The main thing that concerns me is the graphics, popular MMOs seem to have always had pretty low system requirements.
Keeping an MMO running and compelling must have some pretty high costs so you either need a lot of players (which high reqs might exclude) or a high monthly fee.
He didn't mention Linux while I was there, but I'd be surprised if it did come to Linux. PC gaming typically means Windows gaming. But, you knew that, I'm sure. :) I wouldn't expect any big titles to come to Linux until Valve validates that space.
What is your concern with the graphics? I don't know that I caught it in your sentence.
No monthly fee for this game. Oh, your third paragraph is the concern in your second? It seems he's doing a couple of things here.
First, he's appealing to a market by treating them as special[0]. This is a good idea as PC gamers tend to invest pretty heavily in their kit and are likely to support games that show off the capabilities of said kit. The games can be both good and pretty, but sometimes even just pretty will be enough.
Second, concentrating on PC allows him to not worry about being burdened by supporting consoles, which means he can push the tech even further. Which goes back to servicing the gamers mentioned in point 1.
I wondered about Linux because it seems to be a common thing with crowdfunded games as it seems to be a fairly popular OS with people who like kickstarter and the like. He also mentioned that he liked the PC as an "open platform" which made me hopeful (can't get much more open than Linux), the last Chris Roberts game I remember playing ran under DOS so it's not like he has a legacy of Windows development.
I didn't realise it was no monthly fee, not sure how the economics of that would work. Running servers to host real-time fast paced space battles is going to require some significant umphf and a very good network.
While you are right that there's a demographic of PC gamers who enjoy building high end systems in my experience a lot of people who play MMOs like WoW tend to run them on low end laptops as well as old desktops. Part of the appeal is that you can get your less gaming inclined friend to start playing with you on whatever POS they have lying around. I'm pretty sure blizzard keeps WoWs graphics basic on purpose.
Perhaps this is a more targeted product for hard core PC gaming fans, however if they want to make the graphics a big selling point they will have to keep updating these as time goes on and video cards become more powerful.
That means they will have to either have very scalable graphical settings, or will rely on their fans upgrading their PCs to keep up with the game. I can imagine it would be pretty annoying to get into playing an MMO and then one day have a patch come out that doubles the triangle count and means you now get 5 fps.
This game is being built on CryEngine 3. AFAIK, while there is a Linux build of that engine, I don't think it's been realized in anything you can play.
I got the distinct impression from hearing him speak that this isn't so much of an MMO as it's a multiplayer game in a massive universe. He said that one of the reasons they're able to put such high fidelity models into the game is that you won't typically see many of them at once. He likened it to Battlefield 3 battles vs everyone in a galaxy converging on one spot.
This also ties into your analog to an MMO. It isn't, I gather.
All that said, I'm not him and I haven't had a hand in making it. I wouldn't mind a hand in making it...
Interesting, perhaps it is possible that it will work in a more P2P fashion with more isolated "instance" type servers for the combat and communal servers for trading etc. Similar to guildwars.
All of the twitch-reaction type MMOs I have tried have tended to be fraught with lag problems, the scaling issues if you have to run a single game world where sub 100ms response times are required and you have 10K+ people connected at any given time must be quite something.
Oh, forgot to mention that he did talk about a micro-trans element for some aspects. He also said that players might be able to create and sell ships on a marketplace. That'd be pretty neat.
It's actually an MMO-hybrid, playable in singleplayer and co-op modes.
> We also plan to provide a version that allows private servers similar to Freelancer to be maintained and run by the pilot communities. These would support single and multiplayer space combat battles where teams could hone their skills without having to use the public servers.
I was at his presentation. It sure is shiny. The ships look really cool and I'm a big fan of the way they seem to control. I really hope this takes off. Wing Commander sits in a special place in my heart.
Specifically, "As bad as Ion Storm was internally, there was a dark secret that eventually unraveled. It wasn’t until years later, well after the 1996 E3 demo of Dominion Storm, and after StarCraft launched, that we discovered that the Dominion Storm demo was a fake."
So not having been there, I have to ask: did you have hands on the controls?
Disclaimer: I haven't seen either of these guys for 15 years. However, I was at Origin in the early 90s, followed by Digital Anvil. Not everything we did turned to gold, to put it mildly, but Chris and Erin didn't rig demos.
If they're doing that now, I'll be astonished. It wasn't in our DNA as a company -- either company -- and that ethic came from the top.
We were well accustomed to competing with the latest rigged demo from any of several companies that are either entirely forgotten now, or remembered with a snarky chuckle. Our business was basically to ship what other people were promising... eventually, anyway. :)
I loved the early 90s Origin games, they are certainly the ones I remember the most fondly. I spent days in Ultima 7 just wandering around completely aimlessly talking to random NPCs and looting dungeons.
Were you there during the development of Ultima 8 and 9? Not to be rude, but if so what the hell happened there?
Was it simply an emphasis of technology over gameplay and story?
I left shortly before U6 came out, so couldn't speak firsthand about anything that happened afterward. A lot of nasty things have been written about the effects of the company's acquisition by Electronic Arts, and most of those things are true. The culture clash was massive.
Around the time U9 was being developed, Ultima Online was also becoming the Next Big Thing, and I imagine that splitting development resources between those two huge projects couldn't have done any good. One of them was bound to win more mindshare and attract more funding and in-house talent.
Ultima V was the very last one I played all the way through, personally, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's true for Richard as well.
The article smells of vaporware to me, honestly. Much as I'd love to see something like this happen, I'm really cynical about the MMO industry these days and do not really believe it will happen. If the crowdfunding thing happens, I'll probably put down some money, just to register interest if nothing else... but I'm waiting to see before I believe.
Nope. But he did demo some combat and completely failed to shoot down any enemies, crashed into his own carrier twice, and then got outrun by the enemies. I think a rigged demo would probably have gone a bit differently. :)
Roberts writes on the game's newly launched website that he hopes this dynamic will create a tiered social structure where dedicated players can really distinguish themselves from casual players, and where different factions will be in conflict.
Anyone remember the titles you could earn in WoW PvP but could only be achieved by tiny percentages? Or Titans in Eve?
Stupid system, stupid idea, stupid to introduce it. Why reward tiny segments of active players for living unhealthily in your game?
The problem that the "Titans in Eve" comment is playing at is a situation in which a few extraordinarily invested players are ruining the game for everybody else, by making use of player options that were basically not balanced against the rest of the game because the devs figured that they would never be attained in non-trivial numbers.
If a game ends up incentivizing a style of play that the vast majority of players find unfun to the detriment of a style of play favoured by the vast majority of players, that's a problem.
That's definitely a major concern. Super's in EVE definitely had a lasting and IMO detrimental impact on the landscape of the game. But that's a different issue entirely
The thing is, you would either need to make those high-tier rewards accessible to everyone in which case they lose a lot of their shine. Or you need to design it so that only a very small % of players will be able to achieve them.
There are those who are willing to play an MMO for 16 hours a day, so if you make them rare enough these are the only people who will be able to achieve them.
I remember Star wars galaxies, I didn't play it much myself
but I remember "play as a Jedi" being a big selling point and apparently this was in reality only possible if you were literally willing to devote your life to the game.
They changed it some years later so just about everyone could become a Jedi and there was much uproar from what I remember.
What BS. Why on Earth should games be sterilized down to ensure that all players receive an equal treatment? That's not how it works, not at all, because primarily: You can't control players, and players affect each other's experience.
But even past that, you seem to be saying that all MMO's should be designed for the lowest common denominator.
Why make guild raids when casual players can't get into top tier guilds?
Why make 40 man dungeon raids when casual players can't find groups larger than 5?
Why make the game have 80 levels when casual players, on average, will only reach 60 of them?
My real question is: Why punish avid gamers by condescendingly referring to their passion as unhealthy?
It seems to me that attempting to force every player into one paradigm is a great way to alienate everyone except players who that paradigm was designed for.
If you make a game that appeals to casual gamers -- do not be surprised when hardcore gamers skip it!
This is the beauty of the MMO: content for everyone and theoretically, the hardcore gamer's contribution to the game world will ripple out and affect other gamers, not only psychologically (I want to be that good) but materially, as they affect economies and other systems...
The GGPs point was that by creating incentives to play the game a lot and by that I assume meaning 10+ hours per day you are incentivising what any sane person would class as unhealthy behaviour.
The GP suggested that a balance could be struck and I mentioned what I perceived the difficulties to be.
After listening to this kind of argument from World of Warcraft players for ages, I have a serious problem with equating time investment with being more deserving of having fun. It's about taking pride in the ability to put up with arbitrary timesinks that serve the game in no way but to prolong it, and that rhetoric is ultimately justifying game design that is designed to waste the player's time as much as they will put up with.
Somehow Blizzard managed to brainwash people into rationalizing their sunk time, and now they really believe that having to spend hours not having fun before you can have fun is necessary to make a game rewarding, because there's no other element of the game that is rewarding to them anymore.
Your reply once again proves that you're incapable of understanding the players, and instead of attempting to understand, you're judging and insulting them and how they freely choose to spend their time.
Seriously just because you don't like something doesn't mean people who do are brainwashed. That's extremely pretentious and offensive and I really have nothing more to say to you.
What about the fishing competitions in WoW? You could say that it's not a solid bet, but I know more than one person that kept their account activated for the sole purpose of logging in on Sunday mornings to fish and nothing more. Same with those who would only raid 2-3 evenings a week, get their gear or a boss/dungeon achievement and log.
I believe there are ways to cater to casuals while still keeping the achievements unique.
One does not simply build a sandbox. A sandbox evolves like an organism to those who inhabit it. It's taken EVE over 10 years to get to it's current level of polish. Good luck to him, but the article reads with too much overconfidence.
The main thing that concerns me is the graphics, popular MMOs seem to have always had pretty low system requirements.
Keeping an MMO running and compelling must have some pretty high costs so you either need a lot of players (which high reqs might exclude) or a high monthly fee.