World of Warcraft

[Guest]

I fail to see why Nobbie is immune to the same treatment I have gotten many times before here.

Outright making up stuff deserves a minor put down.

It might have been ill-mannered, but it wasnt an outright personal attack. I am comepletely correct that he began talking authorativly about matter where he has little of no knowledge, resulting in an error.
There is nothing wrong with calling attention to it.

As for the spelling - youre right - I suck.

[Guest]

1 Do we have detail junkies here who are going to play WoW? The Lounge is great because of its people now, but sometimes people forget that what made it so great was how much the original poster loved the game and liked understanding it.

2 Are you ready for essentially a new lounge community. If the LL does because a meca for smart play, we have more more new members than you can imagine. Many of them will be great people, but they will push some of curmudgeons down that we have here especially if they dont play WoW.


Im not saying "dont make a WoW forum", Im just saying the changes will be big if the forum is a success.

[Guest]

I dont think MMORPs are a fad.

I think the bussiness models may shift some and you are right that eventually any one virtual world will eventually die(or at least shrink).

But the concept of persistant vitual worlds is not going away/

[Raziel]

Although it's late.. i'll contribute..

Quite frankly the idea of a persistent virtual world annoys the living crap out of me. I don't like it. It takes something good that works right now just fine in diablo 2 and moves it out of the player's grasp of control.

That 'something' is the ability to instantly respawn/reload the game world.

One of the big things I like about Diablo 2 is being able to create an MF game, kill what I want, and leave. Or being able to make a game SPECIFICALLY about a quest I want done (eg. Izual). To be able to make games to trade specific items. Or to be able to make a private game and get away from it all.

None of that will be possible in WoW. That annoys the living heck out of me, because 95 times out of 100 other players annoy me. Why do you think we have sites like Lurker Lounge and Amazon Basin.. because, dare I say it, the unwashed masses of "pubbies" by and large suck. They're not trustworthy; they'll loot your stuff; they'll pk you without a second notice; they'll steal your drops and generally spam and annoy the crap out of you. Oh, and they'll try and rip you off wherever possible for their own benefit.

One big persistant world opens the doors for the lamers, losers and scam artists to have free reign over everybody. Normally I can just make a private game and avoid all of that (or join ablhell, for you basiners out there). In WoW my only option will be finding a secluded corner of the game to exp in.. and it's highly likely that every GOOD exp spot will be covered in salivating hordes of exp leechers and opportunistic PK'ers. Want to trade? Too bad - imagine the trade channels, except without a 30 or 40 player limit, all stuck in one confined area of the game world spamming eachother with ***** ITH CB HERE FOR MOST SOJS OFFERED /W *BLAHBLAH NO NOOB OFFERS *****

So, pardon me if I don't like WoW and the MMORPG concept - not for the pay per play aspect (although I detest that as well) - but because it robs me of everything I like about Diablo 2's game creation system. There is a lot to be said to being able to control your world, when it respawns, who can join in and what you accomplish.

[Guest]

It definetly isnt for everyone - but then you dont have to play.

Twice you said how much the "idea" annoys you, Im not sure why you care that some other people like a different game style genre than you.

[nobbie]

Financially speaking, I have this: UK prices for a MMORPG (If you're lucky enough to find one with decent UK support) are as follows: £40 for the game, £10 per month fee.  Assuming that you pay for and play a game for three years you would have spent £520 on a single game in that period.

For a German Telekom user, the prices would be as follows. In order to play a data-intense MMORPG, you'll also need a fast connection like DSL on top of a very good, up-to-date PC with a very good graphics card like Geforce 4 Ti and better. Also, because you'll likely play the MMORPG of your choice 10 hours or more per week, you'll need a flat rate to keep costs as low as possible (at least here in Germany). I'm currently using the "Surftime 30" T-Online option, which grants 30 hours Internet surfing per month (or 1 hour per day) for a price of 14.95 Euro at no additional costs. This option is available for both 56K dial-up modem and T-DSL. I'm using using a 56K dial-up modem though, because it costs 19.95 Euro per month less than a T-DSL connection. The T-Online flat rate, which grants unlimited surftime, costs just 29.95 Euro per month but there's a catch: it is only available for the expensive T-DSL connection. Assuming I would play a certain MMORPG for about 3 years, the prices would now be as follows (per month):

1.) T-DSL connection: 19.95 Euro
2.) T-Online flat rate: 29.95 Euro minus 14.95 Euro = 15 Euro more than the "Surftime 30" option
3.) 10 Euro per month fee

================================

Sum: 44.95 x 36 months = 1618.20 Euro

plus

4.) 50 Euro (or even 60 Euro) for the base game
5.) 2 (or even more) Expansion packs in 3 years for 30 Euro each

================================

Sum: 1618.20 Euro + 50 Euro + 120 Euro = 1788.20 Euro


So, that's about 1800 Euro/Dollars in 3 years, or about 600 Euro/Dollars per year. This does not include the costs for a new PC, processor, PC component or monitor which are usually due every 3 - 5 years (depending on your personal needs/demands). For 1800 Euro/Dollars, I can buy a new PC with everything incl. OS + software, or a DVD recorder (home unit) plus sound system, or a new TV with DVD recorder, or a digital video recorder plus digital camera, or or or. Everyone has to decide for himself/herself whether he wants to pay that sum for the latest Internet gaming fad, or not. I personaly have made my decision because a new TV is due by the end of this year ;)

[Guest]

I have played and several MMORPs with a 56k modem with no problems. Only in PlanetSide which isnt actually a MMORP did I feel disadvantaged.

[NiteFox]

But the concept of persistant vitual worlds is not going away/

I'm sorry, but I believe you are wrong. Granted, the concept of persistant virtual worlds may indeed never leave us, but the actual worlds themselves will. Whether it be Everquest, or Neocron, or Star Wars Galaxies, or whatever, eventually the plug will be pulled on each and every one of the worlds these games create.

This may be because players will tire of the worlds themselves, or tire of buying or downloading expansion packs to expand the world, or eve give up on the game entirely. And once even a minor portion of the consumer base leaves, the majority will leaving the diehards behind, and let's face it - The companies won't try that hard to keep them on an existing game when they can try and transplant them (For another box price of $50) to their next game. One by one, each of the existing worlds will whither away and vanish, and you've spent x hundred amount of dollars on a game you can no longer play.

And when it happens once, it'll happen again. But the next time, the consumer may be more wary about dropping hundreds of dollars on a game when you can get pretty much the same enjoyment out of a standalone game for the same price and no monthly fee.

People are lapping up MMORPGs because they are new and exciting. Granted, you may want to cite Evercrack as being an old dog, but at initial release few people were actually playing the game and it took a while for people to jump onto that particular bandwagon. I remember the same thing with FPSs. Wolfenstein 3D, Doom and Doom II was good, but we really had to wait until Duke Nukem 3D and Quake before that genre really achieved status. Now you're bogged down with FPS games, many of which are barely worth a second glance and those that are worthy have a relatively short shelf life too.

Persistant worlds are, in one way here to stay. Perhaps we're not really that far away from a Snow Crash-style world where total immersion reigns supreme. But then again the Avenue had all but faded from existence in The Diamond Age, even though some folks still remembered thrashers.

[Guest]

You said i was wrong then proceded to agree with me in the next sentence.

[NiteFox]

*Grins sheepishly* Yeah, you scored a wazari on me there.

Still doesn't change the rest of my opinions though.

[moget?]

Hey guys, some things:

Do you think that any company will continue to support a MMORPG after the bubble has burst when the number of active clients has dropped to a few hundred? Will they pull the plug then, or wait until the number drops to a few dozen? Nah. When that point has reached the cost of running the servers will be greater than the sweet, delicious cash they're raking in, and anyway the "illusion" of a MMORPG will essentially be shattered when you no longer have thousands and thousands of players interacting with the game world.

Ah yes, A fascinating idea that has yet to be touched upon! What of the death of a(n) MMORPG?

I don't know much about these games, but I don't think any have failed. Since they are such a tremendous undertaking only a handful have been released. Thus far Everquest has been perpetuated by a long line of expansion packs, but would it continue to thrive if the parent company began working on something else?

There is a certain doom I forsee, but to understand it first recall old games (or mods) that you don't play anymore. For example, Half-life has a copious mod compunity, but what of the mods that are gradually overshadowed by new games and mods? The comunity for a particular mod dies down, until there are only a handful of games going at any given time. It's quite disappointing to be unable to play your favorite mod due to a lack of playmates.

And now for the forseeable doom: An MMORPG is not free - it's not even close to free. An MMORPG does not have a single player component. I smell trouble. When the starcraft (or any online game of that ilk) b.net servers are inevitably shut down, there will be a collective outcry of sadness from gamers. However, they don't really have a legitimate claim to yell at Blizzard for - after all, Starcraft has both a single player and LAN component. Oh dear, MMORPGs have nothing to fall back upon. When their server(s) are inevitably shutdown there will be a collective ROAR of anger. What will come of this? I :ph34r:.

One last thing I want to say about this: non-MMORPG games are scalable. That is to say that at any given time you only need enough server/bandwidth support for the games currently running. With a persistent world, at any given time you need the entire world ready to go. As a result, the "pulling of the plug" is actually more definite than that of a standard game.

-----


Indeed as NiteFox said the genre may and will move onto bigger and better things. I can, for example, picture an MMO war. Perpetual online war in which every soldier is represented by a player, and vast battles are waged for ultimate victory.

More to say later...

--moget?

[kandrathe]

Sounds steep. Thank God for cheap American telecom rates. My reason for not going in the online P2P craze is the same reason I don't subscribe to a fitness club.

I've got the equipment to workout or play computer games (even networked) in my house. So why play (or workout) with strangers when I can invite over some friends to play (or workout or both) for free?

Just like public games in D2, I wouldn't really enjoy getting PK'd by some anonymous hacker kid every night and paying for the experience. I only play on D2 realms with friends because they are free, and they mostly prevent cheating. But most importantly as a software engineer, it is simply too easy for me to tweak things on my home environment, and I really would rather enjoy the challenge of playing the game square.

[Quark]

According to a preview I read, WoW will be a compromise between the standard MMORPG and D2. Groups can be in the same cave, for instance, yet will never see each other / get in the way / etc. While this wouldn't apply to the entire world, and needs to be done very well to get it right, it sounds like a promising system.

[Griselda]

Ghostiger,

I suspect that your definition of "outright personal attack" differs from that of many people here, including the moderators. You may disagree with this assessment, but you need to keep that in mind when you post here.

-Griselda

[Guest]

If that little statment crosses the line then about 1/4 the posters here should be banned for having said much worse to me.

I address what people have actually said, often to the displeasure of their friends here.

But I dont say things about the posters, unless they are directly deived from what was said.


I guess a nice way to put it would have been "he was making up facts and presenting untruths".

[Occhidiangela]

Never argue with an idiot: You risk bystanders being unable to tell the difference between the parties. ;) I have forgotten that sage advice now and again in my day, and you have seen a few of those conversations here.

[Chaerophon]

That being said, I don't really consider nobbie to be an idiot... Perhaps his own conclusions are drawn from his own experience? Guild structure or no, the population is going to be made up of many of the same sort of people as is the Diablo universe. I'm not going to pretend to know - I don't do drugs ;), but this discussion, as far as I can tell, was far FAR away from the range of idiocy or ignorance requiring the flamethrower.

[Nystul]

But to sit there and compare a single player game with multiplayer added to a massive social structure gaming world and then insist they are the same and that we shouldn't have to pay for it is foolish.

Howso? The heart of the issue is this: is there something fundamental about MMORPGs that could merit the extra expense over an equally good game that lacks the same element because it is not pay-for-play? Neverwinter Nights covers most of the supposed advantages of MMORPGs, other than raw scale.... It is extremely dynamic, has persistant world servers, a wide range of potential social interaction, etc. Current FPS games have made 50+ player simultaneous games common, even in a genre where a little lag can be devastating. So using the "Quake model" rather than the "Ultima Online model", you could have thousands of 100-player-simultaneous persistant worlds with the flexibility to use either the world provided by the publisher or enhancements made by the mod community. The D2 model suggests that the publisher could even host these servers, although that is not necessary and D2 is certainly the exception rather than the rule.

Now, can the sheer scale of having thousands of people on a server instead of a hundred be that big of a deal? I guess that depends on whether the actions of the mass have a dynamic impact on the game world that couldn't be simulated in a smaller environment. I just don't see it. Inherently IMHO, a game has to either fairly non-dynamic (i.e. any consequences of your actions on the persistant world basically fade away... e.g. boss monsters keep respawning, the same "quests" keep getting performed over and over), have a shallow or non-existant or static storyline (i.e. a bunch of players killing each other and monsters with no plot or real goals), or come crashing to an end when the game world goes beyond the bounds of it's programming. Thus, I really don't see where those thousands of players are going to make a difference, unless I am interacting with them all directly, or the game world is designed to implode and reset every couple months. I suppose the latter case could be the most interesting.

[swirly]

Talking about the death of MMORPGs makes me think that the upfront price and the monthly price really need to be seperated more. What I mean is that if there is going to be a monthly price then it needs to be for a service, not for a game. So like if blizzard had three MMORPGs (starcraft, warcraft, and diablo) then you would pay one monthly fee for access to their MMORPG service and be able to play whichever game you wanted. You would only ever be playing one game at a time so its not like you are adding more stress on the servers really, you are just getting more flexibility. How then do you justify the initial purchase price for the games? I guess it would have to be a price for the initial content plus some service time (since they all give a few months free). So you buy one of the games and you get the actual game content, then when you sign on with it your service plan gets a few months more free for your purchase of the game. Something along those lines anyway. My point though is that the monthly fee needs to be associated more with an overall service that people find worth the fee instead of being associated with one individual game.

It actually works out pretty similiar to how things are now if you think about it. I mean say for instance with the blizzard MMORPGs I meantioned above (which I know are fictional). Say you buy the starcraft one for $50. Right now you then have to pay $10 a month to play it. So you play it for a year making you have spent $50+$10*12=$170. You then buy the Diablo one for $50 and decide to play it instead. So you cancel your starcraft payments and start paying for diablo. So then you may play that for a year making another $170. So thats $340 over two years for two games played.

Now you look at the way I was talking about above. You would buy starcraft for $50 and sign up for the service at $10 a month. So you play it for a year then decide to play diablo. So you buy diablo for $50 and then play it using the same service you were already using. So if you play them for a year each then it still works out to $120 each year for the service and $50 for each game. So still $340 total.

The difference of course is that in the second option you don't have to end your play of starcraft. If you felt like playing it one night instead of diablo you could do so with no problem. In the current way of doing things the starcraft game would be pretty useless cause you would have to sign up for it again in order to play it. So associating the monthly fee with the service instead of the game clears that up a little. Of course since no company really puts out more than one MMORPG, it becomes a little pointless. I still think that its a better way of looking at things.

Of course this would cost blizzard a little cause in the current system some people might jus tpay for both games monthly if they wanted to play them both off and on. So then the ywould be getting $20 a month instead of $10. I think this is just being greedy though. Paying $10 a month to play any of the games that you have purchased from a company seems reasonable. The company is still getting money for your server use and your progess in both games will be slowed because you are playing two at once, so you are using the content slower. Thus the $10 still pays for the content you are using since you are using half as much content (theoretically) from each game. Of course blizzard would still have to put out new content quickly cause many people would only be playing one game, but I'm sure htat all can be balanced out.

This may also help keep older games up and running longer. After a certain point a game would probably stop being supported, but you could still log in and play it in its last state (kind of like how diablo is getting now). Since the number of players would be getting low at that point it becomes like how the battle.net servers are now. The $10 fee you are paying for the service shold easily cover the cost for them to keep the game server running if they don't really do any more updates to it. Actually most of that $10 would be profit for them at that point that they could use to pay for newer games.

Anyway I'm not sure exactly how it all would work out really, but it seems like a better way of thinking about things than it is to think about the monthly fee being associated with one game only.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Granted, you may want to cite Evercrack as being an old dog, but at initial release few people were actually playing the game and it took a while for people to jump onto that particular bandwagon.  I remember the same thing with FPSs.  Wolfenstein 3D, Doom and Doom II was good, but we really had to wait until Duke Nukem 3D and Quake before that genre really achieved status.  Now you're bogged down with FPS games, many of which are barely worth a second glance and those that are worthy have a relatively short shelf life too.

Here, here!

That's the marketing model that killed Deus Ex 2 for me, and that's how the future is turning out. Clones are all I see...