micrix wrote:Dont get me wrong. Of course Blizz , Sony and Co. do implement features and try to bring fun to the players. But who do you think has the last word on a board meeting ? Mr. Money or Mr. Designer ? At this level of money ?
You're completely right, but we're talking about Blizzard here - you know their track record yourself. They have so much success bundled over the last 5-10 years of business, they do not need to have any of these conversations. Yes, time is money, and money is everything in business. But Blizzard have enough to keep themselves running for quite some time - they are not making any crucial or important decisions based on monetary influences. They are loaded - they always were, just much more so now.
micrix wrote:Dev: We need 2 month more to implement this "ultimate" feature
Clerk: With another two month we probably loose 12 million bucks. We need to release for christmas.
CEO: Release it ! (Not a bad guy, but must satisfy his investors)
Absolutely agree there, but again - if the 2-month development is going to make it to production, Blizzard have one of the best chances to do it of any developer today - with their sales figures, they are pressuring even the mighty SOE (mighty by player count, over anything else). Yes, if something takes 2 months and not everyone agrees it's 100% worth it - I could see the money-men shaking their heads and getting their way. But come on, how could they say no to improving a game that has already sold 2 million subs? You could possibly accrue an extra 10,000 subs with making just that one change.
micrix wrote:BTW: Blizz did not keep their word to have regular updates to the quests in WoW.
A good point, although I feel this is only relevant if you intend to have multiple chars (I accept most people do). There are many, many, many individual quests in WoW, and some of them (yep only some) are different and unique. Once you get to a certain level, you now have the Battlegrounds to play around with, and the EndGame(tm) content (read mighty large dragons in nasty caves, works for me...). There is no quest repetition unless you re-roll or start an alt. I agree the quests could do with some polish and tweaking in places, but when you compare them to the Ryzom 'missions', you'll be laughing out loud for sure. No contest.
Dev: We can deliver a game that keeps 1.5 million players happy and busy for 5 years
Clerk: But we can make much, much more money if we release 5 games that keep the players busy for one year. The sale of copies is much more lucrative then the monthly fees.
CEO: Make 5 small ones ! (Not a bad guy, but must satisfy his investors)
micrix wrote:I do belief that it is possible to create "the game". A mmo with perfect graphis, endless features, regular updates, heavenly balancing. But what would happen ? The players would stick for endless times with the game. If you dont get bored, you dont try out other games. Could such lead to the ruin of the industry ?
Yes, I believe this is possible too, although I don't think we're close to it yet. We need to reach the point where a realistically-sized team can produce the large amount of variety uniqueness in content that is required, in a time frame that mean's they don't go bust. Currently, too much tweaking and balancing is code-based rather than data-based, and that goes part of the way towards proving why it won't work.
If you design a website, and that website is mainly for working with specific data, you have to use a data-driven or data-centric design, or your website ends up doing lots of freaky stuff, and none of the original intended tasks. In other words, the data starts to shape the website, rather than vice versa. Until that can happen correctly with MMO game world data, the ideal MMO cannot be produced. Small tweaks to item behaviour require both code and data changes - this is not how data-driven applications are supposed to work, and only data-driven applications can be quickly remodelled and reshaped.
For example, you have an apple. On your desk, you have a small shelf for pens, and one of the supports is broken. You can use your apple to prop one end of the shelf up - it's easy, you lift the shelf, move the apple, lower the shelf. Your apple is now a shelf support. You haven't changed the apple itself, nor how it behaves - you simply changed it's position, which is a property of the apple. If you have to change the apple to support a shelf, when the apple fits perfectly (and the shelf isn't overloaded), there is something wrong with your design.
Anyway I'm waffling now. Sorry about that.
) (or PVP)
