maintaining 65+ on Qwerty keyboards. Two years ago, before switching to Dvorak at home, I could do 85 wpm with Qwerty, but had to sacrifice that speed to learn Dvorak. I learned both on my own without any of that touchtyping nonsense they try to teach in schools. My error rate is relatively low on both, but the greatest benefit to me is the low strain on my hands when using Dvorak.
Dvorak forever,
Flips