LucasArts Announces First Massive Multiplayer Game 201
Nastard writes "LucasArts announced that they will be partnering with Sony and Verant (the guys who brought us EverQuest) to bring us a massive multiplayer RPG based upon the Star Wars universe. The article doesn't give any dates, but I'm sure we're all gonna be in line for this one. "
Cool. (Score:2)
_________________________________________
Important question (Score:1)
RPG with lightsaber... *drool*..... (Score:1)
Role Playing... (Score:1)
Ah hell, who am I kidding. I'll be working for the Empire.
Online (Score:1)
And I wonder when LucasArts will start releasing Linux versions of their games....
PS - TIE Fighter ruled!
Good idea, bad base? (Score:4)
Verant strikes me as a pretty good gaming company (I'm an EQ addict myself) overall...they're very active within the community they created, have a good deal of direct contact with the players, and make a pretty darned neat piece of software.
But.
Everquest's main problem (IMO, of course) isn't gameplay imbalances or quest bugs or any of the directly game-related issues that are thrown about. To me, the biggest turnoff about EQ is the sheer volume of 12-year-old brats that're running around. (I'm generalizing, of course - some people on EQ are surprisingly younger than they seem for their maturity, and some 35-year-old parents are worse than clueless kids could ever be, but you get the general idea.)
I'm sure Verant's Star Wars game will be a hit - they haven't advertised EQ in months and sales still climb - but I'm not gonna place any bets on what their player base ends up like.
First of nothing (Score:1)
What about www.mankind.net ?
If it's as good as other Lucas Arts games... (Score:1)
I wanna be ... (Score:2)
gamebalance (Score:3)
The problem is: if you want to make this play like the real SW universe, only a couple of players could be a Jedi and the majority would have to be stormtrooper, tusken raider, ewok, etc. I can see people registering 10.000 times just so they get to be a Jedi and stuff like that. I hope they solve this in a cool way - I wouldn't mind playing a stormtrooper.
I'm not sure about being an ewok though...
pay-to-play? (Score:4)
What does annoy me is that like Everquest and UO, is that this game will most likely be another "Pay-to-play" game with ridiculous monthly charges. Yes I can afford $10-20/mo, but the money adds up, and it is ridiculous to expect a consumer to pay regular fees for a game, or so to speak. One thing I would like to know is why all online RPG's charge for playtime. I never see it occuring in the action, wargame, or real-time strategy field. If I buy Starcraft, Quake III, or even Diablo, I wouldnt have to pay anything extra for online play. Granted, I'm not knowledge about the workings, but I doubt RPG's require such additional online maintainence that it merits a continuous charge. I do realize that the characters and settings are stored, unlike the average strat/shooter game, but again, I hardly see how that would account for any additional expenses.
Maybe it's just me, but once a game is purchased, you should be able to play it out of the box and enjoy it as intended without having to fork over more money. Even the occasional ad would be sometimes acceptable as an alternative, IMHO. I think that if online RPG providers would stop absurdly charging fees, even more customers would sign up, and idle ones who already bought the game would play more often. I see the high numbers of people that dont seem to mind the charge, yet I also have many more friends who would be dying to join the online RPG world but are sickened by the notion of an extra charge.
Re:gamebalance (Score:3)
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:2)
More info and date for LucasArts game (Score:2)
Sony Online (Score:2)
I find it interesting that Lucas is partnering with Sony. Doesn't Fox (the studio that released the SW flicks) have an online entertainment/gaming division? And does this signal a keiretsu-style relationship between Lucasfilm and Sony where Sony becomes an important SW toy licensee? (I'd love to have a Sony lightsaber, myself...)
This Is Good News For Mutli-Player Online Games (Score:1)
Never again. (Score:2)
"Playing" is a misnomer. Its a job. An exercise in frustration. You have to sit for days to get a decent piece of equipment or buy it on Ebay. If you don't have that nice shiney equipment then people don't want you in their groups.
If their starwars is -anything- even remotely close to EQ it definitely isn't for me. I just have a bad time with any game where you sit for days waiting for an npc to spawn and still have to compete with 15 others to get that item. Or the joys of instantly dieing w/o any means of protecting yourself (Plane of Fear for example).
I cancelled my EQ account and swore hell would freeze over before I bought any game Veriant creates ever again.
Its still quite warm down there from what I've heard.
Re:Good idea, bad base? (Score:1)
I mean, that way, all the 12-yo-brats (and their 35-yo companions) could keep somewhere, and a bit more "serious" people could keep on their own [planet|space station|whatever]. If they keep it in mind... it *could* work.
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:1)
It would be nice if they didn't charge you $40 to get EQ to begin with though. You'd think they'd make more in the long run if the original CD was less.
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:2)
Everquest and UO take place in a persistent world, with *large* server farms supporting each shard/continent/whatever metaphor.
Those farms are connected to big fat network pipes.
Those farms and network pipes are supported by system and network administrators.
None of these things are free.
-LjM
I get dibs on Nerf Herder (Score:3)
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:1)
Finally! (Score:1)
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:3)
What I think is that they shouldn't charge for the game CD at all. I was actually shocked when I found out they were charging for the Ultima Online software itself. That doesn't make sense to me. The idea is to hook people into paying a 'low' monthly fee for using the network service. Asking for a full software title's price upfront and then charging a monthly fee seems excessive to me.
Re:Important question (Score:1)
djsw
Yup. (Score:1)
That's the primary reason I stopped playing Ultima Online. That and overcrowding.
Re:Important question (Score:1)
Hey, wait a minute... (Score:1)
Oh, wait, I'm already part of something along those lines. And it's free. With no downloads (except for an IRC client if you don't have one, and that's optional) or purchase nessessary.
Anyway, the URL is http://www.sleepco.com/furcon/main.html (No, I don't know HTML...yet).
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:2)
Re:Good idea, bad base? (Score:1)
Re:gamebalance (Score:2)
Bots: Agriculture bot to IG88
Normal humans: slaves to Han Solo
Jedi: from "The force is strong in this one" to "more powerful than you can possibly imagine"
Although there was cybernetic augmentation whether there was better than human cybernetic augmentation is open to speculation.. e.g. Cyberpunk 2020
Alien growth/power building... such as the more you fight the stronger you get without a limit... or hive structure where you play a "swarm" that grows in members with combined power to rival other sorts.
Fighter pilots? better and better fighters?
To make it Jedicentric would disembowel a potentially rich and diverse universe.
Perhaps "more powerful than you can possibly imagine" could be used as a good anti player killer. If someone killed you, you could then temporarily pass all or double your power to the next opponent they fought. Insures they at least have to give up their own life to take yours.
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:1)
Anyway, my main objections still are
a)the regularity of the fees... yes servers cost money, but $10/mo or $100 year is still highly excessive. and with free adsupported 56k isp's and the like readily around, I hardly doubt that a huge gaming company could continue to provide services off either nothing with minimal ads or a maybe a lump sum of $20-30 per year.
b)the store price of the game... yeah about 10 other people posted this, but the company could also charge only $10-20 for the game, or even make it free and maybe the monthly prices wouldnt be so abusurd as they are now.
sorta OT, sorta not (Score:2)
Ohhh lord do I wish I had one of those!
I hear Pod Racer's kinda lame, but it looks nice....
Pope
Re:RPG with lightsaber... *drool*..... (Score:1)
First Massively Multiplayer Game (Score:1)
A proven concept, but why
No open source ones?
Re:I wanna be ... (Score:1)
--
Different from your normal RPG (Score:2)
Players will probably get to choose Alliance, Empire or Rogue instead of Good/Evil/Neutral. How long will the war last? Will Alliance/Empire players have to deal with a military hierarchy? And what does it feel like to be an ace pilot on the losing side?
Whatever it is, I'm sure it'll be different to have some high drama. Probably the Generals will be NPCs, though.
Re:If it's as good as other Lucas Arts games... (Score:1)
I loved X-wing and TIE fighter. I still replay them from time to time, even though they won't run under DOSEMU.
But other Star Wars games weren't so great. Here's [gamespot.com] an article on Star Wars games, good and bad.
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
This could be a very good game, if it is set in the right time period.
What time period will it be set in? I'm hoping it will be pre-Episode One, or Post-Episode 6. Running into Luke, Anakin, Leia, Chewbacca etc would be cool, but would get old real quick. If it is set during the Ep. 1 to Ep. 3 time period, I'll probably skip it due to possible spoilers. The best timeperiod would probably be either a hundred years or so before Anakin is born, or a few hundred years after the Empire is defeated. Avoiding having to deal with movie, comic, or novel plot details would most likely make for a better game.
they do... but... (Score:1)
-------
Jedi Knights... (Score:2)
I would think that to become a jedi knight would be a feat that would require much working up through the ranks, and much skill/test of knowledge, etc. I'm going to assume that somehow, somewhere, they'll have a Jedi who can initiate/train other Jedi, (because you've got to get your example of Jedi-ship from somewhere) but I obviously don't know how they'll choose that person.
Maybe, as my first thought was, they'll have one of the creators begin the game a a Jedi,and, over time and as worthy individuals arise, new Jedi will emerge, and then the original can either continue or, if so chosen, retire from the position/die (if they have other things to do besides continue the game, etc...)
Anyways, it's an interesting idea. Kudos if they get it working well.
I smell a rat (Score:1)
I haven't seen anyone discussing this, but I personally would avoid this game if I have to pay to play.
When you buy a copy of Quake 3 Arena, you get to play for free, notwithstanding the cost of your ISP account. No monthly charges are assessed by id for jumping onto a Q3A server.
When you buy a copy of Everquest, you wind up paying these guys monthly in order to keep your access to the game. I don't like that trend at all, and I won't feed it with my dollars.
Of course, everyone else is free to feed it, but remember, if you do, everyone is going to be encouraged to do it that way. This'll ensure the runaway spread of "monthly-pay-per-play" across the whole online RPG market of the future, and perhaps it may even spread to the FPS arena.
Do you know how expensive for you that such a thing would be?
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
2 Ways It Could Turn Out (Score:2)
Everyone'll want to be Luke Skywalker, or Han Solo. But for the Star Wars universe to work at all there have to be hundreds manning all those market stores in Tatooine, and pushing those buttons on the Death Star.
EverQuest problem:
I can see a group of players spending hours standing around the Sand People respawn point, just waiting to bonk some uglies with their light sabers so they get another pixel added to their XP bar.
Even in the Star Wars universe I don't want to pay a subscription fee to have the equivalent of a service industry job.
Sony (Score:1)
Re:I wanna be ... (Score:1)
(I can't believe I just said that...)
Re:gamebalance (Score:1)
This idea struck me as a highly fun disabling and political idea. Granted PK is horrible when you get some high level characters who can brutalize lil guys.
Okay follow my line of thinking here. If you have to basically sacrifice your life to kill someone then the point of being a good PKer is invalidated quite a bit and it probably would only amount to 'making a statement'
That seems to make it a bit to 'political' Because PKing is an important part of a good Roleplaying Game to me. Online gaming etc. I enjoy the challenge of having other players after me.
What fun is it to know if im killed then I know im gonna die it would seem to take away a lot of motivation for the game. Granted I see where you are going. taking power from the more powerful characters is probably not a good way to keep the addicts coming
Jeremy
Re:gamebalance (Score:1)
treke
Re:gamebalance (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see how they balance it. The SW RPG (old-school) worked OK because they didn't have to balance thousands of players. Here, it will be a little different. But there's enough going on in places like Corellia and Tatooine that getting mixed up in even local rebellions (or really being on the fringe of the galaxy, where the Empire/Republic, depending on the chosen era) will be easy and fun.
You may not like it (Score:1)
you Don't have buy it
you have that choice
http://theotherside.com/dvd/ [theotherside.com]
Download this (Score:1)
The Ecology of MMP (Score:3)
None of the currently operating MMP RPGs has found a completely satisfactory solution to the problem, and it may be that none exists. One thing that would help a lot would be to have death be for keeps. As it stands, whenever the monsters manage to take down a player character, it is an empty victory at best; he'll be back within minutes, perhaps with a slight XP penalty, perhaps without some of his equipment, but nevertheless largely unscathed. However, most players seem to resist the idea of death being deadly pretty fervently, so don't expect to see it any time soon.
Call me a fuddy-duddy, or whatever you will, but I don't have a lot of confidence that MMP games will ever "get there" as far as capturing the RPG experience. There is an editorial at Games Domain [gamesdomain.co.uk] that sums it up pretty well. When I play an RPG I want to have at least an opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the campaign world; however, in any campaign world few people have that opportunity. In a game with only half a dozen players, the deck is stacked in your favor; by design you get to play the characters that have a chance to make a difference. In MMP games there are simply too many players for that to be practical. The result is stagnation and boredom, which isn't really what I look for in a game. So, here's hoping they get it right with this one, but I'm not holding my breath.
-rpl
Re:Good idea, bad base? (Score:1)
That's brilliant man. Are there any Open-projects like this going on? I realize MUD's maybe...
I wish 1) I had more time 2) better programming skills. I would love to work on something like this.
Anyone else? I can't be the only one dreaming...
Who knew? (Score:3)
Hmm, I guess this means that Lisa is no longer on Fox, and has decided to stop doing the Simpsons sitcom. Fox officials said that they were sorry to see her leave the show, but at 18, she was no longer the little girl that america fell in love with. I know that ill be sorry to see her leave, but this just means maggie has to step up. ;-)
Lookee here (Score:1)
http://www.worldforge.org
The engine looks good and the graphics look great. Go help them out, if you feel so inclined...
Re:Good idea, bad base? (Score:1)
Re:Good idea, bad base? (Score:1)
Uhhh, Hemos (Score:1)
brought us EverQuest) to bring us a massive multiplayer RPG based upon the Star Wars universe. The article
doesn't give any dates, but I'm sure we're all gonna be in line for this one. "
I will not be in line for this one, Unless they have a Linux version.. because all I need these days is Linux.. if they dont have a linux version then I dont need their game. So fuck em, cus i know they aren't going to make a linux version. fuck em
Re:Good idea, bad base? (Score:1)
The truth? There is no soup.
Mike van Lammeren
Re:The Ecology of MMP (Score:1)
Re:Jedi Knights... (Score:1)
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:2)
Remember Subspace?
If you don't, it was a very fun, very addictive top-down multiplayer space shooter developed by Virgin Interactive. It enjoyed a long and fairly public beta life, during which many concerns over subscription fees were voiced. Due in part to tester response, it was decided that Virgin would not charge on a monthly basis after you purchased the game itself. Upon hearing this news, the players were jubilant.
Almost immediately, though, things started going downhill. Servers couldn't handle the increased load of players, and the few people who ran full-time independent servers were usually running at maximum capacity. Virgin didn't have the cash flow to upgrade their servers or their lines fast enough to keep up with the game. Shortly after the release of the game, the game was cracked and distributed; Virgin had to deal with a fresh influx of players without the benefit of having additional money to take care of them. People started finding and exploiting bugs in the game; Virgin was ill-inclined to pay developers to fix bugs in a game that was now obviously not a money-maker. The game exploits turned into service attacks; towards the end of the "official" life of Subspace, it was not uncommon for there to be over 10% downtime of the game/login servers on any given day.
In the end, Virgin had to scrap Subspace entirely. The program was a total loss for them, and as far as I know, they haven't made another trip into the world of MMOG since. Sure, Subspace is still alive, driven by user-run servers and randomly available cracked EXEs, but rest assured that nothing more is going to happen with it.
I would have loved to have seen what Virgin had in store for Subspace 2; unfortunately, that'll never happen. As wonderful as the notion of free access is, when you need to support some serious, heavy-duty servers, high-speed, high-availability internet connections, a developer base to fix bugs and stop exploits, and a legion of in-game moderators and administrators to weed out the idiots who insist on ruining the experience for everyone else, you're talking big bucks. Without financial backing, the closest you'll ever come to massively multiplayer on-line gaming is the deathmatch action in Q3 and UT that so many people erroneously think is what MMOG really is.
Re:gamebalance (Score:1)
Like me. Solo was da man, man. Luke was just a whiny punk with good genetics (who happened to make out with his sister)...
Re:The Ecology of MMP (Score:1)
Then, I don't really see the point of making this a multiplayer game, if just one out of a hundred other characters is a real player. You could play for hours before meeting someone "real".
---
guillaume
Re:Uhhh, Hemos (Score:1)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA [opendvd.org]
Since when is Star Wars sci-fi?? (Score:1)
Re:gamebalance (Score:2)
Joe
Re:The Ecology of MMP (Score:1)
An online RPG with a GM (Score:1)
Those other 99% are just background. (Score:2)
It's the bounty hunters, ambitious military officers, rebel agents, etc. that are the fun roles to play, and the people you want to be unpredictable allies or opponents.
If you don't fill out the worlds with simulated normal, boring people, there is no sense of reality.
Don't worry about not meeting them, your common interests will draw you to each other.
Re:I smell a rat (Score:2)
Are you outraged that you pay a monthly subscription for cable? Internet access? Car insurance? Electricity? Gas? Does it seem to you that all you should really have to pay for is the wires they hook up to your house? Or do you have some understanding of the fact that these companies need a constant flow of money to continue providing you with the services you want? Had it ever occured to you that the very same example just might hold true in the case of a massively multiplayer online game?
By the way, Quake 3 isn't a Massively Multiplayer Online Game. It's essentially Doom with a nice little directory server built in so you can find plenty of net games easily. There's no need for a game server to be up 24/7, and you'll get the exact same gameplay if you log on under a different name or on a different server. Game #427 for you is no different from game #591; start at zero, frag, maybe cap a flag or two, tally up the scores at the end. Repeat. Q3 is a multiplayer online game, but the only thing "massive" about it is that there are tons of little nobody game servers out there.
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:1)
With a *very* large user base, maybe they could lower the cost, but give it away for free? It makes more sense if they give the client away and charge for the gametime.
Just my two cents.
Star Wars RPGs (Score:2)
Mur!
Jacinda@ChivalryMUSH [chiv.org]
Are they going to sell it on DVD...or floppies (Score:1)
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:1)
I think another thing limiting their potential customer base is the lack of a demo. Whether it's even possible with this type of game I don't know, but currently it seems the only way to try it is to be fortunate enough to find out about the game before it's release and get into the beta test. I did this with The Realm, Ultima Online and Asheron's Call. The AC beta was the one that finally persuaded me to change my mind about fee based games. I got hooked during beta and ended up preordering it. I do wish you could just download the clients instead of having to pay for the game, even if it does include 1 free month. AC, EQ and The Realm were all downloads for the client during beta and UO was a $3 cd. A download or a small fee I think would attract more players and it also would help some with the lack of a demo since it would cost less to get started.
I have to disagree with the statement about not needing additional maintenance, at least in regards to AC. Other than the obvious costs such as servers, bandwidth, admins, etc as stated by previous posters, Turbine (the developer of AC) is still hard at work changing the gameworld. While UO got a 2nd edition and EQ has an addon coming out, Turbine is doing it differently and not making the players wait for a new edition of the game or an addon pack. They are doing monthly events that make a lot of changes to the game. They have added new quests, dungeons, armor, weapons, items, monsters, updated graphics, lighting, monster models, etc. I feel the way they are doing it really helps to justify the monthly fee as you don't have to pay again to buy another version of the game. Some of the updates can make drastic changes also, as shown at the end of beta when there was a comet on a collision path and meteors were crashing down with entire cities getting destroyed. Kind of a shame they don't really plan on events quite that drastic, it was a blast.
Re:Cool. (Score:1)
Re:Important question (Score:1)
>
> I sure hope not, that's the LAST thing we need is
> a bunch of mac users ruining things.
Funny you should say that on a board mostly devoted to Linux...if the Mac port doesn't make it, the Linux port DEFINITELY won't make it.
The reason is that Verant's games are heavily dependant on DirectX.
I know, because I've been playing Verant's games since Tanarus was in open beta three years ago, and I've been asking them almost from the start to do a Mac port of Tanarus. Well, aside from the fact that they give Tanarus very little attention most of the time, they were very quick to cite Tanny's dependence on DirectX.
They threw out a lot of talk that they were considering a Mac port of Everquest. Well, ummm...where is it?
The fact is that Verant created Tanarus with the express purpose of trying to understand MMOG's; they said that Tanny was a stepping-stone to EQ, and a lot of Tanny's code is now part of EQ.
I'm going to venture a guess here, that Verant is going to use most of the EQ code base for the Star Wars game, it's going to be DirectX dependent, and ports to other platforms will be non-existent.
I hope I'm wrong, but Verant has simply not shown the motivation to do cross-platform stuff.
Worldforge (Score:2)
If this interests you, and you want to help make it happen, hit the web page (when it's back up), or join us on irc at irc.worldforge.org. BTW, you don't have to be a master hacker to help out. There are plenty of non-coding things to do, such as graphics, music, writing, and coordination work, and there's always room for enthusiatic newbies to learn by doing.
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:1)
"Allegiance will be available in retail stores for an anticipated street price of US$40. Gamers can then choose to play on public-domain servers free of charge or access the Allegiance Zone, a subscription service that provides larger-scale games, special events, persistent scoring and rankings, and new exclusive content such as the Belters faction. Players are eligible for one free month on the Allegiance Zone ($9.95 value) with game purchase. The MSN Gaming Zone will host the Allegiance Zone as well as a continuously updated list of free game servers worldwide. The Allegiance Server Code will be also be made available as a free download to parties interested in hosting game servers."
I'm anxious to see how well this works out. It seems much more attractive only having to pay the monthly fee if you are interested in the extra benefits that it provides.
Re:Since when is Star Wars sci-fi?? (Score:1)
EQ Burnout? (Score:2)
My experience with EverQuest has been pretty positive. I started beta testing for the game a little bit over a year ago and continued to play it past the release for six months. During that time, I played a variety of characters up to level 20.
If you yourself played EQ long enough to build up a 50th level (highest level possible for you people who don't play the game) and 25th level character, then something must have brought you back to the game night after night.
Both the best and worst part about EverQuest is its addictiveness. It's been called "EverCrack", a name that suits it pretty well. I remember when I was in the high point of my addiction cycle I would stay up into the wee hours of the morning questing with friends. March 16th was EverQuest's one year anniversary and according to EQ Vault [ign.com], they hit their 200,000 active subscribers mark. Obviously, despite all the people who have quit the game to its negative aspects (camping, large time investment, ebay item farmers), a large number still remain faithful to the game.
In my opinion, Verant Interactive [verant.com] is the best developer of massively multiplayer online games currently out there. EverQuest easily dominates over its competition. While Ultima Online was created first and Asheron's Call offers some innovative features, both lack the customer service and addictive quality that make a truly good online game stand out. One of the reasons I quit EQ was to beta test for Asheron's Call, which I highly regret doing now. Despite being the newest online RPG on the market, the game was poorly developed and rushed prematurely to meet the holiday season. How typical of M$. However, Verant's game design and customer policies allow me to rank it high amongst game developers, almost equaling Blizzard. My advice to all you Star Wars fanatics out there is to keep your eye out for news of when Verant will begin accepting applicants for their beta test and book your spot.
On a side note, The Ruins of Kunark [everquest.com], a expansion to EverQuest is due to be release next month. I'm planning on buying it to begin my relaunching into the world of Norrath.
I thank you for your sweetly faked attention.
~ Kurt Vonnegut, Timequake
actually she petrifies him if you think about it. (Score:1)
---CONFLICT!!---
Re:gamebalance (Score:1)
As long as they don't make major characters from the movies and make them playable, it should be okay. It would be cool to come across a Luke Skywalker NPC, but 100,000 Luke Skywalkers in every city would get old quickly.
I have to admit, though, I wouldn't _mind_ being Boba Fett (if they twisted my arm, of course).
Hrm... now to convince the parental units to pay the inevitable monthly access fee....
Re:I smell a rat (Score:1)
As for maintaining a Massively Multiplayer server, people do it all the time with smaller scale FPS and RPG servers. I counted over 3000 Half Life servers just today. Most empty.
Imagine if the admins of some of those empty servers got together
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Re:Good idea, bad base? (Score:2)
What is needed is a massively multiplayer version of Foundation in which an illuminated elite can use psycho-history (like Hari Seldon) to control the rabble.
Actually, though, that sounds sort of like what the evil out of Redmond (they've tried to code social engineering in their game) is trying to do with their online entity, at least according to what I've read about it.
A letter from the year 2002 (Score:3)
Dear Travoltus:
Hi, it's me. Travoltus. 2002 edition, that is. I just wanted to inform you that last year, I met this wonderful girl named Matilda on Lucasarts' Star Wars Online (SWO), and now we're getting married.
Yup. We met while standing in line at the Rebel Academy with 200000 other players. I picked the highly ignored Han Solo and she picked Princess Leia (she was the first female player in the game, hehe). Everyone else was battling it out to be - you guessed it - Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.
Matilda fell in love with the way I slaughtered that entire ewok race right off the forest moon of Endor, but after my single handed annihilation of Jar Jar Binks and the Gungan species, she totally wanted muh bod. We had some sizzling hot virtual sex and, well, the rest is history
BTW, since this is the first marriage between two Star Wars Online players, George Lucas gave away the bride. I looked good in my Han Solo uniform, and Matilda, well, that dress, oooeeeeeeeeeowwwwwwwwwwwww baby! The downside was we were married by a 6' tall guy in a Yoda suit, who spent more time laughing than actually joining us in holy matrimony. The upside is we both got special edition copies of all 4 Star Wars movies, including The Phandom Menace: The Jar Jar-Free Edition - on DVD! (Oh and don't tell anyone we got this stuff on DVD, Lucas made us sign a shut-up agreement...)
Matilda and I are expecting a little jedi in 5 months. You keep hanging on out there in the past, ok Travoltus? And please.. get the game!
Death to the Gungans!
- Travoltus
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:2)
I mean as far as I can understand the main way AOL gets customers is by presenting itself as entertainment (plus Email and Internet). Well, that and the coasters it gives away.
If I were in charge of a MMRPG, I'd forget about selling the game or selling time, I'd just set up an ISP and tell people "to play game or games X you have to use our ISP."
Hey, when I was a kid, the only reason why I was interested in Compuserve (in those days we didn't use the Internet, Compuserve was just a big BBS) was because they had online games. I didn't get to play British Legends as much as I would have like, but I enjoyed the concept of playing Zork multiplayer....
But if not for that, I would've just used the cheap, local BBSs.
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:2)
I remember when I was researching MMRPGs when I was interning for a company that was considering getting into the business, the social engineering aspect of AC seemed interesting. I wasn't sure if it was something that would really work in practice to prevent twinking, though. It seemed to be interesting in a theoretical sense.
I refer to the way people must gather retainers in order to amass power in AC.
I think we'll run into a little problem, though (Score:2)
How many people are going to be fighting over who plays which character? COuld you imagine if they brought this for multiplayer over the internet? Youd have tons of people fighting over who should be Darth Maul, who would make a better Darth Maul, whether or not there can be 2 Darth Maul's.
If they were smart about this, they would create a StarWarsNet and have people log on to the net and exist as a character. Have one big StarWarsNet for everybody around the world. (Okay I know big bucks, big up keep, but you gotta admit it'd be damned popular).
But it'd be also cool if you could RPG with separate servers. People create their own universes. But the the StarWarsNet idea, no matter where you go in the star wars universe, you carry everything with you; instead of starting from scratch every time you log on or creating different characters depending on the server.
The possiblilities of a MULTIPLAYER RPG are endless if not very complicated. If they pull it off though, think of how easy it would be to keep adding new features to the universe. One planet suddenly becomes populated, one star destroyer suddenly gets built, while another gets destroyed; making some territories easier to live and worse in others.
With single player RPG's not much changes, territory remains the same, maybe the occasional elf might come up to annoy you. But not much. But alot can chnage in this game cause everybody is doing something. Hell you could be on your way to a planet, with pratically no fuel, hopeing to land there (cause its your only hope)...then Darth Vadar comes along and blow it up (Or some other character who happens to gain control or build his own Death Star).
One thing is for sure they're going to have to find some way to keep track of everyone's individual characters or all hell is going to break loose!
Re:I wanna be ... (Score:2)
Well, he wasn't really the last of the jedi. I believe that Leia trains in the way of the force as well, and she and han have a lot of jedi children.
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:2)
UltimaOnline & EverQuest are setting a precedent for massive-multiplayer-games, a dangerous precedent, since most types of games are moving towards that direction.
yup, and not only games. UO and EQ style game architectures and business models are helping establish and prove the concept of subscription-based computing. People have been trying to turn software into subscription-like services for many years (this is why few consumer-oriented file formats are forward-compatible, even though any moderately skilled programmer could figure out how to generalize the design of any file format such that it is both forwards and backwards compatible.) Imagine paying $15 for MS Linux, plus $10/month for the opportunity to download the latest upgrades via "DirectGet" and "SelectX".
The obvious advantages for gamemakers are a steady income even after the game has been released, hardly any problems with warez (the game itself only works with a valid account), and full control over the game (central administration of the servers).
Do not underestimate the expenses associated with running a game server. This issue at play here is freedom, not cost. You are not being given the trust, respect, and honesty of being able to fix and improve your game. You deserve these freedoms and should demand them so that they are aware that you value freedom.
You know that open games will be better games, be they commercial or not. By continuing to buy freedomless games one does a disservice to the game industry by further locking them into that out-moded way of creating games. Insist on only paying only for games that meet your price/performance/openness criteria, and make the ones that don't meet your criteria unavailable to yourself. Let your itch grow, or try to scratch it yourself.
Without other human players, any online game would suck, bots and NPCs can't substitute real people playing. By playing properly, you are having fun, and increasing the fun of the other players. That makes the game more fun and interesting, so people will play more, and more people will buy the game. A nice player is worth more than a fancy feature of the software. Why don't players get paid?
I find this a very profound insight, I hope you don't mind if I borrow it from you. I have always been of the mind that players both figuratively and literally "make the game", and are sometimes, ironically forgotten by game designers.
If they ever close shop, all my stuff will be gone, I can't just keep it.
Keep this desire in mind. I have a solution for this. *grin*
If they really need to make more money, they should place some ads in-game, in a way that makes sense and fits to the game. It's possible and would work just like it does with websites.
I have never seen an implementation of this that was not, IMHO, tacky. 'Amature', in my book, is okay. But gods how I hate 'tacky'. Advertising prior to or after the game would be acceptable, but players deserve to not have the consistency of their game broken with tackiness. Mobile is able to gain the benefits of advertising by sponsoring NOVA, without making Stephen Hawkings oil his chair.
But try turning your idea inside out. Instead of the advertising being inside the game, how about making the game being inside the advertising? I.e., Disney hosting your game for you, using their trademarked characters in the game?
Actually it could work even better if a company would have a virtual subsidiary inside the game world and you could stop by and buy stuff without leaving the game. Lots of possibilities.
Now, this sounds interesting... I would love to see mixes of reality and fiction like this in virtual worlds. VirtualMacy's, where you can shop for and purchase clothing or gifts, or find yourself drawn into a tragic three-way romance destined for heart break and disaster - unless perhaps you can win Caitlen's heart. (Think Macy's might pay a player to be Caitlen?)
Well, personally I'd love to play such a massive multiplayer game, but out of principle I won't pay for it as I just explained. I'll have to wait until a free one comes along.
Thank you, you are doing the Right Thing, and for the right reasons. And I'm joining you.
Current projects like WorldForge look promising, but are still not ready, not yet. Let's wait and see what comes along...
You would wait less if those projects had your help (they especially need coders and non-coders).
Speaking of that, this reminds me of an interesting idea I had: Don't run central servers on a few machines, run small clients on lots of PCs. Just like SETI@home, encrypt the date, and make it very redundant.
This is called "peer to peer" and has some troublesome security issues. But it's definitely worthwhile for some kinds of games. NetTrek uses this approach. (Check out the FreeTrek project.)
There is always another way. Amen. Lack of choice is a symptom of brain inflexibility.
Re:Worldforge (Score:2)
The problem is... even if you do make your changes, it's a monumental amount of work to a) get *anyone* other than a select few of your friends to play your variation and b) you have to either somehow get your changes merged into the main tree, or spend the rest of your natural life maintaining your own branch, and mergeing in changes from the main tree.
Very valid and astute concerns. Keep them in mind and hold us (WorldForge) to providing you a solution to this problem.
There are many, many projects which have creatively solved the user-customization problem. We have many precidents to choose from. Scripting, world/engine separation, or well designed modular interfaces, for instance. (We are currently exploring all three of these. Can you think of more solutions we could try?)
Remember the fate of MEO... (Score:2)
The development team was doing a fantastic job. Game engine done, they were getting close to a beta release...and then the top level management decided that the game as it stood didn't appeal to enough of a mass market. Ya see, 12 year old assholes WANT to run around wearing a loincloth yelling "I AM C00l1CU$ D00D1CU$! PH34r mY 1000000 point fireballs, L4m3r!" And if they think that they can earn $20 extra a month, the producers will grab it, at the expense of the story, and at the expense of all the prospective players who want to actually role-play inside a deep, powerful, and awesome world.
So they fired the entire dev team and scrapped 2-3 years worth of work, and started over. I suspect that the game will now turn out to be a UO knockoff with hobbits and 20000 Glamdrings.
So don't hold your breath hoping for a star wars rpg with a small number of jedi, and a reasonable race balance.
I 4M D4r7h D00D1Cu$, n4k3D $1th L0rD fr0M H3LL!
Re:Lookee here (Score:2)
There was a project called Altima, which was meant to clone Ultima Online, I believe. But they seemed to have teamed up with some other folks to create a generic engine. Open Sourced, of course.
Altima never died, but instead reevaluated, refocused, and renamed to WorldForge. We were coming up with ideas that were much more ambitious than a simple UO cloning effort. The team composition and skills were more appropriate to doing original work than making copies. Of course, this meant it would take longer, but the team really seemed to resonate with envelope pushing.
Probably we ought to be putting out more announcements here on Slashdot but this site only seems to mention in-development games if they are closed source, so we may have to wait a bit. If you'd like to track our progress, send an email to announce-subscribe@worldforge.org.
The engine looks good and the graphics look great.
Thanks! The multi-disciplinary nature of game development is tough for typical free software development approaches, but we've hacked our project organization to handle this I think. We'll be putting out a few quickee games (not "massive") to demo art and technologies as we go. Bryce P.S., sorry the website's down. We're suspecting foul play...
Names are not the problem you should watch for (Score:2)
Assuming that Verant continues on the same model as Everquest (and considering the low development time, I find it likely that they will), there will be a number of separate servers, all run by verant, all hosting the same world. Each world will have a limited PC namespace, handled on a first-come first-serve basis, with offensive names (usually) being rejected by the system or by any GM that notices.
Unfortunately, if they design the world the same way as Everquest, it is going to be mind-numbingly tedious, with no real sense of accomplishment other than to watch numbers go up. The world system doesn't allow players to interact with it in a permanent sense. Fighting is actually handled by timed respawn, and it doesn't take more than a few months for players to learn the timing. If they opened up the interface specs, I might come back for the sole purpose of writing bot code to play, kind of like an expensive version of gnurobots, but the fact that this is feasable shows how limited the world is.
The other problem that I expect is server overloading. Currently, each world can support comfortably about 1000 users. On average, there are about 1500 users on each regular world, with peak hours driving this figure up as high as 1800 or 2000. This is apparantly by design, as the official word from Verant has been that the 1500-2000 loads are acceptable, despite noticable overcrowding (and the resultant antisocial behaviour) in most zones.
Re:Sony Online (Score:2)
I suddenly get this weird mental image of an ad... A white hallway, a fallen robe with some burn marks, a familiar shadow on the wall... And the words "Its a Sony"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:pay-to-play? (Score:2)
That will piss-off any potential customers that have a faster-then-dialup connection (cable modem, DSL, ISDN, FracT1...). It will also piss-off anyone that signs up and then has more trubble with "your" ISP then their old ISP. It will also piss off anyone who bought another ISP serice to play another MMRPG that required it.
Face it, most people allready intrested in most MMRPGs allready have an internet connection, and most people arn't that excited about changing it!
The closest I think you could get is to find an ISP who will roll the price into their service (or do one of those "virtual ISP deals" where you look like an ISP, but someone else does all the work), offer "free" service to anyone using that ISP, and charge anyone else a "modest" fee.
I do find the other idea in this thread intresting. Have the monthly fee, and a free version of the game, maybe a download-only, or a CD in shrinkwrap. You could still charge for a box with a printed manual and goodies, but make it free for people to start playing and paying the $10/month.
Not only would a good game get more customers, the customers could try the game for a far lower investment!
What I want in an RPG (Score:2)
I think this RPG ought to be based off the pen and paper game by West End Games. I've been playing that forever and it hasn't become old or boring. I'm skeptical so far about this game because in my opinion all the rest of the Lucas Arts SW games blew goats. They were fine for the first level or so but then they just became more of the same. The multiplayer aspect was nice but the only difference between Jedi Knight and Quake was lightsabers. In a universe as rich as Star Wars you would think even a single player game would have tons of interaction between you and NPCs but with JK they only wanted to emulate Quake.Thats what Lucas Arts is good at, emulating everyone else. None of their games have been terribly original, merely some game with a SW theme, the only barely original games were Rogue Squadron and Yoda Stories(sp?). Replacing grunts with Jedi or Zergs with Imperials is not my idea of innovation.
Personally I think a game similar in gameplay to Resident Evil or FF7&8 would make an awesome MMRPG, of course with oodles more places to explore. Oh well, I think I'm going to stick to paper for a while longer.
Re:The Ecology of MMP (Score:2)
Think back to any face-to-face rpg you played in, or good fantasy novel you read. For a single (say, Greyhawk-sized) continent, within the course of, say, a year of game time you probably encountered something like:
And that's pretty much it for the people who really move earth and heaven; everyone else is just part of the backdrop. Even being generous with the numbers, I doubt they top 100, and even at that most of those roles are arguably unsuitable to be filled by any but the most experienced PCs. How do you scale that up to tens of thousands of PCs? I'm not saying it can't be done, but the simple approaches have been tried, and (IMO) they just don't work. In EverQuest there aren't enough monsters to go around. In Ultima Online you sit around baking bread all day. In neither game is anything resembling high fantasy a regular part of most players' gaming experience.
Give me peasant revolts. Give me evil priests whose dark rituals must be stopped before they unleash a demon horde across the countryside. Give me plots, schemes, dragons, and the stuff legends are made of, but whatever you do, don't give me "kill monsters so you can gain experience and gear so that you can kill bigger monsters and gain more experience and better gear, so that..." ad nauseum. Don't give me anything that reeks of the real, mundane world because I get plenty of that on a daily basis thankyouverymuch.
-rpl (not a hero, but likes to pretend occasionally)
It's being worked on ... (Score:2)
WorldForge is an open-source MMORPG project, working on not just a single game but a complete gaming system. Servers, clients (different platforms AND different interfaces), protocols, artwork, world design, the whole nine yards.
Check out the website [worldforge.com] for more info, and drop by the IRC server or get on the mailing lists if your interested.
Hey, lookit that, the link is in my sig too ... :)