Ryzom

Shoot, if they make it all free...... shoot, I'll pay for that

Olepi

olepi wrote:Shoot, if they make it all free...... shoot, I'll pay for that

Olepi

It will not be free to play.

katriell wrote:I don't think it's the best, but I'd take it as a last option wholeheartedly under either of these circumstances:

• Ryzom would otherwise be bought by company like SOE
• Ryzom would otherwise cease to exist

That sums it up nicely for me too

tryzovia wrote:yes, yes and, yes

You realy nead to read the social contract ....
it's here http://www.ryzom.org/page/project_socialcontract

Luinil

So you're going to end up with a fragmented version of the already not-huge playerbase across many amateurishly run servers.

Excuse me if I don't see this is a plus.

i don't see that the ryzom.org idea will have less money available than another solution automatically, as some seem to assume.
To continue running Ryzom, you need 2 things: Devs that understand and develop the game (in the right direction) and starting money to run the servers and supply support.
The only difference between ryzom.org's model and an established company aquiring the game would be the source of the money. Ryzom.org's plan is to get the funds from an investor instead of using own money - thats the only difference. Both solutions will want to see a return on their investment in some timeframe, i don't think SOE or someone else will run the game if its losing money or theres no glimpse of hope of ever making a profit, same goes for potential investors in Ryzom.org.

about the second part of the equation, the future of the game design, i trust ryzom.org's people more than anybody else to do the right steps.

Gloife

Without addressing anyone in particular, have a look at the definition of "free" (as the word is meant to be interpreted in software project contexts): http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

I.e. not "free as in free beer" but "free as in freedom".

Please visit the debate at ryzom.org forums and you'll notice that managing SoR would not necessarily mean "nerd power" or lesser quality in any way. I honestly believe that the guys try to do what they (me included) think is best for Ryzom. True or false, right or wrong I don't know. Freedom is all about *US* - it becomes what we make of it.

If the player base gets fragmented, well that's also a consequence of freedom (choice). Make sure it doesn't by stating your opinion on ryzom.org. If you don't like the idea of a free (i.e. liberated) MMORPG, you're *free* to state that also If you don't know what to make of any of this, participate and affect...

fattus wrote: Please visit the debate at ryzom.org forums and you'll notice that managing SoR would not necessarily mean "nerd power"

I have elaborated (some of) my views elsewhere (http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showpost.php ... stcount=60 http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showpost.php ... stcount=66) but with the recent creation of the SAS and the community-non profit organization owning only a third of the company, I still think the RyzomORG project fails to anwser this (imho basic and fundamental) question: "If I am not interested in GPL development, only in gaming experience and I would rather discover and unfold the saga based on my player actions and In Game, why would I support this initiative over other possible ones?"

Don't get me wrong, I am not addressing the "professionalism" aspect of this, and I already have some answer elements myself (the fact that it goes open means that it will not go into Oblivion completely, forking possibilities, some names are behind Ryzom since long, existing developers working with continuity, etc. and two investor companies that can back up the approach" but without a comprehensive answer to that question, RyzomORG project may fail to attract simple players. With Ryzomel SAS being owned in 2/3rds by investors, and the major strenght being GPL-free based development, why would I prefer this approach over a more "classical" company operating the service?, Answer in terms of expected Gameplay additions and expansions, In-Game live events, story coherence, quality of service, CSR support, minimized downtime and robustness, player influence, compared to another company acquiring the assets -- and optionally employing part of Nevrax staff -

Well from my point of view, a first answer to your interrogations would be that I know who is behind ryzom.org (more or less), wherever I have no idea who are the other potential buyers.

The buyer might be a good game company, and I would be the happiest person on hearth if that is the case. I mean by that a company which wants to develop the game, its gameplay, its roleplay and so on. The problem I see (and I might be wrong) is that Ryzom is a niche game, it will never replace the market's blockbusters, hence never be a huge money generator. It might have a potential, but I suspect most majors would miss to see it.

The buyer could be a less known business, which could achieve something with Ryzom, or just let it sink once it realizes that maintaining Ryzom requires some gameplay development and an active effort in launching live events.

And remains the least desirable solution - no buyer at all. The fact that there are candidates doesn't mean there will be a buyer in the end. First the judge might disagree with all the proposals and simply liquidate Nevrax. End of the story. Second, the candidates can decide at the last moment they're not interested anymore for various reasons.

Yeah, what Keithlan said. In my opinion, these are all possible scenarios ordered from best to worst.
1) A company that knows Ryzom very well buy the game and continues the work Nevrax has started.
2) The game is open-sourced and official shard(s) is kept up on subscription fees.
3) The game is open-sourced and the official shard is a flop. Ryzom can be played much like NWN, dozens of different flavours.
4) The company buying the game doesn't care much about Ryzom and dumbifies the game, much like SOE did to SWG.
5) The game is sold for almost nothing, and becomes F2P with item shops.
6) Ryzom dies

So I don't think supporting the .org is in conflict with wanting a great company buying the game.

iphdrunk wrote:I have elaborated (some of) my views elsewhere...

Good and relevant concerns I think. Hope you'll come participate in the debate. We need insightful ppl that aren't afraid of raising issues...

Here's a funny flick that illuminates the need of a healthy discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8DOXeIw9NQ

(Stolen from another insightful person btw )

cloudy97 wrote: So I don't think supporting the .org is in conflict with wanting a great company buying the game.

I agree.