Cyberpunks Unite!

[Megrim]

Ugh, guys? Stop feeding the troll.

[Azazel]

Ah!

Heavy Hitters!

Got'cha!

 :-D

[Signe]

You guys should be nicer to him.  He's just trying to say stuff.

[HaemishM]

@HaemishM: I'm not lookin' stuff anyones pockets full of unearned money, least of all MMOG developers! However, I really believe that if we send a strong unambiguous message to the development community that we would be willing to pay more for a MMOG IF: a) it has high quality real time rendered graphics (not just technically high quality as in 1600x1200 etc., but artistically high quality as well); b) it fully implements believable Newtonian physics and supports the relevant hardware (PPU); c) Introduces new innovations that give players the ability to communicate with each other much more effectively...in other words get rid of the keyboard (almost) and give us the ability to talk through our avatars (not that teamspeak junk but VoIP w/voice synthesizer so that a 200lb. man can sound like a delicate little girl, if that's his thing!), lips moving, facial expressions, the whole 9 yards!; d) high quality content and plenty of it! f) virtually bug free 64-bit code . etc., etc., you get the idea. The operative word here is IF!

You have about 10-20 years wait for that. All that shit you mentioned could be put in today. It would just be buggy as fuck, and never work right for the entire life cycle of the game. You are also probably talking about an X-Box Live/console style MMOG, because I don't believe that kind of thing will work well or at all without a standardized set of hardware.

And as I said, I don't trust our current developers to be able to do any ONE of those things correctly, much less more than one at a time. They just haven't proven they are able to do it, and thus, they aren't getting my money.

[Kail]

@Kail: Where in any of my posts did I say that to charge a quintuple subscription fee is OK? I've never said that, i said in an earlier post that I would be willing to pay $50 a month for a really good, high quality MMOG. That misinterpretation plus the mere mention of "my" MMOG costing hundreds of millions of $$$, which was a deliberate misrepresentation, makes your argument a straw man.

sorry about the dismissal thing, but jesus, stop doing that.

Apologies for the smartassing in that last post; I'll try to be a bit less aggrivating in future.

I was referring to it as "your" game to be clear that I'm referring specifically to your idea; I'm not sure how that makes the argument a straw man.  Replace "your game" with "my game" or "John Romero's game" if you like, but you still have the same argument with the same problems.

The quintuple subscription thing was just a stab in the dark (I assumed those 5x multipliers you were throwing in there were just arbitrary constants), and I think I can loose it if it's not a part of your argument.

Anyway.  What I'm disagreeing with is the idea (correct me if this isn't what you're proposing) that somebody can or should or will (in the near future) pull together a huge, successful game with a development cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, and that this game will be something that most of us will want to play.  If that's not what you're saying, then yeah, I'm sorry for misreading you.

If that IS what you're saying, I disagree.  There have been a number of reasons already mentioned, but here's two I haven't seen yet:

1- Game design is incremental.  World of Warcraft wouldn't be possible to design without Everquest coming before it, and Everquest wouldn't be possible to design before MUDs.  There are some things you can't rush, no matter how much money or talent or thought you pour into them.  Maybe the hardware needs to catch up to our proposed design, maybe some advances need to be made in the field of AI, maybe we just need to see how well a certain game concept works in action before we can spot the design flaws.  It's not something that we can realistically accelerate past a certain point.

2- Huge budget games are going to have to be mass market to make back their development cost.  However, ask ten people on this forum what their ideal MMO would be and you'll get ten different answers.  Some people want open PvP, some people want optional PvP, some people want no PvP.  Some people want crafting, some people want pure combat.  Some people want a virtual world, some people want a theme park.  Some people want player generated content, some people want professionally done static content.  Many of these goals are exclusive; you can't design a game that has both meaningful death penalties and WoW style fast paced PvP.  So, no matter how much money you funnel into a game, no matter how talented the developers, there will be people - a lot of people - who don't like it.  World of Warcraft has so far been able to balance this out better than anyone else, but I don't know how much further you can go in that direction before you start splintering into jaded groups (like this one) where WE KNOW HOW WE WANT OUR PIZZA DONE THANK YOU VERY MUCH and DAMN YOU TO HELL for not doing it that way, Game Company X.

I'm not in favor of sending any kind of message to the development community that we would be willing to pay more for an MMOG regardless of the quality.  Even if you could get such a movement going, I don't know that it would really help anything.  Dev companies are already trying their best (difficult as it sometimes is to believe) to come up with games we'll enjoy; I don't think that telling them "It's okay to charge me more" is going to make them any more effective.  I suspect what we would end up with is  more or less similar what we'd have gotten anyway, just now we've got to pay more for it.  I think this is especially the case when you have companies with relatively small subscriber numbers (like EVE, for an oft-used example) doing fun and innovative titles and still turning a profit.

[Technocrat]

@Signe: Thank you Signe, you're very wise and gracious, not like some of these other peter puffin' shit sacks. Peace and blessings upon you!:-)

@HaemishM: Yeah, I think the console MMOGs are gonna rock, especially the ones for the PS3. Indeed, I believe that PC MMOG developers are gonna find themselves on the receiving end of a good 'ol back alley ass whoopin' when the consoles find their mojo. Hehe, Ubisoft said that the Nintendo revolution is a magical platform! weird thing to say, huh?

The solution to buggy MMOGs is middleware; why build your own engine when there is already a far better engine on the market?

@Kail: You made a straw man argument when you said "hundreds of millions", thus weakening my original argument which was "5x the average" which would actually put it in the $80-$120 million range...big difference.

Now, the hardware that we already have is more than sufficient to implament everything I've mentioned in this thread. Software always lags behind hardware, we all know that, but MMOGs lag way, way behind intentionally: they cater to the lowest common denominator and force everyone else to "slow down". They figure if you what to play their game you'll just have to conform. Obviously this is total BS! But it will soon be remedied by the insanely fierce competition from console MMOGs!

Now, concerning what people like...As far as I'm aware, there's a hell-of-a lot more Sci-Fi entertainment on the market than there is fantasy: books, movies, magazines, action figures, single player video games, etc. Only with MMOGs do you find the exact opposite!
The reason for this is that fantasy MMOGs are easier to make and therefore more desirable to developers...so MMOG developers have been pushing the fantasy-is-more-popular meme to make life easier for themselves. This is not a new concept, however, automobile makers do the exact same thing as do clothing makers, fast food corporations, etc.. So the whole "Gamers don't know what they want" argument is 
actually a canard/smokescreen that Shields developers/publishers from having to put forth any extra effort or answer any of those pesky gamer questions. The mere existence of WoW destroys the canard/smokescreen because how could 6 million people (less the farmers) like the same thing?

Now, your statement "Dev companies are already trying their best to come up with games we'll enjoy" should come with the following caveats: as long as they're fantasy, don't cost too much or take too much time to make! Let's take SOE for example. When SWG first came out everybody loved it, for the most part. So why did they make sweeping changes to the core of the game, without at least consulting the playerbase? Because they truly didn't care about the players...and, consequently, the players punished them for it!

Let me sum this shit up real quick (2:00 am here): Console MMOGs, especially ones for the PS3, are gonna beat the livin' shit out of PC MMOGs, in every way. Console developers have standards imposed on them by the console makers; PC developers aren't use to having to meet demands...many will die. adapt or die, that is the law. Because of all this, MMOGs are gonna get a lot better a lot faster than previously assumed.

nighty night...

P.S. Care for an olive branch Kail?   
       

   

[Azazel]

actually a canard/smokescreen that Shields developers/publishers from having to put forth any extra effort or answer any of those pesky gamer questions. The mere existence of WoW destroys the canard/smokescreen because how could 6 million people (less the farmers) like the same thing?

Go check sales numbers for The Sims and then tell me how that many people could like the same thing.

Now, your statement "Dev companies are already trying their best to come up with games we'll enjoy" should come with the following caveats: as long as they're fantasy, don't cost too much or take too much time to make! Let's take SOE for example. When SWG first came out everybody loved it, for the most part. So why did they make sweeping changes to the core of the game, without at least consulting the playerbase? Because they truly didn't care about the players...and, consequently, the players punished them for it!

Um, wake up matey. SWG was not universally loved, and in fact many potential players were turned off of it because the game they came out with was not to their liking. SOE/LA saw their sub-par numbers and have been desperately flailing to bring them up to what they'd like ever since.

Sorry, had to feed it.

[HaemishM]

@HaemishM: Yeah, I think the console MMOGs are gonna rock, especially the ones for the PS3. Indeed, I believe that PC MMOG developers are gonna find themselves on the receiving end of a good 'ol back alley ass whoopin' when the consoles find their mojo. Hehe, Ubisoft said that the Nintendo revolution is a magical platform! weird thing to say, huh?

The solution to buggy MMOGs is middleware; why build your own engine when there is already a far better engine on the market?

No, the solution is better project management. The solution is not letting your marketing team or the EB/Gamestop purchasing execs determine your release date. The solution is in betas that aren't fucking hype marketing exercises.

Middleware will help, I agree. But it isn't the solution. You still have to have the project management to get all that stuff integrated into one package on time.

EDIT: And to feed the troll more, SWG was NOT universally loved on release. As a matter of fact, it had lower sub numbers at all times than EQ1 according to all reports. Many people, me included, panned it for not being lots of things, most notably Star Warsy.

Console MMOG's will have the standardized hardware. But they are going to have to get some very tricky things worked out, such as all that voice communication (or some kind of keyboard interface). And just because it's on a console, doesn't mean it'll be perfect. I've gotten many console games that are buggy, have crashed, etc. The PS3 is not going to automagically make MMOG's great, especially if the project management is as shitty as it has been on things like SWG or Horizons.

[Technocrat]

I misspoke in my previous post: the fantasy-is-more-popular idea is a fallacy, not a canard. I don't know what I was thinking, must have been really tired.

@HaemishM: Your right about not letting the bean-counters and the marketing people determine the release date...that should be a given. Having competent project management should also be a given, but the underlying problem here is: do they have enough resources to get the job done right?!   

Forget what I said about middleware being the solution, lol, I was a bit buzzed and tired when I posted. Although middleware could help, what I wanted to say was that MMOG projects should look to third party products as a way of vastly reducing the amount of buggy code they have to deal with. A couple of my friends are programmers (not games) and they said that game programmers are expected to pump out like 300 + lines of code everyday! Heh, no wonder that shit's so buggy! But they (my friends) said that the more programmers that you have on a team, the more the project suffers...in other words adding more programmers to a team can be a really bad idea. So...

Having good, high quality, third party software is the solution! That's what I meant to say! :-D The truth is is that no one solution is gonna be the magic bullet; a MMOG is and should be, a huge undertaking--much bigger than they are today--but, unfortunately, they're treated as being just slightly bigger than a single player game, in terms of resource allocation.   

On the matter of console games being buggy: yeah, we've all played buggy console games, but I thought the console makers were gonna set some standards of quality for this generation? Am I wrong?

The PS3 will automatically make MMOGs better, maybe great, but definitely a hella better than their mongoloid PC cousins!












 
 

 

[HaemishM]

On the matter of console games being buggy: yeah, we've all played buggy console games, but I thought the console makers were gonna set some standards of quality for this generation? Am I wrong?

Yes, you really really are.

[Azazel]

On the matter of console games being buggy: yeah, we've all played buggy console games, but I thought the console makers were gonna set some standards of quality for this generation? Am I wrong?

The PS3 will automatically make MMOGs better, maybe great, but definitely a hella better than their mongoloid PC cousins!

Consoles are full of buggy pieces of shit software. Are you really that naive?

Consoles also have the problem of No Keyboard, which is really a must for a MMOG, if you want communication beyond several hotkeyed phrases (ie EQOA). Componding this problem is that consoles have the couch and the-TV-is-over-there dynamic, making keyboard use awkward at best.

Sounds like an automatic win, apparently. 

But then, you've already shown that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Several times.

[schild]

It's been said, several times, that you can plug a mouse and keyboard directly in to the PS3 and use it in games. I've no doubt that Microsoft will add that functionality as well. Sony has no reason to keep that kind of shit off of consoles, but Microsoft does. So now it's just a waiting game. if that's the crux of your argument, you need to reexamine it.

Edit: As for the part about it being uncomfortable, I'm sure an inventive company will come along and rip off the Phantom idea for the lapboard.

[Azazel]

If as you say, Sony has (USB?) mouse and keyboard functionality then MS will have to add it as well at some stage.

I think the comfort thing is the bigger issue actually. I know the PS2 supports a mouse/keyboard for a couple of games as it is now (friend keeps talking about Red Faction not sure if it's 1 or 2 using mouse/key) I even went out and bought a SmartJoy Frag for both the X-Box and PS2, but after a couple of days messing around with them, I never used them again. Even with optical mice, sitting the keyboard on my lap just feels seriously unnatural and uncomfortable. It's like you'd need a TV-tray to play.

[Technocrat]

It's been said, several times, that you can plug a mouse and keyboard directly in to the PS3 and use it in games. I've no doubt that Microsoft will add that functionality as well. Sony has no reason to keep that kind of shit off of consoles, but Microsoft does. So now it's just a waiting game. if that's the crux of your argument, you need to reexamine it.

Edit: As for the part about it being uncomfortable, I'm sure an inventive company will come along and rip off the Phantom idea for the lapboard.

QFT

Thank you for stepping in there for me brother! 

@Azazel: As far as comfort goes, you might be able to rearrange your gameroom (err whatever) to a more comfortable/appropriate configuration. Normally I don't let petty shit like furniture arrangement stand in the way of my fun time, but good luck to ya...remember Azazel, you can always ask your parents if it's OK to rearrange your bedroom!

I'm not at all naive, I know there are lots of buggy junk out there for the last generation consoles; there is also a lot of good, clean, titles for them as well. Here's a clue for ya Azazel: don't just buy games 'cause they got a cool picture on the box! You're on the internet (unfortunately), do your homework before you buy, then you can easily avoid buying the buggy junk!

Now if it's all the same to you guys, I'd wouldn't mind seeing this thread die a nice peaceful death.

[Azazel]

oooh! "you're a teenager" jokes. How cutting and, well, straw man of you. 

It's not the configuration of the furniture, fucktard-who-has-not-addressed-any-other-salient-point-I've-made-in-this-thread, it's the fact that I consider keyboard and mouse to be integral tools of the genre of you want to interact with others in any more detailed way than teabagging them in Halo.

It's about the fact that a keyboard and mouse are just fucking impractical to use on a couch, and even if someone does rip off the Phantom's keyboard, how the fuck much is that going to cost, and do you really think the average consumer is going to go out and buy one? If it doesn't come with the box and is more complex than a DVD remote control, it's a niche product.

And as for buggy junk, it appears that you're living in some idealised fantasy world where the Nintendo Seal of Quality is going to all-of-a-sudden actually mean something, where MS or Sony will suddenly refuse to let stinky piece-of-shit titles be released on their consoles. Uh huh. riiiight.

or to put it another way:

On the matter of console games being buggy: yeah, we've all played buggy console games, but I thought the console makers were gonna set some standards of quality for this generation? Am I wrong?

The PS3 will automatically make MMOGs better, maybe great, but definitely a hella better than their mongoloid PC cousins!

Yes, you're oh so very wrong. The standards of quality will be the same as they ever were. What the fuck made you think otherwise? Press releases? If so, I have some nice land to sell you. I'll even take payments from your weekly allowance. 

The PS3 will automatically make MMOG better? I've got title for you, dipshit.

Everquest Online Adventures. made by Sony Online Entertainment.


Who did you think would make MMOGs for the PS3 again? Square? Because FFXI is such a still-best-selling on PS2s?


Hope you enjoyed the troll food, HH.  :-D

[HaemishM]

The CURRENT generation of next-gen consoles has fucked up hardware issues, such as the X-Box 360's scratching of disks, too much heat generation, etc. The PS3 is being rushed out to try to release this November, and from what I've heard, the developers don't have (or have only recently got) an actual developer's kit, yet still don't have actual production model PS3's for testing. How exactly are they going to release less buggy games than the previous generation?

Oh that's right, they won't. Many of the bug issues and hardware problems will be solved over the life of the console, but just having a next-gen console as a platform will not guarantee less buggy games. It's hugely naive to think so. Or just plain ignorant.

Console MMOG's are going to have to evolve past needing a keyboard for communication, or they just won't sell that well.

[SurfD]

The solution to buggy MMOGs is middleware; why build your own engine when there is already a far better engine on the market?

Which explains why we are still waiting for DukeNukem forever.

Middleware (in this case, an existing engine (or 5)) cant even save a crappy shooter that no one even remembers except as an industry joke, and has a LONG way to go before it makes an impact on modern MMOGS.

Unless your middleware is VERY VERY VERY well doccumented, chances are the developer would be better off codeing his own tools from scratch to get them to do EXACTLY what he wants, then screw around with your product.

And consoles still have a long way to go before they approach all the elements needed for a less then halfassed stab at the MMOG market.

Edit:
Something potentially worth spinning off into another thread would be the viability of Modular MMOG engine development.  But then, a Direct X for mmogs would probably be such a clusterfuck of epic proportions it would make todays stuff look like the pinnacle of tidy code and stability.

[HaemishM]

We already have modular MMOG's.

DAoC used a bunch of middleware, such as NetImmerse's graphic engines, plus the networking code they'd used on earlier games. It was how they managed to put the game out for around $3 million.

[Morfiend]

Just shut up.

@WindupAtheist: Hehe, I missed it when you sputtered out that little sentence fragment, my bad. Fuck off.

CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

(For once I have to agree with WUN)

[SurfD]

We already have modular MMOG's.

DAoC used a bunch of middleware, such as NetImmerse's graphic engines, plus the networking code they'd used on earlier games. It was how they managed to put the game out for around $3 million.

Well, I wouldnt exactly call DaOC's graphics terribly stellar, but they did get the job done.  Not sure if i would classify re-using your old net code as middleware since in the end, it was still developed by you, so the job of refitting it (however much was nessicary) was probably easier then learning a middleware net-code product from the ground up and THEN refitting it for your needs.

[HaemishM]

That's the point of middleware. It keeps you from having to build things from the ground up, which in theory, should take less time and money. Whether the theory becomes reality is really up to the skills of a dev team.

When released, DAoC was at least as good (IMO better) graphically than its nearest competition, EQ.