[the_logos]

Originally Posted by The large graphical games are innovative, just not in gameplay. They have been very innovative when it comes to the online game business model and many of the technical aspects of handling such a large number of players.

Innovative in business model? I don't see how, at least in the West. A subscription fee is not innovative. Not to blow my own horn, but our business model is considered far more innovative than the subscription models. And even though Simutronics' has a subscription fee, I'd consider all its addons quite innovative as well: Paying for quests, paying for character portraits, etc. Of course, with the # of players the big games have, they don't really need to innovate with their business model. They're raking it in already.

Having said that, there are numerous games in the East with different business models, ranging from site licenses for net cafes to a couple Korean games that that looked at our business model and decided to use it, etc.

Originally Posted by Why have they not been as innovative in the gameplay department? Why should they? The EQ layout generates tremendous revenue and players often fight tooth and nail against major changes, as long as people are happy to pay the monthly fee to play a retread of the same game then why should they innovate? Each new game will slowly add features that have been present in the text-based industry for years and allow players to adapt to the new game model but until they see a mechanic that is proven to be a success, why should they risk millions of dollars?

I don't think anyone is suggesting they should take greater risks. I know from first-hand experience that publishers and investors are concerned, more than anything else, with reducing risk. On the other hand, that really only applies to AAA titles. Smaller graphical muds, like A Tale In The Desert, do innovate and take risks in ways that are not financial.

--matt

[Tavish]

Originally Posted by Innovative in business model? I don't see how, at least in the West. A subscription fee is not innovative. Not to blow my own horn, but our business model is considered far more innovative than the subscription models. And even though Simutronics' has a subscription fee, I'd consider all its addons quite innovative as well: Paying for quests, paying for character portraits, etc.

You are selling the business model of the MMOG short I think.  A $50 price tag to install the game is a #### good hook to get people to stay past that initial "free" trial period.  If money is already commited to the game it seems players will give a game a much more thorough look than iif they were playing it out of curiosity*.  Along with player guides, expansion packs and now "booster" packs these games find plenty of ways to keep the interest of the player while growing the profit margin.

Originally Posted by I don't think anyone is suggesting they should take greater risks. I know from first-hand experience that publishers and investors are concerned, more than anything else, with reducing risk. On the other hand, that really only applies to AAA titles. Smaller graphical muds, like A Tale In The Desert, do innovate and take risks in ways that are not financial.

I as well was not suggesting what companies should do with their money, as I said if players continue to pay for retreads then more power to SOE and others.  What my statement was refering to was idea that the lack of innovatition was due to the graphical nature of the games, the amount of programming  time and computing power needed to innovate.   IMO that is, if not completely false, then extremely misleading.  ATITD is decent evidence of that.

*This of course is logic conclusion on my part. I would actually be very interested to see any type of study that compared the number of EQ game units sold and the number of accounts and compare that with the number of free trials a game such as Gemstone III gave out compared to the number of paying accounts they have. I would wager to guess the EQ percentage is a good deal higher.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by You are selling the business model of the MMOG short I think. A $50 price tag to install the game is a #### good hook to get people to stay past that initial "free" trial period. If money is already commited to the game it seems players will give a game a much more thorough look than iif they were playing it out of curiosity*. Along with player guides, expansion packs and now "booster" packs these games find plenty of ways to keep the interest of the player while growing the profit margin.

The $50 price tag to purchase the game serves the same purpose as a big download does (Note that you can download the earlier Everquest stuff for free now I believe): It pre-qualifies the customer as someone willing to jump through a hoop in order to play your game. A box is arguably better, of course, as it indicates a willingness to pay for the game as well. I agree they are branching out a bit more, but the only high-profile Western mud that has done much interesting business-model-wise was Project Entropia, which had the misfortune to be developed by people who are either incredibly naive about their model or who are smoking so much crack they can't tell the difference between "risky' and 'stupid.'

Originally Posted by This of course is logic conclusion on my part. I would actually be very interested to see any type of study that compared the number of EQ game units sold and the number of accounts and compare that with the number of free trials a game such as Gemstone III gave out compared to the number of paying accounts they have. I would wager to guess the EQ percentage is a good deal higher.

That comparison alone wouldn't tell us all that much. EQ has been around for less time, and since people who do subscribe eventually stop subscribing, Gemstone's ratio of existing paying players to total free trialers will be MUCH lower. They've also, I believe, suffered a significant net loss in players over the last 5-7 years which would distort the figures more.

If you were just looking at the conversion aspect of the two business models, you'd want to compare the ratio of people who purchased EQ or tried free Gemstone trial vs the # of those people who subscribed for at least one month.

In any case, it's pretty tough to meaningfully compare those as there are so many different factors at work. Text is an inherently unfriendly medium to newbies, for one, as compared to graphics, so there's that additional hoop for people to jump over.

--matt

[Tavish]

Originally Posted by That comparison alone wouldn't tell us all that much. EQ has been around for less time, and since people who do subscribe eventually stop subscribing, Gemstone's ratio of existing paying players to total free trialers will be MUCH lower. They've also, I believe, suffered a significant net loss in players over the last 5-7 years which would distort the figures more.

Yes, my statement should have said "comparing the percentage of new accounts generated from the Gemstone-style free trail vs the new accounts generated from buying the in-store EQ game box."  And you are right about the differing factors of the mediums, and since you brought up that the older EQ version may be freely downloaded what would serve as a feasible comparison is the percentage of people who sign up after downloading the game for free and those who sign up after purchasing the game.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Tavish @ July 20 2003,20:36) Yes, my statement should have said "comparing the percentage of new accounts generated from the Gemstone-style free trail vs the new accounts generated from buying the in-store EQ game box." And you are right about the differing factors of the mediums, and since you brought up that the older EQ version may be freely downloaded what would serve as a feasible comparison is the percentage of people who sign up after downloading the game for free and those who sign up after purchasing the game.

Well, the problem with measuring based purely on downloads is that what you're most likely measuring is the subset of players who have high-speed connections (a minority). That download is large enough to provide a significant barrier to entry, same as purchasing the box does.
--matt

[Ebony]

The main reason these differences between MUDs and MMOGs is that they're targeted towards escaping life in different ways. While the average player of a MUD, say, Achaea, escapes life by running another, hopefully better, life, the average player of a game like Planetside or Everquest escapes life by blasting monsters or opposing grunts, grabbing treasure, and blasting more monsters for more treasure. While there is some of the other in each, MMOGs focus on bashing, and MUDs generally focus on roleplay or world. This doesn't mean that there are no basher MUDs or more relaxed MMOGs, though.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Ebony @ Aug. 10 2003,16:45) The main reason these differences between MUDs and MMOGs is that they're targeted towards escaping life in different ways.  While the average player of a MUD, say, Achaea, escapes life by running another, hopefully better, life, the average player of a game like Planetside or Everquest escapes life by blasting monsters or opposing grunts, grabbing treasure, and blasting more monsters for more treasure.  While there is some of the other in each, MMOGs focus on bashing, and MUDs generally focus on roleplay or world.  This doesn't mean that there are no basher MUDs or more relaxed MMOGs, though.

I would probably disagree with this. DIKU seems to be the most popular codebase in text muds and Everquest, for instance, is little more than a DIKU with graphics. Most mud players do a LOT of monster-bashing/phat-lewt collecting.

--matt

[malaclypse]

It should be worth noting that in the areas of bashing and hoarding, graphics have a huge edge over text, and so if text MUDs are to remain a viable medium, I think they're going to have to start adapting to meet higher standards of gameplay. Or to put it a bit less biased: They're going to have to cater to different playing styles.

Fortunately, we in the text world can easily stay years ahead of the graphics guys cos of our development differences.

-Ryan

[Ebony]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Aug. 10 2003,17<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]DIKU seems to be the most popular codebase in text muds and Everquest, for instance, is little more than a DIKU with graphics. Most mud players do a LOT of monster-bashing/phat-lewt collecting. --matt

     MUDs that focus on bashing and treasure hunting aren't much more then the poor man's Everquest.  The strengths of MUDs over MMOGs (apart from the *substantially* reduced price) are things that would be almost impossible in MMOGs, like emotes, and things that are much simpler in MUDs, such as politics (not that they're ever simple), family, and romance.

[Shyntlara]

wow... haven't we ever gotten off topic, or what! It began with a question about races within muds, and now it's a full blown discussion about MMORPGs vs. Muds. I just thought i'd point this out, since no one else seems to be paying attention to the slow move to the off-topic-ness of this thread.

[Ebony]

Shyntlara's got a point... it's fun to argue with a god.

Who knows, maybe I can be as wise as him one day...

[SoulTorn]

Races are a weird thing.

DragonRealms has....11, currently.(Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Gor'Tog. Elothean, S'Kra Mur, Gnome, Kaldar, Prydaen and Rakash)

Every now and then the argument of 'new races' comes up. Some people want them...some don't.

They're currently planning to add a few more in DR2 and there's a metric crapload of discussion on which races people want/demand.

How many is too many, though?

Tricky question, that.

Does your MUD lean more towards RP? If so...however many your world can support. Also however many you can write up history and such for.

Does your MUD lean more towards...whatever?(heh) If so...how much diversity(stat/skill-wise) can you manage to code in? Seems silly to create RaceX1...only to have RaceX2 which is only a minor variation of RaceX2.(Half-races being the exception...but those are best kept limited)

Keep in mind...this is from a non-builder perspective. Feel free to call me an idiot.

-SoulTorn D.

[SoulTorn]

Forgot to add a link to the DragonRealms races, so you don't get so confused.

-SoulTorn D.

[Estarra]

Wow, Soultorn, youwent back to the original question... I think I may faint!

When you ask if the MUD leans more to RP, I assume you mean the MUSH variety where not much significance is placed on stats, abilities, whatever. (I don't know many MUD admins who would admit that their MUDs do not lean to RP.) In any event, I'm hoping to develop a MUD that's RP centered as well as having PvP and bashing aspects. Yes, I want it all!

So, I've been playing around with 15-20 races, trying to make them all unique stat-wise and ability wise, with histories/descriptions for each. Assuming they're all balanced and unique, the questions remains, will players be overwhelmed and/or confused with the race selection.

[Estarra]

By the way, Soultorn, very nice website!

[Grey]

Where I admin, we have 35 races in development. Each races has it's own stat maximums, aptitudes (how fast/slow they learn common skills from the average), abilities (natural talents for common skills), skills (something clever they can use from the start), metabolic rate (regen time), resistances to our six elements; water, fire, earth, wind, light, dark, and hp (hit points), sp (stamina points used for skills), mp (magic points used for casting spells) [all which are functions of stats], armor class that either rises/falls at each level up (we have autolevel), and a speed property that controls the amount of attacks they can have each round of combat from 1 attack per 4 rounds to 4 attacks per 1 round.. Humans are taken as an average and a points chart allows a builder to make a new race by plugging numbers into an excel chart that calulates it all for you (math is an exact science). SoA is balance-heavy and I feel that as long as each race is balanced, it will be seen as a viable choice for players to play as. So I don't think any number of races is too many.. unless you're talking like 100+, in which case players probably won't be able to decide and many races will be like eachother with only slight, undistinguishable diffences. Role-playing your races, of course, is always a plus

[Estarra]

Thanks, Grey! That puts my mind at rest somewhat.

BTW, I looked at your website to see what races you have but the "Races" button took me to an ikonboard (where races weren't discussed). I found races on the "Features" page which had a hyperlink to the "Races scroll" for detailed information, but that just took me to the top of the Features page. Then, when I tried to log in, I couldn't connect. (Just thought you might want to know.)

[SoulTorn]

Thanks for the compliment on the site. Wish I could take credit for it. Hehe.

As for being overwhelmed by race selection...that depends on the player. <G>

Races usually kind of 'jump' out at me when I'm playing a new MUD/MUSH. Generally prefer a brief 'synopsis' of each race.

And.....I'm going to hold off on posting any more until I get some coffee in me.

-SoulTorn D.