The more and more I hear, the more discouraged I get. We have some friends out in the world in the different Beta programs for games like Age of Conan and Warhammer. The reports I am getting are not encouraging.
Many of us in KGB are all grown up now and much more discerning with our time. This means that we need something really spectacular to motivate us to invest the HUGE amount of time it takes to be successful in a current MMORPG. There are many game worlds on the horizon, but as they get closer and closer to release, it seems that the "GREED" factor of the development companies forces the risky and pioneering features we all crave to vanish in support of the "WOW" make as much money as you can factor. What you end up with is a game where everyone can be the Hero, not matter the difference in skill or time invested. This sterilized environment is optimized for the masses and exactly not what a group like KGB is looking for.
For a game to be fun, there has to be some real risk, some real excitement that is brought about by that risk. I for one enjoy playing against PLAYERS and not some re-spawning artificial intelligence that has become known as the "Grind".
In the renaissance period of UO that people love to talk about, UO was the only game out there. It was there way or the highway. When RPK's were bent on ruining the experience for others, the players formed organizations like KGB, to combat the problem. There was no need for the programmers to enact artificially limits. Ultimately though, this is what ended up happening, the masses were pleased, and the game fell into mediocrity because the challenge was gone.
I was so excited about the development of Darkfall. It seemed like a game that was going to create a real challenge. One that offered a game for all types of players, and one that our organization was looking for. Years have passed and it seems that to get published, you have to start making compromises to the big companies. We have all watched the promises of AOC and Warhammer slowly fade into mediocrity, possibly making the games into just another "WOW" clone. We will have to wait and see.
I for one still hold on to hope that someone will see the potential in a game that offers real risk and challenge. Because since those early days of UO, and the trill it game me personally, I have never invested as much time and loyalty into any game. From a profit standpoint. I owned 4 accounts at 9.99 per month for just over 5 years. I would hope that someone in the market can realize the potential in the kind of world we all long for.
Well, think about how often a truly ground breaking game comes along. UO was revolutionary when it first came out. Everquest was equally successful, but appealed to a different audience. Most MMOs that followed were everquest clones, and it wasn't until WoW that a game really dominated the MMO market. First Person Shooters followed a similar pattern.
Now, everyone is making WoW clones, it seems.
There is a lot of money being thrown at games, and the price of producing them is getting higher and higher as consumer tastes get more sophisticated. Sooner or later, one will click. Until then, we will just have to make do with the best that is available.
It may be premature to render a final verdict on AoC or WH quite yet, but other games will be watching how they perform in the market. If they tank, sooner or later, some enterprising company will figure out that providing just more of the same is not going to hack it any more, and hopefully, some companies will start taking some risks.
Yeah Owain is right, eventually some companies decide to take a risk and break the mold. When this happens you end up seeing games like EVE online get developed. EVE is completely different than any other game on the market, yet it has worked. It is one of the only games to have ever had its subscriber base GROW throughout its lifetime rather than slowly dwindle. Adventurine seems to be like the only company ballsy enough (or with little enough to lose) to actually do this at the moment, but as everyone points out, their development cycle is as slow as molasses.
It's real easy to poo-poo a beta.
Just today I was reading about people really enjoying PvP in AoC.
I also agree with Owain, to some extent it also comes down to the perspective of each individual gamer or the guild he is in also. You make what's best of a bad situation, I've noticed many of the guilds that I communicate with or watch are taking the lack luster games of this period and making the best of it. That is to say, the game they've chosen to play (regardless of how bad it truely is) and become the best in it holding said titles and honors as long as possible, or continuing to evolve and change as a guild learning new tactics to better take advantage of the game.
KAAOS for instance has done this with Planetside and a few other games since these gaming dark ages (thanks to EQ and WOW)began. They are very respected and feared in that game and have quit and gone back several times thus far, each time retaking what they lost with enhanced tactics and new ways of playing.
So in closing while the games are mediocre that doesn't mean KGB has to be.
Quote:
So in closing while the games are mediocre that doesn't mean KGB has to be.
I agree here. All of us are gaming in some form or another, but not in a united fashion. It is going to take an environment that would support our interests as an organization for me the make the call to arms for all our members.
I think we need to continue having fun doing what we are doing, keep a close eye on the betas (We have folks in almost all of them) and when the time comes, re-unite in one game, under the KGB flag.
Quote:
Quote:
So in closing while the games are mediocre that doesn't mean KGB has to be.
I agree here. All of us are gaming in some form or another, but not in a united fashion. It is going to take an environment that would support our interests as an organization for me the make the call to arms for all our members.
I think we need to continue having fun doing what we are doing, keep a close eye on the betas (We have folks in almost all of them) and when the time comes, re-unite in one game, under the KGB flag.
Yes and no, I guess me not knowing many of those here, would have to say it all depends on how everyone assembled here views KGB. Many people claim to be in KGB's service but then play other various assorted games either unrelated to KGB or in a very limited "Faction" of the guild. If KGB decided today to make a game the only official KGB game available so as to unite the guild and start work on enhancing group play how many here would balk at such a idea? How many members would you lose? How much "discussion" or in most cases arguments would erupt on the forums private or otherwise? What excuses would there be, and how radical would KGB have to be in pursuit of such a goal? What sorts of revision would the Government and the Constitution go through, and would there be a outcry for a new leadership upon such a outlandish proposal as to declare "one game one guild"?
Sure all games available at this moment are not very ideal environments but there are games out there, it depends on the strength of leadership here, the commitment of the guild members present, and the desire to be unified full filling the ultimate goals of the guild, as a true definition of the word. Could you take a crappy game and make it great? Could you win where others fail? Could you be a conquerer in a game that lacks them? Although I certainly understand the current state of gaming, and would not be kind if I didn't mention this as very important reason why some guilds decide that waiting is more beneficial. So you can wait and see how a game is recived, who will be able to devote the time, and who will be able to meet the requirements, OR you can forge ahead and work with what's available.
The choice is always yours.
I know i'm a relative stranger here, but couldn't help but add my 2 cents. KGB has, and will always be, dominated by the herd mentality. What people enjoyed, from what i suspect, from KGB is the structure that it provided in worlds that provided little to none, namely UO and SB.
The problem is, the mainstream MMO player these days have WoW to go back to, and as much as people tend to hate that game, it will be the basis for mmo's for a long time, unless DFO proves to be as ambitious as they claim to be, which i'm sure all of us have doubts of.
You guys have a good mainstay of members, all of which seem to be gaming in different worlds. Don't you think it's time to make concessions and pick a game for the sake of unity? God knows my old guilds from DAOC and SB have fallen apart due to the old, age trap of "We're waiting for the perfect game." Would hate to see KGB as the final casualty of the UO guilds.
There will probably never be another UO, or EQ for that matter, because people have the choice of other, easier to learn, games. It's like women, if your standards are too high, chances are you'll never find that special one.
-Syloc
I don't think forcing people to play one game is the way to go. If you force people to play a game they don't wan to or leave the guild, they'll simply leave the guild. It's not like they have guns pointed to their heads. On the other hand, if a game is good enough, people will flock to it without needing to be told to do so.
The past few years weren't great for games, there are a few games on the horizon that say they're going to offer an alternative to what's currently available... we just have to wait and see if they actually do.
For me at least it's not about waiting for the perfect game, it's just waiting for a game I actually feel I can play for about a year if not more. I tried a Vanguard trial, didn't really feel it was the game for me, and didn't buy an account. Tons of people on the other hand did, they enjoyed it for a few months, and have now moved on.
As Jet pointed out, the KGB is maturing, having kids, getting jobs, going to college, whatever each individual's case. At the moment many of us are choosing to tackle real life while there's no game to play. I for one have a pretty tough semester (6 weeks until it's over though I think, can't wait,) and am only playing an hour or so of Team Fortress a week. I'm sure though that if a great game comes out, I'll be able to find a little bit more time to invest in a game.
I'd love to find a game to dominate, even if it's not a fantastic game, or if it's not an MMO, and dominate it well. Realistically speaking though, I don't really want to shell out any money just for a placeholder game, and even games I have such as TF2... I really don't see me logging into Vent to get real coordination going on.
Who knows though, if there were always a vent channel full of people playing, I guess it would take little effort to spend my one hour a week in a server full of KGB instead of a random server. And it doesn't necessarily have to be TF2, that was just an example, I know there are other games that far more of us have. If people want to talk about that though, that's probably best left for another thread.
Quote:
Yes and no, I guess me not knowing many of those here, would have to say it all depends on how everyone assembled here views KGB. Many people claim to be in KGB's service but then play other various assorted games either unrelated to KGB or in a very limited "Faction" of the guild. If KGB decided today to make a game the only official KGB game available so as to unite the guild and start work on enhancing group play how many here would balk at such a idea? How many members would you lose? How much "discussion" or in most cases arguments would erupt on the forums private or otherwise? What excuses would there be, and how radical would KGB have to be in pursuit of such a goal? What sorts of revision would the Government and the Constitution go through, and would there be a outcry for a new leadership upon such a outlandish proposal as to declare "one game one guild"?
Sure all games available at this moment are not very ideal environments but there are games out there, it depends on the strength of leadership here, the commitment of the guild members present, and the desire to be unified full filling the ultimate goals of the guild, as a true definition of the word. Could you take a crappy game and make it great? Could you win where others fail? Could you be a conquerer in a game that lacks them? Although I certainly understand the current state of gaming, and would not be kind if I didn't mention this as very important reason why some guilds decide that waiting is more beneficial. So you can wait and see how a game is recived, who will be able to devote the time, and who will be able to meet the requirements, OR you can forge ahead and work with what's available.
The choice is always yours.
I have been here before, and I do understand your point. I have learned through the school of hard knocks that you have to respect the fun factor.
A game has to be cool and fun enough to hold the long term interest of the entire organization. I would never issue a mandate our presence in a game world that seemed much more like a job than a game.
I have learned to be patient, and will continue to be. Someday soon a world will come, and the KGB will rise again, better than ever. The situation has to be right.
Quote:
I know i'm a relative stranger here, but couldn't help but add my 2 cents. KGB has, and will always be, dominated by the herd mentality. What people enjoyed, from what i suspect, from KGB is the structure that it provided in worlds that provided little to none, namely UO and SB.
The problem is, the mainstream MMO player these days have WoW to go back to, and as much as people tend to hate that game, it will be the basis for mmo's for a long time, unless DFO proves to be as ambitious as they claim to be, which i'm sure all of us have doubts of.
You guys have a good mainstay of members, all of which seem to be gaming in different worlds. Don't you think it's time to make concessions and pick a game for the sake of unity? God knows my old guilds from DAOC and SB have fallen apart due to the old, age trap of "We're waiting for the perfect game." Would hate to see KGB as the final casualty of the UO guilds.
There will probably never be another UO, or EQ for that matter, because people have the choice of other, easier to learn, games. It's like women, if your standards are too high, chances are you'll never find that special one.
-Syloc
Interesting points. There is a part of this behind the scenes that you cant see from the outside. Many of us frequent our Ventrilo server, to BS and or play whatever game happens to be the "in" thing at the moment. From jumping back in WOW to playing Kartrider, all KGBers are gamers at heart.
It is much like a country at peace. Once we find a world we can enjoy and will hold our interest, we will unite and make a real go of it. Until that time, we can enjoy some casual gaming. I am sure the day will come. There are many people out there waiting for the same thing we long for, someone will see the income potential in this and give us what we desire.
We have to continue to be patient.
Great points all, many of which I fully agree with, I know it's terrible to play devils advocate but I was just making simple statements and asking hard questions so I hope I can be forgiven if I offended anyone. There is much more to this topic however, but I feel Jet and Bibs have summed up KGBs agenda quite perfectly already and beating a dead horse is not necessary if the guild and leadership in question have already anticipated their future course of action. If anyones still interested on my views concerning guild ideologies and philosophical ramblings concerning guild organization please feel free to ask, although I know from reading Jets posts he has this well in hand already
Drak,
The reason I make posts like this on the front page is to get as many opinions as possible, and not just from the KGB inter circle. I very much appreciate you and others that take the time to chime in and share your feelings.
I always strive to improve my performance as KGB leader, and I have learned to do this Captain Picard style. That is:
1) Propose the options
2) Gather information and opinions
3) Make the best choice possible for the organization as a whole.
I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and opinions, as I feel they are of value to our organization and our future.
Ok, maybe this is just my patent idealism (yeah, I still haven't lost it) but I remember back in the good old days of UO we used to be able to hack the system, create our own servers, and play them. Is there still a way to do that in today's games? Or is there still a way to do that with UO?
Man, I look back at those years and I remember a group of pioneers. I remember running the guantlet into Trinsic the first day of gameplay and losing everything and having to work my way up from nothing to earn GM Tamer status. I remember guild wars before they were game sanctioned and I remember the KGB taking over an entire continent the day Seige Perilous came into play.
It seems to me that while the games devolved we never did. I would love a game like back in the day, I would love us to simulate a game like that! But this is a symptom of the current American world, afraid to extend hemselves, afraid to earn anything. We want to really play? Hell, I think we might have to create something ourselves.
I don't know about UO, but I've done it with Lineage 2, Hiedi played it for a short while, we were even able to customize certain aspects of the game very detailedly. However I think we should stick with it. Betas are Betas, so it's not exactly a final product, and they might be taking away some things but might suprises with new things. It has all the basic elements that would be fun to play as a large guild. Immersing ourselves comes with time and will not happen 3 months before release, lol
Quote:
Drak,
The reason I make posts like this on the front page is to get as many opinions as possible, and not just from the KGB inter circle. I very much appreciate you and others that take the time to chime in and share your feelings.
I always strive to improve my performance as KGB leader, and I have learned to do this Captain Picard style. That is:
1) Propose the options
2) Gather information and opinions
3) Make the best choice possible for the organization as a whole.
I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and opinions, as I feel they are of value to our organization and our future.
Without question KGB is a great location for civillized discussion, I personally have very radical viewpoints or opinions, and in the past I have rather unintentionally upset people, so I have learned to blunt my sharper comments in the presence of those I either do not know very well, or those I feel might misunderstand me.
Most recently, I have been seeking a more idealised game, with mechanics playing a more centralized role and graphical eye candy taking a back seat. I've sought certain guild empowering features and pvp elements and the closest thing I can find is Talisman. All for the benefit of guild enhancement or a themed guild design, as my ultimate goal is to build a fully realized and successful guild using many of my own ideologies and those of others.
More now than ever, am I starting to view gaming as a self aware game instead of a massively aware one from the context of the individual as well as from that of a guild perspective. In doing so I believe a guild needs to be located in a game that grants it those things most important, and that importance is defined by the guilds theme and beliefs as well as those of it's membership. By default those who join a guild join it for those very same reasons, and in doing so seek the same sorts of gaming experiences. This does not nessesarily mean that a guild will find that in each new game in development or that such cutting edge next generation games are going to provide it, sometimes you have to look into the past to see the future, sometimes knowing where you come from, helps you to know where your going, and it is this philosophy that has aroused some curiosity in your discussions.
Pardon my double post, but as a after thought I wanted to add that I believe KGB has awesome potential even in lesser games or games that have already fallen from prievious favor and success. This potential seems like such a terrible waste while in stasis awaiting the next game, but I can definately see the prudance in waiting and the wisdom Jet has lead the guild with. I find myself percieving things through the same lense as Jet when it comes to the future of gaming and the new games to come, yet I still retain ideals which prompt me to seek solutions where ever I can, even if those solutions do not coincide with those of KGB. Being torn to look for answers where none exist leaves KGB stuck in this so called stasis until Jets plan for a future game is realized, though it doesn't slow down my search for my own utopia it does still leave questions and uncertainty that might be answered by these future games. I guess this, in the end, is the untimate unknown factor for all of us regardless of our plans and depends on how far we are willing to go to hold to our convictions to play a game.
Well, as far as UO goes, it is possible to run private servers, but it does take a lot of work to do things right. There are a lot of free servers out there who have totally bastardized the game, but there are some good servers out there that have done all the hard work for us.
Currently, I'm playing on a shard called In Mani Ylem, which is very very close to what UO used to be before OSI screwed it up. Shard population is pretty low, so it's almost a single player game rather than an MMO, but it is still very good.
Keeps me busy until something worthy is released.
Owain, how is the lag there? If Shadowbane doesn't pick up off the ground maybe KGB could make a showing on that server. It would be easy to get our footing on a low population server, and maybe it would attract some of our allies and enemies to either play with us or fight us. That would be really cool as long as the devs and GMs don't screw with us like they have on other servers...
After rereading Jets original comments I noticed that I erred in my own commentary, the real issues you touch on jet is todays game design, something well out of our personal ability to control.
I hate to spam, especially when quoting myself, though certain things just can't be said any other way. Please excuse the lengthiness of this post, you have been warned.
Quote:
Rogue Gamers Manifesto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shadowy images close about you as you read this, devious concepts, mingled with fool proof money making trends, with a sprinkling of lackluster design have brought about the dark age of gaming. With the influx of game cloning and compartmentalization, unique and creative game design seems on a decline. This combined with high value Intellectual Properties, various "enhancements" toward balance, built-in safety features and tutorials for those without common sense or the ability to problem solve and learn has given massive multiuser game design a bad reputation.
Gaming as we know it may be crying out for change from things like isolationism, grind gaming, and itemcentricity. A Utopian game is many different things to many different people, and is by no means ever been a perfect industry but there is hope. There have been failures and successes, but how we determine this is what's at question, and why there are those hidden in the dark recesses of the gaming community who fight to bring about a renaissance.
Why should you care? Simple, because you are a consumer and have rights to a quality product that delivers on it's advertised purpose. Would you buy a bottle of aspirin if it didn't cure a headache? Though I believe that there is an even deeper reason why, you are human, by definition a social creature and part of a community of like minded people. You play these games for entertainment yes, but it is an investment both in time and money regardless of how trivial it may seem.
Game companies are laughing all the way to the bank at what they perceive to be an indulgent, and decadent group of social misfits. As they rake in millions of dollars each year as you buy up their various game related merchandise and mass marketed super MMO's, they are using the bare minimum of the resources dedicated to producing a quality experience when compared to the social dynamics. Ever wonder why many companies merge or fold? Because there is a terrible monster out there, big business. They want the entire pie chart and are willing to devour all who oppose them. The small independents have only the slimmest of chances against such a foe, and it's these niche companies which are our future hope. The larger companies concern for vast wealth to appease shareholders, executives, and support partners is all about keeping the great money engine churning out proven design.
Risk taking is only an option after intense market research gives the OK, this is why I don't do questionnaires anymore, let them figure it out on their own and stop over analyzing my gaming tendencies. We are not lab rats, we are an ARMY! In opposition to the oppressed market, restrictive design, monitored communities, and enforced labor camps which are in essence what treadmills regardless of their design really are. Don't you often feel like there is a GM behind every bush? I keep waiting for the fun police to show up and make sure me and my guys aren't having any....fun that is. Where are the prison guards with shotguns in this huge social experiment? Can I get a orange jumpsuit please, preferably with a +40 Armor mod thanks.
But I digress, GM's have a place at the table sure, and I've known many good souls filling those shoes. It's not their fault and I am not meaning to pick on that group, they have enough problems all their own.
Perhaps I should just end by being blunt, you will always have support from those of us who are in the Revolution Army, walking the warriors path is difficult, but without those here fighting in the trenches all you'll ever have to look forward to is World of Everclone.
A somewhat overly dramatized piece I previously wrote elsewhere. For the sake of saving you all from my ramblings, you can read my other thoughts on this matter here;
http://www.looking4group.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267
Drak, I do not believe that is entirely accurate, and I hope you will allow me to provide an alternative view on the matter based on my 11 years in the industry.
Quote:
Game companies are laughing all the way to the bank at what they perceive to be an indulgent, and decadent group of social misfits.
This is untrue; game developers are gamers themselves. We come with all of the fallacies of humans across the globe, to be sure... but gamers at heart we are.
Quote:
As they rake in millions of dollars each year as you buy up their various game related merchandise and mass marketed super MMO's, they are using the bare minimum of the resources dedicated to producing a quality experience when compared to the social dynamics.
I assume you mean in-game quests? Creating an MMO service is an entirely daunting endeavor, and a very difficult one, at that. This sort of thing is often overlooked, or when times get tough, is the first one cut.
It is one of the great experiences working at a game company. It is one of the more traumatic experiences losing it through layoffs.
But most companies don't ever get to that point because for every MMO that launches, twenty fail. Many don't know what they're getting into. Some run out of capital with cost overruns at every turn. Some wander back to singleplayer games. Some find they've created a technical monstrosity, and others find at the end of the day that their game just plain sucks.
All of this before considering the service and operations of being "live", in-game quests included. It is a hugely expensive mission to develop and publish and support an MMO, something that requires hundreds of man-years of labor to build and maintain.
Operating costs are high, profits not so much.
Quote:
Ever wonder why many companies merge or fold? Because there is a terrible monster out there, big business. They want the entire pie chart and are willing to devour all who oppose them. The small independents have only the slimmest of chances against such a foe, and it's these niche companies which are our future hope. The larger companies concern for vast wealth to appease shareholders, executives, and support partners is all about keeping the great money engine churning out proven design.
Risk taking is only an option after intense market research gives the OK, this is why I don't do questionnaires anymore, let them figure it out on their own and stop over analyzing my gaming tendencies. We are not lab rats, we are an ARMY! In opposition to the oppressed market, restrictive design, monitored communities, and enforced labor camps which are in essence what treadmills regardless of their design really are.
I believe that's a little premature to make all of those claims. Two things:
1) Evolution of the industry (finally). It was not that long ago MMOs did not exist at all; now it is common to see developers and players who have been on two or three MMOs, and that experience in invaluable. It allows consumers to know what they want and developers to know what is realistic. I really believe by 2010 we will have turned loose the creativity.
2) Market reality. There is a lot of money in MMOs if done right, and as long as the public keeps consuming Tolkien-esque worlds, there will be people coming into the market ready to supply it to them.
Why? Consider this:
Would you as head of development, choose to fund a high risk product on a design that is not proven, or at best, shown to be incredibly risky?
Or, as a responsible steward of a business venture, choose the safe product that will earn your company a decent profit?
Remember, this is $10-20m and a heck of a lot of people's careers you are gambling with.
I work for a publicly held MMO publisher with 2000 employees worldwide, and we have chosen both routes in the past three years. We abandoned the proven designs and ventured out on our last two titles, trying to be "bold" and "adventurous".
Both titles were abysmal failures as games and as multimillion dollar projects. Worse, about 100 people lost their jobs.
The good news is that all of these folks are learning these lessons, trying to incorporate them, and working to create better games.
Which were the failures? Tabula Rasa and CoH/CoV? Auto Assault? Lineage 2? (I thought it was huge in Asia.)
What games are you guys working on now?
By the way, incredible slide show, I'm checking out the pictures on the Lotus temple right now.
I agree with those statements if your looking at it as a structured business venture and from the perspective of a designer. While I am very certain that many of those in game development have their roots as game players something gets lost in the translation between "It's my job" and "It's my hobby". Design from my perspective is not perfect and I am not so blind as to see that my opinions are more often then not in the wrong. I realize my knowledge in such areas is tenuous at best, but more likely nonexistent. Though I would be remiss if I didn't mention the social, psychological, and creative impacts felt by players as a whole with in the games design.
I agree that much of what I spoke of was as I said overly dramatic and carried little substance, however the the truth is still never the less prevalent, that games follow a tend and that trend is in question. Why else would your guild as well as all the other guilds I've come to admire and respect be waiting? Would not the perfect game have already been created if all that you say is true?
Is not the definition of the word creativity stem from being innovative, and does that not also mean doing something that has not been done? So given that, wouldn't a game company or development house seek to improve something, or invent and create something that has never been seen instead of reach out and live off the work that has been previously done?
By following a trend, you have not been creative, you have not invented or improved the current industry standard, there by all your really accomplishing is pirating past achievements and resting on your laurels for the pursuit of money.
I realize it takes money to make money, though I believe there are as I initially stated other aspects to gaming that current design does not address very well, it is the social and psychological dynamics at play in a community. Something everyone here in KGB seems to all agree on. You want pvp, you want good guy verse bad guy, player justice, community, recognition, and player fame, a story driven by you or your guild, a dynamic living breathing world not a static re-spawn world tightly monitored for bad behavior or slightly off center from pc comments, you want guild verse guild, and epic explorable areas, combined with less grind and itemcentricity, you want player kingdoms. None of which can be accomplished without some risk great or small.
Will every attempt to innovate yield positive results? Probably not. Will it cost money? Undoubtedly so. Without such though, the world and games in general would be a very boring place. Just think of all the things in games or otherwise we wouldn't have if people just followed the ebb and flow of design, if people concerned themselves more with the cost then the results, or if companies looked at the untold millions of revenue instead of making something unique.
I have heard that no MMO makes money in their first 1-5 years or better and some never fully recover invested interest, I understand that they are costly endeavors with many employees, and that no game is created in a vacuum or that no game can function without huge logistical support structures outside of the game itself.
I am merely commenting on game ideologies concerning the things players want and that design in general either completely ignores this point or doesn't understand it. I am looking at the community aspects as well showing the fact that as a social game, with humanistic mentalities you can't compartmentalize it using flawed industry standards that have been handed down since the beginning of time.
That creativity requires sacrifice, and the players know this apparently more than the game companies. By default players are a community and communities are often times linked directly with the game in a symbiotic relationship which reflects how well it's received and by what success it generates. WE are paying the bill regardless of how minor or insignificant it may be, and if we had a game that wasn't cloned or refurbished with a dynamic tool set success could all but be guaranteed and a game company could make a strong case for taking risks.
There are many companies out there with capital to spare, and they voraciously hold onto this to cover projects that in the past they never even participated in. They get this huge chunk of money and diversify, why? If I started a company making MMOs for PC, why would I diversify making say Xbox 360 games if I previously had no experience in it? When I could use the money I made from my MMO experience to enhance our understanding of the concept and become the best at it, there by continuing to produce MMOs far more superior then others who branch their efforts.
Not meaning to sound callous or rude, but on the one hand you state companies have no venture capital and cannot take risks then you state that companies can make a lot of money in a MMO if done right, proceeding on to say if I had 10-20 Million would I risk it on a questionable project.
Well to this I say, if done right means following a industry standard, proven concept, or trend just so I can make money for future endorsements on a project unrelated to my current field of work, or so that I can enhance my business posture with stockholders, and strengthen my portfolio so I can be bought out. I think I'd opt to be a leader in the field instead, I realize that's easy to say sitting from the cheap seats but how else can one make a game that can compete? You don't get to be the best by following the pack, you can't be Alpha Dog by being a Omega.
I'm not disagreeing with you completely, I'm just seeing a different picture on the other side. A community and a game are linked and most games fail because the community fails due to lack of social enhancing mechanics or restrictive play which limits interaction to grind scenarios based off of item-centric quest based play or care bear for those familiar with the term.
Lastly, before I get called on it, since game designers I've spoke with in the past always do, quest based game play is by my definition a game designed from the ground up which promotes questing at it's heart. Quest based game play doesn't mean a game can't have quests it means the game design is based totally on it to the exclusion of general exploration and adventuring due to the lesser returns on such activities. It usually required people to meet many demands as far as character design and group composition.
A player may need to be a certain level, a certain class, have certain gear, be at a certain location, on a certain part of the quest, or to have the quest before he can enjoy the benefits of completion, and there can be many other such hoops players are expected to jump through depending on the quest system in general. This form of compartmentalization and isolationist game play means you only see or meet people before or after a quest in centralized staging areas. Pardon me, but that's LAME, if I wanted to have such an experience I could go stand in line in Kmart.
Anyhow If you've gotten this far, and not completely destroyed your keyboard in a fit of rage at my comments, shaken your head in utter disgust or just plain given up on my idiocy I invite a response if your eyes are not bleeding. I hope you've taken no offense, and if you have I do apologize.
Quote:
Anyhow If you've gotten this far, and not completely destroyed your keyboard in a fit of rage at my comments, shaken your head in utter disgust or just plain given up on my idiocy I invite a response if your eyes are not bleeding.
LOL
No, none taken, and none intended for my part either.
Believe me I am on your side. It drives me up the wall to not see another game like SB out there... but the simple fact is, SB was a risky gamble which worked for a while, and ended up with Wolfpack Studios closing down.
I'd challenge anyone to say the industry hasn't been creative. Sure, there are lots of clones but there are also lots of unique ideas. Not all are successful or popular, and we certainly have not done enough to build on the successes that are already out there.
Mankind rarely takes massive leaps forward in improving life. More often, someone takes a massive chunk of technology and refines it slightly to make it a little better.
We haven't even done that yet.
So from a consumer standpoint, you're absolutely right... for the product that is on the shelf, developers are failing consumers. This is why across the board everyone is re-assessing what sort of entertainment service to provide and how best to do it.
You are also right about risk v reward. Every developer wants all of the features that you mention. But just because they want it does not mean it will be completed, and even if it is, there is no guarantee that it will be any good when it is complete (ahem... Vanguard).
That's nothing to say of the investment that is required to make it. There's a lot of capital that goes into that fourth, fifth, and even sixth year of development, and people want to know where their money is going.
Ten to twenty million in capital is nothing today. It gets eaten up very quickly, and it has to be used judiciously. It's also the base end of what an MMO takes to be developed (this is aside from advertising, box costs, PR, network bandwidth and support costs, etc.) There HAS to be a return on that investment, and the reason I mentioned questionable products is because a lot more "safe" concepts get canceled for a lot lower budget. It's a live or die situation for many studios.
Anyway we are all on the same side. Wanting to create the games that people want to play and actually delivering on them is just much more of a beast than anyone ever realized.
Sometimes I can barely believe we get the damn things to turn on lol...
It's funny you mention that, Lev. Just the other day I was reading this powerpoint that was presented at the GDC a few weeks ago:
http://www.netdevil.com/news/article.php?id=681They mention a lot of what you were speaking about, from how now the average cost of an mmo is around 40 million, to the return on capital (apparently 95% of mmos don't make back the initial investment,) and all the aspects that truly go into making and keeping an mmo running.
What is it that you do at NC, exactly?
Agreed, much of what I see is that for every attempt to create something special a company ends up in the long run finding it biting off more then they can chew. In an attempt to create everything hoped for, they end up creating nothing, case in point Tabula Rasa or Vanguard.
Quote:
That's nothing to say of the investment that is required to make it. There's a lot of capital that goes into that fourth, fifth, and even sixth year of development, and people want to know where their money is going.
My point here is that if companies stopped dumping money into cloning technologies then they would stop the bleeding as it were, and there by be able to use that money for truly revolutionary or evolutionary works. If you don't spend money on a trend driven game you have that much more money to work with to produce a high quality ground breaking technology and one that won't sit and flounder in a sea full of mediocrity and failure.
This medium is participating in a flooded market, and the consumer is not able to respond to the growing multitudes of clone type products and there fore many games are crashing and burning, unable to recoup their losses in such a massive grave yard that has become MMO's of today.
New stratagems are required financially by these design houses, as well as new ideologies surrounding development. Unfortunately though it seems as if these companies would rather commit economic suicide by building a game that is doomed to failure due to it's similarities and send it forth unto the world with cumbersome overly developed logistical support and massively expensive continued operational forecasts then to use this capital for a more innovative approach.
Of course as you have said, we are all hoping for the same things, in the end it is left up to a select few, namely big business suit wearing types who may or may not be gamers at heart to make the calls. Those who own or run the company may have less information about what is really happening on the ground level then those who are building and creating the game. While I have no doubts about those like yourself Leverett, I do have some misgivings about your Bosses Bosses Boss 
"MMORPG what's that? Oh we can make money like Blizzard has? Well in that case lets do that."
Quote:
It's funny you mention that, Lev. Just the other day I was reading this powerpoint that was presented at the GDC a few weeks ago:
http://www.netdevil.com/news/article.php?id=681
They mention a lot of what you were speaking about, from how now the average cost of an mmo is around 40 million, to the return on capital (apparently 95% of mmos don't make back the initial investment,) and all the aspects that truly go into making and keeping an mmo running.
What is it that you do at NC, exactly?
Pardon the double post, but what I see from that powerpoint read is ways in which companies can take advantage of the consumers ignorance to justify getting more money, or ways in which to capitalize on a current trend and amplify larger budgets by delivering on a games outward cosmetics or marketing and consumers habitual natures for impulse spending and high visual entertainment needs. With such negative focuses but without all of the real work needed to improve future gaming.
I understand the money companies are looking to receive from more investors, advertisers, or business partners will in some small part be used to build a game and/or increase a budget for said game or it's team. Unfortunately I feel that the money will just be recycled back into the same economic stratagem and that is a FAIL, at least in the eyes of gamers who have become weary and disgruntled toward clone and trend gaming. How many games does KGB plan on going through to find the perfect gaming experience? How often will a gamer be required to displace him or her self? How much money will we all be prepared to spend? How many game boxes do you have on your bookshelf that you no longer play or play rarely? In the realm of MMO's, why did you stop playing those games?
When you start asking those questions of yourself is when you realize the industry is sick and the current methods in use for either design or play are not beneficial or entertaining. This is also when you begin playing or buying games more for the social reasons then for any other. To stay connected to those you have grown to know or admire is the only real positive to come out of gaming thus far, unfortunately it could be so much more...
I am manager of what is called Game Support. I oversee all of the in-game monitoring, regulation, and administration of our products. If someone is cheating, hacking, stealing, botting, cursing, or if anyone needs a GM (Game Master) for any reason... my team is the one that you would call.
It's a fun job to be honest. A GM's job is involved with a little bit of everything... marketing, testing, design, business, support, operations, etc. We have the opportunity to work with every group on every game, and it's a good platform for my guys to move up in the industry.
I started back in 1997 on Ultima Online, and my first KGB experience was with Jetstar on Pacific who had called about another guild that was cheating.
(I'll answer the rest when I get some time at home this weekend... there are things that the game industry needs to do better at, but also some very practical reasons about why it is the way it is.)
My other two points:
1) The market is always the judge, jury and executioner.
2) Discussing game mechanics and features on paper is completely theoretical and academic. Getting it out the door is a wholly different beast.
Why are there so many clones right now? It's because that's what the market wants. We in KGB may not like that (in fact we find it rather distateful!), but we also aren't the audience that makes up the mainstream market.
It is, however, to the point now, though, that the market is becoming saturated, and that stirs up initiative and creativity amongst content creators.
As for the second point, I can't stress how many developers have set out to create full-featured games only to see them limp out the door as half-complete, poorly constructed shells of what they could have been. Making a game is expensive, and difficult, and that's just working on the core fundamentals of what an MMO should be, such as character creation, missions/questing, and working basic client/server tech.
I don't believe anyone would argue that the industry needs to create and deliver better products, but I am not certain it's due to a lack of creativity or desire. There are some very smart folks putting out clever products everywhere... some work out, some do not. It's a terrible thing to see features get slashed out of a product, or worse, for a game to fail, but blaming that on a lack of foresight or initiative does not really take into account all of the pressures and realities that developers and publishers have to deal with.
I say we force everyone to play one game and then have them all send me their money and their wives.....if they are hot.....um.........nevermind.
I am waiting for AOC.....
This is my first post here, but I've enjoyed reading this thread. Clearly something some feel passionate about.
What I'd say about the topic is close to what Leverett said in his last post. "Why are there so many clones right now? It's because that's what the market wants...we also aren't the audience that makes up the mainstream market."
A lot of people I know just played single-player games before Blizzard decided to make something for the masses. In a way, how bad it even may sound, right now we have WoW to thank for the attention of the MMO genre. (I didn't say it's the right kind of attention, but it's a start)
Before WoW, I think EQ had about 500k people and that was considered to be about max a MMO could get. But now all bets are off.
Imo developers are indeed getting squishy when it comes to new ideas. However the pressure they're getting from their bosses to deliver must be immense these days. This French proverb depicts their problem: "It might be good in practical terms but in theory it will never work."
And as we all know a succesful businessmodel (theory) is what the money providers ask for these days.
But there's a second problem that I haven't seen come by much here. And that problem is...US.
We are the ones that demand new things. We demand stronger and better challenges. We demand, and expect to get what we want.
But that's the line between rl and in-game. It's here that we should realise, that as we want more and better, those 2 WILL get into conflict. I very much doubt we'll get another shock & awe experience before we get dna-based computers in combination with VR.
But does that mean we can't have fun in the meantime? Definitely not! I have a lot of fun with friends in whatever MMO I like. For me it's the combo of a game I find fun + my friends to play it with. I'm happy to stick with that for now.
However that doesn't mean I'm not crossing my fingers for something way out of left field that might blow me away.
I agree, it's always been my belief, a belief I've often preached about many times in the past, that gaming suffers at the hands of human nature. It is and has always been our own fickle tendencies to drive innovation to provide us with what we want. It is that primal psychological aspect of social interaction and community which dictates our passions, and in a gaming related context this is why the industry has been following the current trend. To provide what they think the larger majority wants based on sales figures and mass appeal.
Unfortunately just because 9 Million subscribers have bought into a specific idea or design element doesn't necessarily make it the best. The fact is many people that have ascribed to the notion that World of Warcraft is the pinnacle of game design only feeds the misconception that all games should be made this way, and ultimately most of these 9 million people do not have much gaming experience or mechanical understanding to know better. To realize these games have more potential as a social device or community resource then as just a loot fest dress up game.
Morphic sway rooms, virtual reality, and graphical interfaces will come with time as technologies improve at the steady pace we've all come to expect. Unfortunately the question begging to be asked is will human nature ever evolve past what it currently is and keep the same pace? Doubtful, the technological singularity in relation to Moore's Law does not specifically prove that mankind's ability to grow psychologically will match the growth of his intellect. Emotionally speaking mankind is fragile, and this means we invariantly build fragility into everything we make and anything we act upon.
There is lots of room to play here though. Lets look at the numbers.
A game with just 100,000 subscribers makes $1,000,000 per month. Thats nothing to shake a stick at. 500,000 subscribers is $5,000,000 a month or $60,000,000 a year.
I think that many folks had WOW as their first MMO experience. They have never experiences what we all long for here. Real open PVP like what Darkfall is offering. I think that a real challenge like that is the only thing that can hold interest over the long haul. Time wiull tell.
Depends... there is really a fundamental difference between
a MMCOAG (massivly multiplayer co-op aquisition game) like WoW and a "Sandbox" like DFO. UO was the first "sandbox"
and EQ generally the first MMCOAG.
EQ did better than UO, for a variety of reasons and became the most copied model. But even though we all call them MMO,
they are really so fundamentally different in what they try to achieve that we should really start thinking of them as different genres.
My updated Lexicon:
MMCOAG : massivly multiplayer co-op aquisition game
Games in this genre generally focus around large, complex challenges meant to be tackled with a diverse group.
This genre offers a unified, persistant game world, and typically continually adds new challenges. This game can have PvP, but the PvP usually operates within the same overall context as the rest of the game: as a large group activity , basically just another type of challenge - but for this challenge, player groups compete in a structured fashion, generally for some type of "rewards"
Games in this genre: WoW, Warhammer, DAOC, EQ, L2
-------------------------------------------------------
PLAAG : Persistantly Linked Area/Arena Game
A PLAAG game is a game where your player/account exists in the context of a much larger community, however actual play
exists in an "area" or an "arena". Highly structured, the game revolves around pre-determined challenges, but operates in a completely "instanced" environment. The difference between a PLAAG and a MMCOAG boils down mostly to the intended "hook", that is: the main focus of the game - a PLAAG will typically focus on the main mechanic "usually combat" while a MMCOAG focuses primarily on continual character advancement.
It is interesting to note, that while Guildwars is the most
thought-of PLAAG , newer FPS games such as COD4, BF2 and others also arguably qualify for this genre - as experience is gained, new items are unlocked for XP/completing missions
and or challenges.
Games : Guildwars , NWN Persistant communities, COD4, Planetside
------------------------------------------------------
Persistant Sandbox, or just "Sandbox" : A Sandbox is designed to provide an environment - as opposed to a structured content path, or a combat arena. The game is defined by its lack of definition, and exists , in its purest form as a "world simulation". UO was the first and best known, and at least at its inception even attempted to include complex ecosystems regulating things like reagent drops and mobile spawns.
The "hook" of a Sandbox game, is more or less that of having an alternative ego. Given real choice, its possible to create a real "character" and roleplay it as an idependant entity. It is also possible to engage in much deeper gameplay mechanics.
Sandbox are the most "social" of the games, because other users actions can directly affect the rest of the user base.
Sandbox games, usually exist as this social interaction being the main "hook" and focus of development.
Games: UO, EVE, Second Life
About what Drakiis was saying, sure, WoW brought a large number of players to the genre. Of the ones that were already playing MMOs though, I think WoW's success and appeal was timing more than the quality of their game. Except for EVE (which is pretty old itself, 2002?) every game out there with better gameplay than WoW is just far too old. The players have rolled and rerolled characters on them too many times to count.
And yeah, Jet is absolutely right, and that's why so many games are trying to just find a niche rather than be WoW-killers now. A few games like LotR tried and failed miserably. Games are better off catering to their couple thousand subscribers, and making a nice profit that way. Look at EVE, they've slowly been expanding their subscriber base since release, just recently they broke a concurrent-user record, they hit something like 27k, so let's say they have 60k members, that's about $900k a month, and they've been at it for six years or so now... that's a whole lot of mulah.
Actually I think the official number is around 250k subscribers. Their concurrent-user record typically reflects the state of their hardware, every time they upgrade hardware and/or software efficiency, the record goes up a notch.
Unfortunatly EVE, while a great game, doesnt hold my interest. I love the concept, but the play style just doesnt mesh well with my psychological profile. In other words, I have immense respect, and appreciate alot of the features.. its just not something I really enjoy playing- mostly due to
time/pacing issues.
If only games could be broken down into specific categories such as those Derid speaks of it would make internet gaming a far easier thing to understand for both those of us seeking pvp and those of us who are not.
I'd like to see game companies start using this as a way to build specific gaming communities, and as a way to find and build games for those specific groups of people.
If games had PvP, PvE, RvR, or some other such classification printed on the box it might be able to target those specific groups and deliver a quality experience for those people seeking such type of game. However I do not think they would do this because of the idea that one it's exclusive, and elitist, two it would seriously deflate the sales figures, three the design aspect and practicality.
They do really - you can pretty easily infer what category a game will fit in. A sandbox will always be touting player freedom, choices and talking about stuff you can do that effects the world.
MMCOAGs will always be talking about the gfx, content, and things the developers have set up for you to do.
PAAG games will always be talking about their combat system/etc
Its pretty easy to tell that Warhammer and AoC will be MMCOAG, Darkfall is a Sandbox and GW2 will likely be a PLAAG.
Quote:
They do really - you can pretty easily infer what category a game will fit in. A sandbox will always be touting player freedom, choices and talking about stuff you can do that effects the world.
MMCOAGs will always be talking about the gfx, content, and things the developers have set up for you to do.
PAAG games will always be talking about their combat system/etc
Its pretty easy to tell that Warhammer and AoC will be MMCOAG, Darkfall is a Sandbox and GW2 will likely be a PLAAG.
They don't specifically tag thier game with such "ratings" though, they imply a great deal, but do not plainly state as such so as not to exclude anyone. Nor do they design said games with these sorts of classifications in mind, and eventually most games will tack on such aspects later to improve sales in a specific area that the game was not originally designed with. Which in the end leaves said games woefully weak overall when compared to a game designed from the ground up with one of the aboves features. Either way, the point is that many games currently lack trend dumping innovation, especially in pvp and need to start looking at developing community around the game with social aspects in place to enhance the community and foster dynamic player driven content.
""Nor do they design said games with these sorts of classifications in mind, and eventually most games will tack on such aspects later to improve sales in a specific area that the game was not originally designed with. Which in the end leaves said games woefully weak overall when compared to a game designed from the ground up with one of the aboves features""
Exactly.
Thats the point. Its easy to tell what a game really is, regardless of whether they label it such, in their own minds or to the public.
Once you know what it is, you can usually tell what aspects will get dev time, what the devs will likely actually care about in the game, which aspects will get top priority - and just as telling - what type of players they will want to cater to when various groups start whining.
Its just one way to identify the underlying philosophy a game is created with. All games have an underlying philosophy, all devs have a type of game they want their players to play. If not in specific terms, at least from a general subjective perspective.
This is good and natural, and to be expected - and typically the games that execute best on their core philosophy are the ones that enjoy the most success.
But once I know a game is, at heart, a MMCOAG - I know its not for me long term - no matter what nifty trappings they disguise it with.