A single player game with multiplayer support

miccav · March 2006

Exactly as the title says, it's a single player game with multiplayer support. With the introduction of instancing technology MMORPGs have gone down hill. This is another example of the de-evolution of the genre. Now don't get me wrong, this is a fun game. Yes, you can group and see 50+ people in one room, but how different is it than say... Battlefield or SW:Battlefront. And you can't help but compare it to Guildwars. Both heavily use instancing, same technology, but GW is free. That leads us to think... what is our $14.95/month going towards in DDO?
My point is that MMOG companies are cutting corners to deliver a cheaper game while still charging full monthly subscription. $14.95 being the standard, even for games with 10x the content. Now cutting costs is ok, I'm a project manager in RL and part of my job is to find cheaper ways of manufacturing product. However it needs to be done without sacrificing the quality of the product. MMOG companies are doing exactly that, sacrificing quality and charging us the same for it.

Minsc · March 2006

Originally posted by miccav

Exactly as the title says, it's a single player game with multiplayer support. With the introduction of instancing technology MMORPGs have gone down hill. This is another example of the de-evolution of the genre. Now don't get me wrong, this is a fun game. Yes, you can group and see 50+ people in one room, but how different is it than say... Battlefield or SW:Battlefront. And you can't help but compare it to Guildwars. Both heavily use instancing, same technology, but GW is free. That leads us to think... what is our $14.95/month going towards in DDO?
My point is that MMOG companies are cutting corners to deliver a cheaper game while still charging full monthly subscription. $14.95 being the standard, even for games with 10x the content. Now cutting costs is ok, I'm a project manager in RL and part of my job is to find cheaper ways of manufacturing product. However it needs to be done without sacrificing the quality of the product. MMOG companies are doing exactly that, sacrificing quality and charging us the same for it.

WRONG! Not the same technology at all. GW instances are hosted on the client, kinda like in Diablo, DDO instances are hosted on the server like in WoW. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU. The sub fees go towards server maintenance and the live team, simple as that. Instancing does not make it any less an MMO, it is used for loadbalancing and to make enviroments more interactive.

miccav · March 2006

Originally posted by Minsc

Originally posted by miccav

Exactly as the title says, it's a single player game with multiplayer support. With the introduction of instancing technology MMORPGs have gone down hill. This is another example of the de-evolution of the genre. Now don't get me wrong, this is a fun game. Yes, you can group and see 50+ people in one room, but how different is it than say... Battlefield or SW:Battlefront. And you can't help but compare it to Guildwars. Both heavily use instancing, same technology, but GW is free. That leads us to think... what is our $14.95/month going towards in DDO?
My point is that MMOG companies are cutting corners to deliver a cheaper game while still charging full monthly subscription. $14.95 being the standard, even for games with 10x the content. Now cutting costs is ok, I'm a project manager in RL and part of my job is to find cheaper ways of manufacturing product. However it needs to be done without sacrificing the quality of the product. MMOG companies are doing exactly that, sacrificing quality and charging us the same for it.

WRONG! Not the same technology at all. GW instances are hosted on the client, kinda like in Diablo, DDO instances are hosted on the server like in WoW. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU. The sub fees go towards server maintenance and the live team, simple as that. Instancing does not make it any less an MMO, it is used for loadbalancing and to make enviroments more interactive.

I understand what your saying but that's hardly my point. My point is product value. Whether or not it's client or server side is the decision of the developer. I know server-side is more expensive. But GW and DDO gameplay are handled in a very similar fashion, so what we're recieving from both games is essentually the same. You meet up in town(s), group up, then head out to another instanced zone. If they could have made DDO all client side processes, as you claim GW is, why didn't they? You can't compare DDO to WOW at all, massive difference in gameplay and value.

IMO, "instancing" absolutely makes a game LESS of an MMO and makes it LESS interactive. Instancing brings it closer to what a single player game offers, secluded gameplay, simple as that. I'd like to hear why you don't think this because I'm open to logical debate... except without telling me to STFU.

Minsc · March 2006

Originally posted by miccav
Originally posted by Minsc Originally posted by miccavExactly as the title says, it's a single player game with multiplayer support. With the introduction of instancing technology MMORPGs have gone down hill. This is another example of the de-evolution of the genre. Now don't get me wrong, this is a fun game. Yes, you can group and see 50+ people in one room, but how different is it than say... Battlefield or SW:Battlefront. And you can't help but compare it to Guildwars. Both heavily use instancing, same technology, but GW is free. That leads us to think... what is our $14.95/month going towards in DDO?My point is that MMOG companies are cutting corners to deliver a cheaper game while still charging full monthly subscription. $14.95 being the standard, even for games with 10x the content. Now cutting costs is ok, I'm a project manager in RL and part of my job is to find cheaper ways of manufacturing product. However it needs to be done without sacrificing the quality of the product. MMOG companies are doing exactly that, sacrificing quality and charging us the same for it.WRONG! Not the same technology at all. GW instances are hosted on the client, kinda like in Diablo, DDO instances are hosted on the server like in WoW. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU. The sub fees go towards server maintenance and the live team, simple as that. Instancing does not make it any less an MMO, it is used for loadbalancing and to make enviroments more interactive. I understand what your saying but that's hardly my point. My point is product value. Whether or not it's client or server side is the decision of the developer. I know server-side is more expensive. But GW and DDO gameplay are handled in a very similar fashion, so what we're recieving from both games is essentually the same. You meet up in town(s), group up, then head out to another instanced zone. If they could have made DDO all client side processes, as you claim GW is, why didn't they? You can't compare DDO to WOW at all, massive difference in gameplay and value.

Because there is much more data being sent back and forth in DDO. It's twitch-like gameplay would not work very well if hosted client-side because performance is dependent on the host's connection. As for the difference in gameplay between WoW and DDO, yes it's true the gameplay is different, but I prefer the gameplay in DDO to WoW anyday. Same goes for value.

You do realise that each WoW server hosts several realms right, that's why when one realm has problems (such as the instance server being borked) a bunch do. It's the same reason why they can never take just one server offline at a time, it's always in groups. WoW uses instancing on a larger scale, they've merely segregated the realms.

mydasx · March 2006

Ok couple of things here. All software is "instanced" the scope of the instance is what determines whether it feels like i have a huge world to walk around in and live my virtual life in. DDo does not have this. Its a city. A crappy little friggin city. This game is a crappy remake of guild wars IMHO. I'm sure i'll get flamed by the DDO faithful for this, but come on. Instanced game play where the scope is all adventuring is solo or w/ your prechosen group, no free roaming, no housing, no crafing, no known economy makes for the same thing as NWN persistant or Diablo. Again, i'm sure you faithful will not like the lines drawn between the 2, but look how you spend your money is your problem. personally 30 bucks a month on quality porn is money better spent for me.

Mydasx

miccav · March 2006

Originally posted by Minsc

Because there is much more data being sent back and forth in DDO. It's twitch-like gameplay would not work very well if hosted client-side because performance is dependent on the host's connection. As for the difference in gameplay between WoW and DDO, yes it's true the gameplay is different, but I prefer the gameplay in DDO to WoW anyday. Same goes for value.

You do realise that each WoW server hosts several realms right, that's why when one realm has problems (such as the instance server being borked) a bunch do. It's the same reason why they can never take just one server offline at a time, it's always in groups. WoW uses instancing on a larger scale, they've merely segregated the realms.

I make no statistical claims, but I like your reasoning better than the 2nd poster. The actual technology doesn't really concern me. When playing a game, I'm only concerned about the value of the end-product. Is paying 14.95/month worth the fact that more packets are being exchanged between the server and client? It costs them more, thats why they charge us, I understand. I was a Network Admin for 10+y and aware of the technology and costs associated with servers and bandwidth. But I'll make this anology to try and clear up my point of view. If you had to buy a car and you tell the salesman... I want a car that is fun. He presents you with 2 options. Car A and B are both fun and you'll enjoy them equally. But Car A is $20k and Car B is 30k. I ask, why is Car B more expensive? He tell's me that the manufacturing/labor costs on Car B is much more. Same end-user value, more cost. That's how I feel about DDO. I'm not trying to justify a game on it's technical merit, just end-product value.

Torchwood · March 2006

Originally posted by miccav

Exactly as the title says, it's a single player game with multiplayer support. With the introduction of instancing technology MMORPGs have gone down hill. This is another example of the de-evolution of the genre. Now don't get me wrong, this is a fun game. Yes, you can group and see 50+ people in one room, but how different is it than say... Battlefield or SW:Battlefront. And you can't help but compare it to Guildwars. Both heavily use instancing, same technology, but GW is free. That leads us to think... what is our $14.95/month going towards in DDO?

I like the sound of that. Single player with multiplayer support? Sounds perfect to me.

Minsc · March 2006

Originally posted by miccav
Originally posted by Minsc
Because there is much more data being sent back and forth in DDO. It's twitch-like gameplay would not work very well if hosted client-side because performance is dependent on the host's connection. As for the difference in gameplay between WoW and DDO, yes it's true the gameplay is different, but I prefer the gameplay in DDO to WoW anyday. Same goes for value.
You do realise that each WoW server hosts several realms right, that's why when one realm has problems (such as the instance server being borked) a bunch do. It's the same reason why they can never take just one server offline at a time, it's always in groups. WoW uses instancing on a larger scale, they've merely segregated the realms.
I make no statistical claims, but I like your reasoning better than the 2nd poster. The actual technology doesn't really concern me. When playing a game, I'm only concerned about the value of the end-product. Is paying 14.95/month worth the fact that more packets are being exchanged between the server and client? It costs them more, thats why they charge us, I understand. I was a Network Admin for 10+y and aware of the technology and costs associated with servers and bandwidth. But I'll make this anology to try and clear up my point of view. If you had to buy a car and you tell the salesman... I want a car that is fun. He presents you with 2 options. Car A and B are both fun and you'll enjoy them equally. But Car A is $20k and Car B is 30k. I ask, why is Car B more expensive? He tell's me that the manufacturing/labor costs on Car B is much more. Same end-user value, more cost. That's how I feel about DDO. I'm not trying to justify a game on it's technical merit, just end-product value.

But value is subjective, to me $15/month = $0.50 a day, which is peanuts as far as I'm concerned. Also I don't think your car analogy really works well in this case, it would be more like comparing 2 cars that start at the same base cost, but with car A you pay another $20k every year to get all the new features that come out whereas car B gives you a bunch of updates for free and then you pay an additional $10k for some of the bigger upgrades in a year or so. (assuming turbine will charge for expansions). As I said the car analogy is kinda messy in this situation and doesn't give a good comparison.

mydasx · March 2006

Alas, the youre too broke to pay 15 dollars flamers have arrived. Again, i'm a 30 year old software engineer w/ a bmw payment and a mortgage. My post is about how i spend my money not whether or not i can. This i'm not worried about 15 bucks thing is whack. Yes 15 bucks is how much i spend on lunch each day, yes 15 dollars is a quarter of what i make in an hour, yes 15 dollars is a drop in a bucket, NO TURBINE DOES NOT DESERVE MY 15 BUCKS. Again, the age ol' well you must be broke crap is not a valid statement for justifying why i wont play this game. Simply the content is not worth 15 bucks. a month for a year. When i look at the total cost to play the game to completion, i'm seeing a 15 dollar a month fee, and an initial cost of 50 dollars. For a year to play that's a grand total of 230 dollars. NWN2 is on the bubble and will be 50 dollars. PERIOD. If you want to talk about money spent lets talk about that. 230 vs 50 almost 5 times more money for chat. Look at the FPS market, all multiplay is free. If its instanced and multi, it should be free IMHO. In a year i spend a butt load of money on games, if i'm going to push 4 other games to the side for a massive, i want it to be worth 4 other games.

miccav · March 2006

Originally posted by Minsc

But value is subjective, to me $15/month = $0.50 a day, which is peanuts as far as I'm concerned. Also I don't think your car analogy really works well in this case, it would be more like comparing 2 cars that start at the same base cost, but with car A you pay another $20k every year to get all the new features that come out whereas car B gives you a bunch of updates for free and then you pay an additional $10k for some of the bigger upgrades in a year or so. (assuming turbine will charge for expansions). As I said the car analogy is kinda messy in this situation and doesn't give a good comparison.

In terms of value, I speak of the product compared to other benchmark MMOGs like (insert MMOG name that you played for over a year). There's value in terms of content, community, gameplay, replayability, etc. I know I'm missing some, but everything that makes us love MMOGs more than a single player game.

You make a good point regarding my analogy. Same starting price, but only one has maintenance fees. GW has had allot of new content added for free. DDO will most likely be the same. GW has a paid expansion in the works. DDO will most likely have them also. But one has monthly fees, the other doesnt. But I'm sure you or someone gets my overall point irrigardless of my ill-attempts to write the elusive perfect post, lol.

miccav · March 2006

Originally posted by mydasx
Alas, the youre too broke to pay 15 dollars flamers have arrived. Again, i'm a 30 year old software engineer w/ a bmw payment and a mortgage. My post is about how i spend my money not whether or not i can. This i'm not worried about 15 bucks thing is whack. Yes 15 bucks is how much i spend on lunch each day, yes 15 dollars is a quarter of what i make in an hour, yes 15 dollars is a drop in a bucket, NO TURBINE DOES NOT DESERVE MY 15 BUCKS. Again, the age ol' well you must be broke crap is not a valid statement for justifying why i wont play this game. Simply the content is not worth 15 bucks. a month for a year. When i look at the total cost to play the game to completion, i'm seeing a 15 dollar a month fee, and an initial cost of 50 dollars. For a year to play that's a grand total of 230 dollars. NWN2 is on the bubble and will be 50 dollars. PERIOD. If you want to talk about money spent lets talk about that. 230 vs 50 almost 5 times more money for chat. Look at the FPS market, all multiplay is free. If its instanced and multi, it should be free IMHO. In a year i spend a butt load of money on games, if i'm going to push 4 other games to the side for a massive, i want it to be worth 4 other games.

I understand where your coming from. Money is not an issue, but you want value / RTO. I'll feel ripped off spending $8 to watch a crappy movie at a theater. But I have no problem if it's good. Just like my wife buying $100 pair of shoes that gets worn 5 times. Forget that, I want my $1000 custom guitar that gets used for the rest of my life.

MMO_Munk · March 2006

I understand the wanting of gettign what you pay for, but 50$ to buy the game and then 15$ to pay for the first 2 months to beat it at a casual pace is only 65$ for a full taste of a NEW GAME. Thats not bad in my book, and a good buy.

miccav · March 2006

Originally posted by MMO_Munk

I understand the wanting of gettign what you pay for, but 50$ to buy the game and then 15$ to pay for the first 2 months to beat it at a casual pace is only 65$ for a full taste of a NEW GAME. Thats not bad in my book, and a good buy.

You could be right. Besides, it's just filler MMOG until Vanguard. It WILL be the one, see ya there

MMO_Munk · March 2006

Originally posted by miccav
Originally posted by MMO_Munk
I understand the wanting of gettign what you pay for, but 50$ to buy the game and then 15$ to pay for the first 2 months to beat it at a casual pace is only 65$ for a full taste of a NEW GAME. Thats not bad in my book, and a good buy.You could be right. Besides, it's just filler MMOG until Vanguard. It WILL be the one, see ya there

EXACTLY!!!!! You got MY POINT HURRAY! +3 Intelligence Cookies for EVERYONE!!!!!!!!

Morrdak · March 2006

For one you need to just take a chill pill there Master Troll Minsc. Your not a game developer by any means and the weather you can see it or not technology is similar in both games. Deny if you must but instances are instances irrelevant of which side they run on client or server. Your completely missing the point of the OP. So perhaps you should take your own advice of "If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU". Now that that's out of the way.

To OP. I see your point, the quality of games has been going down hill lately. But I think with all the instancing they're trying to "recapture" the feel of D&D. That was basicly a MUD but with PNP. Essentially its just that now games have come full circle... started with MUD's to the MMORPG's like Everquest, and Ultima Online... back to MUD style with games like DDO and GW.

I do agree with you however they shouldn't charge $14.95 a month for something another company offers for free. Graphically the games are very similar, but DDO has more textures and more content, but that's just my opinion.

Minsc · March 2006

Originally posted by Morrdak
For one you need to just take a chill pill there Master Troll Minsc. Your not a game developer by any means and the weather you can see it or not technology is similar in both games. Deny if you must but instances are instances irrelevant of which side they run on client or server. Your completely missing the point of the OP. So perhaps you should take your own advice of "If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU". Now that that's out of the way.
To OP. I see your point, the quality of games has been going down hill lately. But I think with all the instancing they're trying to "recapture" the feel of D&D. That was basicly a MUD but with PNP. Essentially its just that now games have come full circle... started with MUD's to the MMORPG's like Everquest, and Ultima Online... back to MUD style with games like DDO and GW.
I do agree with you however they shouldn't charge $14.95 a month for something another company offers for free. Graphically the games are very similar, but DDO has more textures and more content, but that's just my opinion.

The argument wasn't whether an instance is an instance, it was why DDO charges a monthly fee and GW doesn't. The fact of the matter is that hosting the instances on the server takes a hell of a lot more resources than hosting it on the client, it requires more hardware at the very least. Whether the instances are hosted on the client or server is NOT irrelevant.

matraque · March 2006

Originally posted by miccav

Exactly as the title says, it's a single player game with multiplayer support. With the introduction of instancing technology MMORPGs have gone down hill. This is another example of the de-evolution of the genre. Now don't get me wrong, this is a fun game. Yes, you can group and see 50+ people in one room, but how different is it than say... Battlefield or SW:Battlefront. And you can't help but compare it to Guildwars. Both heavily use instancing, same technology, but GW is free. That leads us to think... what is our $14.95/month going towards in DDO?
My point is that MMOG companies are cutting corners to deliver a cheaper game while still charging full monthly subscription. $14.95 being the standard, even for games with 10x the content. Now cutting costs is ok, I'm a project manager in RL and part of my job is to find cheaper ways of manufacturing product. However it needs to be done without sacrificing the quality of the product. MMOG companies are doing exactly that, sacrificing quality and charging us the same for it.

wow, you should try to solo in there........

you are a funny man

nthnaoun · March 2006

Originally posted by mydasx
Alas, the youre too broke to pay 15 dollars flamers have arrived. Again, i'm a 30 year old software engineer w/ a bmw payment and a mortgage. My post is about how i spend my money not whether or not i can. This i'm not worried about 15 bucks thing is whack. Yes 15 bucks is how much i spend on lunch each day, yes 15 dollars is a quarter of what i make in an hour, yes 15 dollars is a drop in a bucket, NO TURBINE DOES NOT DESERVE MY 15 BUCKS. Again, the age ol' well you must be broke crap is not a valid statement for justifying why i wont play this game. Simply the content is not worth 15 bucks. a month for a year. When i look at the total cost to play the game to completion, i'm seeing a 15 dollar a month fee, and an initial cost of 50 dollars. For a year to play that's a grand total of 230 dollars. NWN2 is on the bubble and will be 50 dollars. PERIOD. If you want to talk about money spent lets talk about that. 230 vs 50 almost 5 times more money for chat. Look at the FPS market, all multiplay is free. If its instanced and multi, it should be free IMHO. In a year i spend a butt load of money on games, if i'm going to push 4 other games to the side for a massive, i want it to be worth 4 other games.

While understand where you are coming from and how you compare GW to DDO, the point is if you've seriously played both, you would find out that them both being instanced is about all they have in common. There is so much more DDO offers that GW doesn't. Also, I have played all you major MMO's and I can tell you I would rather pay $15/mo for DDO who excludes the 1337, pvpers, and powergamers and put up with not having a huge world to explore then to have a huge world to explore and crafting and have to put up with all the bullshit from all the powergamers, pvpers (min/max competitive types), and the rest of the immature gamers that go with it. In DDO once the dust is settled, what will be left is a mature community who enjoy logging on around 20 hours or less a week and grouping with about 5 or 6 friends. The types of gamers stated above will flee from this and flame the game for this for that reason. I'll happily hand over $15/mo to have that.

mydasx · March 2006

You dont have to pay to be alone man. Go into your closet, turn out the light and wait a while, they wont be there either.

miccav · March 2006

Originally posted by Minsc

Originally posted by Morrdak
For one you need to just take a chill pill there Master Troll Minsc. Your not a game developer by any means and the weather you can see it or not technology is similar in both games. Deny if you must but instances are instances irrelevant of which side they run on client or server. Your completely missing the point of the OP. So perhaps you should take your own advice of "If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU". Now that that's out of the way.
To OP. I see your point, the quality of games has been going down hill lately. But I think with all the instancing they're trying to "recapture" the feel of D&D. That was basicly a MUD but with PNP. Essentially its just that now games have come full circle... started with MUD's to the MMORPG's like Everquest, and Ultima Online... back to MUD style with games like DDO and GW.
I do agree with you however they shouldn't charge $14.95 a month for something another company offers for free. Graphically the games are very similar, but DDO has more textures and more content, but that's just my opinion.

The argument wasn't whether an instance is an instance, it was why DDO charges a monthly fee and GW doesn't. The fact of the matter is that hosting the instances on the server takes a hell of a lot more resources than hosting it on the client, it requires more hardware at the very least. Whether the instances are hosted on the client or server is NOT irrelevant.

The argument here is what I stated in the subject heading of this thread. DDO plays like a single player game with multiplayer support. The fact whether it's hosted on the server or client is only relevant to the developer. I'm looking at what we recieve as an end-product and it's long term potential. They charge $15/month for something that seems no more advanced than GW... or even BFII for that matter. We'll get our $50 worth out of it, maybe a couple months subscription, but it's gonna fizzle after we beat it. You just have a case of NGS (New Game Syndrome). I almost guarantee that 90% of the people defending it will be playing something else after it's newness wears off.

miccav · March 2006

Originally posted by matraque

Originally posted by miccav

Exactly as the title says, it's a single player game with multiplayer support. With the introduction of instancing technology MMORPGs have gone down hill. This is another example of the de-evolution of the genre. Now don't get me wrong, this is a fun game. Yes, you can group and see 50+ people in one room, but how different is it than say... Battlefield or SW:Battlefront. And you can't help but compare it to Guildwars. Both heavily use instancing, same technology, but GW is free. That leads us to think... what is our $14.95/month going towards in DDO?
My point is that MMOG companies are cutting corners to deliver a cheaper game while still charging full monthly subscription. $14.95 being the standard, even for games with 10x the content. Now cutting costs is ok, I'm a project manager in RL and part of my job is to find cheaper ways of manufacturing product. However it needs to be done without sacrificing the quality of the product. MMOG companies are doing exactly that, sacrificing quality and charging us the same for it.

wow, you should try to solo in there........

you are a funny man

Many undead missions I can solo, others I can't. But you missed what I said. Single player game with MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT. Going into a dungeon with a group of friends can be done with many single player games.

Morrdak · March 2006

Originally posted by miccav

You just have a case of NGS (New Game Syndrome). I almost guarantee that 90% of the people defending it will be playing something else after it's newness wears off.

::::08::

That's so very true with alot of people. DDO is a temporary game for a permanent problem. Just like all the other "disposable games" as you put earlier before. Games just don't have the depth they once did. Hell, Achaea has more depth then the newer games. I'm going to leave this post alone now cause its obvious this forum is riddled with Fanboi's. We'll see what game they'll be playing in a few months. ::::20::

burrek · March 2006

A pretty good thread (with the exception of the occasional trolling).

Very accurate remarks.

Here is my personal scale of MMOnes/SPnes.

SP----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MMORPG

Morrowind NWN GW DDO COH/V WOW EQ AC

Turbine did mess it up bad since the technology they used forces them to charge for system maintainienc and it could have used the GW model.

Devilback · March 2006

I think we all know the real reason for the monthly fee. You are paying for the sacred D&D name.

The moron that threw out the STFU right off the bat, for a second there I thought I was on the SWG forums. hahaha.

I would choose GW over D&D simply on the money factor for the similar games. Instancing sucks but I deal with it for now. I currently waste my time in COV but only till Vanguard arrives. VSOH.... My savior.

Ban all SOE products! Smed plays with donuts!

miccav · March 2006

Originally posted by Minsc

WRONG! Not the same technology at all. GW instances are hosted on the client, kinda like in Diablo, DDO instances are hosted on the server like in WoW. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU. The sub fees go towards server maintenance and the live team, simple as that. Instancing does not make it any less an MMO, it is used for loadbalancing and to make enviroments more interactive.

Guildwars still has allot of bandwidth being exchanged between the client and servers. They're just a little more efficient about it. Being free is largely due to their business model... sell more copies of the game. Reference:

"IGNPC: Speaking of bandwidth, Guild Wars has no monthly fee, which will be more than a little appealing to the masses. Assuming the game sells well, how are you preparing for a possible bandwidth onslaught?

Jeff Strain: We expect Guild Wars to do well and we are looking forward to having a large number of players consuming a great deal of bandwidth. So while we are maximizing bandwidth efficiency to make the game run as economically as possible, we are actually more focused on creating a game experience that allows the game to sell itself. In our opinion, the traditional MMO limits itself by charging a monthly fee and making more profit from a limited number of players. Our commitment is to offer a great game experience without a subscription fee, and we feel that having a larger community will balance our bandwidth costs.

When we decided to create Guild Wars and offer it without a monthly fee, our decision was based on years of developing AAA titles with significant online gameplay. In our view, the most successful way to sell a game is to have people play it and experience the quality of the game. We feel that one of the main obstacles against the wide scale success of online RPGs is the subscription fee associated with massively online games. The fee simply prevents a majority of gamers, of all types and ages, from even trying a game so the subscription fee has negated your best sales tool, the quality of gameplay. It is our opinion that the free online gaming model combined with frequent content updates is the optimum online paradigm for interfacing with consumers and creating a significant, enduring gaming franchise.

Ironically, our preparation to offset bandwidth use and server costs is to create a game that a great number of people can play and enjoy. We feel the larger numbers of players who will purchase Guild Wars will offset bandwidth consumption and online infrastructure."
Located here: http://pc.ign.com/articles/534/534454p2.html

When you said, "GW instances are hosted on the client, kinda like in Diablo, DDO instances are hosted on the server like in WoW. BIG DIFFERENCE." I'm not claiming to be a mmog guru, but I think it's common knowledge that all graphics, whether it's instanced or not, is processed client side. But there's usually data being exchanged between the client and server database. This is true for all MMOGs unless you involve Peer to peer networking. In the case of GW, perhaps all the towns rely heavily on client/server packets and the missions are mostly P2P with minimal client/server exchange. DDO gameplay operates the same as GW, you meet up in an instanced town, you group up, and go into an instanced mission. That's all you do... very different from WOW or EQ wich offers more freedom and a larger world. Turbine's lack of ability to be as bandwidth efficient and business savvy as ArenaNet/NcSoft will effect their success... due to that monthly charge wich they could have avoided. That's unless they can trick the player population (you) into thinking they are playing a better game cuz there's more client/server data being exchanged. In Turbine's defense, they can make up for it with adding ALLOT of new free content.

So before you go off and say "If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU.", make sure you properly educate yourself first.

Minsc · March 2006

[quote]Originally posted by miccav
[b]

Originally posted by Minsc

WRONG! Not the same technology at all. GW instances are hosted on the client, kinda like in Diablo, DDO instances are hosted on the server like in WoW. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU. The sub fees go towards server maintenance and the live team, simple as that. Instancing does not make it any less an MMO, it is used for loadbalancing and to make enviroments more interactive.

Guildwars still has allot of bandwidth being exchanged between the client and servers. They're just a little more efficient about it. Being free is largely due to their business model... sell more copies of the game. Reference:
"IGNPC: Speaking of bandwidth, Guild Wars has no monthly fee, which will be more than a little appealing to the masses. Assuming the game sells well, how are you preparing for a possible bandwidth onslaught?
Jeff Strain: We expect Guild Wars to do well and we are looking forward to having a large number of players consuming a great deal of bandwidth. So while we are maximizing bandwidth efficiency to make the game run as economically as possible, we are actually more focused on creating a game experience that allows the game to sell itself. In our opinion, the traditional MMO limits itself by charging a monthly fee and making more profit from a limited number of players. Our commitment is to offer a great game experience without a subscription fee, and we feel that having a larger community will balance our bandwidth costs.
When we decided to create Guild Wars and offer it without a monthly fee, our decision was based on years of developing AAA titles with significant online gameplay. In our view, the most successful way to sell a game is to have people play it and experience the quality of the game. We feel that one of the main obstacles against the wide scale success of online RPGs is the subscription fee associated with massively online games. The fee simply prevents a majority of gamers, of all types and ages, from even trying a game so the subscription fee has negated your best sales tool, the quality of gameplay. It is our opinion that the free online gaming model combined with frequent content updates is the optimum online paradigm for interfacing with consumers and creating a significant, enduring gaming franchise.
Ironically, our preparation to offset bandwidth use and server costs is to create a game that a great number of people can play and enjoy. We feel the larger numbers of players who will purchase Guild Wars will offset bandwidth consumption and online infrastructure."Located here: [url=http://pc.ign.com/articles/534/534454p2.html]
When you said, "GW instances are hosted on the client, kinda like in Diablo, DDO instances are hosted on the server like in WoW. BIG DIFFERENCE." I'm not claiming to be a mmog guru, but I think it's common knowledge that all graphics, whether it's instanced or not, is processed client side. But there's usually data being exchanged between the client and server database. This is true for all MMOGs unless you involve Peer to peer networking. In the case of GW, perhaps all the towns rely heavily on client/server packets and the missions are mostly P2P with minimal client/server exchange. DDO gameplay operates the same as GW, you meet up in an instanced town, you group up, and go into an instanced mission. That's all you do... very different from WOW or EQ wich offers more freedom and a larger world. Turbine's lack of ability to be as bandwidth efficient and business savvy as ArenaNet/NcSoft will effect their success... due to that monthly charge wich they could have avoided. That's unless they can trick the player population (you) into thinking they are playing a better game cuz there's more client/server data being exchanged. In Turbine's defense, they can make up for it with adding ALLOT of new free content.
So before you go off and say "If you don't know what you are talking about kindly STFU.", make sure you properly educate yourself first.[/b][/quote]

What I stated had nothing to do with graphics at all, I don't know where you got that impression. Graphics are generally always done client-side, I'm talking about how data is passed. You are correct in how GW works, the town/meeting areas are client/server hosted and the missions/overland zones are P2P. DDO does it differently, Everything is client/server. Also they are sending more data due to the real-time combat (more x-y-z co-ordinates, collision detection, to-hit rolls, weapon swings, etc. ). GW, WOW and the like have less data to send (i.e. x-y-z co-ords, autoattack on/off and timers on specials., etc.). You know, the commonly referred to 'sandwich' combat.

GW suffers in some areas due to the P2P nature of the connection and maybe partly due to the engine they decided to use. You cannot jump in the game at all, the zones are full of invisible walls that you just cannot go past. You can walk up to a waist-high ledge and you have absolutely no option to climb up onto it, wade far enough out in the water and you hit a wall as well. Also the zones are all just these big huge open areas full of mobs to kill. The mobs have no purpose but to stand there untill you come around to kill them. Its the same as in many other standard MMO's. It's a time-wasting grind. DDO's use of instancing is much more focused. You log on, do a few quests and have some fun and then log off.

If I can get at least 15 hours of enjoyment from the game every month that's like $1 per hour of fun, that there is some cheap entertainment. So many people are so ingrained with the 'must grind' line of thought that they have a hard time shaking it. Playing my warlock to 60 in wow was enough to break me out of that, especially when I've already experienced another MMO where grinding wasn't necessary.

Howdy, Stranger!

A single player game with multiplayer support

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

A single player game with multiplayer support

Comments