Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).
But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.
But it's not.
You see, you can't look at something that failed and then say "because it wasn't x it failed'.
So, for instance, pick your favorite "failed" mmo (if indeed they really failed, I suspect that just because "millions" of players aren't playing them some consider them failed) and then just make the statment "because it didn't have a giant pink bunny spinning around in the sky it failed".
Well, I don't know one "failed" mmo that had a giant pink bunny so of course that is the reason.
Or, we can put aside our "I like x therefore any game that doesn't succeed and didn't have X must have failed becuase of it" mentality and really look at the individual reasons they "failed".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Games, to be successful today, need to not simply be complex or easy... they need to have various depths that will cater to a large number of players. They need to be shallow enough that our kids can play with us and have a blast swimming along the surface, but deep enough that Dad can decide to really wrap his brain around the mechanics, sink into the cold, dark depths and really work on a degree of mastery. Or the simple version... easy to learn, difficult to master.
Longevity is tough to achieve. It's even tougher to achieve when longevity isn't a priority for the dev / publisher.
Some games are just quick cash grabs. If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.
Eve & UWO achieved longevity
No current theme park copycats can compare to these 2 diamonds
Just in terms of longevity, WoW, CoH and EQ2 have been around almost as long as Eve and UWO.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If it were obvious, then I think the devs, and even the suits would know it. Apparently, most of them don't think that's the way to go to get to the $$$ they want.
Originally posted by XAPGames Some games are just quick cash grabs. If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.
Quick cash grab? How do you make a quick cash grab on something taking 4-5 years of development?
The numbers:
Let's say the game cost 50M USD to make. In 6 month then, you would need to sell 1M boxes @ 50 USD per unit just to cover development costs.
Taking Rift as an example, they needed 4-5 months to get 1M units sold. At the unchanged average sale rates, they would get 16M profit at the end of the 6 month period and when you consider the game is in development for 4 or 5 years, it makes 3-4M USD profit per year for the company. Not particularly attractive business for many I guess nor a "quick cash grab".
Numbers won't fit there. Not saying it is impossible to make but hard to pull off in context of western MMORPG, they are very expensive to make.
Longevity is tough to achieve. It's even tougher to achieve when longevity isn't a priority for the dev / publisher.
Some games are just quick cash grabs. If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.
Eve & UWO achieved longevity
No current theme park copycats can compare to these 2 diamonds
Just in terms of longevity, WoW, CoH and EQ2 have been around almost as long as Eve and UWO.
It doesn't matter how LONG they're around. What more matters is the pattern of growth. And CoH is a pre WoW unique/deep MMO. As is/was EQ2, which didn't do so well once it started following WoW.
If it were obvious, then I think the devs, and even the suits would know it. Apparently, most of them don't think that's the way to go to get to the $$$ they want.
It's obvious to us because we're immersed in the culture. The suits don't play MMOs, they probably don't know the first thing about them. they're trained to follow trends and not to take risks, because thats what works in most industries.
SWTOR proves that doesn't work here. All the failed WoW clones, LotRO, AoC, WAR, Rift, Aion, have proved that.
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years
SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.
That doesn't prove it. It may be the reason but there are too many other Z variables that need to be taken into account, including the number of games available at the time.
And several modern games have just as many subscribers as Daoc, Uo, SWG, and AC did.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Longevity is tough to achieve. It's even tougher to achieve when longevity isn't a priority for the dev / publisher.
Some games are just quick cash grabs. If it's dieing off in six months doesn't matter if you've already stuffed millions in the bank account, which was the plan from the very beginning.
Eve & UWO achieved longevity
No current theme park copycats can compare to these 2 diamonds
Just in terms of longevity, WoW, CoH and EQ2 have been around almost as long as Eve and UWO.
It doesn't matter how LONG they're around. What more matters is the pattern of growth. And CoH is a pre WoW unique/deep MMO. As is/was EQ2, which didn't do so well once it started following WoW.
The pattern of growth only matters if the variables are similar, starting off at 5000 and growing to 200,000 is good. However it still is 200,000. Starting at 1.7 million and ending up with 200,000 may be bad however they are still at 200,000.
The end result is the same. So if games are judged by longevity and user base the two games are equal.
edit: Complexity just to be complex isn't any good and IMO does not inspire a better games. However a system that creates emergent gameplay (complex or not) is good.
EQ was not complex. There were 3-10 buttons you pressed (depending on your class) and that was itt. Wow has 3 x this amount, yet WoW is considered simple and is vastly more complicated when developing states in terms of gear score, enchants, transmog....
However aggro mechanics, threat mechanics... all combined to make EQ in many ways more interesting but it wasn't complicated.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).
But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.
But it's not.
You see, you can't look at something that failed and then say "because it wasn't x it failed'.
So, for instance, pick your favorite "failed" mmo (if indeed they really failed, I suspect that just because "millions" of players aren't playing them some consider them failed) and then just make the statment "because it didn't have a giant pink bunny spinning around in the sky it failed".
Well, I don't know one "failed" mmo that had a giant pink bunny so of course that is the reason.
Or, we can put aside our "I like x therefore any game that doesn't succeed and didn't have X must have failed becuase of it" mentality and really look at the individual reasons they "failed".
I very much understand your point of view and you are right in your overall approach to how games should be "judged". (i.e. by leaving one's own subjectivity at the door).
But ...
The lack of complexity is a reaccuring theme in many games in the past years. To exagerate it a bit: the catering for impatient, window licking water heads who want their epics right away and can't deal with unexpected set backs or any perceived injustices in their multiplayer games. This results in an overkill of streamlining game mechanics (cross realm dungeon finders, teleporting anywhere, pointers and breadcrumbs, cookie cutter battlegrounds, simplified crafting, etc), as well as dumbing down anything that could be deemed "too complex for the average gamer".
I.e. a logical result of a game designer's quest to aim for the biggest possible target audience.
The problem is though, that by doing so, they leave experienced gamers out in the cold because we devoured their simplified content in a very short time and are left boring our brains out V_V
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years
SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.
And several modern games have just as many subscribers as Daoc, Uo, SWG, and AC did.
First, that's not much of an accomplishment, considering most people were on dial up back then and those games were made by like, 30 people on no budget with no publishers.
If games that took 100MILLION to make can't even keep up with the shriveled old grandfathers of the genre then... something's wrong.
Second, I'm not talking about sub numbers, I'm talking about growth. There hasn't been a single WoW clone that has grown after launch and had to open new servers, only the opposite.
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years
SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.
And several modern games have just as many subscribers as Daoc, Uo, SWG, and AC did.
First, that's not much of an accomplishment, considering most people were on dial up back then and those games were made by like, 30 people on no budget with no publishers.
If games that took 100MILLION to make can't even keep up with the shriveled old grandfathers of the genre then... something's wrong.
Second, I'm not talking about sub numbers, I'm talking about growth. There hasn't been a single WoW clone that has grown after launch and had to open new servers, only the opposite.
I agree with your point about the cost of games, and have long argued that something has to give either with us the players. The cost to make the games we demand are far far far too expensive and forces the developer to target a larger market which invariable impacts on the type of game they can make.
However you cannot seperate the growth of games from the environment the game is in. The amount of competition can directly influence the growth of any particular game.
There have been several that have had to open new servers after launch, TSW just off the top of my head. However most of them had to merge servers because, and IMO everyone knows this now, sustaining millions of subscribers is not realistic in this age of gaming. However it is realistic to start with that. So they need to support borth, they need to have the servers at launch but be prepared to close them later.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by DarkPonyThe problem is though, that by doing so, they leave experienced gamers out in the cold because we devoured their simplified content in a very short time and are left boring our brains out V_V
Well, that is YOUR problem only, not the game's nor developer's.
Games do not need to be complex to keep player's attention, YOU need complexity to keep YOUR attention.
Which boils down to the annoying issue that some people are not able to understand that world does not spin around their tiny self and that developers are not obliged to make the game for them, there are others with different mindsets, needs and preferences.
The problem is though, that by doing so, they leave experienced gamers out in the cold because we devoured their simplified content in a very short time and are left boring our brains out V_V
Well, that is YOUR problem only, not the game's nor developer's.
Games do not need to be complex to keep player's attention, YOU need complexity to keep YOUR attention.
Which boils down to the annoying issue that some people are not able to understand that world does not spin around their tiny self and there are others with different mindsets, needs and preferences.
I'm kind of humbled by your implied notion that I am the only experienced mmorpg gamer on this planet.
I'd love to say it's true but I think there are at least a few tens of millions more.
The problem is though, that by doing so, they leave experienced gamers out in the cold because we devoured their simplified content in a very short time and are left boring our brains out V_V
Well, that is YOUR problem only, not the game's nor developer's.
Games do not need to be complex to keep player's attention, YOU need complexity to keep YOUR attention.
Which boils down to the annoying issue that some people are not able to understand that world does not spin around their tiny self and that developers are not obliged to make the game for them, there are others with different mindsets, needs and preferences.
But why in the world would we care about them, we're in this for ourselves of course.
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
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years
SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.
And several modern games have just as many subscribers as Daoc, Uo, SWG, and AC did.
First, that's not much of an accomplishment, considering most people were on dial up back then and those games were made by like, 30 people on no budget with no publishers.
If games that took 100MILLION to make can't even keep up with the shriveled old grandfathers of the genre then... something's wrong.
Second, I'm not talking about sub numbers, I'm talking about growth. There hasn't been a single WoW clone that has grown after launch and had to open new servers, only the opposite.
I agree with your point about the cost of games, and have long argued that something has to give either with us the players. The cost to make the games we demand are far far far too expensive and forces the developer to target a larger market which invariable impacts on the type of game they can make.
However you cannot seperate the growth of games from the environment the game is in. The amount of competition can directly influence the growth of any particular game.
There have been several that have had to open new servers after launch, TSW just off the top of my head. However most of them had to merge servers because, and IMO everyone knows this now, sustaining millions of subscribers is not realistic in this age of gaming. However it is realistic to start with that. So they need to support borth, they need to have the servers at launch but be prepared to close them later.
There are two simple solutions.
First, don't spend millions on marketing, shrink the budget a bit, and aim for a gradual ramp up. Let your game speak for you.
Second, build a game that encourages a steady growing community. Not a game that encourages you to blitz through solo content then leave.
Third, give people a reason to play. Does your game have any features to split it from WoW? No? Then why would people play it?
Modern dev studios run by publishers don't meet any of the 3.
Originally posted by DarkPony I'm kind of humbled by your implied notion that I am the only experienced mmorpg gamer on this planet.I'd love to say it's true but I think there are at least a few tens of millions more.
Wow...
I just point out your extreme ego centrism and how you extrapolate your personal bias on wider population and yet you go ahead and do it again :-)
What I have witnessed through my mmorpg career is that people want complexity, yet, when sandbox style games come out that give the community the chance for complexity, they aren't embraced. The more I play Theme parks the more I enjoy sandboxes. I guess that is why I always end up back to my sandbox games after I try the new and and latest themepark. Sandboxes just have a reputation of being Hardcore, and to an extent that is true, but hardcore really can get people to work together and create complexity.
Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.
Ok, prove it.
EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years
SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.
And several modern games have just as many subscribers as Daoc, Uo, SWG, and AC did.
First, that's not much of an accomplishment, considering most people were on dial up back then and those games were made by like, 30 people on no budget with no publishers.
If games that took 100MILLION to make can't even keep up with the shriveled old grandfathers of the genre then... something's wrong.
Second, I'm not talking about sub numbers, I'm talking about growth. There hasn't been a single WoW clone that has grown after launch and had to open new servers, only the opposite.
I agree with your point about the cost of games, and have long argued that something has to give either with us the players. The cost to make the games we demand are far far far too expensive and forces the developer to target a larger market which invariable impacts on the type of game they can make.
However you cannot seperate the growth of games from the environment the game is in. The amount of competition can directly influence the growth of any particular game.
There have been several that have had to open new servers after launch, TSW just off the top of my head. However most of them had to merge servers because, and IMO everyone knows this now, sustaining millions of subscribers is not realistic in this age of gaming. However it is realistic to start with that. So they need to support borth, they need to have the servers at launch but be prepared to close them later.
There are two simple solutions.
First, don't spend millions on marketing, shrink the budget a bit, and aim for a gradual ramp up. Let your game speak for you.
Second, build a game that encourages a steady growing community. Not a game that encourages you to blitz through solo content then leave.
Third, give people a reason to play. Does your game have any features to split it from WoW? No? Then why would people play it?
Modern dev studios run by publishers don't meet any of the 3.
Personally I think your right and have actually long argued for this.
The problem is us the gamers. Generally we want great graphics, both character and environment (both detailed and pleasing), great animation, customization of gear and looks, flight, housing, lots of room to play, lots of options on how we play, great crafting...
All that takes an enormous amount of money. And the devs can only build that type of game if they go after the larger market.
In order to make a smaller game they will have to do what Eve did, sacrfice some things, start with a smaller playerbase, and add those other things in later. But in today's market will the gamer accept that. I'm not sure anymore, there is too much competitiion. If the game doesn't offer all the bells and whisltes, well there seems to be others that do, or will and are releasing in a few months.
I tthink if Eve launched today in the same condition it ws in 03, it would have an even tougher time than it allready did. The press and word of mouth would be terrible, it would be harder to recover from than Vanguard.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
This player wants the devs to play their own game.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Comments
But it's not.
You see, you can't look at something that failed and then say "because it wasn't x it failed'.
So, for instance, pick your favorite "failed" mmo (if indeed they really failed, I suspect that just because "millions" of players aren't playing them some consider them failed) and then just make the statment "because it didn't have a giant pink bunny spinning around in the sky it failed".
Well, I don't know one "failed" mmo that had a giant pink bunny so of course that is the reason.
Or, we can put aside our "I like x therefore any game that doesn't succeed and didn't have X must have failed becuase of it" mentality and really look at the individual reasons they "failed".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If you want massive complexity without ruthless PVP, then why aren't you playing Uncharted Waters Online?
EQ, DAoC, UO, SWG, AC = steady growth over years
SWTOR, Rift, AoC, WAR = quick cash ins that had to merge servers almost right away and cut staff.
Games, to be successful today, need to not simply be complex or easy... they need to have various depths that will cater to a large number of players. They need to be shallow enough that our kids can play with us and have a blast swimming along the surface, but deep enough that Dad can decide to really wrap his brain around the mechanics, sink into the cold, dark depths and really work on a degree of mastery. Or the simple version... easy to learn, difficult to master.
Oderint, dum metuant.
depth and complexity is the most important thing to me.
Age of Conan, Warhammer, SWTOR, STO, TSW, TERA, AION, etc? I can't do it anymore.
Looking forward to a game like ArcheAge.
Just in terms of longevity, WoW, CoH and EQ2 have been around almost as long as Eve and UWO.
If it were obvious, then I think the devs, and even the suits would know it. Apparently, most of them don't think that's the way to go to get to the $$$ they want.
Quick cash grab? How do you make a quick cash grab on something taking 4-5 years of development?
The numbers:
Let's say the game cost 50M USD to make. In 6 month then, you would need to sell 1M boxes @ 50 USD per unit just to cover development costs.
Taking Rift as an example, they needed 4-5 months to get 1M units sold. At the unchanged average sale rates, they would get 16M profit at the end of the 6 month period and when you consider the game is in development for 4 or 5 years, it makes 3-4M USD profit per year for the company. Not particularly attractive business for many I guess nor a "quick cash grab".
Numbers won't fit there. Not saying it is impossible to make but hard to pull off in context of western MMORPG, they are very expensive to make.
It doesn't matter how LONG they're around. What more matters is the pattern of growth. And CoH is a pre WoW unique/deep MMO. As is/was EQ2, which didn't do so well once it started following WoW.
It's obvious to us because we're immersed in the culture. The suits don't play MMOs, they probably don't know the first thing about them. they're trained to follow trends and not to take risks, because thats what works in most industries.
SWTOR proves that doesn't work here. All the failed WoW clones, LotRO, AoC, WAR, Rift, Aion, have proved that.
That doesn't prove it. It may be the reason but there are too many other Z variables that need to be taken into account, including the number of games available at the time.
And several modern games have just as many subscribers as Daoc, Uo, SWG, and AC did.
The pattern of growth only matters if the variables are similar, starting off at 5000 and growing to 200,000 is good. However it still is 200,000. Starting at 1.7 million and ending up with 200,000 may be bad however they are still at 200,000.
The end result is the same. So if games are judged by longevity and user base the two games are equal.
edit: Complexity just to be complex isn't any good and IMO does not inspire a better games. However a system that creates emergent gameplay (complex or not) is good.
EQ was not complex. There were 3-10 buttons you pressed (depending on your class) and that was itt. Wow has 3 x this amount, yet WoW is considered simple and is vastly more complicated when developing states in terms of gear score, enchants, transmog....
However aggro mechanics, threat mechanics... all combined to make EQ in many ways more interesting but it wasn't complicated.
I very much understand your point of view and you are right in your overall approach to how games should be "judged". (i.e. by leaving one's own subjectivity at the door).
But ...
The lack of complexity is a reaccuring theme in many games in the past years. To exagerate it a bit: the catering for impatient, window licking water heads who want their epics right away and can't deal with unexpected set backs or any perceived injustices in their multiplayer games. This results in an overkill of streamlining game mechanics (cross realm dungeon finders, teleporting anywhere, pointers and breadcrumbs, cookie cutter battlegrounds, simplified crafting, etc), as well as dumbing down anything that could be deemed "too complex for the average gamer".
I.e. a logical result of a game designer's quest to aim for the biggest possible target audience.
The problem is though, that by doing so, they leave experienced gamers out in the cold because we devoured their simplified content in a very short time and are left boring our brains out V_V
My brand new bloggity blog.
First, that's not much of an accomplishment, considering most people were on dial up back then and those games were made by like, 30 people on no budget with no publishers.
If games that took 100MILLION to make can't even keep up with the shriveled old grandfathers of the genre then... something's wrong.
Second, I'm not talking about sub numbers, I'm talking about growth. There hasn't been a single WoW clone that has grown after launch and had to open new servers, only the opposite.
Sorry Garvon but you don't make your point.
Each of those games that you listed as "failed" had particular reasons why they didn't take off that had nothing to do with "lack of complexity".
this is my problem with such arguments and goes back to my "bunny in the sky" statement.
As far as steady growth, last i checked, none of those games you listed had "steady growth".
Had they steady growth then wuoldn't they be up there in the millions by now?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I agree with your point about the cost of games, and have long argued that something has to give either with us the players. The cost to make the games we demand are far far far too expensive and forces the developer to target a larger market which invariable impacts on the type of game they can make.
However you cannot seperate the growth of games from the environment the game is in. The amount of competition can directly influence the growth of any particular game.
There have been several that have had to open new servers after launch, TSW just off the top of my head. However most of them had to merge servers because, and IMO everyone knows this now, sustaining millions of subscribers is not realistic in this age of gaming. However it is realistic to start with that. So they need to support borth, they need to have the servers at launch but be prepared to close them later.
Well, that is YOUR problem only, not the game's nor developer's.
Games do not need to be complex to keep player's attention, YOU need complexity to keep YOUR attention.
Which boils down to the annoying issue that some people are not able to understand that world does not spin around their tiny self and that developers are not obliged to make the game for them, there are others with different mindsets, needs and preferences.
I'm kind of humbled by your implied notion that I am the only experienced mmorpg gamer on this planet.
I'd love to say it's true but I think there are at least a few tens of millions more.
My brand new bloggity blog.
But why in the world would we care about them, we're in this for ourselves of course.
"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
There are two simple solutions.
First, don't spend millions on marketing, shrink the budget a bit, and aim for a gradual ramp up. Let your game speak for you.
Second, build a game that encourages a steady growing community. Not a game that encourages you to blitz through solo content then leave.
Third, give people a reason to play. Does your game have any features to split it from WoW? No? Then why would people play it?
Modern dev studios run by publishers don't meet any of the 3.
Wow...
I just point out your extreme ego centrism and how you extrapolate your personal bias on wider population and yet you go ahead and do it again :-)
Just...hilarious.
You don't, devs do tho and complaining about it is then the egomania I talked about...
Personally I think your right and have actually long argued for this.
The problem is us the gamers. Generally we want great graphics, both character and environment (both detailed and pleasing), great animation, customization of gear and looks, flight, housing, lots of room to play, lots of options on how we play, great crafting...
All that takes an enormous amount of money. And the devs can only build that type of game if they go after the larger market.
In order to make a smaller game they will have to do what Eve did, sacrfice some things, start with a smaller playerbase, and add those other things in later. But in today's market will the gamer accept that. I'm not sure anymore, there is too much competitiion. If the game doesn't offer all the bells and whisltes, well there seems to be others that do, or will and are releasing in a few months.
I tthink if Eve launched today in the same condition it ws in 03, it would have an even tougher time than it allready did. The press and word of mouth would be terrible, it would be harder to recover from than Vanguard.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**