John Smedley's state of the...future?

[Evangolis]

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.

[Murgos]

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.

Just some quick back of the envelope observations...

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?

[SirBruce]

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

[SirBruce]

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

[Murgos]

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 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.

[Megrim]

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

[SirBruce]

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 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

[SirBruce]

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

[jpark]

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".

I see it as an attempt to create some "buzz" for SOE's future games. They've clearly lost the battle between EQ2 and WoW for the successor to EQ and are now trying to create the sort of rabid fanboy support for vague vaporware products that other non-existent MMOs like Mythica and Wish have enjoyed.

It would be very ironic - and actually make some business sense - if SOE suddenly resurrected previously terminated MMORPG projects.

[jpark]

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).
 

[SirBruce]

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

[El Gallo]

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. 

[HRose]

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.

[Krakrok]

(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.

[Megrim]

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

[Murgos]

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

[Margalis]

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.

[SirBruce]

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

[HRose]

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.

[Evangolis]

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]

[Tige]

I can't believe all the apologist posts.  Here of all places.   

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.

 

 

 

 

[Evangolis]

  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".

[jpark]

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?)?

[schild]

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.

[SirBruce]

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

[HaemishM]

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.

[Shockeye]

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?

[Paelos]

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.

[WayAbvPar]

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

[AlteredOne]

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

[jpark]

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.

[Mi_Tes]

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.  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!

[Sky]

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.

I really think the guy has no clue what hardcore means. If that's as 'softcore' (heh) as SOE can make it...


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.

[jpark]

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.

I really think the guy has no clue what hardcore means. If that's as 'softcore' (heh) as SOE can make it...

Looking at the EQ boards they view EQ2 as possibly more hardcore than EQ past level 20.