Ryzom

Having worked in the computer-games industry, I would expect that Blizzard receives a small percentage of that 49.99 Euros.

basicart wrote:I havent ever seen a "I'm leaving game due to PvP" thread but i have seen alot of "I'm leaving to to lack of content" ones so i really do not think anyone will leave due to PvP.

I think You are half right, people don't leave games because consent PvP, but they do leave games because open PvP.

Example:

When UO did have open PvP only, a lot of people did go to EQ, because Pk's. Later in UO they created consent zones and after a year about 80-90% of player base had moved to consent zones.

I do agree that todays games problem is more in the content that in the PvP. If people don't like someting, they choose or go to other games. There is a lot of different choises now days for us players.

kgrieve wrote:Having worked in the computer-games industry, I would expect that Blizzard receives a small percentage of that 49.99 Euros.

Actually, it's quite the reverse You're thinking about the traditional model of developer-publisher-distributor - Blizzard is all of those things, and has been for almost all of it's games.

As you say, with the traditional model the revenue is sliced and diced by the publisher and distributor before the developer gets to see any of it. Not so with Blizzard - they control virtually every aspect of their game's production and distribution, basically because their previous games have brought them so much success and financial strength.

Trust me, Blizzard receive virtually all of your 49.99, and thank you for it kindly (Also they have branded Coca-Cola in China (advert video recently release on Fileplanet), and have also had deals in place in Korea (where warcraft and starcraft are huge) for things like crisps, sweets, drinks, you name it...

amitst wrote:A vital part of outposts is organized PVP, thus rationally she'd support it, with no qualms, as far as is necessary for the outposts to work.

Exactly, thank you.

If one reads carefully, you'll note that whole column is concerned with unrestricted, non-consensual PvP. In the West, that doesn't work very well for the customer, so we really don't plan on forcing anyone into a PvP situation against their will.

PS. Sorry for the delay in the answer, I was traveling. -JMM

Thanks for the replay, and welcome back.

Jessica Mulligan wrote:Exactly, thank you.

If one reads carefully, you'll note that whole column is concerned with unrestricted, non-consensual PvP. In the West, that doesn't work very well for the customer, so we really don't plan on forcing anyone into a PvP situation against their will.

PS. Sorry for the delay in the answer, I was traveling. -JMM

That doesn't really address everything that people are asking.

There's more to 'forced' than simply addressing open PvP. There are situational pressures and denial of 'content'.

Jessica Mulligan wrote: that whole column is concerned with unrestricted, non-consensual PvP. In the West, that doesn't work very well for the customer

Just curious, does it work well in the East? And if so, why? How are the communities different?

Jessica Mulligan wrote:Exactly, thank you.

If one reads carefully, you'll note that whole column is concerned with unrestricted, non-consensual PvP. In the West, that doesn't work very well for the customer, so we really don't plan on forcing anyone into a PvP situation against their will.

PS. Sorry for the delay in the answer, I was traveling. -JMM

One of my major concerns is that even though you may design a consentual PvP system, those that don't like PvP will be faced with a choice: 1) agree to be involved in PvP in order to participate in new game features or 2) don't agree to PvP and be left out of new features.

A more general question I had about your views and comments on PvP... do they include non-combat forms of player vs. player competition? I agree with your assesment that western markets aren't generally in favor player vs. player combat (especially when it's unrestricted), however, have you also found that western markets oppose other forms of PvP competition?

riveit wrote:Just curious, does it work well in the East? And if so, why? How are the communities different?

I would guess (although I don't actually know for sure) that this is down to the player's attitude, regarding being killed by another player. In other words, they aren't as bothered as we are about it.

Mind you, judging by the recent news from China (you sold my sword, now die), I guess I could be very wrong

Isn't Lineage a PvP-heavy game? Lineage is a Korean MMO (IIRC), and is absolutely huge over there.

I've been thinking at PvP and PK for a long time. All I can see is a solution that allows open PvP but punishes it very bad.
Let's see.
1. game have open PvP (aka anyone can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere) but after 1-st kill you get a red pk flag that means you are attackable by players without fear of punishment. If you die - no matter the cause (mob, other player, etc) you lose 10 levels.
2. after 3-rd kill you get a black pk flag that mean you are - and will - be attacked "on sight" by any mob / player in game. If you die you lose 100 levels and get the red flag. If you don't have enough levels to substract (aka you are level 94) you are dead. Period. You lost your character. Same applies at the red flag. (you are level 9, have red pk flag and you die, you lose your char)

As long as those rules can be placed in any MMORPG witout much effort, I think will make the ganking/griefing problem obsolete. Is only my oppinion, of course.