The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

Split from the "XBox Live Arcade, status?" thread.

Much interest has been expressed for making a sequel to Star Control an MMO. I disagree with the idea myself, but I felt the topic was significant enough to warrant a split.

Bad idea!
My input has been made. Debate commences.

I think it's already well established that I think it's a bad idea.

I agree with the two above statements...

(God, that was pretentious)

+1

Not really; I do know what each word I used means. The effect was intended, anyway.

I've been thinking for the last little while that a Star Control MMO would be an awesome idea, provided it was done right.  And by "done right" I mean that it would not be the usual re-skin of WoW that so many MMOs are nowadays.  It would have to have many innovate features in it that currently do not exist in any game I've played so far.

But I'm curious as to why people think a Star Control MMO would be a bad idea.  More often than not the complaint I see against an MMO idea is that people are allergic to paying $15 a month to play a game (though few are allergic to paying $15 to watch a dumb two-hour 3D movie), or that they automatically assume that the worst parts of the MMO genre will be the main features of the game (ok, this is slightly understandable given history,but still...).

So, can anyone be more specific on why they wouldn't like a Star Control MMO?  Are there certain aspects of MMOs (aside from the fees, monthly or otherwise) that you don't like and why?

No, It's that I don't think that it would be a bad idea. I think that it would take to long to set up which I think could be used to do more valuable things. But if you're not gonna do anything else, then you can do it.

Hello,

I've never played World of Warcraft or any other "MMO".  I had to visit www.acronymfinder.com to find out what, exactly, an MMO was.
If they make a new game like Star Control 2, I'd go for it.  So far as an MMO, I say go ahead and try it.  I'm willing to try it and, if the
price is right, I might be willing to pay per usage.

I got Star Control 1 with a Sega Genesis.  I was kind of disappointed.  However, to be fair, I did get what I saw on the internet.

BYE.

I'm not sure I understand.  If the game is popular enough for whoever develops it to make money on it, then surely it was worth the time spent making it, no?

And just for the record, an MMO does not need millions of players to be profitable.  Unless you do like NC Soft did with Tabula Rasa and overspend such that nothing short of WoW-level subscriptions would get you back in the black.

Such as? The reason most MMOs are just like WoW is because WoW is phenomenally successful, and the "follow the leader" mentality is a time-honored tradition in every type of media humanity has ever produced. Your desired features would have to be pretty amazing to justify breaking the quick-buck mold that many companies fit their MMO games into.


That latter point is a major sore spot for me. As I've mentioned, I don't have scores of friends who are into online gaming (in fact, I don't have any friends who are into online gaming, really), so I would be going it alone both with and against the teeming hordes from the Intarwebz. I play games to relax and entertain myself, not deal with GIFs, and I don't want to be forced to do so.

That monthly payment is also a major sticking point for me as well. I buy games to own them, not rent them by the month. I also tend to pick up most titles after they've been greatly reduced in price (my typical price point for most games is $20 or less). Paying $15 a month for the priveledge of playing an MMO is like rebuying the game every month, as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention the fact that if I'm continuously spending money in order to play a game, I feel like that money is wasted whenever I decide not to play. Guilt-based gaming is not something that appeals to me either. Incidentally, I don't got to the movies very often since I feel like the ticket prices are exorbitant. However, paying $15 for a movie ticket vs. $15 a month for an MMO subscription is hardly a valid comparison. You pay once to see a film, and that's it, film's over. There's nothing forcing you to continue paying, for example, an additional $5 every half hour in order to keep watching or the screen shuts down... Not to mention that you can make a one-time purchase of the DVD and then watch the movie as many times as you like with no additional fees.

There is also another concern: I don't think an MMO would be able to tell the kind of story we have come to expect from Star Control. One of the most well-loved aspects of SC2 is the story, and that is also one of the things that the average MMO either glosses over or doesn't even bother with at all, because it's very difficult to tell a cohesive story in an environment where thousands of players exist simultaneously, and all are at different points in that story. It's also tends not to be a worthwhile effort, since about half or more of them couldn't care less about the story, and are just there to grind levels/run raids/gank noobs.

In an MMO the story is told by the world around you. It's just a different way of storytelling :).
By the way if you want to experience extremely well-done star control style storytelling, you should try playing the mass effect series :). But instead of experiencing the story through hours of conversation with aliens, you're there as events actually happen and unfold. That's what's possible with today's technology :).

That is one of my main points against the MMO concept. Neither you nor the game itself tells the story; that role is shared with everyone else, as is the game environment. In any online gaming environment, you must directly and indirectly deal with stupid fools or jerks. True, they can be ignored, but why should I be expected to tolerate such things? What indeed is the point of the MMO storytelling method if new players know nothing about Star Control (and most of them won't) ?

Do not underestimate the capabilities of using narratives to tell a story. Don't get me wrong, I like this particular suggestion, but some things that the player doesn't experience directly should be told via aliens to improve depth. Hearing an alien speak about a huge battle is entertaining. Experiencing it first hand is awe-inspiring. However, hearing about an exciting new precursor spaceship discovery another galaxy away after defeating an Ur-Quan invasion force alongside the other free star-faring races is even better.

The story is told by the world in itself and the events that happen there.


I dunno, it's a fact of life that you have to deal with those people. But just take a look at WOW and see how many people it has brought to the warcraft universe who hadn't played the warcraft RTS games before?

[/quote]

It's not even better. You can't ignore the world around you but you CAN skip dialogue, as a lot of people have undoubtedly done, especially on the 3do version with the terrible voice acting.
Just take a look at what Lukipela's game SC:BEL tells us about the star control universe. The story is told by the world around you and the people(npc's) in it. That's better than some alien with a squeeky voice blurting out walls of text about how the event happened :).

Still, much better than if you go on a mission and you meet with someone that "LoLz NoOb I wIlL KiLl YoU HAHAHA"

"Priority override, new behaviour dictated. Must break target into component compounds."
Those probes were the gankers' predecessors.

Nah, probes have a story behind them and...
...
Are you saying I will be able to make them stop behaving like that and, better yet, force them to self destruct?

Ofcourse!

These are two different beasts. BEL is the way it is because it's a very dynamic game, which is because it's being run by a human being, not a computer. The game master is able to observe player responses to various scenarios and adapt to unexpected situations on the fly in order to help the game feel more alive; suffice to say, this is not something a computer would be capable of. It also bears mentioning that BEL is far from an MMO; if it were an MMO, there would be 50 other players running around the Ilwrath temple, all the good loot would be gone (and the less useful stuff scattered across the floor randomly), all the mobs would be clustered up and aggro since someone ran through the level and killed the High Priest to try and get the high level drops, and our infiltrators would be under attack by a group of max level Shofixtis, because only noobs play any of the other races and griefing is fun. It's very difficult (if not impossible) to tell a coherent story in an environment like that.


You lie. Both blatantly and poorly.

1) I was talking about the way that a world can tell a story, not about the fact that in this case there's a game-master present and in the other case it's pre-programmed in a very well done way. WoW is incredibly well designed in that aspect, but I guess since you have never played it you can't be a judge on that ;).
2) About 50 players running around at once: I guess you have never heard about instances :). I could explain this to you but I guess you're more interested in making your own point than learning about other games :).


You lie. Both blatantly and poorly.
[/quote][/quote]

Oh dear, but atleast I'm not pretending to know anything about a game that I don't like and haven't played before ;).

 :D Okay, that is pretty funny. I can just imagine an SC MMO filled with hundreds of people flying Probes back and forth.

Yep, I agree.

World building can do a fine job of telling a story... Until you let the teeming hordes in to destroy your world, anyway. When you're trying to figure out the story of Thrall, while 40 other people are trying to kill him, it tends to lessen the effect and cheapen the world as a whole. And he's one that actually takes a lot of people to kill off, never mind the less protected NPCs.


I know all about instances. Where do you draw the line between MMO and multiplayer co-op? If you're toeing or unclear about that line, why bother programming it as an MMO at all?


Just because I don't play them, doesn't mean I haven't ever played them or haven't done my homework. But you're too busy dismissing me to realize that. :P

Actually star control 2 protects its homeworlds in the very same way ;). Unlimited ships around a homeworld? Unlimited guards around Thrall :D.





Just because I don't play them, doesn't mean I haven't ever played them or haven't done my homework. But you're too busy dismissing me to realize that. :P
[/quote][/quote]

Which server and race/class did you play? :) I played an UD warlock on Kor'gall EU.

Listen to yourself. It is a freakin' video game! You play them to have fun and immerse yourself in a world not like real life. Just how does citing any so-called "fact of life" prove anything whatsoever?

I beg to differ! How can you ignore the fascinating life stories of aliens? Even if there are people who hold that attitude, it does not matter. Your ideas would appeal to quite a few people, but those people are probably just the sort that talk L33TSP3AK and PK newbies. Perhaps we should not even want to attract those crowds. I know I wouldn't.

Indecipherable!

It proves that it's still possible to have fun despite people who act like assholes ;).

you are missing the point here :).
[/quote]

I played a character of the class Warlock of the race Undead on the European Kor'gall server.

While this works in SC2, it doesn't in WoW, since he still can be killed anyway. Besides, you've glommed onto a fairly irrelevant point here anyway, since the idea is that it destroys the effect of the world building.

Tangentially, if WoW is so great at world building, how do you reconcile that with the mess its made of its own canon?


I've already mentioned I've never played WoW, and never will. This doesn't mean I haven't tried other MMOs before, nor does it mean I haven't done a fair bit of research on the game and its characters. But I couldn't care less about character builds or server names, as those things are entirely irrelevant to me, and this discussion.


Maybe for you. I have a very low tolerance level for that flavor of BS. Most people I know feel the same way.


How so? It is, as you say, a "fact of life" that these sort of people are attracted to MMOs, seemingly for the sole purpose that their brand of "fun" involves making as many others miserable as possible. Why would we want to attract this demographic to any game at all?

And that idea is wrong, since it also rarely happens at all.


That's not true. WoW is wonderfully faithful to its own canon. Almost all of the regions and characters that were n the Warcraft RTS games are also visitable in WoW (if they hadn't been killed or somehow disappeared). Surely there were some shortcuts, but any game or series has to make those to serve gameplay/storytelling needs.


That's what I've guessed, and I'm also guessing that your research is flawed since I have actually played the game and see little truth in what you're saying ;).


Then I guess my tolerance is a bit higher. It's the same as playing in a football team. Surely there are some people you don't like or behave like assholes, but that's not a reason to quit the team altogether ;).


How so? It is, as you say, a "fact of life" that these sort of people are attracted to MMOs, seemingly for the sole purpose that their brand of "fun" involves making as many others miserable as possible. Why would we want to attract this demographic to any game at all?
[/quote][/quote]

Because it is and always will be a minorty. 95% of the people who play MMO's are actually fun to hang around with :).

Such as having both ship combat and ground combat with an "away team" if you will.  I know Star Trek Online has this, but it doesn't seem very well implemented.  They seem to have taken a Mass Effect style approach to the combat.  But what if you had a more RTS style combat system with your away team?

Either way, with an away team, allied AI would have to be considerably better than what exists today.



I think the fact that pretty much every WoW-clone has failed in some sense would be a wake up call to the industry that you CANNOT compete with WoW, and therefore, should not.  If an MMO feels like WoW with a different skin, players will not play that game for one of two reasons:
a) they hate WoW and therefore hate the MMO copying it
b) they like WoW and see no reason to play another WoW-clone when they could just go play WoW, especially when the number of players is greater and the game polish is better in WoW.



I only have a couple friends who play games (and then, mostly very casually) as well, and like you, I play games to relax and have fun.  I don't see why not having friends who play games you play should be an obstacle.  At the very least, if you like playing games with other (like-minded) people, then you will have the opportunity to meet said people in MMOs.



I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here about how MMOs and other game genres work.  MMOs are not like other games that you buy and throw away when you are done with them.  They are more like a service you pay for.  The good ones like WoW, at least, are constantly being updated with fixes and content patches.  There is also stuff like server maintenance, technical support, customer support, et al in addition to all the content patches, game changes, and bug fixes.  The money to pay for all that has to come from somewhere.



That's fine.  I paid $20 for my copy of WoW.



Well, it depends on how much time you spend on a game.  Over a three year period I have roughly paid for 30 months of game time at $15 per month.  Plus the initial $20 I paid for WoW, and the roughly $130 for the two expansion packs (I bought one of the collector's editions), this comes out to roughly $600 over three years.

This seems like an excessive amount of money.  However, I have about 100 days played on all my characters in WoW (NOTE: I have only ONE max-level character, on whom I spent 95+ days; the other 5 days were spent on very low level characters I experimented with for a little while, so it's not like I have an army of high-level alts - far from it, actually).  The gametime played per character is tracked in game, so the 100 days (and that's whole, 24-hour days) is NOT an estimate.  Over 32 months (the extra two months are for the first free month, two 10-day trials and some bonus days for downtime), that comes out to roughly 2.5 hours of gameplay per day.  Not exactly a hardcore number of hours, is it?

Now let's put them together:  $600 total paid / 2400 hours of gameplay = $0.25 / hour of game play.  And please remember this is NOT an estimate - all the money and gametime you spent in game is tracked and available for you to see in your account management page.  You can use this to calculate your own numbers if you wish.  So, if, say, you only play half as often as me (so about 1.25 hours per day, or 9 hours per week), you'd pay twice as much, which is still only 50 cents / hour.

With that being said, find me a game or other form of entertainment that comes out to be as cheap.  I doubt you will find many.  (And I say "many" only because I paid $10 for Star Control 2 and got many hours of fun out of it :)



$15 ticket / 2 hour movie = $7.5 / hour.  $7.5 / $0.25 = 30.  Thus, a movie costs roughly 30 times more than playing an MMO (15 times more if you play half as often as I do).

It's not surprising you don't want to pay to go to the movies, but I don't see your argument that movie prices are somehow better.



That's one of the challenges / innovations I mentioned earlier.  At some point, someone will have to do something different.



Well, that is true to some extent.  I do think devs care about the story in an MMO, though.  If the story sucked, few people would not like it, as it is the story and setting that ultimately give the MMO it's flavour and atmosphere.

However, you are correct that the type of story and it's delivery is different in an MMO than in a single-player game.  But then, I'd say that's one of the strengths of the MMO genre.  

Instead of being limited to one storyline throughout the game, you can take part in multiple ongoing storylines throughout the galaxy.
Instead of being the godlike figure who gets everything done, you are part of a team or larger organization of people who help make things better (or worse) in the galaxy.

It's a different kind of story and a different kind of storytelling, but I don't see how this is a bad thing.  And given the disappointing mediocrity of Star Control 3, I don't think there are many out there who wouldn't want to give something new a try.

My point still stands.

You made this statistic up. Not every game is the same, MMO or otherwise. Different games attract different audiences. I have played MMO's before. Some of them, for whatever reason, have greater proportions of troublesome players than others. The difference is often quite extreme. In one game I may rarely, if ever, encounter such unwanted pests, while in another I might never get through a single gaming session without having to deal with them. At the time I still played MMO's, my gaming sessions were very extensive, which means this finding cannot just be a coincidence.

You do not know what kinds of people this idea of yours would entice. Sure, we could get lucky for a while and have no trolls, punks, or whomever to spoil our fun. It will most likely start out with only a very small and manageable community, but keep in mind that griefers and the like can be all the more disruptive among small groups.

To explore the Star Control universe?  Why do you assume previous knowledge of the franchise is required to play an MMO?  Do you think all 12 million WoW players played Warcraft 3?


What do you mean by "trying to figure out the story of Thrall"?  And how does a PvP raid on Thrall (which is actually very rare) affect this?



This is mostly the fault of the writers and to some extent the gameplay designers.  No one at Blizzard predicted, or could have predicted, that WoW would become so popular and that certain parts of the lore might have to be fudged to get a better player experience.

However, this is a pretty minor issue, to be honest, and has little relevance to MMOs as a genre.



Then why assume that a Star Control MMO will be full of assholes and retards?



Which ones?  Because, as you said, different games attract different types of players, so you're experience with those MMOs may be atypical.



Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.  But still, I wouldn't mind if you could elaborate, given I've apparently had vastly different experiences from yours.

I will admit that, despite my otherwise positive attitudes, I tend to exaggerate over issues dealing with groups of people, especially large groups who communicate directly over the internet (I am an unusual combination of optimist and cynic). However, my point does not rely on that assumption. Rather, I suggest you consider the possible ramifications posed by fanbase friction resulting from the introduction of MMO-goers in their many, often aggravating forms.

If assholes and retards do show up to ruin the experience it will have unnecessarily damaged the confidence of many sane-minded players in the game's ability to give them quality entertainment. Even if they do not show up in droves, keep in mind that it takes fewer rotten apples among small groups to sour the unique and interesting gameplay that could have had potential had it been made single-player.

I am not trying to point fingers at people nor say which philosophy is ultimately correct, but we have already seen first hand how different the ways that the WOW-goers (most likely Angelfish) and "old-school" gamers (definitely Draxas) like to enjoy a video game. Choosing one over the other as objectively correct is comparable to attempting to settle the matter of which strategy of proactive defense against slavery is better -- Kzer-Za's imperial Path of Now and Forever or Kohr-Ah's genocidal yet much simpler Eternal Doctrine.
That is a perfect analogy, actually. Angelfish's doctrine consists of building a hierarchy of enslaved species (players in the online experience) who choose to either be encased in an impenetrable slave shield (try to do their own thing and ignore the idiots) or become battle thralls (people who war other "guilds" in an attempt to subjugate additional following) and help others to see the boon of slavery (the dynamics of online play). On the other hand, Draxas's doctrine is to be the last remaining (only) player in the game. He cleanses his destiny, and so he must annihilate the filth (other players) to prevent them from ever subjugating (annoying) his species again. Of course, unlike the pro-MMO side, Draxas is backed by statistical proof. In the Star Control II story, guess which side won?  ;D

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.  It seems like your argument is that a Star Control MMO would be bad because you don't want to play with other people; you just want another single-player Star Control game.  That's fine if that is what you would like, and it's fine if you just don't like socializing with other players when you play a game, but I don't see how that in and of itself is any argument as to why a Star Control MMO would be bad.

At most, you could argue that with an MMO the chances of getting a single player Star Control game are then non-existent (e.g. see what happened to Knights of the Old Republic), but that's about it.  If you don't like MMOs, that's fine.  The genre is not for everyone, but then, no genre is.  And I'm not the kind of person who thinks any cool idea is made better by being an MMO.  I wouldn't say a Star Control MMO might be worth a look if I didn't think the idea had merit.



I don't see how that analogy works at all.  No one is forcing you to play an MMO.  Furthermore, no one is forcing you to play with others if you do play an MMO, as most of the good MMOs allow you to play the game solo.  And even if you do play with others, I don't see how the teamwork required to do group content is akin to "slavery".  That's rather over-the-top, don't you think?

Furthermore, I don't see what this "statistical proof" is, where you got it from, or how it proves anything you said above.

As for which side of the Ur-Quan war won, IIRC, it was never actually resolved, but it's been a while since I've played the game.

This is called "humor"; you missed  that entirely. I suggest you lighten up and stop taking everything I post so seriously, because until then I have nothing more to discuss.

Then I apologize.  It seemed like your attempt at humour was more of an attempt to paint MMOs in a negative light then to make a point about different gamers liking different types of game genres.

Well of course not!

You're perfectly welcome to reenact the second Ur-Quan doctrinal conflict, though. I'm serious.

Oh, that!  Yeah, I remember having that happen when I was just fooling around with some of my game choices.  Usually I'd get to the Sa-Mattra before the war concluded.

I thought Zeratul was referring to what happens to the war if you destroy the Sa-Mattra BEFORE the war concludes; again, IIRC, it's never actually revealed what the outcome is.  I don't even think there is an indication in Star Control 3 as to what happened, but, again, it's been a while since I played SC3 (and then, only once, 'cause it was so mediocre).

I think in SC3 they said that the Ur-Quan were pretty strongly affected by the destruction of the sumatra, and then the black were easy pickings for the alliance, and the green joined the alliance for some reason.

SC3 was an abomination that must never be mentioned again.  :P
Therefore, what happened in it does not belong in a serious discussion about the Star Control universe.

By the way, it is spelled Sa-Matra. "Sumatra" is an island in western Indonesia for crying out loud.

I agree, but still, what SC3 said was that the destruction of the Sa-Matra led the Kzer-Za to question both doctrines and join the Alliance, while the Kohr-Ah were forced by the Kzer-Za to join the Alliance. Of course, though, this contradicts SCII, which clearly states that the Chmmr and allies eliminated the Kzer-Za and Kohr-Ah forces amidst the panic and confusion resulting from the destruction of the Sa-Matra.

Sorry, I was sitting in Starbucks at the time, and they have a coffee called Sumatra.  You know how if you're typing while whatching tv, or talking to someone, you start typing words you hear?  That happened to me. :p

Nope, your analogy is flawed :).
I am actually the precursor starship captain who works with the entire galaxy (all the players on the MMO) to overthrow the Ur-Quan. Some of the aliens are assholes (the um-gah, thraddash and druuge for example) but by using the correct approach I get them to work with me instead of against me.
In an MMO I like the same kind of challenge.

All right, we've veered pretty far off topic for a bit, so back to business.

I wouldn't want a Star Control MMO for 3 reasons:

1. I do not want to pay a monthly fee.
2. I do not want to deal with griefers and SHFGs.
3. I do not think that we're ever going to see a sequel to whatever SC game comes out next, assuming that game comes out at all. Thus, I don't want the final SC game to be one that I wouldn't play.

Simple and to the point. Attempt "MMOs are the future and awesome" arguments all you want, but you cannot topple these 3 pillars of my position.


Nonsense. I have got more value out of 90% of the games I've bought because I don't have to pay by the month. For example:

Final Fantasy Tactics: 3 full playthroughs at 100+ hous per playthrough (probably a lot more, but the game timer breaks itself at 99:99:99). I'll assume 100 hours per play. I paid $20 for the Greatest Hits release. 20 / 300 = ~7 cents per hour.

Super Metroid: I must have played through the game at least 50 times. Full playthroughs run anywhere from 2 - 10 hours each (I'll call the average time 4 hours, since I got faster as I got better). I paid full retail price for the SNES version, and bought the game again for the Virtual Console, so $58 total. 58 / 200 = 29 cents per hour; pretty close to your WoW cost, can only go down from there, and is my favorite game of all time anyway.

Dragon Quest 9: My one and only playthrough just tipped the scale at ~150 hours, and I'm still playing. I paid $20 for the game net cost ($35 at release day, offset by the game coming with a $15 giftcard). 20 / 150 = 13 cents per hour. Also includes free multiplayer co-op (local only, which suits me just fine), and new quests and events are added every Friday.

I could cite more examples, and do bear in mind that I've used some quite conservative figures; actual cost per hour is likely significantly less for all cited games.

Let's not forget that for $600, I could easily purchase a new console and a selection of games, or 30 games at my $20 price point, or 60 (or more!) Virtual Console games for my Wii, or the upgrades I would need to get back into the PC gaming scene, or a myriad of other things not gaming related. I can think of way better ways to spend that rather significant amount of money, and it breaks my brain that someone would spend that kind of money on a single game. No game is that good.


Not particularly. As I mentioned before, I feel like if I'm paying a monthly fee for something, I ought to be using it. And so I feel a personal obligation to play the MMO, since I'm paying for it by the month and am wasting money if I'm not playing. Already I've been "enslaved" by the fee system. And as much as I might like to play the game solo, it's simply not possible; the other players are there, and most MMO are in fact not designed to have solo content (or much solo content, anyway), because then it's pretty tough to sell the game as multiplayer (or at least, disappointingly easy for those who play it in large groups). Since I don't have any friends who play these games, I am then forced to try to group with random Internet People to make the most of the content provided. And so, my chat channels are assaulted by goldfarmers, my loot is ninja'd, my noob ass is ganked, I am kicked from parties by the SHFGs, and I quit with extreme predjudice and weep for my wasted money. With the exception of the wasted money part, this has all happened to me before, so why would any other MMO b the exception? And even if it is, that still makes it the EXCEPTION.

Really, it not slavery to other players, though, it's slavery to the game itself... At least until you stop paying the fee, and then you have no choice but to quit for good.


You are correct. However, it is much easier to make a clone and some quick cash than spend the time and effort required for a truly unique and high-quality product. Don't forget that we're talking about a game that would be produced by Activision.

Besides, everyone who makes a WoW clone thinks that their game will be the WoW-killer. Just like everyone who makes a Zelda clone thinks they have the Zelda-killer, etc. The games industry is filled with creatively challenged people, to at least the same extent as the movie industry, maybe even moreso, and the same goes for the size of their egos.

Oh really? Those are your pillars of your position? This is too easy!
1. A monthly fee is just a subscription model, and doesn't represent how a Star Control MMO has to be. For example Guild wars is entirely free to play for as long as you want.
2. You won't have to. Most MMO's have great soloing possibilities and something for everyone who doesn't like griefers etc. EVE online has space where you can't be attacked, WoW has PVE and Roleplaying servers, etc. Alternatively you could try playing on european servers since the problems you've had proably appeared on american servers, and I haven't experienced them to that extent.
3. Well, with those 2 pillars down you might end up liking the game after all.

Good idea, let's get back to the topic. That is the reason I started this thread after all...


I do not have quite as much conviction as Angelfish or Draxas, but my position is leaning against producing yet another MMO. Both sides have presented excellent arguments. I will likewise share three pillars of my own. In the interest of not repeating myself, I will respond to yours.

1. Guild Wars is a relatively big player in the industry. It is already well-known and thus profits from a larger player base. A sequel to Star Control will not have this advantage. Even if this idea makes its way off the ground (so to speak), funding still has to come from somewhere.
2. I have played EVE online, and technically there is no "space where you can't be attacked". A determined aggressor can still blow you to bits if they do it quickly enough that the cops cannot stop them in time. This is not to say that makes it or any other MMO bad, but every online game has its share of griefers and drama, regardless of the form it takes. The reason I left was really because I grew tired of the boring point-and-click control scheme, but that is another story.
3. This point has no material in and of itself. You have made your overconfidence clear.

Ofcourse funding has to come from somewhere. When no monthly fee is applied you have to buy the initial game at a higher price. The subscription model has nothing to do with an MMO really.


Eve online got boring after a while, yes. But still, if you want there are ways to prevent a lot of griefing and drama. WoW has done this in such a way that everyone can play the game they want, be it solo, PVP, raiding, roleplaying or whatever ;).


Thanks.

Only because you didn't think about it too hard. ;)


I only need one word to destroy this argument completely and utterly beyond recognition: ACTIVISION.

Elaborating on that, do you really think the company that wants to take the fun out of games, and siphon as much money away from their customers as possible, would even consider the possibility of using any other model than subsciptions? And they, of course, would be guaranteed to publish any title we would see come from TFB.


And really, all of those things makes the scourge of the Internet People nonexistent? You're never chat spammed by goldfarmers or general idiots? Nobody ever steals your loot, one way or another? Griefers don't necessarily have to kill you to make your life miserable (though that is the most effective way). And yes, there are countermeasures you can take, like turning off features or changing servers. Is it worth it to play a partially crippled game, or depending on how the game handles server changes, starting from scratch? Not in my esteem.


Hmph. All 3 stand strong and tall.

I'm sorry, I didn't know we were talking about TFB making a Star Control MMO, because frankly I never see that happening :). I already ruled it out because it's bound to compete with WoW.


And really, all of those things makes the scourge of the Internet People nonexistent? You're never chat spammed by goldfarmers or general idiots? Nobody ever steals your loot, one way or another? Griefers don't necessarily have to kill you to make your life miserable (though that is the most effective way). And yes, there are countermeasures you can take, like turning off features or changing servers. Is it worth it to play a partially crippled game, or depending on how the game handles server changes, starting from scratch? Not in my esteem.
[/quote]
[/quote]
What on earth are you talking about? Ofcourse I've been chat spammed sometime in WoW, but those people get banned almost immediately. Stealing loot? Yes ofcourse, in the beginning, but after that technical fixes made that impossible. I don't know how your research about MMO's came to be, but it's not all the doom and gloom that you make it appear it to be :D. And how it's a crippled game when you can't be attacked by players is just a circular reasoning.

"I don't like it when players attack me!"
"Okay, we have a server for you where players can't attack you"
"But that's a crippled game!"

:D

Who else would make it? Legend? :P


WoW is clearly ahead of the curve... sort of. How about "I thought we were bidding for loot?"


That's not what I meant. I was more referring to chat spam, which most people respond to with "Well, mute your chat if you don't like it." That's hardly a solution in my eyes, and cripples what should be a major feature. Maybe WoW is ahead of the curve there too, with some sort of magic ability to filter spam, but I doubt it.

Don't even suggest muting individual users. I don't want to have to micromanage my chat window instead of playing the game, either, and there are way too many of them for it to be feasible.

Ideally: some small company, for example Stardock, who were recently interested in the rights.
TFB is more likely to make a Tony hawk or Disney/Madagascar MMO :). Count Fred and Paul out for anything Star Control related.


Loot is divided by the loot master. Bidding or rolling dice is mostly done by automated systems which work perfectly. There is much social control in WoW servers, most people whom you play with are not unknown to you, and people who screw up multiple times will get a bad reputation, and as such don't get invited to parties anymore.


Chat spam? in what aspect? You can turn off certain channels if you're not interested in certain messages (such as Looking for group channels etc), and if they get abused multiple times the game masters will ban those people from the channels. Also, playing in a guild to your liking will almost certainly diminish the need for such LFG channels, and you can play with people you know and love :).

[/quote]

So are you interested in reading a chat or playing the game? Because if you're playing the game you can turn the chat windows off, and when you enter a major city you can have them turn on again. The possibilities are endless. Generally, when you're in a major city there's a lot going on on the chat channels, but when you're questing it's much quieter since not a lot of people talk on these public channels :). In my experience it's really not that big of a problem. And if it became a problem I dealt with it in a way I saw fit.

Man Angelfish you are abusing those quote tags horribly. Trying to read through one of your replies is twice as irritating as it ought to be ;)

Anyway, quick question. From what I gather you've played a lot of WoW, but have you played a lot of MMO's as well? Just curious, since WoW is clearly your favorite if you feel that the field is otherwise pretty good as well. Or are they all so similar that there isn't much difference technically?

I can't help it. If you know an easy way to do quoting correctly please do tell :)

I've played Lineage II for a bit, Guild Wars quite extensively, and Eve Online for a while but that got boring because the most you did was autopilot from system to system. Also I played Dungeons and Dragons online, but at the time I played it it was so horribly buggy that I quit it in anger.

Out of those previously mentioned, Guild Wars was the best. It was easy to get into and you could solo a lot aswell if no players were online.

However, WoW stands above that. It has an incredible athmosphere, humor, a friendly player base and good gameplay balance.
Ofcourse, what was the most fun was the raiding. For those not known with it, it's going inside a dungeon with 25 (previously 40) players, each with its own task (some healing, some buffing/debuffing, some tanking, some doing damage etc), and defeating various monsters, increasing with difficulty. The game is designed in such a way that it really takes a lot of practice and perhaps even getting special gear to defeat these monsters. I was part of such a raiding guild, and one of the 6 or 7 people that was leading that guild. I was also class leader for the warlocks in that guild. It meant having to deal with a lot of different people from different countries of sometimes colliding personalities, all working towards a common goal.
I quit the game in 2008 because it took up too much of my free time and life had caught up with me, even though we only raided 4 days a week outside of weekends.
Still, I personally think that it's the best game ever made. No game has ever provided me with such a big world with such a lot to do, endlessly, and such social contacts ingame, and the thrill of defeating those monsters for the first time on the server :P.

Yeah, it's called using your keyboard. ::) ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH7s2BYbUAo&feature=related

While we are on the topic of spam, are you at all familiar with the "spam-bot"? It can replicate its code and infiltrate hundreds of online games and forums. Due to its automated systems, it can instantly establish itself as a player and unleash a withering barrage of spam upon the unsuspecting innocents. Even with a small militia of dedicated moderators armed with ban-hammers, giving individual spammer bots the boot, though satisfying, does not stop more from coming.

Need I remind you we do not have Blizzard's resources to work with here?! I appreciate your wishful thinking, but this isn't the daydreaming thread.



You are welcome.

Your reasoning is flawed. We're a small board over here. But do we have a lot of spammers? nope. our moderators can perfectly handle it.
Why? Because a small board isn't as interesting as a big board to spam on :).

An MMO full of players is a different beast, since they're a live, captive audience. It's a much more inviting target.

the more players an MMO has, the more it's attractive to spammers, but the more money it generates, the more money there is for moderators etc.
the more players an MMO has, the less it's attractive to spammers, but the less money it generates, the less money there is for moderators etc.

It evens out.

Not really, not until you hit something WoW sized. Before then, companies are reluctant to greenlight all that extra staff, since they're not sure whether they have a lasting success or just a flash in the pan, and human resources are much more expensive than anything else in the long run. Remember, Blizzard is always the exception, not the rule.

Then by your definition all other MMO's have to be full of spammers.

Eve Online, Dungeons and Dragons online, Lineage II and Guild Wars weren't full of spammers.

Dunno what to tell you man, just pay attention to where your quote tags are at, and maybe hit "preview" before posting. Not saying every post always has to be picture perfect, but you're breaking so many tags that it's hard to follow who said what at times.


Thank you for the information, quite interesting.

I like to nest the quote tags like curly braces in C/Java/whatever:


Makes it a lot easier to spot places where they're broken.

*sigh*

Congratulations, you've found a few exceptions to the general rule. I tire of this discussion, as it's getting more and more irrelevant with every post.

Those exceptions happen to be EVERY MMO I'VE PLAYED. I was hoping you could provide me with actual examples that confirmed your general rule, as you call it.
Right now you have provided us with assumptions, guesses and prejudices. If you have real-life examples of MMO's that you've played (name them please) where such negative experiences were structurally there, this discussion will be relevant again. But right now it feels as if I'm discussing the joys of having sex with someone who is still a virgin ;).

Runscape and Maple Story are the two biggest offenders I've bothered with, though it's not limited to those. Does it matter? Your opinion is as concrete as mine, I'm sure.

I don't know maple story, but when you look at this picture I think that it's bad by design, not because of the people :P.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Maple0123.jpg)

Apparently (akkording to wikipedia) Runescape also was bad by design, resulting in Gold Farmers easily abusing the MMO.

Ofcourse, a Star Control MMO has to learn from these mistakes and make sure that these issues don't happen.

The "image" you linked to isn't an image. The actual image is located at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Maple0123.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Maple0123.jpg).

I played Runescape for years back in the day when you could still trade. I don't get what you mean by "bad by design". I'm not sure why you think Runescape was particularly susceptible to gold farmers.

Incidentally, Runescape ended up preventing trading completely in order to get rid of gold farmers. I assume it worked, although I didn't stick around to see.

All those @'s and useless crap like BOO and ANTI LAG SHELTER and PLAY doesnt really help....

Judging by that picture, it seems to be the case of both. It's full of retards and featuring an awful design.  :P

No one here has made any "MMOs are the future and awesome" arguments here.  In fact, I believe I said the oppposite: that MMOs aren't necessarily for everyone and won't work for most IPs.  As I already stated, I wouldn't be advocating a Star Control MMO if I didn't think it had merit.  You'll never see me advocate a Mass Effect MMO because, as good as Mass Effect is, an MMO of it would never work.

That being said:

1.  There won't necessarily be a monthly fee.  A StarCon MMO could potentially operate on microtransactions much like Dungons & Dragons Online and Lord of the Rings Online.  Of course, at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.

That being said, I do appreciate that having a monthly fee can be a stickler for some people, if not because of the amount of money, but because, well, you paid for your time, you might as well use it, else you've just wasted your monthly fee.  But if you know you're just going to play the game anyway, it's not an issue.


2.  Is this honestly your reason, or is it just that you do not want to play in a shared universe?  I've played other MMOs besides WoW and I cannot remember any of them having many, if any, griefers or whatever "SHFGs" is supposed to be.  Assuming you are speaking from experience, is it possible that you're experience with those types of players is a function of the games you played and not the genre itself?

Furthermore, there's no shame in saying you'd prefer a single-player game over an MMO.  There are pros and cons of both and we could discuss them, but then just say so.  Saying "I don't want to play with griefers and SHFGs" just makes you sound bitter and / or anti-social, and I know you're not the latter, else you wouldn't be here talking to us. :)


3.  This is dependent on 1. and 2. above.  If 1. and 2. are invalidate, so is this, so, I wouldn't call this a "pillar" of your position; it's more of a consequent.



So, at worst, an MMO with a monthly subscription would cost you roughly the same amount as playing Super Metroid.  Except it would have better graphics.  And more content.  And content updates.

Either way, I brought up the money issue to point out to people that it really is not as expensive as people think it is.



Well, you're obviously wrong on the last point, as many players have sunk way more money into WoW than I have.  And yes, you could purchase 30 or so games at the $20 price point, but, are there honestly 30 games out there that you really want to buy and spend time playing?  If a game you don't care about goes on sale for $5, would you buy it?



Yes, as I've said before, I appreciate that this can be a problem.  But, again, if you're really excited about the game and want to spend lots of time playing it, it's not an issue.

And again, this is only an issue if the MMO is subscription based.



Actually, the GOOD MMOs have TONS of solo content.  I know several people who absolutely LOVE WoW but who almost never group with others.  Remember, the company wants you to keep playing the game.  If you like to do so solo, then it's in their best interest to provide solo friendly content.



So?  I don't have any friends who play MMOs either.  Just make new friends in the MMO.  In fact, playing with friends is probably worse; if you and your friends cannot find times to play together, you end up not playing as much and may lose interest in the game.  On the other hand, if you like the game with or without your friends, then when they are online they will encroach on your free time by wanting to play with you when perhaps you'd rather just play solo.



Barely.  If the MMO is a triple-A title that the devs make money off of, then they do not want other third-party businesses coming in and making money off their IP.  That's copyright infringement, and they will work hard to shut them down.  It's in the company's best interest to keep you happy so you keep playing, as well as in their best interest that others aren't mooching off their product illegally.



Well, all I can say is that I've played WoW extensively as well as several other MMOs and your described situations are the exception rather than the rule.  If your experience is the complete opposite, it's either because of the game in particular you are playing or you are doing something to elicit those reactions.  I'm betting it's the former.



Which means what exactly?

I really don't understand your argument here.  Star Control has a small cult following of interested players.  That's more than what could have been said for when Guild Wars when it was first starting out.  It seems to me that StarCon would have the edge here, but you seem to think otherwise for some strange reason...



Runescape and Maple Story are probably two of the worst examples you could come up with to argue that MMOs suck.  For one, neither is a triple-A title; I wouldn't even call them B-grade titles.  I'm not trying to advocate a free-to-play StarCon MMO designed for 10-year olds here.  I'm advocating for a mature, triple-A StarCon MMO with full features and support.



It does matter.  What you're essentially doing is arguing that going for walks is bad because on two different occassions, while walking in two different 'hoods, you were robbed each time.

However, you did mention your issues with Runescape and Maple Story are not limited to those.  Which others are you referring to then?

I think StarCon certainly could be done as an MMO, if someone with the money and time available to develop and support it were inclined to do so.  If such a beast existed I would at least be interested enough to try it out for a few days and see if it was any good.

This is, of course, entirely hypothetical.  The thing about MMOs is that they're living, breathing environments.  New content needs to be added on a regular basis or interest and player base will drop off.  I look around here and see half a dozen half-finished single-player SC fan games.  I have yet to see a single one completed to the point that I can download and play it (aside from Super Melee clones, that is.)  The idea that anyone might actually go ahead and make an MMO of SC is laughable, since the required investment of time and money is exponentially higher than that required of a single player game, and even those don't seem to get all the way off the ground anymore.  As such, I don't really see what everyone is getting worked up about.

The people who support the idea seem to be imagining some super-cool WoW-killer with tons of innovative ideas no other MMO has, which is great and all, but the odds of it actually happening are roughly 1 in a million, even if there were a game studio ready and willing to develop it.  Those who think the idea would suck continually compare the idea to any of a hundred other crappy MMOs they weren't impressed with anyway.  There is one common thread I see here: it's all theoretical.  Whether an SC MMO would rock or suck is really a pointless question because at the end of the day, it will never happen.  Those who like the idea can fantasize about it to kill time if they like, those who don't can promptly forget it.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love SC2.  It was a mind-blowing game back in the day and it's one which I still pull out and play every 5 years or so.  It has a fantastic fan community (that would be you guys) and the fact that anybody still remembers this game, let alone promotes a freeware version that can run on modern day computers, is incredibly awesome in my opinion.  That said, the game is finished.  It is done.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  All good stories have an ending, and Star Control has it's.  It's a cult classic, a favourite, a legend, and it's finished.  It is complete, and I cherish it as such.

No new game will likely ever be made, MMO or otherwise, and if such a game did materialize, it would certainly be a remake as opposed to a sequel.  It would have to be in order to stand a chance in hell of selling well enough to make the project worthwhile.  Even if every single person on this forum ran out and bought a copy on day one, I doubt it would recoup the costs of developing the game we all want to see.  In order to make the project viable it would have to be a do-over because it would need the general population of gamers to support it, financially.  I'm not so sure that's necessary.  It would be cool, but it probably wouldn't live up to every expectation I'd have after nearly 20 years.  I'd rather play the old game that already exists and remember the awesome story it told than worry about whether or not the game could be made anew.  Not everything needs to rise from the ashes in some shiny new commercialist incarnation to justify it's continued popularity decades after it's over and done.

I'm just saying is all.

Yes there would. The subscription model is the one that can consistently earn the most money, and this would be an Activision game. It's foregone conclusion; they won't mess around with a less profitable formula.


SHFG = Stop Having Fun Guy. You know the type; they're the ones that look at your gearscore and tell you you're playing the game wrong before you're unceremoniously kicked from their party. I don't appreciate being told how to spend my time, especially not when that translates directly to how I spend my money.

I guess I haven't really made this clear. I don't really have a problem with games that include multiplayer co-op or competetive, and I'll play those modes with others on many of the games I own. Dragon Quest 9, for example, is great fun to play in multiplayer (surprisingly enough). However, there's a big difference there; DQ9 and other games with modes similar to it separate those modes from the single player mode and give you a choice, whereas MMOs dump you into a world with 1000 other people by design. Games with separate multiplayer functions, unless they have a random matchmaker function, have you connecting with people you already know (or at least some sort of lobby where you can pick and choose who you want to play with/against), and I much prefer to know who I'm gaming with.

I think (and this is going to make me seem really old, which is not entirely untrue) this may be something of a generation gap thing. I grew up gaming, but until the mid 90's or so, multiplayer consisted of me and a bunch of friends crowded around the TV or PC monitor, passing around controllers or trying to cram our hands onto a single keyboard. And it was great fun. Even once LAN gaming started to get popular with Doom and the like, the internet connections weren't fast enough to support online gaming terribly well, and lugging desktop setups around to each others' houses was a rare occurrance because it was a major pain, and required lots of setup to get working correctly. By the time internet gaming really took off, I had already graduated from college. So when I think of awesome multiplayer experiences, I'm thinking of round-robin SC2 super melee on my old 486, or vs. mode on Street Fighter 2 on my friend's Genesis, or a bunch of us gathered around the N64 for some Goldeneye or Perfect Dark. Basically, it's a face-to-face experience for me, and so dealing with the faceless masses of GIFs is something that compares unfavorably.

And yet, when playing games in multiplayer, I have usually got a fairly high tolerance for BS. I played Diablo 2 for ages on Battlenet years back, and that was full of morons of all stripes. But my friends also played, and we could password lock our games to keep others out, so it was fine; if I wanted to jump into a game with random people, that was my choice and I knew what I was getting into. However, there's a big difference between that experience, and that same experience where I don't know anyone; suddenly, a lot of the appeal has drained away, because then I know that I'm going to be either in a game with random people, or going solo. Even still, I can accept that.

The main problem is how this ties into issue #1. My tolerance for that same BS drops right through the floor and starts heading for the Earth's core if I know I'm paying real life money for the privledge of playing the game. If I've paid, let's say, $15 for that month, and I spend that month getting griefed or berated about my character build or harassed by goldfarmers, I don't consider that money well spent somehow.


That's what I've been saying this whole thread, and yet people are still arguing with me for some reason. ;)

Let me be honest, I don't want to play with griefers and SHFGs. It's not so much being antisocial (though I've been accused of that in my youth, before video games were a social activity), but I am a bit bitter. Griefers in particular have kept me away from what would otherwise be excellent games, the most recent example being Minecraft. From what I've heard, it's an experience like no other. But 90% of the gameplay videos I've seen of it involve someone smashing up, flooding with lava, or otherwise destroying, a creation that someone clearly put a tremendous amount of time into making. Why would I want to expose myself to that? My time is more valuable, and so are my (manly) tears of rage.

Before you remark, yes, Minecraft has a single player mode. But what's the point of playing the game if you can't show off your creations to others?


The 3 are actually inextricably tied together, which means they each lend each other support. It's not a structure that can be collapsed with words, no matter how passionate nor seemingly rational they are.


And yet, still wouldn't be half as awesome. We're talking about my #1 game of all time here; all the logic in the world isn't going to change that. :P


Yes, it is. You've played WoW for 2400 hours. Think about that a second; that is a tremedous amount of time. If I had played any of the games I mentioned for that long, my cost per hour would be miniscule. It's 2 cents for Super Metroid, and less than 1 cent for the others. Besides, unless you sink even more time into it in a given month (is there any time left?) your figures only get worse, and mine only get better. Subscription fees are a money pit no matter how you try to spin them.


What can I say, I'm notorious for craving variety. I'm currently juggling seriously playing 7 different games. No matter how good a game is, I tend to drift away from it, at least for a little while, if I play it non stop for too long. In the case of WoW, that would be wasted money.

Are there 30 games I currently want? No. Over the span of time that you've been playing WoW, have I bought 30 games? Maybe, and I enjoyed (almost) every one of them. Would I buy cheap games that I have no interest in? Nope. Would I buy cheap games that I have mild interest in, or that I've heard good things about? Maybe...

If I had $600 to burn, would I find something worthwhile to do with it? Most definitely, and it sure wouldn't be sunk into a single game.


Yeah, it is. I place a certain value on my time and relationships with others, even though it's not strictly monetary. For example, my marriage is worth more to me than any game, and so I spend a significantly greater amount of time with my wife than I do in front of the PC. An MMO subscription puts a real monetary value on my time, which gets devalued the less I play, hence my feeling of obligation. But am I willing to strain my relationships for the sake of a game? Hell no.


Y'know, it funny how the most popular MMO in the world tends to be the default for these discussions, isn't it? That's also why it tends to be the default for discussing hypothetical new MMO fee schedules, especially when they're coming from the same company.


And yet, you're never really alone, are you? If I want to play a game solo, why bother with the other people at all? And yet they're inescapable (until you hit an instanced dungeon, anyway).

Hey, does everyone know what the second most popular MMO in the world is? Final Fantasy 11. How much solo content does that game have? ZERO.


See discussion above about my tolerance for BS.


This is the worst argument I've ever seen. Sorry, simple statement of fact; please read it again and revise. I would much rather play a game like this with friends I already have than all alone or with random Internet People, that's a no brainer. At least I know I can trust my friends and they have my back.


Psh. You're nuts, even the spambots on this board sometimes advertise WoW gold. Don't even try to tell me they don't exist.


Maybe so. Then again, I've been MUDding and playing BBS games since the early '90s, and the same issues were concerns back then as well. Why would I have any reason to believe that things have changed?


It means "Why think of fresh and innovative ideas for our new MMO, when we could just reskin and make some minor variations on well established concepts from an existing game? We'll still make money either way, but it'll take a lot less time and money if we make a clone." Programmers may not (always) think like this, but executives almost always do.


Runescape is the most popular free-to-play MMO in the world, so despite your personal opinion of it, that means something. Maple Story is, well, different from the norm, which is exactly why I wanted to try it; it's time I can never get back, and also taught me a lot about how little admins and moderators on a free-to-play game actually care about your concerns if you haven't shelled out real money for them. They're my two worst experiences, but both are extremely popular despite that. They're both also perfect examples of the kind of playerbase you can expect if you use a payment model other than subscriptions.


Hey, if my options are go for a walk and get mugged, or pay $15 a month to walk in a special park where I may still get mugged but it's less likely, I'll just stay home.


Like I said above, I've been MUDding for a long time, and I've sampled a few other MMOs even more obscure than RS and Maple. These issues are as old as online gaming is, and try as you might, you can't excise them from the experience.

I think you mean:

"There is one common theme I see here: it's all hypothetical."

"Theoretical" means that it has been tested and proven at least to some extent, while you seem to be saying that it has not been tested and can't be tested.

Anyways, sorry for being a nitpick, just saying. :) I agree with most of what you're saying, BTW.

I pay for MMO's because Griefing is fun!  :) :) :)

Troll alert!

Even if you had a time machine and travelled to the future to find out and tell us that, it's still not a forgone conclusion.  DDO went from being the 7th or 10th most popular MMO to the 3rd most popular after it went to a microstransaction system.  Companies would be stupid not to explore this as a possibility. Real Time Worlds, the studio that made the APB MMO, went bankrupt in less than 90 days because their subscription-based MMO was competing against dozens of free-to-play online shooter games.

If you are a company looking at making an MMO, especially one as successful as Activision, you're going to look at how other MMOs and their business models are doing so that you can make a successful business model for themselves.



It's not a generation gap thing.  I'm probably roughly your age, as are many people I know who play WoW; some are definitely older than you.

That being said, playing an MMO is a vastly different experience than playing a DOOM deathmatch on LAN or Hyper Melee on one keyboard.



I understand, and I'm positive the devs agree with you.  Remember, they want you to keep playing the game.  If some people are ruining the gaming experience for large amounts of others, they will do something about it, as it's ultimately in their best interest.

That being said, I cannot imagine anyone paying $15 a month just to troll and grief others, especially when the threat of being banned from the game is real.  That's a far bigger waste of $15 than you'll probably ever experience while playing nice with others.



Because you are taking a handful of very small incidents and blowing them up into this big problem.  Again, I've play WoW for several years, as well as other MMOs sporadically, and I VERY RARELY encounter griefers and SHFGs.  But you make it sound like 98% of the playerbase of a StarCon MMO will be griefers and SHFGs.



Well, no, but so what?  NO game is ever going to bump your #1 favourite of all time from the #1 spot.

That being said, quantifying it as "half" as awesome is supposition; you won't really know until you see and play it.



But you'd have only a fraction of the content.  Remember, I only have ONE max level character, so it's not like I kept constantly replaying the same content over and over again.  Over the years a lot of new additions and changes have been made to the game.  If there hadn't, I wouldn't play.  For example, I got bored of WoW back in April and haven't played it since.  And I probably won't go back to it for several more months, especially not until the new expansion is released, as I ran out of stuff to do.  Believe it or not, I have NOT experienced all the content that is offered in WoW.  I've probably experienced only about half of it.  So just keep that in mind next time you read that I spent 2400 hours playing the game.



Er, huh?  I had 9 hours a week coming out to about 50 cents a day.  That's just a bit more than an hour a day average.  If you cannot make time to spend an hour day average on your hobby then your life must really suck.



It doesn't work like that.  You pay as much or as little as you want for as much or as little time as you want (with some restrictions, of course, since it's monthly).  This is especially true if the MMO is microtransaction based.  If Blizzard said playing WoW for 3 years straight will cost you $600, no one would play it.



Playing solo and playing alone are not necessarily the same thing.  And I don't know why anyone would bother playing an MMO solo; to me it defeats the purpose, but apparently, there are an awful lot of people like this.



How popular is it in North America?



See my earlier point about your assumption that there will be a significant amount of BS, even by your standards.



It's a statement of fact that I've had problems because I played WoW with friends.  One of two scenarios kept cropping up: either they weren't online and I couldn't play my main else I'd outlevel them, or I was content playing an alt and they hopped online to play with my main when I wasn't in the mood to play my main.  "My time" ended up becoming "our time" and it put a strain on the fun at times.

As someone who claims to value their free time, I don't understand how you cannot understand this point.



 ??? How does "barely" translate to "they don't exist"?

You said your tolerance for BS was low, but I think you grossly underestimate just how low it is if very rare occurrences of trolls and spambots are enough to send you into a rage.  If that is really the case, I think you're more in danger of being "nuts" than I am.



If you've been playing multiplayer games as long as you have, it should come as no surprise that unmoderate or loosely moderated, free-to-play multiplayer games attract trolls.  Although I cannot say for certain, I'm pretty sure there is some correlation between the cost of a game and the amount of anonymity it offers and the number of griefers it has.

Remember, I'm talking about setting up a triple-A StarCon MMO with full features and support, not a SC2 re-skin of Maple Story.



In that case they are idiots who deserve to fail.  See my earlier point about the collapse of Real Time Worlds because of their APB MMO.  As I pointed out several weeks ago when this discussion started, it is increasingly becoming clear that reskinning tired ideas from other MMOs is a recipe for disaster and ultimately financial ruin.



Like I said: you get what you pay for.



They are popular and full of tards because they are free.



OR, you could go for a walk, for free, in a nice neighbourhood. :)



And you didn't think that maybe, just maybe, the reason those MMOs were so obscure was because no one played them due to the amount of griefers in those games?



Fair enough, I understand where you are coming from.  I never said MMOs are for everyone and I'd never advocate that anyone choose anything, video games or otherwise, over their family and friends.  Video games (MMOs or otherwise) are supposed to be a fun pass time that you do to relax and have fun.  If it's not fun, don't play it.  My only argument is, if you think it might be something you are interested in, don't prejudge it before you actually see the product.  But I think in your case you wouldn't be interested, so it's a moot point.

You might be surprised at how much damage just a few individuals can inflict upon a community. Some of them are very persistent. As always, one's experience will vary. Human interaction is a chaotic and unpredictable thing. It is therefore impractical to gauge the amount of BS you'll receive.

Details, details... The entire topic has been and remains speculation. Whether you are talking about a state-of-the-art powerhouse or a collection of old refurbished game servers in a shack, we are not any more likely to see it built.

I am an advocate for free softwares. Sure, there are a few botched jobs here and there, but there is a treasure to be had in many of them. You cannot possibly tell me that there aren't just as many mess-ups and low quality junk among the commercial brands. Price does not reflect value.

You miss the point. Not only that, but you sound like a complete dolt while doing so.


Personally, I prefer to have the game environment all to myself. I dislike sharing.

Human interaction is only chaotic in mental hospitals and certain parts of the Internet.



No, but the money to support the features and services that are available in MMOs come from somewhere, and it's not from the sale of the original product.



Since I made the analogy I'm quite sure I got the point.  But if you feel otherwise, do tell.  Or did you think throwing insults my way would somehow enlighten me?



Well, at least you're honest...

Runescape does use a subscription model. I'm not sure what you;re talking about.

I had a very long post composed here, and then my browser decided to make all that typing void by closing itself. Suffice to say, I'm sick of this topic again, and so additional commentary will not be terribly verbose until someone new joins the discussion.

Let me just say this, though: If you have a subscription model, your game may have fewer griefers and other trouble, but it will be prohibitively expensive. If you have a microtransaction model, the game is essentially free to play and you're opening the floodgates. You can't argue it both ways, because that's not how it works.

Also, Mad Cat, you wasted $75 not playing WoW for the last 5 months, which hurts my brain just to think about. I value my money far too much to do something like that.

Additionally, your walking analogy is a failure, as Zeratul stated. See my above remark about subscription vs. free-to-play.

The rest is just semantics, which I'm no longer in the mood for thanks to IE's shennanigans.

I hate it when that happens.  As such, I've taken to saving really long posts in temporary text files.

Also, I stopped using IE.  That piece of shit crashes on every other website.



That's only the core of the argument.  Different games have different target audiences.  Who do you think are the biggest griefers and tards in MMOs?  They're kids, not adults like you and I.  If you play an MMO aimed at little children, you shouldn't complain that you get griefed.  Look at EVE Online - it's a subscription based MMO, but the culture of the game is very cut throat.  This is done on purpose as the devs are catering to a more "hardcore" gaming crowd than MMOs like WoW, which caters to a very different crowd than MMOs like Maple Story.

So the business model will make a difference on what types of gamers the MMO attract, but it won't make ALL the difference.



I did no such thing.  Over the past 5 months I paid $0 on my subscription and likewise played 0 hours of WoW.

My gym membership, on the other hand... :(



Simply stating "your analogy is a failure" doesn't make it such, and is often the sign of someone who either doesn't understand the point being made or doesn't want to understand the point being made.  Or doesn't care.

The point of my walking analogy was that you cannot fault the act of walking just because you got robbed.  You didn't robbed because you were walking, you got robbed because you went walking in a bad neighbourhood.

Likewise, you had a bad experience with MMOs not because MMOs are crap and are full of griefers and tards, but because you played the ones that were full of griefers and tards.

If you go walking in the nice neighbourhood, you're less likely to get robbed.  If you play (free-to-play) MMOs that don't cater to greifers and such, like DDO or LotRO, you're less likely to have to deal with them.

What ever you play, I will find you and grief you.