Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
AoC Potential vs. Instancing
Hhussk
City of Heroes CorrespondentMember Posts: 219
Lately, I've been blogging a lot about instancing. There's been lots of good feedback.One thing I've been re-thinking about AoC is their future in the market. Currently, many complaints stem from all the instancing (One post I read suggested the game instances at 40 + 10).
That said. It is possible that as technology increases, AoC will be able to increase the numbers acceptable in an instance and be capable of retaining their high-end graphics. All in all, while I'm neither a troll poster or a fanboi, it could benefit them to have such high-end requirements because three years down the road, the systems they appeal to will be larger.
I recognize this doesn't answer all the other complaints being made, but I did think it was worth mentioning. If we follow Rock's Law (i.e. doubling of Transisters...et. al), and the fact that computer systems have, on average, a three year longevity to software:
First Year, Age of Conan:
Strong Appeal: High End Systems
Weak Appeal: Mid - Range Systems
No Appeal: Low-Range Systems
Third Year, Age of Conan:
Strong Appeal: High and Mid - Range Systems
Weak Appeal: Low - Range Systems
No Appeal: N/A
I'm only suggesting that FunCom may be smart by making the system so High-End at the moment, but only if technology grants them better support later on.
-----------------------------
Blog -Transcendent''s Tomb - Reviews, Polls, and tortured opinions from the minions of MMORPGS
Comments
What you say seems reasonable. The only flaw i see is that down the road more games come out and taking the hit for the now to have a lasting product graphics wise for the future won t really matter. People will get bored move on try other things. Thus why take the hit now when you could even make more money? Just a thought.
They would pretty much have to redesign every zone except the capitol cities and tortage, because the zones are few and not very big, and most importantly there are relatively few mobs per spawn so there is a quite a bit of competition for both quest mobs and the bosses. For example if you get a quest to kill 10 of x creature there many only be 8-12 mobs in the entire spawn.
The only thing that helps alleviate this is the multiple instancing.
And for MMORPGs, unless you're WoW, you make the majority of your money in the first three years. By far.
I don't know...games tend to get pushed back. I think one of the things working for Age of Conan right now is the lack of game coming out. But yeah, people will move on...and if FunCom does them wrong, they will shun them...
-----------------------------
Blog -Transcendent''s Tomb - Reviews, Polls, and tortured opinions from the minions of MMORPGS
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Hhussk
This theory has been disproven repeatedly by SOE. EQ2 and SWG both required high end system reqs with the justification that a few years down the road they would continue to look better and better.
What they fail to anticipate are several factors which except for one noteable exception (WOW) are contrary to this strategy.
First, people like to try the new, next best thing, and only go back to old games when they are bored or desperate. Second, when people go back to old games, most of the game's population is max level making low level grinds very lonely and sometimes frustrating as well. Third, sometimes no increase in technology can makeup for crappy, poorly implented code.
In conclusion, Funcom is smart the same way I am smart when I guess "C" in a multiple choice question.
You're definately right about making money in the first three years. However, adding expansions always provide a good resubscriber and new subscriber boost. If their "backbone" is technology ready, then the expansions and updates would be a good lure.
-----------------------------
Blog -Transcendent''s Tomb - Reviews, Polls, and tortured opinions from the minions of MMORPGS
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Hhussk
This theory has been disproven repeatedly by SOE. EQ2 and SWG both required high end system reqs with the justification that a few years down the road they would continue to look better and better.
What they fail to anticipate are several factors which except for one noteable exception (WOW) are contrary to this strategy.
First, people like to try the new, next best thing, and only go back to old games when they are bored or desperate. Second, when people go back to old games, most of the game's population is max level making low level grinds very lonely and sometimes frustrating as well. Third, sometimes no increase in technology can makeup for crappy, poorly implented code.
In conclusion, Funcom is smart the same way I am smart when I guess "C" in a multiple choice question.
I'm not sure its fair to compare SOE to FunCom just yet, but I reconize your point. It's just that SOE has developed a reputation that followed through with Vanguard.
I'm definately not saying AoC has mastered the MMO niche with its build, but focusing on those levels of graphics, gore, combos, and such may prove to endure.
HOWEVER, if their support continues to get low marks (as I've been reading)...they will likely get an SOE brand on their heads...
-----------------------------
Blog -Transcendent''s Tomb - Reviews, Polls, and tortured opinions from the minions of MMORPGS
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Hhussk
Theres only 1 reason why AoC has been crippled by having instancing to such an extreme... and thats the XBOX360. Quite simply XBOX 360 has 512ram and cannot hold or stream a large world, hence in comes instancing.
A PC can handle Hyboria without instancing no worries an XBOX360 cannot and so the PC version was crippled.
Oh yeah, I forgot to add something to post above.
Industry trends with only one real exception (WOW) indicate that a game's population is at it's highest sometime after launch and then decreases. There may be small fluctuations here and there, but for the most part, numbers will decrease.
And decreasing subs means less money to fix things that are broken, implement new systems, add content and create expansions.
So from initial population swell at launch or sometime after launch, games bleed subs till ultimately they are put on life support. This is the trend, except for WOW.
Funcom is no worse than any other company that launches too early: they shoot for the moon, but with insufficient momentum, the arc of their success will probably fall short and end up killing a wide swath of subscriptions.
you forgot to mention the game is intended for xbox as well, so when they manage to get that version out i 'm expecting it will at least do well on sales. Probably no matter what, aoc has done better on revenue than failures (financially) like vanguard could ever wish.
I don't know...no MMO has ever really succeeded on a console (because console players aren't really the type that plays MMOs, and the issue with AoC's huge HD space demand, where would all the patches go?).
I doubt Funcom is hoping for anything more than a fraction of their PC income when the game launches for XboX. if they are pinning their hopes on the Xbox they are desperate indeed.
You seem to have forgotten that the only reason for the instancing is because the game is coming out for the xbox360, now its rather unlikely to say the least that the system power of the xbox360 will be increasing over the years now isn't it?
Remember aswell guys, that with instancing between areas as Guild Wars and now AoC has done,it is MUCH easier for developers to add content without drastic changes to the areas that are already available...
No instancing means you have to redesign an entire area
With instancing means you just need to add a door/portal
With out instancing.. 80% of the players would just lag like hell with there 3 year old PCs.
I have mixed feelings on instancing...if done right they are great. But as in Conan there really doesn't seem to be much sense of community. I rarely see the same people multiple times in Cities.
When I played Everquest in the beginning you got to a point where you knew most the people around your level...or at least recognized them.
It's because everything below the first main dungeon at the mid 30's can be done solo, and 2, the multiple instances don't lend much sense of community or cooperation to the game.
You only need a mid range system to play AoC.
Yes in the future thought of less instancing in AoC is attractive.
Dear Game Developers,
Nerf Rock.
Paper is fine though.
Regards,
Scissors.
god thats a scary thought. from someone that absolutely hates instancing and the popularity of consoles, if your right, and theres not some magnificent, technological advance to boost console performance significantly, you could conceivably argue instancing will get worse in the future not better.
The only gripe I have with instancing at the moment is the group system. I hope they will further improve this so that players can easily find a group and get to the same place/quest without all the hazzle there is now.
Instancing is dynamic. Dynamic is good.
Instancing is dynamic, but the content isn't. I can understand instancing in AO where it was used mainly for the missions or in games where its used for story bits and raid/encounter areas. Instancing a zone multiple times on the other hand is just meh. I prefer zones that are zones, not some form of paralel version that looks exactly the same only with different players. It just makes a game feel smaller to me. That and having to use NPCs to change certain areas.
Instancing should be built around the game, not have the game built on instancing.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
True, im writing down all the gankers, and yet I don't remember I've seen them again hehe.
Maybe couse they were higher lvl's and were playing in different areas. And I'm casual player so that could also be the reason.
BTW i read that WAR city sieges would be 96 man instances to lower LAG problems. So that kind of makes them similar to AOC 48 vs 48.