|
Title: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schild on February 11, 2005, 08:52:40 PM Quote from: John Smedley Sony Online Entertainment Looks Towards the Future With the launch of EverQuest in 1999, Sony Online Entertainment (back then we were Verant) was on the leading edge of what became a revolution in the video game business... Online Gaming. We certainly didn't invent it...in fact; we stood on the shoulders of some pretty amazing games, including Ultima Online... Meridian 59 and many, many other games including some great text MUDs. EverQuest had that magic that propelled it to selling over 3 Million units over its six year (well almost) lifespan. We've released 9 expansion packs during that time that have added an absolutely massive amount of content that we're pretty proud of. Certainly some of those expansions were better than others, but I think our goal has always been the same.... to entertain our players. With the launch of EverQuest II, our goal was to refine EverQuest... to distill the things that made EverQuest great, but also to add its own flavor and gameplay style. I think it's fair to say we also needed to aim for a more casual gamer... and make the game appeal to people that may not have the same amount of time they had when EverQuest first came out. As a company we needed to also appeal to a wider base of people. I think you can see from the universal appeal of the Lord of the Rings books (and oh yeah, the movies too....) fantasy worlds are what we can all call "mass market". I'm really proud of EverQuest II and I honestly believe we delivered on our goals of making an incredibly fun and immersive world that our players want to be a part of and make their own. Over the years, we've learned a lot. The biggest thing we've learned is that our players care very much about everything we do and the changes we make to their world. I cannot tell you how many thousands of emails I've gotten over the years complaining about class balance, nerfs, and overall changes we've made to the game. While I can absolutely understand and respect where each and every one of the people that took the time to write these passionate emails came from (and I read every single one of them and do my best to respond to them as well), I can also assure you that our game teams really do care about the changes they make. Remember... YOU, our players, write our paychecks. But it's more than that. It's also about truly caring about what we do. The vast majority of our development teams come from our player base. That's a fact that I'm incredibly proud of. In fact, it may surprise you to know that EverQuest actually was the catalyst for one of our Executive Team members to meet his wife (he just got married within the last 6 months)... she was in his guild... one thing led to another and... well the rest is as they say history. We've certainly made our share of mistakes over the years... but overall, we've tried to stay true to our primary goal of entertaining you. That's our job description. Now what's been interesting from our perspective is what really serious competition is doing to the online gaming space. World of Warcraft has come on the scene and is doing awesome. Kudos to Blizzard on what I think is a spectacular game. I've played the heck out of it, and I love it (as have many people here at SOE). To a game developer, having another game developer play your game is the ultimate compliment... so to the folks at Blizzard we say "Nicely done". But don't think for a second that we don't see WoW as both a great game AND Blizzard as serious competition. Personally... I'm glad they are out there. They keep us honest. They keep us focused and they force us to play with our 'A' game. They've certainly opened some eyes in our company to styles of gameplay that are different than we would have come up with inside SOE. I hope they're also opening up the eyes of other MMO developers that the 'old school' probably won't cut it any more. I'm glad that we went in the direction we did with EQ II because had we stuck with making an even "harder core" game, I think bad things would have happened. We need to be about larger scale mass-entertainment... because that's what online gaming is slowly becoming. Our games just need to be fun... and easy to get into. In the United States there are around 2 Million paying online gamers (this is after WoW btw). That's up from 250,000 back before EverQuest was released... and I'm only counting the MMOs... if you start to add in the Pogo's of the world we're probably talking about 3-4 Million online gamers... and I have no idea what scary numbers some of these online poker places are bringing in. What this means is that making future online games is a big business that is going to be increasingly competitive. I think that's good for you, and good for us. It's going to ensure great games get made... and I can tell you we're in this for the long haul. Where are we going? What are we going to be doing to revolutionize this business? Well let me throw out just a few of the things we're thinking about here at SOE. What if you could have families in MMO's? Virtual Children... What if your characters could have children and pass on the family name..... What if players could build fantastic dungeons that become part of the worlds we create with tools we give them? How would that work exactly? Can MMORPGs have skill-based combat? What if? I mention these things to be provocative. I want to make sure we're going to take what we do to the next level... and that's going to mean putting some next generation ideas out there and seeing the kinds of things you actually want... but I at least want to start this dialogue and stir the pot a little. We're very interested in your ideas about where things go from here. John Smedley President, Sony Online Entertainment So I got that in an email. I can't make this shit up folks. He believes it. Who wants to remind him he just released Everquest 2? Anyone? Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Signe on February 11, 2005, 08:54:49 PM Done.
Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schild on February 11, 2005, 08:58:07 PM Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Trippy on February 11, 2005, 09:10:50 PM Quote from: John Smedley What if you could have families in MMO's? Virtual Children... What if That would be The Sims 2...your characters could have children and pass on the family name..... Quote What if players could build fantastic dungeons that become part of the That would be NWN...worlds we create with tools we give them? How would that work exactly? Quote Can MMORPGs have skill-based combat? That would be Planetside...Quote I mention these things to be provocative. I want to make sure we're I don't see anything next generation in those ideas.going to take what we do to the next level... and that's going to mean putting some next generation ideas out there and seeing the kinds of things you actually want... but I at least want to start this dialogue and stir the pot a little. We're very interested in your ideas about where things go from here. His message almost sounds like he's conceding the EQ-model MMORPGs to Blizzard. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schild on February 11, 2005, 09:14:51 PM His message almost sounds like he's conceding the EQ-model MMORPGs to Blizzard. If he does that, I'll START the goddamn John Smedley fanclub. God love the man who kills EQ clones. Booya! Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HRose on February 11, 2005, 09:23:58 PM I had a good laugh reading that.
It reminds me Dawn, he left out only the negative ping code and permdeath. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schild on February 11, 2005, 09:36:44 PM It reminds me Dawn, he left out only the negative ping code and permdeath. I see what you're doing there, and it's not even remotely amusing. It doesn't sound anything like Dawn. Dawn went to great ends to create the most elaborate crock of bullshit fans would eat up. Smedley is just repeating stuff back to mouthbreathers to make them happy. It's funny, he's dreaming some of the same stuff we're dreaming - but he has the power to make it happen. And doesn't. I'm going to have to bring a copy of this letter to E3 and have him sign it in blood. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 11, 2005, 11:32:45 PM Bastard didn't give any new subscriptions numbers.
Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: WindupAtheist on February 11, 2005, 11:50:18 PM Children? Jesus holy shit Christ, like catassers don't think EQ is real life as it is. EA sent out a rather odd survey regarding what people would like to see as well. Nothing as fucked up as virtual kids, but enough weirdness (player-run monsters and shit) to make me think they're not going quietly.
But really, I hope this virtual offspring thing goes through, just for the fucking pathetic stories it's bound to spawn. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schild on February 11, 2005, 11:55:13 PM Played correctly, children could be an interesting dynamic.
Played in the watered down politically correct way any game not rated M would play it, would be crap. I want to train my kid who to garrote nuns and members of the church - whatever church you have on whatever world. Thx. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Aenovae on February 12, 2005, 12:30:13 AM Dunno wtf Smed is talking about.
If a MMORPG implements children, they will probably be of the sort that Atriarch was planning on having. Your children are personal spawn that serve only to provide you with a new avatar if your main one dies. A more realistic implementation would have way too many issues like: sex, pregnancy, ownership, education, resposibility, PKing, etc. Bartle lists them in his book, but I'm too lazy to plagiarize it. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HRose on February 12, 2005, 12:34:07 AM Smedley is just repeating stuff back to mouthbreathers to make them happy. But I'm sincere. I'm not saying that he won't do that kind of stuff. I really believe that those ideas are weak and pointless.Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schild on February 12, 2005, 12:47:18 AM Smedley is just repeating stuff back to mouthbreathers to make them happy. But I'm sincere. I'm not saying that he won't do that kind of stuff. I really believe that those ideas are weak and pointless.My mistake. I confused you with someone of value. If you don't want skill-based combat and the other things he listed, please wait your turn in the EU WoW queue. I want those things. I just don't think Smedley has the balls to do it. I'd love for him to call me on it. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: WindupAtheist on February 12, 2005, 02:22:31 AM Some buttstains are going to have a cyber-orgy with their NPC five-year old and post screenshots, and we bloody well know it. :roll:
Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Mesozoic on February 12, 2005, 06:27:01 AM I thought that NWN taught us that player-made scenarios are ass.
Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schmoo on February 12, 2005, 06:42:38 AM "What if you could have families in MMO's? Virtual Children...
What if your characters could have children and pass on the family name....." What if... those Virtual Children had Virtual Blogs, where they wrote Virtual Boring Shit every day? Oh, the horror. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 12, 2005, 06:50:16 AM I can't wait to see the minigames for both fertilization and giving birth.
Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Murgos on February 12, 2005, 06:52:46 AM I don't see anything next generation in those ideas. Lets not start that again. Combining those ideas into one game successfully would be next generation because it would be a clear demarcation between the generation that had it and the generation that didn't.Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Riggswolfe on February 12, 2005, 07:41:47 AM I wish I had a good idea for a next generation MMO. All I know is I'd like immersion to be better. I'd like my little virtual house to actually matter in some way instead of being a place to get out my inner-Martha Stewart. I'd like some sort of effect on the game itself, rather than everything I do not really mattering in the sceme of things. I'd like to feel...invested in the game somehow. Maybe virtual children would help with this somehow I don't know. I'd also like to see factions that matter. With perks and disadvantages for each faction. I'd like for character creation to be very hard because all the options are very appealing and I have to make choices like "well, if I take this ability, I can't have that ability!"
Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: TheWalrus on February 12, 2005, 09:15:49 AM Thank you Bruce. I had a good chuckle out of that one.
Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schmoo on February 12, 2005, 10:52:05 AM I seem to remember that Ryzom was going to have character aging, and you could play as your character's child. I wonder what happened to that?
Joking aside, it could be interesting if done right. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: AlteredOne on February 12, 2005, 11:09:50 AM I can't wait to see the minigames for both fertilization and giving birth. They could use the EQ2 counter-action tradeskill system. Quick, the sperm is in danger of exhaustion, hit the "Swim Stronger" icon. He's only 30% of the way to his target, and we've already lost the possibility of a pristine baby. ABORT ABORT!!!! Oh crap, hit the cancel button too late, we got a Crude quality child. Let's make this one a warrior, and name him Smeglor. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Murgos on February 12, 2005, 11:13:27 AM They could use the EQ2 counter-action tradeskill system. Quick, the sperm is in danger of exhaustion, hit the "Swim Stronger" icon. He's only 30% of the way to his target, and we've already lost the possibility of a pristine baby. ABORT ABORT!!!! Oh crap, hit the cancel button too late, we got a Crude quality child. Let's make this one a warrior, and name him Smeglor. Good one. God, that really points out the absurdity of the whole thing. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Jobu on February 12, 2005, 01:08:33 PM Quote from: John Smedley They've certainly opened some eyes in our company to styles of gameplay that are different than we would have come up with inside SOE. I hope they're also opening up the eyes of other MMO developers that the 'old school' probably won't cut it any more. I'm glad that we went in the direction we did with EQ II because had we stuck with making an even "harder core" game, I think bad things would have happened. Does anyone else read a nice little snipe/warning at Sigil and Vanguard in that paragraph? Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Kageru on February 12, 2005, 02:05:24 PM This is what happens when you let the business manager have dreams about being a game designer, largely unimplementable idea's with negligible gameplay. And I'm amused they still believe they've created a "casual friendly" game in EQ2. However I will agree that WoW kicking their asses is probably just what they needed, give them the motivation to think more carefully about what they create. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Krakrok on February 12, 2005, 05:00:46 PM So when is SOE going to stop screwing around and just buy Second Life. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Tige on February 12, 2005, 05:59:55 PM Quote from: Smedley Whiplash What if you could have families in MMO's? Virtual Children... What if your characters could have children and pass on the family name..... SOE's secret project is digipets? Brilliant! Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HRose on February 12, 2005, 06:49:54 PM This is what happens when you let the business manager have dreams about being a game designer, largely unimplementable idea's with negligible gameplay. And I'm amused they still believe they've created a "casual friendly" game in EQ2. However I will agree that WoW kicking their asses is probably just what they needed, give them the motivation to think more carefully about what they create. What is sad is that everyone claims for passion and then does nothing till it's a market danger to push you forward.If there's passion you don't need motivation. You have it already. Smedley openly stated: "I want money" It's fun to see how they go smiley when a bigger shark suddenly appears. Exactly what happens every day on the PvP servers. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Lum on February 12, 2005, 07:21:00 PM Competition is a good thing. And it drives innovation as people strive to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. Which, again, is a good thing.
Quote What is sad is that everyone claims for passion and then does nothing till it's a market danger to push you forward. Doing something you disagree with does not mean that passion is lacking. I can easily say that the people most passionate about their vocations have been the ones I've met in the MMO industry. Consider that 15 years ago, MMOs were science fiction. 10 years ago they were considered by most mainstream analysts to be literally impossible. And that 5 years ago the market consisted of 3 games. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HRose on February 12, 2005, 07:51:28 PM Competition is a good thing. And it drives innovation as people strive to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. Which, again, is a good thing. No, I didn't put Smedley's ideas against my comment on the lack of passion.Quote What is sad is that everyone claims for passion and then does nothing till it's a market danger to push you forward. Doing something you disagree with does not mean that passion is lacking. I can easily say that the people most passionate about their vocations have been the ones I've met in the MMO industry. Consider that 15 years ago, MMOs were science fiction. 10 years ago they were considered by most mainstream analysts to be literally impossible. And that 5 years ago the market consisted of 3 games. Smedley's ideas are poor from my point of view no matter of the context. It's purely my opinion about those few suggestion he made. So I disagree on ideas but the ideas aren't the reason why I said there's a lack of passion. Instead I don't agree that you need the market to push you so that you feel motivated. Now I'm not attacking anyone concretely, I'm attacking the sense of what is being said. True or not in the reality. If you tell me that you work only when there's a danger I won't believe that you are passionate. Because the passion gives you already MORE than enough motivation to move, no matter of what happens around. EDIT: "as people strive to differentiate themselves in the marketplace" I swear that what I see is EXACTLY the opposite. I see a constant recycle of what others did better. In particular right now and I'm sure you don't need a list of examples. It's exactly in the case of "lack of passion" that you don't know where to go. And what you do is "jump in the bandwagon". So EQ2 is becoming casual friendly because Smedley doesn't want Blizzard to loot their corpse. I see assimilation WAY more than differentiation. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Alkiera on February 12, 2005, 10:55:26 PM HRose, I believe that for the most part, MMO Devs, Designers, and whatnot all have the passion to make a good game. Unfortunately, they all have to please corporations, either the greater part of the company, like the various teams at SOE, or the publisher who funds development in the case of smaller groups like Mythic or Cornered Rat Studios.
Corporations, Marketers, Investors.... these are the people with no passion, and they have their finger poised over the "You're Fired" button for all those passionate people. They care for the money, the almighty Return On Investment, the big sales figures. They are part of the problem with games in general, not just MMOs. However, they aren't all bad. That cold heartless nature can sometimes keep a lid on overzealous dreamers, forcing them to look at reality before going off the deep end with ideas that just won't work. You see this when sub numbers start dropping, and suddenly the devs become all friendly and talkative and want to find out how they can improve the game to get you to stay/come back. That's not the dev's voice, they wanted you to play all along, but are forced to be more open to suggestion by the people who only want the money. Alkiera Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 12, 2005, 11:15:44 PM His message almost sounds like he's conceding the EQ-model MMORPGs to Blizzard. Yes it does. It also sounded pathetic - what possible business objective was achieved with this dribble? It sounded like they were going back to the drawing board - which they should - but broadcasting that serves no purpose. I think it was El Gallo who said "SOE does not wear desperation well". Technically SOE compliments themselves by casting WoW as "competition" to EQ2. Competition is a zero sum game. My impression is that a large portion of WoW players are new to MMORGPS - and otherwise would not be playing if it were not for WoW. The success of WoW has less to do with poaching EQ players than it does expanding the whole industry player base. For entrepeneurs out there - the timing to raise money for start-up activity in this area should be improving - since WoW's numbers indicate that this industry as a lot more room for growth than any expected. I guess this is what SOE is recognizing as well. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schild on February 12, 2005, 11:41:14 PM Here's the problem as I see it. The MMORPG industry has room for unlimited player growth.
Here's why it won't happen: Companies pick the shittiest worlds with the shittiest lore they can possibly find. I'm sorry, focus groups suck wind. I'd love living in the world of Transmet. I'd love living in the Fallout world. I'd love living in the world of Final Fantasy VII (but no other FF world). Don't even get me started on Planescape. There are a whole mess of properties and genres that haven't even begun to be investigated in any positive manner. Little piddly companies making junk like Neocron and FoM just won't work for the post apocalyptic setting. They need money, lots of it, and more importantly: It needs to be done correctly. I'm tired of original fantasy worlds. There are enough good ones already made that original lore just doesn't cut it. Bite the bullet and buy the rights. All your fantasy worlds suck. It's not your fault computer geeks have been spoonfed fantasy since the legend of King Arthur all the way up through Dragonlance. It is however, your fault, that you don't buy a decent property instead of coming up with half-baked crap like the "World of Warcraft." Ponder it for a second: It's uninteresting. It's also your fault that you caved in to Lucasarts (or however it happened) and didn't set SW:G in a more...profitable times. Jedi = Money. Nerfherders and Gas Farmers != Money. Striked out because I've no faith in companies buying decent licenses. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Trippy on February 13, 2005, 12:13:26 AM His message almost sounds like he's conceding the EQ-model MMORPGs to Blizzard. Yes it does. It also sounded pathetic - what possible business objective was achieved with this dribble? It sounded like they were going back to the drawing board - which they should - but broadcasting that serves no purpose.I think it was El Gallo who said "SOE does not wear desperation well". Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HRose on February 13, 2005, 12:24:54 AM The discussion was different. What Lum said (or how he read the letter) was:
- World of Warcraft will help SOE to adjust the aim and consider elements that they didn't "get" the first time. Their commitment is unchanged and always strong. Before and now. While my opinion is that now they are lively because they don't like Blizzard looting them and become the number one. So they need to start to move again, they have to catch up. There's no intention to work on the ideas. There's the intention to capitalize. A game for every slice of the pie. There's no intention to develop and advance one world, there's just the plan to conquer the whole market, once a slice of the pie is conquered they move on a new project. They never consolidate. There are targets and there are games. There isn't a plan and commitment to ONE "world" to let it advance, evolve, improve. Instead there's the need to cover and conquer the market, developing games to fill the possible gaps. Instead of INTEGRATING parts into one world, they SPECIALIZE. Classic EQ for the catasses, EQ2 to hook new players with new shiney, Planetside for twitch etc... Conclusion: It's market-driven development, not passion-driven. Their plan doesn't follow the desires they have "no matter what". They do not have wishes or aspirations. They only aim for the market and develop the game as a specific target. And yes, I know that this is a type of work with more passion than the average situation. There are real-life works that are way more compelling, interesting and rewarding. There isn't really much to desire in this industry if you aren't ALREADY within. Already liking this. If you are proud to "make videogames" you are already odd. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Evangolis on February 13, 2005, 05:02:50 AM HRose, I really think I can understand what Lum says myself. Turns out he writes fairly clearly.
I'm hesitant to presume that people I've never met are money-grubbing bastards, or any other flavor of bastards, just because I don't like the some aspects of the products they produce. I also don't think that there is any reason you can't be passionate about games and aware of market forces at the same time. There is no shortage of ideas out there, what tends to fall short is the execution. Nor is there an incompatability between market segmentation and making games that different people want to play. A varied selection of games is both good business sense and good for players. How can we decry "EQ Clones" and then complain when SOE tries to make games that aren't EQ? I was at a Day One Studios Post-Mortem on MechAssault 2 recently, and there were two things that came through. Despite having a pretty successful product, they had some serious regrets about how it turned out. Why it went wrong had nothing to do with lack of passion, or greed; the problem was that games are complex undertakings, and a team, like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link. They clearly said where they thought the game fell short, and why. They also made clear why they couldn't stop, tear out the parts that failed, and redo it. Like most development studios, they effectively bet the company every time they make a game. It is not about greed, it is about survival as a company, and about the jobs of dozens of people. If you can't produce close to on time and on budget, you will be posting on these boards, not making games. A company that does not make profitable games does not make games very long, and anyone here can name examples of that truth. But a company who makes exciting and interesting games is likely to be a profitable company. It is easy to dis the sales and marketing folks, but they are vital members of the team making the product. If the greatest game in the world doesn't get marketed, it doesn't get played. This idea that profit and passion are opposing forces is just plain silly. You have to have both, or you have nothing but board warrioring for a career. In fact, making the imaginative, creative, innovative, quality products, in just about any business, turns out to be an excellent market strategy. The idea that games are somehow going to make more money if they dissappoint players is awfully hard to support. People know that excellence sells, but achieving excellence is not simple. Achieving excellence in a multi-partner, multi-disciplinary vocation like making games is harder still, particularly since you probably won't really be able to evaluate critical elements of your product until it is too late to make basic changes in the design. As to Smedley's musings, yeah, seemed a bit weak, and I too thought I detected a shot across Vangaurd's bow there as well. I thought the ideas sounded rather gimmicky, and I didn't hear a reason that these ideas would be fun. I hope SOE can do better, because this business does not need another success turned failure story. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Murgos on February 13, 2005, 05:35:54 AM Quote from: John Smedley EverQuest had that magic that propelled it to selling over 3 Million Just some quick back of the envelope observations...units over its six year (well almost) lifespan. We've released 9 expansion packs during that time that have added an absolutely massive amount of content that we're pretty proud of. Certainly some of those expansions were better than others, but I think our goal has always been the same.... to entertain our players. 3,000,000 units* $50/unit = $150,000,000 Lets say the average sell through of expansion packs is 10% of total units (A number i think highly conservative), and that EQ's average number of players paying monthly fees is around 250k 9 expansion packs * $30/expansion pack = $270 /player * 300,000 players = $81,000,000 6 years * 12 months/year * $10/month * 250,000 players =$180,000,000 So with conservative numbers the EQ revenue stream has been somewhere north of $400 million since launch and could, on the high side be as high as $1 billion. Even if Verant/SOE only realizes 20% of that as profit they are doing ridiculously well off of ONE GAME. Now here is the kicker... This is just the beginning of the industry. There will be bigger successes. WoW could easily double those numbers. I think I'm going to start pitching MMO's to capital investment firms, who's with me? Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 13, 2005, 05:42:18 AM I think HRose is right that it's a market-driven approach, but the people involved are still passionate about making good games. Where I differ is I think this is entirely acceptable. Some games that appeal to catassers, some to the casual, some to the skill-based crowd -- what's wrong with that? Right now you have RTS games, action games, RPG, platformers, FPS, simulation, strategy, etc. Yes, there are some hybrid games too, but this does not prevent innovative simulation games, nor do I see a big outcry to have super games that are combination strat/sim/FPS/RTS/RPG/etc. all rolled into one. Last game I can remember claiming to deliver that was BattleCruiser 3000AD.
And I'd say this is even more important when talking about the different MMOG playstyles. Having a game that satisfies every style of play is not only too complex to accomplish well when it comes to game "types"; I'd argue that appealing to all of the MMOG playstyles is inherently impossible. PvPers have inherent and conflicting interests to PvPers; so do Soloers and Groupers, Achievers and Casuals, etc. Yes, you can create a product that satisfies everyone to an okay extent, but it will always be possible for someone else to come along with a product better suited to one of those particular subgroups, and they'll prefer the new game over your kitchen-sink one. Movies have different appeals to different movie goers. Some like drama, some like comedy, some like love stories, some like action/adventure. And yes, many movies straddle more than one genre; sprinkle a little comedy in anything and it's usually better. But should Schindler's List have included some slapstick to appeal to the comedy crowd, some big invasion of Normandy scene to appeal to the action crowd, and a buried alien spaceship to appeal to the sci-fi/mystery crowd? No. Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 13, 2005, 05:47:03 AM I think I'm going to start pitching MMO's to capital investment firms, who's with me? The problem is VCs want a 150% - 200% return in, say, 5 years. And making a 1st-rate MMOG these days costs $10-20 million or more. Easy to do if you get 200,000 subscribers; much harder to do if you get only 20,000 subscribers. And it's almost impossible to know before launch what you're going to get. Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Murgos on February 13, 2005, 05:56:23 AM VC is a crap shoot, whats the standard? 1 in 8 investments is profitable and the rest is some bell curve around 'just break even'?. A $20 milllion investment in an MMO could net 200% profits in 5 years easily, which if you pitch it right is all most of them want to hear. Particularly if you have three or four case studies of successful enterprises to show them.
Someone who is good at writing portfolios could easily show all kinds of reasons why this one will succeed and contrast it with all kinds of talking points why those other ones failed. I'm not saying VC firms are stupid but I am saying that I think there is a soft spot right now where investing in an MMO would look like a great idea. Robert X. Cringley's (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050210.html) article this week points out that something like $25 billion needs to be invested from VC over the next 18 months. I wouldn't be surprised to see half a dozen, or more, VC funded MMO startups appear in the next year. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Megrim on February 13, 2005, 06:19:53 AM What amazes me is that anytime this topic comes up, people talk about the "passion", about the difficulties, about commitment, etc.. They apologize, analyse, write essays - and yet, in the years that have gone by all of these great idea people have not yet once managed to actually make an interesting game. I'm not having a dig at any of the posters (and i admire Lum for his show of solidarity), but apparently the actual people in charge (i.e. Smedley) understand this.
I mean, hell, that rough analysis by Murgos... what do they do with all that money?! Yes, i know, hookers, crack, etc, etc.. but still, the best they can come up with is EQ2? As a result (and as a prospective customer) i get the overwhelming impression that these people don't actually know anything about making games, but they know a _great_ deal about stringing fancy words together, and telling people how much their heart bleeds. Sort of like that annoying fat guy at the local hobby store.. he knows all the trivia about games, he can list off character progression tables for D&D and is a demon on the random loot tables, but you would never want him as a GM because none of his ideas have progressed beyond some, retarded, infantile stage. I just can't figure it out. - meg Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 13, 2005, 06:36:39 AM VC is a crap shoot, whats the standard? 1 in 8 investments is profitable and the rest is some bell curve around 'just break even'?. A $20 milllion investment in an MMO could net 200% profits in 5 years easily, which if you pitch it right is all most of them want to hear. Particularly if you have three or four case studies of successful enterprises to show them. I think it's more like 1 great success, 1 or 2 are so-so, and the rest fail. Someone who is good at writing portfolios could easily show all kinds of reasons why this one will succeed and contrast it with all kinds of talking points why those other ones failed. I'm not saying VC firms are stupid but I am saying that I think there is a soft spot right now where investing in an MMO would look like a great idea. Well, you're acting like this is a new thing. It's not. This is already going on, and has been going on for years. But the risk you cite is a pragmatic one -- VCs want every company they invest in to succeed, and they can't go about their business saying, "Well, this game doesn't look like it'll do well, but what the hell, we can afford to lose some money on a few projects." Robert X. Cringley's (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050210.html) article this week points out that something like $25 billion needs to be invested from VC over the next 18 months. I wouldn't be surprised to see half a dozen, or more, VC funded MMO startups appear in the next year. No, the VCs would rather go after companies with proven track records. That's why you saw the big VC investments in Mythic and Turbine. New startups do get funded as well; just look at Perpetual and (presumably) Cryptic. I was simply trying to point out why there's no big rush to invest in them, because game developers are still very risky investments. What are you going to pitch? Fantasy? WoW and EQ dominate the field with established IP, and DDO and MEO will be out soon with even bigger IP. Who is going to want to play in your Generic_Fantasy_World_#42? Sci-Fi? Okay, you've got a better chance their, but SWG is already out there, and you'll be going up against Star Trek Online, not to mention Imperator and Tabula Rasa which, while not big IPs, come from established companies with good reputations. A social Sims-like game? It's been tried, and it didn't do so hot. Some niche genre like Cthulhu horror or Wild West? Good idea, but it'll never get 200K subscribers -- you need a small-time Angel Investor, not a VC. Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 13, 2005, 06:47:04 AM I mean, hell, that rough analysis by Murgos... what do they do with all that money?! Yes, i know, hookers, crack, etc, etc.. but still, the best they can come up with is EQ2? For the most part, the *developers* don't get all that money to go mad with on their next innovative project -- the business people and the investors do. Maybe one or two developers make out well if they actually founded the studio and got bought, but otherwise, I don't think Raph is getting a check every month for 5% of the gross recipets from UO and Star Wars Galaxies. So now the money men have all that money, and now they are supposed to fund a new game. But why should they take a big risk? They did that when they funded the previous game. Now they are an established company, with an established product line, a reputation, a stable of talent -- why risk all that on another venture? Instead, they want games that they know have a good chance of doing well -- you know, a game just like the last one you made! It's the same problem you see in movies, television, etc. True innovation is rarely funded, and even more rarely succeeds, and then when it does it is endlessly copied. The other big factor is that the whole discipline of game software development is still extremely new. They don't have the decades of experience from software engineering that you find in the business sector or aerospace engineering. Plus, those industries focus primarily on features -- their programs don't have to be fun, they just have to work. Game developers have to deliver all the features, AND the whole thing still has to be fun, and that's often something you don't really know until after you've assembled all of the parts together. Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 13, 2005, 08:31:32 AM His message almost sounds like he's conceding the EQ-model MMORPGs to Blizzard. Yes it does. It also sounded pathetic - what possible business objective was achieved with this dribble? It sounded like they were going back to the drawing board - which they should - but broadcasting that serves no purpose.I think it was El Gallo who said "SOE does not wear desperation well". It would be very ironic - and actually make some business sense - if SOE suddenly resurrected previously terminated MMORPG projects. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 13, 2005, 09:09:13 AM Here's the problem as I see it. The MMORPG industry has room for unlimited player growth. Here's why it won't happen: Companies pick the shittiest worlds with the shittiest lore they can possibly find. I'm sorry, focus groups suck wind... Striked out because I've no faith in companies buying decent licenses. In my view, your comment is complicated because it raises the issue of what makes a MMORPG successful. This strikes me as closer to the problem: There is no shortage of ideas out there, what tends to fall short is the execution. Nor is there an incompatability between market segmentation and making games that different people want to play. If you look at CoH - anyone could have made a superhero game - but how it was implemented was critical. WoW is well executed and has great lore. You need both. Great execution alone can make any MMORPG successful (CoH). A great license, however, can give any development team block buster potential in the market (SWG) . The challenge for investors (VC's, Angels) is that execution is not tangible until the game hits alpha / beta (CoH), while the license can be assessed much earlier at inception of the whole enterprise (SWG). In my opinion. To attract investment you need a good license since it is too hard for investors to assess the upside from a development team based on their ability to execute (unless it is the same team from a former project that commercialized successfully). Licenses are expensive, however, so I would include the cost of setting-up the license in the business plan that requires more capital, over a business plan with much smaller capital requirements that starts without any known license. (I am extrapolating from my contact with VC's in biotechnology e.g. drug development - I don't work in computer industry so I may be completely off here). Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 13, 2005, 10:04:22 AM The challenge for investors (VC's, Angels) is that execution is not tangible until the game hits alpha / beta, while the license can be assessed at inception of the whole enterprise. In my opinion. I've never quite thought of it in those terms, jpark, but I think you've got it right. But I would also argue that it's possible for a MMOG even with great execution to fail if it has no license. This wouldn't normally be true of most games, you're going to be competeing in a market segment that already has established IPs and licenses. And I'd also claim that the gap between however great your execution is and that of the competitor isn't going to be that great. If your game is basically the same as WoW, plus let's say housing and better graphics and less lag and better support, but based on some unknown fantasy universe, would many people really play it over WoW? I don't think so. You'd have to come up with a design that's not just great, not just amazing, but amazingly amazing, and that's probably going to cost you a lot more than whatever Blizzard spent on making WoW. Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: El Gallo on February 13, 2005, 10:32:34 AM I think it was El Gallo who said "SOE does not wear desperation well". Sadly, I can't take credit for that one. I also thought the "no more hard core games" line was a swipe at Sigil. Smedley's just bitter because he drove out everyone with an ounce of talent or vision from the company, and now he's getting pistol-whipped by Blizzard because his new flagship product is about as exciting as Kix cereal. I hope the industry isn't doomed watered down game after ever more watered down game for the rest of it's life. But it probably is. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HRose on February 13, 2005, 12:57:48 PM What amazes me is that anytime this topic comes up, people talk about the "passion", about the difficulties, about commitment, etc.. They apologize, analyse, write essays - and yet, in the years that have gone by all of these great idea people have not yet once managed to actually make an interesting game. I'm not having a dig at any of the posters (and i admire Lum for his show of solidarity), but apparently the actual people in charge (i.e. Smedley) understand this. This is a typical "cheap" counterattack. The problem is that it isn't an argument about a discussion. It's an argument to close the discussion.The meaning is: if you don't agree, go away. The result isn't that there's a confrontation, the result is that everyone goes on its own. It's a denial. It's easy to dismiss things that way. Some of those peoples that discuss these games have absolutely no interest into doing the work themselves, they already have an interesting work and they probably have already bigger paychecks than those you can aspire in this industry. Still they can offer opinion and I don't see why these opinions have to be trashed. Then there's another group, where I could be included, with those peoples that criticize and would also like the possibility to do something concretely. But, aside the ideas - good or not, there could be an OCEAN of practical difficulties completely unrelated to the games why these peoples aren't doing something and can just sit and stare. Lets assume I'm the most awesome designer of the history, lets assume that SOE hires me. I'll be one in a group of 100 or more. The work I do can be the state of the art but I will *hardly* have an "impressive" impact for everyone to see. It's not like the industry needs a prophet that will reveal to everyone the "right way" and then will get revered for the centuries. This means that you can bring the discussion on a personal level but the result is ZERO. Because on the personal level there are so many factors that are UNRELATED to games. The fact that I'm NOT currently employed in a mmorpg software house isn't directly because of my ideas are crap. They could be disastrous, they could be miracles, still they aren't the reason why I'm working or why I'm not working. Even the fact that SWG can be considered horrible doesn't make Raph directly an awful designer, even the fact that Lum is "just a server programmer" doesn't make him an awful designer. Actually I'm *sure* that they are not "using" him at best. And even the fact that he can screw a server doesn't make him an awful coder. What we CAN discuss is the ideas. What we CANNOT discuss is the peoples. Even in this thread there are infinite reasons why EQ2 doesn't work (aside the ideas). The "evil" can be Smedley, the evil can be a clueless team without ideas and passion, the evil could be the producers, the evil could be the investors, or the management, or the organization etc... Or everything together. Only if we are omniscent we would know what went wrong, or not perfect, in the process. And even then we wouldn't know for sure. What we can discuss is again the ideas. The ideas by themselves. A concrete idea about the PvP, a concrete idea for a quest. And so on. These ideas can be REALLY great. Now the one who proposed them is hired at SOE or Mythic or whatever. What happens? We cannot know, because it's not anymore about the ideas, it's not anymore about the work of *one*. That brilliant person will have to work in a bigger team, will have to follow the directions from someone else, will have to work on parts of the game where he feels more 'weak' and so on. Concretely there are INFINITE reasons why someone doesn't demonstrate a value. But if instead we discuss the game and the ideas we can see *directly* what went wrong. We cannot see WHO is responsible. Peoples pointing their finger on someone are stupid. I always criticize freely but I never blame directly someone, you never see me asking for someone to be fired even when my attacks are aggressive. I'm not searching for the culprits, I just want to point the faults, so that even those culprits can move on. In the case of this letter it is USELESS to understand who is wrong. It could be Smedley, it could be another part of the managment, it could be the organization and so on. This is not important. But I criticize the *ideas*. No matter from where they arrive, no matter of who is responsible. The ideas are WRONG. Not the peoples. It's the ideas that you can change or help to improve. Not the peoples. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Krakrok on February 13, 2005, 01:15:07 PM (and as a prospective customer) i get the overwhelming impression that these people don't actually know anything about making games, but they know a _great_ deal about stringing fancy words together And these are the exact people that can wine and dine VCs. It really doesn't matter how awesome your game idea is. If you can't schmooze with the VC guys you won't get any cash. While someone who CAN schmooze but doesn't even know how to use the mouse will get the VC money. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Megrim on February 13, 2005, 02:08:40 PM things For the most part, the *developers* don't get all that money to go mad with on their next innovative project -- the business people and the investors do. Maybe one or two developers make out well if they actually founded the studio and got bought, but otherwise, I don't think Raph is getting a check every month for 5% of the gross recipets from UO and Star Wars Galaxies. So now the money men have all that money, and now they are supposed to fund a new game. But why should they take a big risk? They did that when they funded the previous game. Now they are an established company, with an established product line, a reputation, a stable of talent -- why risk all that on another venture? Instead, they want games that they know have a good chance of doing well -- you know, a game just like the last one you made! It's the same problem you see in movies, television, etc. True innovation is rarely funded, and even more rarely succeeds, and then when it does it is endlessly copied. The other big factor is that the whole discipline of game software development is still extremely new. They don't have the decades of experience from software engineering that you find in the business sector or aerospace engineering. Plus, those industries focus primarily on features -- their programs don't have to be fun, they just have to work. Game developers have to deliver all the features, AND the whole thing still has to be fun, and that's often something you don't really know until after you've assembled all of the parts together. Bruce Ok, i realise i am cutting in straight in the middle of your explanation (and ignoring the first part) but to say that there is no experience in software games development?! Surely, there have been plenty of excellent single-player games made that amply demonstrate that there is will and ability to actualy create this stuff. All while managing investors, business people, etc... Now obviously mmorpgs are different in that they require vastly more content but from what i understand, the budget for WoW was astronomically larger than it was for, say, Icewind Dale 2. Yet, i know very well which one i would rather be playing (and in fact which one i have installed on my system at the moment). On second thought... do mmorpg companies operate on some kind of different business plan, or something? Is there something i'm missing in regards to where their business functionality actualy comes from? Are they all living the dream, hoping to break even while the evil, evil suit-types steal away all of their money (sort of like all of those poor recording artists), or what? And HRose, i'm terribly sorry, but i can't understand what it is you are trying to say. I know you are trying to say something but for the love of me i just have no idea. - meg Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Murgos on February 13, 2005, 02:29:10 PM And HRose, i'm terribly sorry, but i can't understand what it is you are trying to say. I know you are trying to say something but for the love of me i just have no idea. - meg He gets that a lot. Viklas (http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail43.html) Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Margalis on February 13, 2005, 03:38:13 PM It's easy to say what your customers want to hear. You see a lot of companies, across a wide range of businesses, identify what the customer really wants, say they are going to deliver it, then deliver something totally different. For many different reasons - stubborness, internal politics, business decisions, pleasing board members, etc.
It's quite common to read an interview with someone and think "wow, this guy really gets it!" and then you go use the product and it's totally disconnected from the interview you read. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 13, 2005, 03:40:34 PM Ok, i realise i am cutting in straight in the middle of your explanation (and ignoring the first part) but to say that there is no experience in software games development?! Surely, there have been plenty of excellent single-player games made that amply demonstrate that there is will and ability to actualy create this stuff. I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that there is comparitively little experience to it. 20 years ago, complex software programs in aerospace and finance and the military were written by teams of people. 20 years ago, many game programs were being written by one person, or a few. Many of the successful games you cite really succeed not because of great management, but in spite of it. There are still game programmers working today who couldn't meet a deadline if their lives depended on it, and skilled producers who can wrangle them into a schedule are extremely rare. All while managing investors, business people, etc... Not really. Many development teams don't see their product get the market. Most development studios don't survive more than a few years. Because of the hit or miss nature of the business, few studios can survive one or two bad flops. On second thought... do mmorpg companies operate on some kind of different business plan, or something? Is there something i'm missing in regards to where their business functionality actualy comes from? Are they all living the dream, hoping to break even while the evil, evil suit-types steal away all of their money (sort of like all of those poor recording artists), or what? Ummm, the answer to your question is no, but I don't really understand why you brought it up? I didn't imply anything like that. Any game development is risky. MMOGs may be a bit riskier because the bigger ones require some bigger budgets. On the other hand, even a so-so MMOG can support a development studio, whereas a bad single title cannot. The problem is, for most investors, that sort-of trickling return from a so-so MMOG isn't really that attractive. Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HRose on February 13, 2005, 04:25:42 PM I'm trying to say that you cannot attack the peoples. A game can get screwed just because the air conditioner is broken, or because the offices stink.
There are 100000000+1 different, unrelated reasons why something cannot work as expected. You'll NEVER find a single responsible. Instead, if you look at the GAME, you'll see there there is one reason why it didn't work. You'll see the mistakes on the game and you are able to move forward. The perfect developer studio isn't the one that delivers ALWAYS masterpieces, with no mistakes. The errors are the resource. The best developer studio is the one that does a lot of mistakes but is also able to see them and address them. The ideas change, no one has the perfect recipe for the perfect game, you can arrive there only through a path filled of attempts, gone wrong or good. You learn, you keep your eyes open. The peoples who are able to deliver this are the same peoples that did the previous mistakes. But is this possible? No, because games are created after the market and not games created to shape the market. There's no possibility of improvement because everyone keeps working on something completely different and old games are eradicated on their mistakes or problems. There's a low commitment in this genre because no one believes into it. If not in the perspective of "easy money" without a work, or passion, or interest or commitment. So the only aim is: Let's tap as much market as possible. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Evangolis on February 14, 2005, 12:25:05 AM I'm trying to say that you cannot attack the peoples. ... There's a low commitment in this genre because no one believes into it. I know you write much better English than I do in Italian (I seem to recall that is home for you), but I still must point out that you are contradicting yourself here. And yet I still manage to disagree with both statements. You can attack the people, but I think only in specific cases where you have facts. Many times projects flounder because of one or two team members who don't hold up their end. But I can't agree with the low commitment idea. Working conditions in the game industry are notoriously sub-standard, at least in the USA. Now I happen to think that this will be a self-correcting problem because of my first point. You need skilled management and top talent or you are going to have dead weight that will drag you down, and that means that in the long run, the industry conditions will improve, because success will require quality people, and quality can demand better. But in the meantime, there are a lot of people in this industry giving up wealth and comfort to do the job, and that doesn't sound like they are uncommitted. In fact, based on the people I have met in this industry over the last couple of years, I would say that there are a lot of very committed people in it, from the highest levels down. However, that is a subset of what I think the current issue in game development is, which is project management. And, over the last couple of years, I have noticed a lot of people in the industry beginning to address the issue of project management, and I think we will see more efficient game prodution because of it. At that point, it will be much easier to produce cookie-cutter clones, at which point innovation will become more important in product success. Which is not to say that all will be well; there will still be issues like exclusive contracts like EA has, and there will still be pressures to make sequels rather than breaking new ground, but once the basics are better codified and understood, every form of production becomes less risky, whether you are making knockoffs or breaking new ground. In the case of MMOs, I would suggest that this is a very new type of game, which hasn't really existed much longer that 1997 at earliest. Before that, the games were not Massive, they were MO at most, and many of the models MMOs began with were based on text MUDs. Some of what went wrong in the first MMOs was due to things that worked in smaller games or text MUDs that did not work so well in MMOs. (For example, I suspect relatively few Text DIKUMUD's had pathing problems, but EQ certainly had some.) I predicted a few years back that EQ would last at least ten years, and now I will predict that over the next 5 years we will see notable improvements in the reliability and user-friendliness of MMOs. It will not be an unbroken march of progress, of course, but I think the lessons of the many failures that followed in the wake of the Big 3 have been widely learned, and we will see those lessons bear fruit as new games continue to appear. [/Pollyanna] Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Tige on February 14, 2005, 05:14:35 AM I can't believe all the apologist posts. Here of all places.
Quote from: Bruce Any game development is risky. Any venture is risky. The best way to reduce risk is for all involved to do it to the best of their abilities. When success doesn't automagically happen the worst thing those involved can do is start to point fingers and make excuses. No one department in a multi-million dollar project should be allowed to be chameleons. When things go good, they good for everyone. When things go bad, they go bad for everyone. Agree or disagree with Smedley Whiplash's letter, Lum brain droppings, special guest apperance posts by Raph just don't make excuses for them. I don't see them doing it, well, at least not lately. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Evangolis on February 14, 2005, 07:12:07 AM I don't see them doing it, well, at least not lately. Who are they? I could see taking Raph to task over SWG failures, and you can argue that EQ2 is lacking in some important ways, but WoW seems to be doing pretty well, despite the largest numbers in the business to date. Certainly they seem to have dodged the security issues I expected them to have. CoH has put together a solid technical performance, even if the game wears thin for many after a time. There have been failures, of course, but those are older train wrecks like Horizon and Wish, that have been coming down the tracks for a long time. I can't evaluate the new game from from Mythic because it isn't done yet. (Although if they are looking for testers, I'm always willing to give my opinion.) When you ask 'What has the industry done lately', you get the answer, 'better'. The newer games like WoW and CoH, and even EQ2, are much sounder technically than their predecessors. They are not perfect, they have problems, but are those problems on the scale of Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, or WWII Online? I think not. I think we have seen a order of magnitude shift in the quality of production, and I think that shift will continue as people stop learning from their mistakes, and start learning from their successes. The industry has progressed, and I think that deserves recognition. I also see in the proliferation of recent successful releases a trend I wish had begun with Anarchy Online, but at least has begun at last, and which I think bodes very well for the future. I also am hearing from the people making the games less in the way of excuses, and more in the way of recognizing problems, and I am seeing steps taken to address those problems in some shops, shops which are becoming more successful as a direct result. There are still many hurdles to clear in making these games all they should be, but I think that we are beginning to clear the Quality Production Techniques hurdle that everyone tripped over in the wake of the success of the original "Big 3". Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 14, 2005, 09:04:49 AM Ironically, the tone to that letter strikes some on the EQ boards as referring to their game in past tense. LOL. The same letter that concedes EQ2 to WoW at the same time causes concern for their base in EQ.
Predictions. What the hell is SOE going to do? 1. Hope that patches can instill charm into EQ2 and dramatically increase subs? 2. Refocus development efforts on EQ (update graphics, add new elements)? 3. Resurrect a project they have terminated in the past (Mythica?)? Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: schild on February 14, 2005, 09:24:17 AM 3. Resurrect a project they have terminated in the past (Mythica?)? Mythica was being made by Microsoft Games Studio if my memory serves me. Edit: Yes, sometimes my memory doesn't serve me, but rather serves other people instead. My brain's a rebel. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: SirBruce on February 14, 2005, 10:14:32 AM SOE has at least one secret MMOG project in development, and possibly more.
I think they'll redouble their efforts on EQ2, but I don't think it will help. I think they'll keep EQ1 going as long as they can. They won't make big pushes for new subscribers; EQ2 will get most of the attention. But they'll still put out expansion packs, although perhaps less frequently, for years to come. And they'll concentrate on new MMOGs. Bruce Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HaemishM on February 14, 2005, 10:14:43 AM Hrose, get a translator, or STFU, please.
Murgos, thanks for showing me the origin of VIKLAS! Smedley... BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! Having virtual families is not the answer. Skill-based, maybe. But I think you missed the meeting where it was revealed the people didn't buy EQ2 because it was more of the same, only worse. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Shockeye on February 14, 2005, 10:16:59 AM Having virtual families is not the answer. Skill-based, maybe. Are you talking about a breeding skill? Are we talking survival of the fittest in MMOGs? Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Paelos on February 14, 2005, 10:46:19 AM Having virtual families is not the answer. Skill-based, maybe. Are you talking about a breeding skill? Are we talking survival of the fittest in MMOGs? I think MMOG's prove the exact opposite of that theory on who is the most successful. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: WayAbvPar on February 14, 2005, 10:50:35 AM Having virtual families is not the answer. Skill-based, maybe. Are you talking about a breeding skill? Are we talking survival of the fittest in MMOGs? I think MMOG's prove the exact opposite of that theory on who is the most successful. I don't know- bacteria, flab, odors and acne seem to breed like a motherfucker near the most 'successful' MMOG players. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HaemishM on February 14, 2005, 11:21:10 AM I was too brief. Skill-based gaming MAY be the answer for MMOG's. Skill-based families... not so much. Since my aim is so bad on UT, I imagine it would take my characters forever just to consumate. But we might feed a great money sink in having to buy new sheets all the time.
Yes, I went there. Blame Smed. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: AlteredOne on February 14, 2005, 11:35:11 AM I don't know- bacteria, flab, odors and acne seem to breed like a motherfucker near the most 'successful' MMOG players. I'm waiting for this unique confluence of conditions to breed a new strain of superdisease, and MMO players will be reviled like gay men back when AIDS arrived. But then again, spreading the disease might be difficult outside gaming conventions, since the greatest catassers seldom meet :P Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 14, 2005, 12:33:17 PM My gripe, among the many we can list - is it boggles my mind the 'art' in EQ2 is so bad (compared to EQ).
Take a breast plate. The same breast place looks exactly the same on all races in EQ2 - but EQ has race specific appearances to armor pieces (helm, breastplate etc.). The avatars are bad - EQ's are much better (in style, not polygon count). No need to hammer the point. Oh and character creation... take a barbarian - in EQ you can add a patch or a scar - simple things to differentiate. In EQ2 you can just the angle of his eyelid but no patches are scars, something that demands bandwith that otherwise nobody will notice. It is just symptomatic of the whole game. Technology is like power. If you don't apply it properly it is a wasteful embarrassment. EQ2 is an embarassment. I think SOE is going to let EQ2 wane and focus its resources in EQ and other projects. They lost all face with this message above - their flagship is still EQ, not EQ2. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Mi_Tes on February 14, 2005, 12:55:01 PM 3. Resurrect a project they have terminated in the past (Mythica?)? Mythica was being made by Microsoft Games Studio if my memory serves me. Edit: Yes, sometimes my memory doesn't serve me, but rather serves other people instead. My brain's a rebel. Yes, a year ago Mythica was cancelled by MS Games Studio as it went into alpha. Some of the staff of Mythica left MS and created Fire Ant Games (Matt Wilson, Ed Fries, and others) and are now the new Seattle office for SOE. More info about the new SOE studio on Massive HQ (http://forums.massivehq.com/showthread.php?t=2991). Still an undisclosed title, but this is one I am hopeful for. This group seems to have not only the passion, but the skills as well! Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Sky on February 14, 2005, 02:50:45 PM Quote I'm glad that we went in the direction I really think the guy has no clue what hardcore means. If that's as 'softcore' (heh) as SOE can make it...we did with EQ II because had we stuck with making an even "harder core" game, I think bad things would have happened. With schild's rampant strike tags, for a second I transposed the words "Planescape" and "Planetside". What a fantastic second that was, imagining the game mechanics of Planetside against a rich and diverse backdrop like Planescape...harvesting different technologies from each plane that acts differently depending on what plane you're on....ahh...I drew it out to like five nice seconds there. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 14, 2005, 03:26:36 PM Quote I'm glad that we went in the direction I really think the guy has no clue what hardcore means. If that's as 'softcore' (heh) as SOE can make it...we did with EQ II because had we stuck with making an even "harder core" game, I think bad things would have happened. Looking at the EQ boards they view EQ2 as possibly more hardcore than EQ past level 20. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Alkiera on February 14, 2005, 04:15:54 PM Quote I'm glad that we went in the direction I really think the guy has no clue what hardcore means. If that's as 'softcore' (heh) as SOE can make it...we did with EQ II because had we stuck with making an even "harder core" game, I think bad things would have happened. Looking at the EQ boards they view EQ2 as possibly more hardcore than EQ past level 20. Huh? I'm confused... EQ2 is in no way more hardcore then EQ1. Admittedly, my highest character is only 26... but I can still solo, as a fighter. I have a 22 Illusionist and a 20 warlock, and the can both solo too. Soloing as a wizard between 10 and 29 in EQ1 is a nightmare. As a tank type, it's not easy after the late teens... and after that is almost never possible. Rogue-ish classes also have solo difficulties after the teen levels, tho some do better than others. Why? EQ2 has speedy out of combat hp/power regen. EQ2 also has mobs all over that are intended to be soloed, and which drop loot which sells okay on a semi-regular basis, if you are solo. These solo mobs are not really worthwhile to groups, as they don't give as good exp as group mobs, and don't drop the good loot when taken by a group. EQ2 leveling times feel shorter than EQ1, and combat is much faster paced. EQ2 has a vitality system that grants you double exp if you don't play much, but which is quickly drained if you're a catass. So what specifically did 'they' on the 'EQ boards' think was so much worse about EQ2 over EQ1? Seriously. Alkiera Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 14, 2005, 07:57:34 PM Quote I'm glad that we went in the direction I really think the guy has no clue what hardcore means. If that's as 'softcore' (heh) as SOE can make it...we did with EQ II because had we stuck with making an even "harder core" game, I think bad things would have happened. Looking at the EQ boards they view EQ2 as possibly more hardcore than EQ past level 20. Huh? I'm confused... EQ2 is in no way more hardcore then EQ1. So what specifically did 'they' on the 'EQ boards' think was so much worse about EQ2 over EQ1? Seriously. Alkiera Bah - you owe me for going to dig this up :) It is in the commentary around the Smedly dribble that started this thread, here's a poster on the EQ board: I guess it's perception.......he is saying EQ2 is less hardcore and more casual friendly than EQ1. If you read the EQ2 forums, or play, you would likely get a different impression. IMO (and many others) EQ2, after say, level 20, is very hardcore and non-casual friendly. Except for killing the odd solo mobs for miniscule XP, most quests, most ANYTHING requires a full group. IMO EQ1 is way more casual friendly, and I say that not speaking to planes/GoD raid content, but everything up to that. Quite frankly after level 20 playing EQ2 is more a chore than fun, for me to do my armor quests, or almost any quest, I need a group, something I do not have the time to look for. Much harder to get a group, and quite frankly pickup groups are generally worse than here, real nightmares! Plus it is very hard to get a bunch together with the same quest/goals. I hope they keep working on EQ1, especially those new character graphics that were due end of 2004.....and fix/tweak/add content that is NOT just aimed at the top levels Message Edited by Silent_Vlawde on 02-11-2005 04:51 PM Maelin Starpyre Another poster comments on the EQ boards: Having played both I have to agree. EQ2 stops for the casual player around level 20, it certainly becomes incredibly slow and tedious to solo, even with a "solo" class, somewhere around there. ******** You can go to the link: http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board.id=TNZ&message.id=154262&no_redir=true Note: maybe I missed it - but the above two posts I pasted above went without debate. I am not saying I agree - I was just surprised to see this. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Aenovae on February 14, 2005, 08:28:29 PM Yep, EQ2 is a bit more hardcore than EQ1 if you look at things like soloability, EQ2's required quests, grouping restrictions, and lack of powerleveling and twinking. It also seems to take significantly longer to reach max level in EQ2 than in EQ1.
On the other hand, almost every EQ2 class is useful in a group, so you spend less time /lfg in EQ2 than you did in EQ1. Ease of finding pickup groups coupled with the great rewards from popular quests makes the game a little more friendly to the casual (non uberguilded) player. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Sky on February 15, 2005, 06:39:11 AM Quote On the other hand, almost every EQ2 class is useful in a group, so you spend less time /lfg in EQ2 than you did in EQ1. Ease of finding pickup groups coupled with the great rewards from popular quests makes the game a little more friendly to the casual (non uberguilded) player. Don't forget, they have that covered, too. Group death penalties!EQ2 is probably a great game if you are in a large active guild or play with a regular group of friends, err, regularly. For everyone else, it's teh suck (imo, natch). I made it to level 17 in EQ2, couldn't stomach killing any more yard trash (and only about half of that was viable, anyway!). On level 44 in WoW now, still having a great time. That's gotta be good for something, I (have been told I) hate the genre. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2005, 06:50:32 AM I'll say it before and I'll say it again. The main thing that makes WoW tolerable at higher levels is the rest system. You can walk away from your lvl 40 toon for a week and roll something else up. Then by the time you come back you can basically gain two levels in no time with quests and xp bonuses. Early on the bonus is minimal, but in the 50s it has exponential returns.
Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 15, 2005, 06:56:11 AM Smedley's business sense still escapes me.
My buddy - in EQ2 until last month - saw this article and is now picking up WoW despite his reaction to the avatar graphics to give it a chance (he is a former EQ player of many years originally). Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HaemishM on February 15, 2005, 07:45:00 AM I'd say EQ2 is more hardcore in that they introduced timesinks on top of the normal leveling timesink. Guilds now have their own treadmill to run. You have access quests to get into certain zones. Then those zones require you to finish them successfully, or if you fail, start over from the beginning but not immediately, because you have to wait four hours.
Now, the play mechanics are essentially EQ on training wheels, and I find both games boring as fuck. I think EQ2 has more hidden time sinks than EQ1, but on my scale of shitty games, EQ2 wins hands down. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Daeven on February 15, 2005, 11:10:29 AM With schild's rampant strike tags, for a second I transposed the words "Planescape" and "Planetside". What a fantastic second that was, imagining the game mechanics of Planetside against a rich and diverse backdrop like Planescape...harvesting different technologies from each plane that acts differently depending on what plane you're on....ahh...I drew it out to like five nice seconds there. I would so kill for a Planescape style MMORPG. Imagine, if you will - the 'Planescape City' is the central hub of the game. From there you go on quests and explore to find portals. Portals to where? Well, whatever the developers decide to develop. Standard Generic Fantasy worlds. Dark Gothic Fantasy. Steampunk. Gundam. A modern 'metropolis'. Infernal Demonic hells. Whatever. Take your Phaser blaster and your +5 vorpal pig sticker with you. No worries. Or am I the only person who thinks this sort of thing would be fun? Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: shiznitz on February 15, 2005, 11:21:15 AM But Haemish, they are adding a DING! to guild levelling! FIXED.
But Haemish, they are lowering the lockout timers on most restricted zones! Specifically, the timer to go back in is substantially less if you entered and failed, but we are still talking hours. FIXED. Those incremental changes (hitting live servers probably this week) are hilariously lame. Yes, I am still playing. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Sky on February 15, 2005, 12:14:44 PM Quote Or am I the only person who thinks this sort of thing would be fun? Heck, I've wanted something that encompasses time/planar travel forever now.All part of my ubergame, where you can plug in any setting and it works, and also plug in any genre and it works. So if you head out to the golf course, you are playing a "mini-game" that is as full featured and on the playing level of Tiger Woods or Links. Each "mini-game" being able to stand up to (not necessarily top) the genre standards. Rather than mmogs being bland and only becoming more dynamic for the player, input-wise, I envision them being HUGE projects that involve almost everyone in a huge dev stable like EA's. That's my state of the future. I dreamt it up back when I was reading a PC Gamer article about a "Multima", back before I was on teh intarweb. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Krakrok on February 15, 2005, 02:01:25 PM I envision them being HUGE projects that involve almost everyone in a huge dev stable like EA's. That is what Second Life is. Or wants to be if it mostly didn't suck. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Samwise on February 15, 2005, 02:08:54 PM I would so kill for a Planescape style MMORPG. Imagine, if you will - the 'Planescape City' is the central hub of the game. Form there you go on qeusts and explote to find portals. Portals to where? Well, whatever the developers decide to develop. Standard Generic Fantasy worlds. Dark Gothic Fantasy. Steampunk. Gundam. A modern 'metropolis'. Infernal Demonic hells. Whatever. Take your Phaser blaster and your +5 vorpal pig sticker with you. No worries. Or am I the only perons who thinks this sort of thing would be fun? Add on to it the potential for players to create their own demiplanes and populate them with built-in content creation tools. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Soukyan on February 16, 2005, 04:57:05 AM I think people who are stating that EQ2 is more hardcore than EQ1 are comparing the two based on starting from scratch in EQ2 and on twinking a new character in EQ1. Starting from scratch in EQ1, soloing is a royal bitch and a half. EQ2 is far more solo friendly and far faster to level in. Trust me, I have no patience for grinding games.
Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Alkiera on February 16, 2005, 08:43:32 AM I think people who are stating that EQ2 is more hardcore than EQ1 are comparing the two based on starting from scratch in EQ2 and on twinking a new character in EQ1. Starting from scratch in EQ1, soloing is a royal bitch and a half. EQ2 is far more solo friendly and far faster to level in. Trust me, I have no patience for grinding games. This is more or less exactly what I was going to say. The people complaining seem to have forgotten just how much it sucks to have to level a character solo in EQ1 without twinking or powerleveling. In EQ1 post 15 or so, if you are not one of Necro, Druid, Wizard, or Enchanter, you cannot solo at all... Yet they complain about getting 'miniscule exp' from solo mobs in EQ2. The exp you get for killing blue/even 'solo' mobs is a larger percentage of your exp to level than you get killing blue stuff in a group in most non-planar outdoor zones in EQ1. An even solo mob is ~.75%, just shy of 1% of your current level in EQ2, no matter what your level. Sure, it's slower than grouping, because group mobs give better exp, and groups can destroy mobs in job lots... but it's not the night-and-day that EQ1 is. The poster also left out the planes and the post-planes expansions in their estimation of what is 'hardcore'... If you're 61 or higher, those zones are pretty much where you're going to be playing. The planes, mob for mob, give better exp than pretty much anywhere else in the game, at least when I played. If you could kill high-blue/even things in Halls of Honor, Plane of Tactics, or Bastion of Thunder... There wasn't any zone your group could go that would be better exp over time or money/loot reward over time. And please, someone, try to argue that PoP access quests are less harcore than... any access quest in EQ2. Please. Especially since EQ2's raid size is limited to 4 groups... most PoP-level raids can't be done with that few people. Alkiera Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 16, 2005, 08:51:02 AM I think people who are stating that EQ2 is more hardcore than EQ1 are comparing the two based on starting from scratch in EQ2 and on twinking a new character in EQ1. Starting from scratch in EQ1, soloing is a royal bitch and a half. EQ2 is far more solo friendly and far faster to level in. Trust me, I have no patience for grinding games. It's a good point. But let's keep in mind what EQ involves: twinking and powerleveling. It is part of the game. The only time it was not part of the game may have been in the first 6 months of release, where the average server level and economy may not have provided the goods to twink newbies effectively. The vast majority of the time EQ has been around, however, effective twinking has been a strong option. As it stands, effective twinking in EQ2 will not likely be a viable option, given the game dynamics, regardless what the average level is on the server. Your comment stands in the first 6 months of the life of EQ, but not in the 4-5 years that followed in my view. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Alkiera on February 16, 2005, 09:19:44 AM I think people who are stating that EQ2 is more hardcore than EQ1 are comparing the two based on starting from scratch in EQ2 and on twinking a new character in EQ1. Starting from scratch in EQ1, soloing is a royal bitch and a half. EQ2 is far more solo friendly and far faster to level in. Trust me, I have no patience for grinding games. It's a good point. But let's keep in mind what EQ involves: twinking and powerleveling. It is part of the game. The only time it was not part of the game may have been in the first 6 months of release, where the average server level and economy may not have provided the goods to twink newbies effectively. The vast majority of the time EQ has been around, however, effective twinking has been a strong option. As it stands, effective twinking in EQ2 will not likely be a viable option, given the game dynamics, regardless what the average level is on the server. Your comment stands in the first 6 months of the life of EQ, but not in the 4-5 years that followed in my view. It stands, IF you already have a high level character. You can do the same thing in EQ2, once you have a high level character, you can use the shared bank slots to transfer items and spell/art upgrades to characters based in the same city. However, as you stated, EQ2 is still in it's first 6 months... most people do not already have high level characters to twink with. Alkiera Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 16, 2005, 10:54:37 AM I think people who are stating that EQ2 is more hardcore than EQ1 are comparing the two based on starting from scratch in EQ2 and on twinking a new character in EQ1. Starting from scratch in EQ1, soloing is a royal bitch and a half. EQ2 is far more solo friendly and far faster to level in. Trust me, I have no patience for grinding games. It's a good point. But let's keep in mind what EQ involves: twinking and powerleveling. It is part of the game. The only time it was not part of the game may have been in the first 6 months of release, where the average server level and economy may not have provided the goods to twink newbies effectively. The vast majority of the time EQ has been around, however, effective twinking has been a strong option. As it stands, effective twinking in EQ2 will not likely be a viable option, given the game dynamics, regardless what the average level is on the server. Your comment stands in the first 6 months of the life of EQ, but not in the 4-5 years that followed in my view. It stands, IF you already have a high level character. You can do the same thing in EQ2, once you have a high level character, you can use the shared bank slots to transfer items and spell/art upgrades to characters based in the same city. However, as you stated, EQ2 is still in it's first 6 months... most people do not already have high level characters to twink with. Alkiera So you're saying the potential to twink is the same in EQ2 as EQ? If you believe that - then yes I can see the above makes sense. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: kaid on February 16, 2005, 11:17:32 AM You can twink and easily in eq2 due to the shared bank slots. HOWEVER and this is a big however the game has a lot of built in limitations and requirements on weapons that prevents you from using anything to crazy for your leve. Yes if you are twinked you will have an easier time in eq2 but the differance between twinked and untwinked is nowheres NEAR as silly as it was in eqlive.
Hell I was never an uber twinker or pharmer but in eqlive I had some crappy armor and crappy twink weapons that were still powerful enough to make a newbie pretty much invulnerable till around level 20. kaid Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Yegolev on February 16, 2005, 01:51:27 PM I think people who are stating that EQ2 is more hardcore than EQ1 are comparing the two based on starting from scratch in EQ2 and on twinking a new character in EQ1. Starting from scratch in EQ1, soloing is a royal bitch and a half. What he said. Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: HaemishM on February 16, 2005, 02:10:47 PM How about "They are both hellishly boring, making them seem hardcore simply because of how incredibly boring any sort of playing them is."
Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: Alkiera on February 16, 2005, 02:47:20 PM It stands, IF you already have a high level character. You can do the same thing in EQ2, once you have a high level character, you can use the shared bank slots to transfer items and spell/art upgrades to characters based in the same city. However, as you stated, EQ2 is still in it's first 6 months... most people do not already have high level characters to twink with. Alkiera So you're saying the potential to twink is the same in EQ2 as EQ? If you believe that - then yes I can see the above makes sense. I will admit that EQ1 still has alot of equipment without recommended or required levels... Whereas every item in EQ2 effectively has both. I believe if you're going to go the 'tin sword, iron sword, carbonite sword, feyiron sword, etc etc' route, where each sword is the same with more damage and better stats, than you need to put recommended levels on stuff. Personally, I find the whole thing kinda dumb. However, lack of money will frequently mean you can't always afford the latest and greatest armor, weapons, jewelry, and spell/combat art upgrades... Which is the primary thing holding back newbs in EQ1 from getting nice armor and weapons. However, if a lvl 70, who has lots of money just from splitting cash in the places they hunt, and can buy exceptional newb equipment from the change they lose in their couch, buys it and gives it to them, this is twinking. This same thing can happen in EQ2. Hunt around with your newb, find someone selling the items you need, then log in your level 50 alt and buy them, put them in shared bank slot, then the newb suddenly find a hoard of nice items in his bank... like Magic! Alkiera Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: jpark on February 16, 2005, 08:01:02 PM It stands, IF you already have a high level character. You can do the same thing in EQ2, once you have a high level character, you can use the shared bank slots to transfer items and spell/art upgrades to characters based in the same city. However, as you stated, EQ2 is still in it's first 6 months... most people do not already have high level characters to twink with. Alkiera So you're saying the potential to twink is the same in EQ2 as EQ? If you believe that - then yes I can see the above makes sense. I will admit that EQ1 still has alot of equipment without recommended or required levels... Whereas every item in EQ2 effectively has both. I believe if you're going to go the 'tin sword, iron sword, carbonite sword, feyiron sword, etc etc' route, where each sword is the same with more damage and better stats, than you need to put recommended levels on stuff. Personally, I find the whole thing kinda dumb. However, lack of money will frequently mean you can't always afford the latest and greatest armor, weapons, jewelry, and spell/combat art upgrades... Which is the primary thing holding back newbs in EQ1 from getting nice armor and weapons. However, if a lvl 70, who has lots of money just from splitting cash in the places they hunt, and can buy exceptional newb equipment from the change they lose in their couch, buys it and gives it to them, this is twinking. This same thing can happen in EQ2. Hunt around with your newb, find someone selling the items you need, then log in your level 50 alt and buy them, put them in shared bank slot, then the newb suddenly find a hoard of nice items in his bank... like Magic! Alkiera I dunno Alkeria, when I played I did not really have a lack of money. I had the best armor quests or money could permit that I was aware of. Granted I did not have Adept III spells - that was the only "thing" I did not have. Ahh.. the days of twinking in EQ... when my troll warrior could 3 shot red cons at level 15 :) Title: Re: John Smedley's state of the...future? Post by: shiznitz on February 17, 2005, 07:38:46 AM Some twinking in EQ2 is doable, certainly and thankfully. If I want to start an alt, the least thing I want to go through is all of the same damn quests from 1-20 and I would have too if I want good equipment. I have spent 22 levels in Antonica/Stormhold with my current main. I want to get out. I could start an alt in Freeport, but my guild is in Qeynos so I would have to do that inane betrayal quest. If I am going to have to kill 500 gnolls anyway, I might as well start in Qeynos where I am told to kill gnolls anyway.
|