We need a company like HBO developing MMO's

[Llewen]

We need a company that isn't afraid to make an MMO for adults. That doesn't let fear of offending someone compromise their art, because MMO's are an art form. It's about time some game studio started treating the medium like the art form it is, and less like the MacDonald's franchise empire, where everything is designed to be as addictive as possible, and as bland and inoffensive as possible.

 

[Zosimus]

There are games out there already. It's just UO and it is what it is You can always try another game if you are not happy with the current one you choose to play.

 

[Llewen]

There are games out there already. It's just UO and it is what it is You can always try another game if you are not happy with the current one you choose to play.

This wasn't so much a comment on UO, I happen to love UO, it was just a general comment on the state of the industry. I suppose I can think of two MMO's out there that might fall into the "HBO" category...

I don't know though. I want to walk down a cramped back alley in a medieval city and have to dodge the sewage being tossed out of the upper windows. I want to there to be diseases, and prostitutes, and homeless people, and children that will pick your pockets.

In short, I want a world that lives and breaths, that is original, interesting, and has real depth.

 

[Zosimus]

Please dont tell me a "R" rated version of the sims. lol

 

[Llewen]

I edited as I am prone to do. You might want to read the rest of my post... or not...

 

[WarderDragon]

The Ultima Series was once just that.

Once.

 

[Zosimus]

I edited as I am prone to do. You might want to read the rest of my post... or not...

LOL sorry to late since you had added onto it. I know what you mean though. There is a game being made (now and hopefully out by this year) that will have some of that realism to it.

 

[Llewen]

The Ultima Series was once just that.

Once.

You're right, it was once, and the original vision for Ultima Online was in that same spirit once.

And I don't want anyone to get onto the tangent of a "classic shard". I suppose Siege Perilous is as close to that original UO vision as we have now, but I want more. I really truly do want more. I want an MMO to teach me things that I didn't know, in terms of the historical context of the game. I want it to make me think, to challenge me, not only in terms of game play, but intellectually, emotionally and spiritually as well.

LOL sorry to late since you had added onto it. I know what you mean though. There is a game being made (now and hopefully out by this year) that will have some of that realism to it.

If you could pm me a link to that, I'd be grateful.

 

[Raptor85]

The Ultima Series was once just that.

Once.

Lol, not only that, it sounds like what he wants is UO before they decided to trash what was a lot of players favorite aspects of the game and get a T rating, you know, to draw in those massive numbers of young kids that's the core of the MMO market those days. (they were just clawing and waiting to start playing uo, all they needed was that lower rating to talk their parents into it, right???? /sarc )

 

[PitrGri]

The Witcher.

 

[Zosimus]

Message sent.

 

[Nok]

The Ultima Series was once just that.

Ditto, when UO was first released it had a Mature ESRB rating.

Llewen, I would say there are already an HBO-like game developers out there... such as BioWare and Rockstar. Have you played any of the Mass Effect series or the Dragon Age series from BioWare? Aside from the gameplay and graphics, both have heralded and won many awards for plot, storyline, and character development... and in a HBO-like way, both have had their share of controversy over it.

When most people think of Rockstar, they think of the Grand Theft Auto franchise... controversial for it's violent gameplay, but not a groundbreaker in storyline or character development. But more recently, Rockstar first set a new high with Red Dead Redemption... not only did it have great gameplay and graphics, but also brought the Western genre with storyline and character development.

And just a couple of months ago Rockstar vastly raised the bar again with the launch of LA Noire... which is finally proof that games can rival and surpass film as a complete experience. LA Noire is receiving huge critical acclaim not only from players, the gaming industry and media... but also outside of gaming, such as film & TV media, Wall Street, conservancy & historical groups, etc.

Just as Uncharted (the game) is in early development as a film... there is also serious talk about bringing BioWare's Mass Effect and Rockstar's LA Noire to film audiences.

Rumor has it that a MMO might be in Rockstar's future. BioWare has Star Wars: The Old Republic (a MMO) in the works. The question for gamers about SW:TOR is, will it in addition to being a great MMO... have the plot, storyline and character development that BioWare is famous for?

I believe if SW:TOR does have all that... it will be a popular hit.

 

[PitrGri]

enjoy...


‪The Witcher - Final Boss + Ending [HD]‬‏ - YouTube

 

[Triberius]

I don't know though. I want to walk down a cramped back alley in a medieval city and have to dodge the sewage being tossed out of the upper windows. I want to there to be diseases, and prostitutes, and homeless people, and children that will pick your pockets.

In short, I want a world that lives and breaths, that is original, interesting, and has real depth.

Reminds me of some of the countries I've visited...

 

[Uvtha]

I think the kind of game you are looking for would never fly. People want a game, not a world, sad as that is.

Even if it would be profitable a game with so much detail would be a real real hard thing to do well. Not only the creativity of the concept and initial design, but the proper expansion. Seems like a real tall order.

 

[Ender]

If they could make an MMO based on A Song of Ice and Fire and do it well, I would subscribe to that so fast.

Seems like I won't be playing SW:TOR though. Star Wars: The Old Republic Preview | bit-gamer.net

 

[Zosimus]

This is the one Im definetly waiting for


‪GuildWarsCommunity's Channel‬‏ - YouTube

 

[Ender]

This is the one Im definetly waiting for


‪GuildWarsCommunity's Channel‬‏ - YouTube

YES

I can't wait for Guild Wars 2. I played the first for hundreds, if not thousands of hours. 2, from what the developers have stated, is to be so much more immersive. My life will disappear.

 

[Nok]

Seems like I won't be playing SW:TOR though. Star Wars: The Old Republic Preview | bit-gamer.net

That's okay, I'll try it for you.

Gotta love 4 month old reviews of an unreleased beta product that still at least another 4 to 6 months from launch assuming the open beta goes well and doesn't cause any delays.

 

[Ender]

That's okay, I'll try it for you.

Gotta love 4 month old reviews of an unreleased beta product that still at least another 4 to 6 months from launch assuming the open beta goes well and doesn't cause any delays.

3 months old.

And the problems they had with it don't seem like they would change from beta to release.

 

[Zosimus]

YES

I can't wait for Guild Wars 2. I played the first for hundreds, if not thousands of hours. 2, from what the developers have stated, is to be so much more immersive. My life will disappear.

Ditto. I still play GW. GW2 getting rid of quests and changing to the dynamic events and how you make your story is going to be epic. The world PvP I cant even describe in words how great that will be.

 

[Jonathan Baron]

For those of you who are either game developers or who attended GDC, Brian Moriarty gave one of his typically fascinating lectures a year or so ago......this time on the subject of games as art.

GDC lecture: 'An Apology for Roger Ebert' | Game Development | News by Develop

Although I've loved Moriarty GDC talks for going on 15 years, they are more thought provoking than relevant.

For this medium it can seem rather simple if your entire exposure to the large scale, client/sever online game is restricted to the offerings on a single network, the Internet. There were, I maintain, more cunning efforts preceding UO that never made it over the wall due to the race to find The Formula to take online gaming mainstream. As World of Warcraft was the best summary of a decade of leveling games that preceded it, UO was a brilliant summary of the decade preceding it.

UO stands alone as the best embodiment of the original vision:

1. Create an immersive digital world
   
2. Seed it with game systems that stimulate human motivation and create motive friction and the heat of conflict
   
3. Provide player driven social systems to convert the heat into light
   
4. Interfere as little as possible in the day to day activities of players - keep it a narrative told by the audience.
   
5. Add more content on a regular basis and fix your mistakes

The base assumption was a player life cycle limited only by the life span of the player.

The most startling difference between early online games and their stand alone counterparts was that the fans of the former were looking for spouses, not dates or f*ck buddies. Players sticking with a single online game for a decade or more was commonplace and that informed the approach taken in their ongoing development.

Now the dominant model is reminiscent of AOL's original successful business model: if you put everything into acquisition and almost nothing into retention you will acquire more than ten times the paying subs and still manage to keep them for an average of three years, with more arriving than leaving. That was the new definition of winning. AOL ultimately failed but for other reasons entirely.

This is the WoW model too. WoW expansions may look like retention tools but they're actually aimed at acquisition. The proof is the game play. You run your course, expansions or no, in about three years. There's nothing truly new after that. It works. It's successful. The medium moved on.

To folks like Llewen and many of you this meant something else: the games became juvenile.

As UO finally delivered the online game to everyone, not just subscribers of pricey online services with high hourly connect fees, WoW delivered it to even a broader definition of everyone. You know what I'm saying

The Long Tail Theory of the Internet - the one that asserted that the Internet audience was so vast that even at its tail it provided enough people to support products that would have seemed too esoteric to survive previously - has not proven true for online games. They cost too much to make and maintain: more certainly than a series on HBO.

So I'm simply going to enjoy this game while it lasts.
-

 

[Ender]

I dunno man, some HBO series cost tons of money. One season of Game of Thrones had a budget of more than 50 million.

 

[Jonathan Baron]

WoW cost 100 million and that was some years ago.

Want to guess what the upcoming Bioware Star Wars title will end up costing?

Yeah, Ender.....it escalated FAST. I doubt the original UO cost a million.

That was what threw that whole Long Tail Theory in the toilet for this medium at least. Other than RuneScape, which reached over 1,000,000 subs on a tiny budget, there are no online game success stories to compare with film Indies, much less any parallel along the lines of a Blair Witch Project.

Costs too much just to make those pixels dance, alas.

 

[Llewen]

I dunno man, some HBO series cost tons of money. One season of Game of Thrones had a budget of more than 50 million.

The costs for that kind of series, and a contemporary MMO are certainly comparable. I can't confirm it but I have read that the development costs for RIFT were in the order of 50 million. Now when you read those numbers you don't know if that includes costs such as advertising, and with an MMO there are ongoing maintenance and development costs.

Having said that, I'd have to say that with a few possible exceptions, Jonathan is correct. It costs more to develop an MMO now than it does to develop your typical television series. The development costs for MMO's are approaching those of a typical summer blockbuster movie shot with the latest technology and special effects.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

wow Johnathan ... nice speech as wrong as it is ...

Originally Posted by Jonathan Baron
For those of you who are either game developers or who attended GDC, Brian Moriarty gave one of his typically fascinating lectures a year or so ago......this time on the subject of games as art.

GDC lecture: 'An Apology for Roger Ebert' | Game Development | News by Develop

Although I've loved Moriarty GDC talks for going on 15 years, they are more thought provoking than relevant.

Sorry Johnathan ... t'was Quite "relevant" definitive even:

Nowhere in 25 centuries of philosophy did I find a single author who regarded games or sports as a form of art.
When they're mentioned at all, they're dismissed as a pastime. Harmless at best, an evil destroyer of youth at worst.
goes to and delivers a critical hit of summation there <in context> of the argument (watch the "art of baseball?")

For this medium it can seem rather simple if your entire exposure to the large scale, client/sever online game is restricted to the offerings on a single network, the Internet. There were, I maintain, more cunning efforts preceding UO that never made it over the wall due to the race to find The Formula to take online gaming mainstream. As World of Warcraft was the best summary of a decade of leveling games that preceded it, UO was a brilliant summary of the decade preceding it.

"The internet" >is NOT< a single network.
"brilliant"? please ... as you noted: there were MANY other games seeking to be released ... were they "stupid" to give up? ... nope ... they merely never gained traction, the moment, the markets eye ...
and there is no quantifiable ""race to find The Formula to take online gaming mainstream"" that (as you presented) was an actual CAUSE of their "failure"
One could say that they were just unwilling to release a buggy product ... neh?

UO stands alone as the best embodiment of the original vision:

Create an immersive digital world

Okay, that they did do ... an immersive Pastime hobby of time wasting

Seed it with game systems that stimulate human motivation and create motive friction and the heat of conflict

Again, done ... a "copy" however of Skinner boxes ... and we the grand players are pecking keys for virtual corn kernels called pixels ... and are as entertaining to "watch" AS the Tic-Tac-Toe chicken at the carnival ... only for a short time though ...
its a CARNIVAL ... other games/things to see (goes to market/lifespan) ...

Provide player driven social systems to convert the heat into light

Gonna call Fail there ..."Player Justice" <<< could have been "a light" ... didn't happen though ... now did it?
Factions? Order/ Chaos? Guild Alliances? EM events?
Granted ...they "work" SomeWhat ... but ... the "friction" is primarily from the BUGGY BUGS within them THEN throw in the players ... nah! fail

Interfere as little as possible in the day to day activities of players - keep it a narrative told by the audience.

Fail again, The Devs are tasked with providing the large scale content ... the "narrative" that does exist is on small RPG guild scale, >only<, and the Grand scale arcs ... well ... obviously you ain't been >in game< with an eye on what has happened ... killing the community of brit bank with an ill timed and presented "invasion" would be my first example ...
Or a deserved backhand at the LACK of what was once Quality and informed GM support ... AFTER Seers/counselors >blew up<
Or just to coup de grace it: Have the Devs listened to and FOLLOWED player beta suggestions? *ahem*

Add more content on a regular basis and fix your mistakes

please ... you really lost track of what you lead into that sentence with ... didn'tcha?
*points up* best embodiment of the original vision ... yeah ... fail

The base assumption was a player life cycle limited only by the life span of the player.

/Incomplete
Players that had ENOUGH time TO waste ... is missing there ... enough players with enough time and money to waste that ALSO covered costs and showed a profit; and I'll submit that UO is at "a plateau" ... just enough payed subs to cover costs

The most startling difference between early online games and their stand alone counterparts was that the fans of the former were looking for spouses, not dates or f*ck buddies. Players sticking with a single online game for a decade or more was commonplace and that informed the approach taken in their ongoing development.

close ... but ... single player games are by extraction then: pocket pals ... and a mere question of preference of "public" or "private" >time wasting< ... k?
and I'll merely question the assertion about "a decade or more was commonplace " ... I think not

Now the dominant model is reminiscent of AOL's original successful business model: if you put everything into acquisition and almost nothing into retention you will acquire more than ten times the paying subs and still manage to keep them for an average of three years, with more arriving than leaving. That was the new definition of winning. AOL ultimately failed but for other reasons entirely.

math check: more arriving than leaving = churn = continuous growth ... yes?

This is the WoW model too. WoW expansions may look like retention tools but they're actually aimed at acquisition. The proof is the game play. You run your course, expansions or no, in about three years. There's nothing truly new after that. It works. It's successful. The medium moved on.

*shakes finger*
Are you flatly stating that WOW has no "beta-vets"? three years and out >would seem so< ... and that I seriously doubt ...
Bound to be some seriously addicted time wasters ... mmmm ... I'll say a half million would do ... to keep a wow presence up and running After UO's title of "longest lived"
just saying ... I've been UO for 11+ years ... and though >I won't< I know many others will "get their fix" on freeshards ...
And while I would >object< that free shards ain't "official UO" ... just because it ain't sanctioned by some "authority" ... doesn't mean I can't find a high stakes game of poker ... and PLAY IN IT ... see?
Time and money >waster< ... 'member?

To folks like Llewen and many of you this meant something else: the games became juvenile.

nope ... again ... "the game" is what it is(time waster) ...
I could easily argue that >the child in those players "died" ... lost interest ...<
the game (to borrow your analogy) got dumped for cheating on them, not paying enough attention to them, not listening to them, broke its promise "till death do us part" ...>it did NOT<
but that has been and will remain "their story" and they Will Stick With that to their death
just so that: they don't admit to a "rage quit" ... heh!
who broke their keyboard? who screamed at a clerk on the phone?
-the game made them-

As UO finally delivered the online game to everyone, not just subscribers of pricey online services with high hourly connect fees, WoW delivered it to even a broader definition of everyone. You know what I'm saying

The Long Tail Theory of the Internet - the one that asserted that the Internet audience was so vast that even at its tail it provided enough people to support products that would have seemed too esoteric to survive previously - has not proven true for online games. They cost too much to make and maintain: more certainly than a series on HBO.

*whew!* I think most will know whats coming at this point ...
let's play a game and check your summations:
The Long Tail Theory of the Internet >did not< guarantee that All Games would "survive"
JUST that some MIGHT
The Long Tail Theory of the Internet Is True: UO >is here<
The Long Tail Theory of the Internet >does not< say anything more than the >possibility< exists for esoteric survival
NOT >how long that survival may be<
See for example: The Realm Online, Meridian 59, Furcadia,Tibia, Kingdom of the Wind

So I'm simply going to enjoy this game while it lasts.
-

Bravo! and Brava! Carry on Good Sirrah! Well met and Fare thee well ! >sincerely< (I say that rarely and so: it carries quite an import)

If you've some time to waste ... might I suggest "A Quest"?
you certainly seem suited for it (knowledgeable and well reasoned and writ)

Consider:
Popps "Lost boat"
You may design your assistance as you desire
the goal(end game) is of course: return of the boat to owner
the "pay off" of course: is also as you may design it (personal satisfaction, riddle solved, ransom it for rl cash ... *shrugs* wh't'v'r)
You may choose to "quest" from many directions ... going online to badger GM's, going to landline calls to CS ... etc
You may choose to simply go in game and search (au solo)
you may choose to "round up a posse" and do a grid based pattern
you may choose to offer a bounty to the shard in question (or enlist (if present)) the local Chapter of the FCB (fishing council of brittania) >as an event<

I chose to ponder on how the code maybe broke, While retraining and resetting my macros for the steering the shore lines (at first) and have moved onto a search of the edges (of the map)
The code (as you probably know) >maybe< broke in any of several ways
the "broke rune" problem >maybe< a false lead (could be rune, boat, or server reset, or all three)
it maybe that some ships are "lost" in a green acres like "extra dimension" or a server line glitch concealing it from "sight"
(mentioned because "I saw" steps into a cave that ... really weren't there ... *holds cheek* oh! My! a >phantom< )

all that is without considering "pebcak"(mentioned in thread)

What say you sirrah? there is a game a-foot ... got some time to waste?

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

WoW cost 100 million and that was some years ago.

Want to guess what the upcoming Bioware Star Wars title will end up costing?

Yeah, Ender.....it escalated FAST. I doubt the original UO cost a million.

That was what threw that whole Long Tail Theory in the toilet for this medium at least. Other than RuneScape, which reached over 1,000,000 subs on a tiny budget, there are no online game success stories to compare with film Indies, much less any parallel along the lines of a Blair Witch Project.

Costs too much just to make those pixels dance, alas.

poppycrack shenanigans !!!
"Game design" DOES NOT >require< millions
'tis childs play
annnnd a little luck, timing and stumbling into a "current mood" ... see above

nuff said !

 

[Llewen]

poppycrack shenanigans !!!
"Game design" DOES NOT >require< millions
'tis childs play
annnnd a little luck, timing and stumbling into a "current mood" ... see above

nuff said !

Fayled, you aren't half as smart as you think you are. Jonathan Baron is an industry insider here, with decades of experience in game development under his belt. If I have to choose who to believe between an industry insider, and a self inflated bag of wind, I'll take the industry insider every time...

There is no comparing the development costs of a simple smart phone app, and a full blown, contemporary MMO.

 

[Ender]

Fayled, you aren't half as smart as you think you are. Jonathan Baron is an industry insider here, with decades of experience in game development under his belt. If I have to choose who to believe between an industry insider, and a self inflated bag of wind, I'll take the industry insider every time...

There is no comparing the development costs of a simple smart phone app, and a full blown, contemporary MMO.

Not to mention his posts are near unreadable.

Fayled what is your first language?

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Fayled, you aren't half as smart as you think you are. Jonathan Baron is an industry insider here, with decades of experience in game development under his belt. If I have to choose who to believe between an industry insider, and a self inflated bag of wind, I'll take the industry insider every time...

There is no comparing the development costs of a simple smart phone app, and a full blown, contemporary MMO.

hush!
"We" err wait YOU(op) are talking >game design< ... yes?
The kid did one and you haven't claimed to ... so
I'll listen to him over you ...

besides ... you just said you >would< take an insiders word ...
I'm in what industry?

 

[Woodsman]

much less any parallel along the lines of a Blair Witch Project.

Angry Birds would probably be the most widely known game comparison to something like Blair Witch - a very small staff and a huge amount of profits. Even then there were thousands of people and development teams shooting for that kind of success and few achieved it. I personally know of several, small projects, in some cases 2-3 man teams, that have been wildly successfully in making iPhone apps, but it's hard to say how long that will last, because the big companies are throwing their weight behind mobile gaming even as iPhones and Androids become more powerful, and those companies will eventually crowd many developers out. Still, there is plenty of success to be had since the platform is still conducive to small teams.

Earlier this year, EA shifted a part of their overall model to a lot more social networking-style and mobile games or games that could benefit from that, even reviving the Sims Online in the process. The social networking-style games are a lot cheaper and easier to development since the social networking side of things is already done.

On the stand-alone side of things, they are focusing on far fewer titles that make more money/profit per title, rather than having a mix of bigger titles and medium and smaller titles. I was actually worried about UO not fitting into that, but apparently it's profitable enough for them to keep it around and even make an attempt at growing its playerbase, albeit a very slow attempt. Also UO and Camelot are good buffers for Star Wars.

If Star Wars fails though, it's going to really shake up the industry. By all accounts it should succeed - it's Star Wars, the Clone Wars cartoons are popular, the original Star Wars movies are being released on Blu-Ray as well as back in theaters. The Star Wars fanboys are definitely going to be in nirvana over the next two years. Also it's a Star Wars title made by BioWare which gives it a huge pre-existing fanbase. And EA appears to be giving it the breathing room needed to finish it and polish it rather than push it out the door. It probably helps that the later it's released, the closer it will be to the Star Wars movies being released in 3D in the theaters. I wouldn't be surprised if there are trailers for Star Wars: TOR running with the Star Wars movies in theaters, or if there are inserts within the Star Wars Blu-ray packs for Star Wars: TOR.

 

[Zosimus]

For sake of any more discussion on apps vs MMO's which is like comapring apples and oranges..........


14-Year-Old's 'Bubble Ball' App Knocks 'Angry Birds' Out Of Top Spot

Bubble Ball, a physics puzzle game, knocked the smash hit game Angry Birds out of its top spot on the Apple App Store's list of most popular free apps.

While Angry Birds was created by a 17-person company based in Finland, Bubble Ball is the work of 14-year-old Robert Nay, an eighth grader living in Spanish Fork, Utah, who taught himself how to program and created his first website while in third grade.

His company, Nay Games, launched an iOS version of the app on December 29 and its popularity in the App Store quickly skyrocketed. As ABC News reports, "during the past two weeks, his free game 'Bubble Ball' has been downloaded more than 2 million times."
All Things Digital explains how Nay learned the skills needed to create the app:

Some months back, a friend suggested that if Nay liked his iPod touch so much, perhaps he should try his hand at programming for it. At first he tried the standard Objective-C programming tools, but found the learning curve a little steep. He tried another tool called GameSalad, but didn't like the results. In the end, he settled on the Corona tools from Ansca Mobile. Corona was easy to use, he said, and also let him write once and publish for both Apple and Android devices. [...] Robert's mom, Kari Nay, drew some of the levels of the game, though Robert did all the coding. Kari Nay also handles the business tasks, such as submitting the apps to the App Store and Android marketplaces.
​

The issue isn't necessarily how much they spend or how many people work on a MMO its the finish product that counts. Even with a solid good polished finished product you have to advertise for consumers to know of it.

For MMO's a good solid game with very few bugs, and players willing to spend $$$$$$ on their game is a win win for the company. Now lets say the company sucks the consumer dry and neglects the game with short fixes here and there and very little investment back into their game. That game that made them some $$$$$ in the beginning is now losing $$$$$ because comsumers and especially gamers are fickle.

I also like to add what it cost to make a MMO back in the 90's, and even go back a 8 years and compare what it would cost for a MMO today is a wasted argument. Technology has changed, economies are different in those time periods, gamers expect better games, and players expect bang for their buck. May as well compare Atari to the XBox 360.

While many MMO's have different model subscriptions which adds fuel to the battle of MMO's. With the wide variety of games online to compete with plus add FtP, B2P versus P2P gamers expect some quality and good content.

Kids now days will be the future of gaming when we the current players decide to hang our keyboards and mouses up. They are already exposed to higher graphics and more complex games. UO will not attract these type of players when they can say " At 6 I was playing Wizard 101 which had better graphics then this game". A sandbox game or not they will expect more out of games then we do and technology will be greater then it is now.

Anybody for the game Pong? I do have an Atari replica

 

[Zyon Rockler]

I think there are alot of things that haven't been explored yet. Alot of great changes or advancements in technology where systems will produce themselves or be able to create.

Like, the internet, for example. What if there was a way for a company to provide internet connection along with their game? So, you could pay for the game but not have to pay for the internet connection.

I'm just saying, this would be a change in the industry. Most of the games that I see, no matter how much money you spend on them, seem to be the same thing. There's maybe 3 styles or types and I mean the feeling that you get not just the environment.

I think if they've learned anything from UO, it should be that the longer the game lasts, the more you can do, where it reinvents itself and becomes new again but some of the things I think UO failed at would of been keeping the systems and improving them, rather than, making a change where you would lose any time spent. That's just my opinion.

But if you look at things like NPC dialog, the system could of started out with simple communication and over a 10 year period could have a better vocabulary than most humans. So, what i'm saying is, if the system was slowly improved over time, even though it would be immense, it would have no equal.

There's other things, like the Sims and I don't just mean EA's Sims but all Simulators. An example: Cafe World, it has the beginning of what a cook might do or Farmville, where it has a basic farm, then you take it another step to Farm Simulator. So, now you have the graphics and realism.

Most MMOs do not incorporate this type of game play. It's like 2 different games but if the MMO adopted all of these other systems then you would begin to build a world and the game would offer what every game offers but in one place.

So, it's basically a big system with systems inside of it and I don't think we really see that yet, where you log in and you become a fisherman or you log in and you become a farmer. I think you see more of a main system pulling along bits and pieces. So, if the main view is PvP and the other systems are incomplete, then someone who is in the mood to do farming or fishing might go somewhere else to do those things.

Just having the basics I think would create something better, so you would start with building a huge world but you would only see small areas of development or you would plan for a huge universe or different layers of underground activity but you would only see bits and pieces and as it becomes more developed over the years, you would add to it.

I think alot of times, there's a huge development rather than just setting all the basics up and you never really see a real diverse game. We're just beginning to see all of the things that you would expect from a normal world.

 

[Nexus]

poppycrack shenanigans !!!
"Game design" DOES NOT >require< millions
'tis childs play
annnnd a little luck, timing and stumbling into a "current mood" ... see above

nuff said !

A lot of the cost is subjective, really!

Subjective on what you might ask? A lot of it is if it's being created by a commercial entity, or not, and if it's based in an established "Universe" or not. Lets take a peek at some of SW:TOR's costs.

Licensing for Hero Engine is right around $5000 off the bat for a team of 25 say you have 50 full time developers, between coders, and world builders that's $10,000, the art design tool set that's is used with Hero Engine (Maya) is $4000 per copy, so say you have 10 artists that's $40,000. In the average MMO Studio the average salary for the entire team is around $60,000 a year per person so hmm.. $60,000 x 100 (Most MMO's have 100+ team members) so $6,000,000 a year in payroll isn't unrealistic, but lets not forget Rights to Audio, Characters, etc if the game is based on an established universe... How much do you think Bio-ware paid George Lucas and John Williams? I wouldn't flinch at the idea of over five million, I mean we're talking about a franchise that's earned over $22 billion ($1.6 billion from games alone), making it to date the most lucrative film franchise ever, followed closely by Harry Potter believe it or not coming in at over $21 billion ($1 billion from games alone, though if a Harry Potter MMO is in the future my bet is on Turbine). The point being that popular franchises will sell merchandise, and the licensing rights to them are extremely expensive.

Oh lets not forget the hardware needed for development, high end PC's capable of rendering the initial art quickly to make the process more efficient, and make test compiles go smoothly, Location of the Studio, etc. You don't think Bio-ware had tons of empty cubicles and offices sitting around with everything ready do you? That's probably another nifty chunk. And all of this is before the game actually makes a penny in revenue.


But yes you can make a good game much cheaper, if you use totally original concepts, art, music etc., and do it all internally. Such as what was done in your example, but those are a rarity in the MMO industry, and much easier to do if you are a independent developer, or making a offline game.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Heh!

For sake of any more discussion on apps vs MMO's which is like comapring apples and oranges..........

IF you mean that discussing the "designing of games"
IS LIKE discussing varieties of edible fruit from TREES ...
you might have had a point. Game Design Wise

Which would be : finding the Market For the product (and vice versa: product for market) ... *shrugs*

The OP opines that >maybe< a mythical/theoretical variation of HBO ...(a bunch of FRUITS ... if I may )
a bunch of hollywood and television types >might have better luck< at designing a game for .. s/he

pfffft! why not a group of unemployed nasa programmers?

they KNOW code ... probably a few savant gamers in that group
( there is, >I Know< , >because< my career field is HR management ... any "team", any "industry" ... falls within my purview
{excepting of course: Politics and Unions ... ie parasites}
and as much and normal as it would be to lay my "success" to my training and skills ... >I AM< always mindful that there was certainly a large element of LUCK involved ...
incredibly long "strings" of it ... but o'well ... I digress )
so much for fruits

The issue isn't necessarily how much they spend or how many people work on a MMO its the finish product that counts. Even with a solid good polished finished product you have to advertise for consumers to know of it.

At what point would you say UO >was< a finished product?
Heh!
I'll submit: it Never Was
*shrugs*
which >really< exposes the fault of this argument:

That game that made them some $$$$$ in the beginning is now losing $$$$$ because consumers and especially gamers are fickle.

*ahem*
IF the first set of $$$$$ covered the start up/release costs ... and "made them some $$$$$"(profit)
what "genius" is allowing it to slip back into the red(loss)?
*shakes head* math in the hall
(but that bit >could/might< explain Why UO is still up ... paying off UO2, UXO, KR ... need to see the books though ... )

@Nexus ... jezz ... ya almost "got there"
It AIN'T about the money spent, or the "names" hijacked into "association" (that is all cult of personality trivia)
It Also AIN'T about the continent you want to create it on ... which I'll assume(since you didn't state it) were north American numbers?
I gots a fiver USD that say's I could do the same product >In China< for less than a tenth of that cost ...
*tongue* Ask Steve Jobs ...

>for me< this is yet another example of the "three states" of creation, simply put
Metaphysics ... the theory, idea, thought, concept, brainstorm ... Dhream ... *wink*
Technology ... the expression of the M into a reality for "testing", touching, toying with, breaking down for reassembly... wind it up and set it off ...
Technique ... the degree of proficiency which >maybe< acquired through experienced practice with the technology to apply the idea in the environment ...
which is also known as "skill"
I did say: simply put ... I've got chest's FULL of seminar lectures on the details of each of the three ...
on beta max ... Doh!

*ahem*
which all rounds back to *Luck* ... timing ... chance(opportunity) ... taste(popularity amongst the "masses")
*shrugs*

tain't magic nor arrogance nor "pretend smarts" ( talk about an ironic oxymoron )

Just the difference between Knowing the applied aspects( Metaphysics, Technology, Technique ) twixt a
Fluke and a Memes/Temes
(first five minutes of either "explain that /simply/")

burma shave

 

[Zyon Rockler]

Darwin was not right. It's not always the strongest, it's the smartest.

The brain is what changes the body, the nucleus or cell distribute the DNA. So, in fact, it is intelligent design. The code for intelligence or for when it was created is not yet known. It could have entered from space and adapted or it could be within the void of understanding itself.

Let me ask you, Do you make a choice or do things just happen? Information is intelligence. We are essentially intelligent energy with the ability to rearrange the energy and reproduce it. So, technically, an intelligent filter of probably matter itself, which could question reality since it is our belief of what is.

What happens with MEMS is someone says something that is not true and people believe them. Real smart people with real high IQs control or have the ability to understand better than people who believe things at face value.

Like a computer virus, the computer has no understanding of the virus but if the computer understood the virus then the virus would not be able to harm the computer. So, as a whole, collectively, we can be affected by things we do not understand.

It doesn't stop people from being good or bad, yet it allows us to select intelligently with reason.

The English Language is like math. It equals ideas simply by talking to create new ideas as adding 1 + 2 = 3 + 5 = 8, the new idea being 8.

I could say all stop signs are going to be black now and some people will believe it. They might even change it now that the idea is there. There is alot more to it.

But you build a story, like the basic movie. For example: Star Wars was based on the idea of truth or the belief in being able to do anything that you believe you can. Mind over Matter, The abililty to control matter to influx your universe with one simple principal, good or evil. So, basically, truth or lie but this idea is powerful enough to create more movies. A video game.

Harry Potter was a childrens' book. So, you start with a basic simple idea and build on it and as other people believe in the same ideas, they will move to it and build onto it. This is intelligent design.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Darwin was not right. It's not always the strongest, it's the smartest.

What in the devil did Darwin mean when he popularized the "survival of the fittest" phrase? What he did not say is, perhaps, revealing. He did not say "survival of the toughest." He did not say "survival of the fastest." He did not say "survival of the biggest," nor "survival of the smartest." No, he said "survival of the fittest." What a strange word, "fittest." One might tend to interpret Darwin's "fittest" (without thinking about it much) as somehow related to physical fitness, or physical superiority, in other words, to "strength." But, Darwin did not say "survival of the strongest." He said "survival of the fittest."



Information is NOT intelligence ... it is only "data"

else your local phonebook is More Intelligent than you are ...
more data and longer retention ...

However you may just be lacking (a lot) of data PROPERLY arranged and PROPERLY implemented ..
See above ...

and it is spelled MEME not mem.

Your "intelligent design" is ........... lacking ...

 

[Neutron Bomb]

I dunno man, some HBO series cost tons of money. One season of Game of Thrones had a budget of more than 50 million.

And Rome was $100 million for its first season.

 

[AesSedai]

- Very interesting.. yes

 

[Zosimus]

At what point would you say UO >was< a finished product?
Heh!
I'll submit: it Never Was
*shrugs*
which >really< exposes the fault of this argument:

I was speaking in general of MMO's not about UO. UO as we all know was never a finished product. Then yet again what MMO is a really finished product.

 

[Nexus]

What in the devil did Darwin mean when he popularized the "survival of the fittest" phrase?

That too many of the UHall posters need to study more history, the phrase "Survival of the Fittest", was coined by Herbert Spencer not Darwin.

** EDIT **

I do think it's fair to say that Darwin did include the phrase in the 5th revision/edition of "On the Origin of the Species" in 1869 as a nod to Spencer's "Principles of Biology", written in 1864. Yet the truth of the matter is the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" was coined by Spencer as a descriptor of Darwin's theory on Natural Selection, it was obviously a popular enough description by 1869 that Darwin thought it a worthy phrase for inclusion in his own work.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

Well my statement is no different as you feel I misunderstood, perhaps the same could be said of you. I'm just saying, my statement was no different, is why I used it so you could analyze it yourself and as others agree the statement is flawed.

So, what I meant by smartest was not the individual species nor did I claim a seperation of species. I stated energy and a geneo. For example: The universe also has a gene. What i'm saying the DNA or the blue print, the instructions. I agree with you, that's just the information and I wish it was that simple but it's not. Intelligence is needed to understand the directions or to follow the map. It is our own definition of what we are.

When you drop a pile of legos on the ground, that's information but when you build and create, it's intelligence. That's what we do, we build and we create. Don't you see why? Thinking is a by product of what we are. When we think we change things, we think about things. That's what our natural being is. The thought is the by product of the intelligence. Our being of understanding is proof of this process.

We use the information combined with our intelligence. If we were not intelligent and it was just information then it would be impossible to build or exist. We would have no understanding of existance. You would just be a hard drive without a cpu, a cell without a nucleus, a human being without a brain, a human race without a collective mind.

Why is it not random? Is math not a form of a system that grows and changes? Is this not a type of intelligent system?

Words like survival of the fittest or even smartest are just words. It's your understanding of them that matters, meaning, as Darwin stated, Intelligence is not a power, it does not shift what lives or dies. It simply changes our understanding.

Life is energy. Everything is energy. One energy part is not smarter than another energy part nor is it stronger. We are simply intelligent energy that uses a map to evolve, so we don't lose our place.

If we did not think, I would agree but we do think, therefore we are intelligent.

 

[Nexus]

Darwin was not right. It's not always the strongest, it's the smartest.

The brain is what changes the body, the nucleus or cell distribute the DNA. So, in fact, it is intelligent design. The code for intelligence or for when it was created is not yet known. It could have entered from space and adapted or it could be within the void of understanding itself.

Let me ask you, Do you make a choice or do things just happen? Information is intelligence. We are essentially intelligent energy with the ability to rearrange the energy and reproduce it. So, technically, an intelligent filter of probably matter itself, which could question reality since it is our belief of what is.

So you're saying things like Insular Dwarfism, hybridization, you know like how pretty much all non-pure African decent humans carry around 1% to 4% of the Neanderthal genome, environmental adaptation within a single species such as color phase variations in many reptiles to help them blend with their environment, are all because "They thought it that way?".

Are you saying, that poor Aeschylus chose to have a eagle drop a tortoise on his head killing him? It's not like he could have hopped in his car to go wandering across Sicily where he'd be protected from falling terrestrial creatures way back in 456 BC. Sometimes things well outside our control and predictability do happen, I mean if a car drives through the wall of someones house killing them is it the person who die's fault for watching TV in the safety of their own home?

 

[Zosimus]

We are going a bit off topic with all this Darwin talk.

Welp guess it was moved before I posted

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

That too many of the UHall posters need to study more history, the phrase "Survival of the Fittest", was coined by Herbert Spencer not Darwin.

** EDIT **

I do think it's fair to say that Darwin did include the phrase in the 5th revision/edition of "On the Origin of the Species" in 1869 as a nod to Spencer's "Principles of Biology", written in 1864. Yet the truth of the matter is the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" was coined by Spencer as a descriptor of Darwin's theory on Natural Selection, it was obviously a popular enough description by 1869 that Darwin thought it a worthy phrase for inclusion in his own work.

Uhuh ... and some people would be well served to read >complete< wiki articles and apply the "essence" of who what when where and why ANYONE said anything (aka proper context)
Wait ... you do NOT think >I< wrote that ...didja?
who I quoted >without attributing/citing< was (quite easy to relate to this thread as to WHY him)
(Also >quite easy< to research >the source< rather than assuming it >was me< ... tsk tsk)

And what wiki presented (for context) is:
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

The thread relevant point being:
BOTH were talking about >their< opinions as to the "survival" of >systems<
Darwin was on about >living systems< (natural)
Spencer on >favored systems< (Non living; but Not "merely physical" )
and Blackmore (above my link Memes/Temes) Laid a brilliant piece of foundational ground work, complete with vocabulary(defined) and paradigms(relational frameworks) Which CAN apply to ALL systems

EVEN "Game Design System\s" (Johnny depp voice: Thread!)

Y'all talking about different pieces and parts
I'm saying " 'tis an Elephant" named Game design
OP wants some fruit to custom design a game for s/he ... *shrugs* I strongly doubt that they >could< ...
Based solely on the lack of >precision< in/by the OP (Gameshow: Can you be any Vaguer ? )

AH!
Edit and a "move" have transpired
good one ... was considering notifying for the move myself.
Re: the edit: did you actually have a point relevant to the thread?
Was it "Darwin said"?
*shrugs* either way >someone< was WRONG to call Darwin wrong ... eh?

Wait WHAT?
Moved to "Stratics Central Discussions?"

REALLY?

do the Right thing ... Back to OT
/done

 

[Cirno]

Wait WHAT?
Moved to "Stratics Central Discussions?"

REALLY?

do the Right thing ... Back to OT
/done

This is the right place for it
Stratics Central is about the MMO Genre as a whole, as opposed to any singular game, while OT is more about things that don't relate to the MMO genre.

Since this thread is about MMO game design, then this is totally the right place for it, and the "right thing" would be to not be arguing over what Darwin may or may not have said/done/implied, which is straying from the original topic.