The suggestions you're making OP are too drastic. I doubt any developer can take such bold steps and not face complete failure. Yes FFXIV did it but they are Square Enix and they can absorb the loss. Don't even dream about this solution it is totally impossible.
The idea that these guys can still pull off the ambition they started out with seems, to anyone looking objectively, just as impossible.
Maybe they should scrap the MMORPG and stop at the MUD. They might get that working.
Right, because making a MUD is such a good idea that they are the only company doing it...
some interesting statements from Caspian from discord just now;
Comments of the current progress-cycle;
"We're working on features of Alpha 1. Launch of Alpha 1 will actually be AFTER the first trimester. However, Pre-Alpha will be in the hands of players at the end of T1"
" It's a combination of both. Sometimes we've already got an item or asset that thematically fits in well, sometimes we brainstorm and come up with something we think will add value to the game and are willing to add it to the list of assets.
I think it's important to understand that right now our focus is primarily on design and engineering. While we've got a good content team, they're mostly focused on creating assets necessary for validation and ALpha 1. After Alpha 1, we've got a ton of time to crank out additional assets and we're still building the list of what those will be between now and the end of Alpha 2."
Comments on boxes:
"Personally, I'm much more a fan of our business model. I think the future of games is about understanding the players better, and finding ways to monetize which fits in better with the game design, and not being added as an afterthought."
" It's hard to say. I think pay2win is an over-used term, but when used correctly refers to games that I don't find enjoyable. I think lootboxes work better in some games than others, but their application to games that don't make sense logically is clearly an example of trying to get more money from players.
I ultimately don't find lootboxes a good business model, but here's something I do know. The cost of developing games has increased dramatically over the last 10 years, while the prices of games has remained the same. Movie tickets have gone up from less than $10 USD to over $20 USD in some areas. If video games followed a similar scale, every game would now cost between $100 and $200.
But players insist on better and better games while seemingly being unwilling to pay for it. And while movies only 2-3 hours, video games can entertain for years.
All that said, publishers are looking for ways to increase revenue, and developers and indie studios are being forced into lootboxes, etc. as a way to raise money because, for better or worse, people are willing to pay for it."
"It really just comes down to UO and EQ. Both had unique ideas of what online games should be, and the folks at Blizzard happened to be playing EQ.
The 1st person camera options of EQ, and the wide array of races and classes, left players excited for new content, while UO - while being more free and open, was far more limited in content. It was inevitable people were going to choose to push one or the other forward - like chocolate and caramel.
It just so happened that the popularity of Blizzard ensured WoW's success, and the success of WoW guaranteed an entire generation of MMO clones."
Comment on the player-NPC' s and how to handle it:
" Again, even if we solve the context switching required to handle it, it would still mean 2x as much data processing and bandwidth. Because now the AI is being sent all relative events and messages (and processing them), and your client is also receiving and processing all those. I guess the bigger question would be - which is more important to you: having twice as many people in a settlement, or being able to NOT play the game while playing the game?"
"There's no question it would be "neat" to just sit back and watch your game play itself. That's why ProgressQuest was made - it's literally an RPG of just progress bars that tell you all the cool stuff you've done.
But that's not the game we're creating. OPCs are designed to solve the problem of allowing people to remain in the world while they're offline. Not put the game on auto-pilot when they could be playing. There would be a lot of time and energy and technical challenges needing to be solved to allow people to sit at their desk and what their character play the game without them. We just don't see the long-term value in that. I believe people would either decide very quickly it's not an entertaining way to play the game, or worse, decide that it is. Then "playing coe" would be just about downloading the latest scripts, uploading them to your PC, signing in, then walking away."
Im not pro or con CoE. I follow it with some interest and I did prebuy the game itself, but im not really actively following it. If it launces like promised im happy, if not its not the end of the world. Same with CU btw.
Edit; and yes I just realized theres new Valentine-day themed items in their cash-shop. So clearly they realized without big investors theyll need additional digital items to sell. I have no opinion on that either as most games I play have a cash shop tbh
The implementation of the OPCs is an area of great interest, as is seeing some of the progres on the actual game, still not sure when that may be shared publically.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
1. I think this is a bad idea. The project scope, though perhaps too large, was clearly defined from the outset and encouraging the concept of going back to the drawing board at this phase is not wise. They need to buckle down and start focusing on production of deliverables because otherwise it will never get past the tech demo phase as they try out new ideas.
2. This is definitely a critical concern but I don't know what monetization method would fit well with this game. I do think that they need to revisit the amount of money they gain from each player or they will never be able to sustain themselves. Perhaps a cash shop with cosmetic items would work, as discussed elsewhere.
3. Agreed, but they must have enough openings for the kingdom populations to not get cut off or they risk the ire of their core fanbase.
4. Agreed, even though I love the concept.
5. Proving that milestones can be hit on core architecture is definitely a must but 2020 is overly ambitious.
6. I disagree, the A-Pac server may have a small pop but they were backers too and paid for their spots. Cutting them down now would send a very bad message and is just generally a dick move.
7,8,9. A thousands times yes. If I could get a message to SBS it would be to thicken your skin, all but ignore the community, and get down to work because you have a lot to do.
Comments
Comments of the current progress-cycle;
"We're working on features of Alpha 1. Launch of Alpha 1 will actually be AFTER the first trimester. However, Pre-Alpha will be in the hands of players at the end of T1"
" It's a combination of both. Sometimes we've already got an item or asset that thematically fits in well, sometimes we brainstorm and come up with something we think will add value to the game and are willing to add it to the list of assets. I think it's important to understand that right now our focus is primarily on design and engineering. While we've got a good content team, they're mostly focused on creating assets necessary for validation and ALpha 1. After Alpha 1, we've got a ton of time to crank out additional assets and we're still building the list of what those will be between now and the end of Alpha 2."
Comments on boxes:
"Personally, I'm much more a fan of our business model. I think the future of games is about understanding the players better, and finding ways to monetize which fits in better with the game design, and not being added as an afterthought."
" It's hard to say. I think pay2win is an over-used term, but when used correctly refers to games that I don't find enjoyable. I think lootboxes work better in some games than others, but their application to games that don't make sense logically is clearly an example of trying to get more money from players. I ultimately don't find lootboxes a good business model, but here's something I do know. The cost of developing games has increased dramatically over the last 10 years, while the prices of games has remained the same. Movie tickets have gone up from less than $10 USD to over $20 USD in some areas. If video games followed a similar scale, every game would now cost between $100 and $200. But players insist on better and better games while seemingly being unwilling to pay for it. And while movies only 2-3 hours, video games can entertain for years. All that said, publishers are looking for ways to increase revenue, and developers and indie studios are being forced into lootboxes, etc. as a way to raise money because, for better or worse, people are willing to pay for it."
"It really just comes down to UO and EQ. Both had unique ideas of what online games should be, and the folks at Blizzard happened to be playing EQ. The 1st person camera options of EQ, and the wide array of races and classes, left players excited for new content, while UO - while being more free and open, was far more limited in content. It was inevitable people were going to choose to push one or the other forward - like chocolate and caramel. It just so happened that the popularity of Blizzard ensured WoW's success, and the success of WoW guaranteed an entire generation of MMO clones."
Comment on the player-NPC' s and how to handle it:
" Again, even if we solve the context switching required to handle it, it would still mean 2x as much data processing and bandwidth. Because now the AI is being sent all relative events and messages (and processing them), and your client is also receiving and processing all those. I guess the bigger question would be - which is more important to you: having twice as many people in a settlement, or being able to NOT play the game while playing the game?"
"There's no question it would be "neat" to just sit back and watch your game play itself. That's why ProgressQuest was made - it's literally an RPG of just progress bars that tell you all the cool stuff you've done. But that's not the game we're creating. OPCs are designed to solve the problem of allowing people to remain in the world while they're offline. Not put the game on auto-pilot when they could be playing. There would be a lot of time and energy and technical challenges needing to be solved to allow people to sit at their desk and what their character play the game without them. We just don't see the long-term value in that. I believe people would either decide very quickly it's not an entertaining way to play the game, or worse, decide that it is. Then "playing coe" would be just about downloading the latest scripts, uploading them to your PC, signing in, then walking away."
Im not pro or con CoE. I follow it with some interest and I did prebuy the game itself, but im not really actively following it. If it launces like promised im happy, if not its not the end of the world. Same with CU btw.
Edit; and yes I just realized theres new Valentine-day themed items in their cash-shop. So clearly they realized without big investors theyll need additional digital items to sell. I have no opinion on that either as most games I play have a cash shop tbh
The implementation of the OPCs is an area of great interest, as is seeing some of the progres on the actual game, still not sure when that may be shared publically.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
1. I think this is a bad idea. The project scope, though perhaps too large, was clearly defined from the outset and encouraging the concept of going back to the drawing board at this phase is not wise. They need to buckle down and start focusing on production of deliverables because otherwise it will never get past the tech demo phase as they try out new ideas.