The future of gaming

[Ratt]

Double posting this puppy, sorry... but this was something I wanted to address.

No offense, Ratt, but I think you will be too old to physically perform by the time the VR that you are talking about is available. This leads to another point. How do children, out of shape people, handicapped individuals, women, etc. play in the game world that you are talking about? How does anyone but a star athelete swing that 15lb broadsword for an entire raid? Although I think it would be much better for the average gamer as far as helping them to keep in shape, I don't see it happening in the main stream. People play games to escape reality. Why would they play something that exposed their physical limitations?

You're right, I might be physically too old, but I hope not. The lure of a game world like that is that you can be someone else... you don't necessarily need to be the sword wielding hero. So you're big and fat and haven't excercised a day in your life... be a fryer providing comedic relief, etc... You see 'em all the time in movies ... a game can be built around that. By the time we have something available that's immersive, I think computers will be able to detect "funny" and "clever" and assing "combat points" of equal value to non-physical things that would help turn the tide of a battle. Heck, you could be a fat wizard who never gets out of his chair!

There's lots of things you could be beyond teh muscle bound hero. For me, personally, I wouldn't be wielding that 2H sword, I would probably gravitate towards a magic wielding class, or perhaps a more stealthy, subversive class like thieves or some such. There are lots of variations and tweaks that could be made to overcome physical limitations towards that end.

But it would be fun to get all Yoda on an Orc Pawns ass now and then, just to keep in shape.

[fgay trader]

Originally posted by high_jeeves
I think the majority of online players do not like PVP, I think this is evidenced in the # of blue servers vs. pvp servers, as well as the popularity of low PVP games (EQ, AC) vs higher PVP games (AO, DAOC).

I agree that people tend not to like PvP, but that could be because a game hasn't been designed that implements it properly.

PvP in EQ is broken and even AO and DAoC fall short of their original goals when it comes to PvP. What exactly breaks PvP? Is it the levelling system? Overpowering equipment? Unreasonable death penalties? Probably all of the above. How do you fix that? Well, I'd start by abolishing the entire levelling route and introducing some other forms of character development that not necessairily effect how "strong" your toon is compared to others.

Originally posted by high_jeeves
The major problem with PVP is a lack of control, or long term punishment. You end up with PKs, griefers, etc... You will also find, I beleive, that the majority of casual gamers will never move to a PvP system. PvP, as it stands today, requires a significant time investment to be good at. Pretty much, those people that play more will be better (both the person, and the character). This leaves casual gamers at a severe disadvantage.

You have the same griefers in a PvE environment, they just find more inginious ways to ruin other people's fun. As for having a better character the more you play, the same holds true for the non-PvP game as well. MMORPG's tend to encourage powergamers, while casual players often get the shaft. Anyone who tried to level a non-soloable class in EQ knows what a pain and time sink it is. I do agree however, that you have a lot less control over your character's progression in a PvP world. But more often than not this encourages cooperation, teamwork and friendships even more so than a non-PvP environment would. A true PvP Guild becomes more than just a private chat channel, but a close group of friends who share the same ideas. It's a much better way to make people work together than making solo-levelling impossible.

[wiz60]

This is a very interesting thread.

Most of the discussion has taken place around the technology and game play attributes of EQ.

I agree with one statement -

"There will never be another Everquest"

The reasons are not technological - in my opinion.

Everquest has a compelling social aspect to it that is being missed in these discussions. There has been a lot of crap and hype on TV about people killing themselves over EQ. Don't think for a minute I blame Sony for this - any more than I blame a car company for the actions of a drunk driver. But do you think frame rates, and game perspective and all that causes people to off themselves???

NO!!!


The game is a society in itself. The people strive for achievement to "keep up with the Jones's" - some of you no doubt do it in real-life too. Those of you who have one!!

The social dynamics will keep Everquest moving - and there are many - who may tire of it an leave - and I bet most of them will be very reluctant to ever invest time in a "new game" - once they wean themselves of EQ.

Now back to technology - sorry for this disparate view.

[wimp]

I believe the next logical step has little to do with Technology. Although i'm sure AI will play a major role in games to come, I do not believe it is the answer either.

As stated before, AI will never equaly match a random human. It's just not fun when they beat you silly, and equaly not fun when they're too easy.

Although PVP has much to offer, the pray vs the preditor is to harsh to be any real fun. ...unless of corse it's a FPS.

I have another idea, taken in part from Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age. I think the next step is paying people to play oposite customers. Imagine the change in quality...

Even when Virtual Reality comes about, I imagine real people will be required to at least assist in the game world.

I'm thinking Never Winter Nights that is Massivly Multi-player, and some of the participants as well as the DM are payed.

Idealy, I just want to play DND with thousands of other people.

[Raistlin]

Originally posted by fgay trader
Good points, everyone.

Which brings me to another point: AI. The word "intelligence" implies something that today's games cannot possibly deliver. Predefined mob pathing, pre-scripted events, pre-programmed reactions, etc. does not make that mob intelligent. Even a cockroach is more intelligent than an Everquest mob. The game designers try to compensate this, they making monsters tougher to kill by giving them insane hitpoints or resists or abilities that require players to think up new ways of defeating it. But in the end that mob is still only as smart as the macro that drives it and will not learn when players use loopholes that weren't pre-programmed.

*snip*

But how can a game be designed that will work for every type of gamer: a hardcore powerleveller, a PvP-er, an avid roleplayer, a casual player or a complete newb? I do not think it can be. Those classes of gamers want completely different things from the time they invest in a game and when the game makers try to go for the common denominator, so to speak, they end up cutting features and imposing limitations to "level the playing field". That leaves people wanting more and turns them away to try the next thing. One way to please everyone is to make different games for every type of gamer there is, which is needless to say close to impossible. If I knew of another way, I'd be developing that game right now But I look forward to what other companies have to offer and will decide if that game or this one will work for me.

Edit: spelling

See, and I see this and see an opportunity. There is absolutely no reason that mobs can't "learn" from players...there's no reason that you can't design a "world" in stead of a "zone".

I pose this. What would happen if instead of what you have now you were to setup a food chain of mobs. What would happen if instead of repoping a zone every 20 minutes you made the players figure out the balance. You want more rockhoppers to pop? What's above them on the food chain?

How about making a world instead of a zone? Take sanctus seru and katta castelium....people kill sanctus guards for katta faction, well, what the hell are those guards there for? You kill all the sanctus guards? Over run the zone with marus seru mobs, half an hour later, make marus seru a katta castellium protectorate and populate it with Katta mobs.

What's my point? Every computer gaming world to date has done the EXACT same thing. They've made us suspend our disbelief in their world by breaking it into manageable self contained, self absorbed zones. EQ does this somewhat, but every action could theoretically trigger actions across the entire world. Again, create a world, not a zone.

Another question was how could the world be created to cater to all types of gamers? Hell we had this one figured out in the MUD age. How about developing several ways to level? How about doing away with levels COMPLETELY (one of my big problems with all games) and do something more realistic more skills based. You have the socials who don't care about leveling, only doing things with friends, so give them things to do in the towns...bar fights, listening to bards play music or tell stories, allowing characters to own their own bars/inns/etc.

There are SEVERAL things that can be done to increase content and cater to ALL the different gamer types.

Right now, again, you look at EQ and say "Well, this is how games are designed, this is how they must work." I say there is no game designed at this point that even comes CLOSE to being a players game. It's a single story that everyone is involved in. The story of everquest would be titled "How <insert your name here> conquered <insert bad ass mob name here>" By and large, that's it. Everyone talks about the endgame. Can anyone point out to me where the endgame of an AD&D Campaign is? How bout Torg? BattleTech? StarWars? Can anyone out there pick up any gaming system developed for pencil and paper to date and point out to me where the "end game" is? You can't...because there isn't one.

And I leave you this last thought on this discussion. I forget who said we were not playing our game but verants, but they were absolutely correct. The MOMENT you create a goal that is as limited as kill mobs get items to kill more mobs, you rob yourself of the player's game. The largest problem of RPGs is that all your thinking has been Pre-done for you. It has already been determined what your goals should be. MMORPGs have been designed just like single player RPGs, your goals are pre-set, your tactics are pre-determined. Instead of developing a world where you have a choice in what to do, they have developed a game that says you MUST do x, y, and z before you can do A. It all comes down to choices, and everquest, just like all the other RPGs, give you very very few of them.

The death of the computer RPG has not been in technology, it's not been in lack of feeling, lack of will, or lack of want. It's simply piss poor design. The moment a manufacturer/developer thinks outside the baulders gate box is the moment you see something TRUELY spectacular.

--Raistlin

[high_jeeves]

PvP in EQ is broken and even AO and DAoC fall short of their original goals when it comes to PvP. What exactly breaks PvP? Is it the levelling system? Overpowering equipment? Unreasonable death penalties? Probably all of the above. How do you fix that? Well, I'd start by abolishing the entire levelling route and introducing some other forms of character development that not necessairily effect how "strong" your toon is compared to others.

But what you seem to be talking about here becomes awful close to a MMOFPS.. (Massive Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter).. you want less leveling, less equipment, less death penalties. What is left that makes it an RPG? While these types of games may become popular (a huge world of UT2003, or some such), I think they have limited staying power. Character development, equipment gathering, fear of death, these are the things that make an RPG an RPG instead of an action/shooter game. Taking away time investment detaches the player from the character.

You have the same griefers in a PvE environment, they just find more inginious ways to ruin other people's fun. As for having a better character the more you play, the same holds true for the non-PvP game as well.

While both of these are true, I think we can all agree that it is significantly less. I cant think of the last time I had problems with a greifer on a PvP server.. certainly no time in the past year or so.. this may just be because I avoid the annoying zones (you know, the same ones where you have to turn off OOC because everyone it talking about how they are going to "camp" eachothers mothers and such...).

I think that character development should be tied to the amount you play. It almost has to be.. anything that you can do in an hour, i should be able to do 2x as much in 2 hours.. changing that will certainly ruin a game, because nobody will want to play for very long. There are alot of people that have /played much more than I have. Does that affect my game play on a PvP server tho? No, not at all. Does the fact that I have more /played time than other people affect them, no. So, while both of your points above are true, they are fairly insignificant in PvE.

--Jeeves

[Hobo]

I thought of you as I read this press release today Ratt. The part about the economy and such really caught my attention. I'll have to check it out further I guess.

__________________________________________________ __

Project Entropia Goes Gold!

Gothenburg, Sweden - December 10, 2002 - Swedish interactive entertainment developer MindArk today announced the virtual universe Project Entropia is going gold on January 30th 2003. Project Entropia is Sweden's largest software project ever, and has been in development since 1997.

Project Entropia is a three-dimensional virtual universe on the Internet accessible from any computer with an Internet connection, anywhere in the world.

Project Entropia is an entertainment product aimed for global usage across culture, age and sex barriers. The main focus in the development has been to cater to the features desired by online gamers as well as for users engaged in society and community building - those with an interest in meeting other people for social interaction and adventure. Millions of users will be able to interact in the Project Entropia universe.

Project Entropia introduces unique features like a real economy where its currency, PED, is exchangeable with any major currency in the world. The software needed to enjoy Project Entropia is free to download, and this virtual universe is free to enter and spend time in.

"It is even possible to make a living in Project Entropia," says Chairman Benny Iggland. "This is being demonstrated by several of our commercial trial users. A market economy is rapidly evolving, with our users defining prices on various commodities and items available in the virtual universe. Project Entropia will also incorporate real world commodity trading in a three dimensional environment."

"Some 15 million USD have been invested in the development of Project Entropia to date and we expect to continue developing Project Entropia in the years to come for a sum of at least 5 million USD annually," says Managing Director Jan Welter Timkrans.

Even though the release date has been set for January 30th, 2003, it is possible for anyone who wants a head start to immediately enter the Project Entropia universe after downloading the software at www.project-entropia.com.

__________________________________________________ __



Hobo

[someoneelse]

Anyone interested in Project Entropia should first read up on company towns in the history of the coal mining industry. Coal mine companies owned everything, and thus controled the cost of living (groceries, rent, everything). They also controlled how much you could earn. They made sure the the cost of living was just over what you could earn.

Even if a holo-suite like technology existed, it wouldn't by itself create a new paradigm in gaming. A good game design that can take advantage of that technology might. EQ, Doom, and C&C all had game in their genres before them. On the other hand, improved technology is an enabling feature: better 3d graphics for better immersion, the internet for massively multiplayer games, etc.

As others have mentioned here, dynamic content is part of the future. EQ has abundantly show that event though the world is huge, you can still run out of content. What end game guild, or even near end game, hasn't locked horns with another guild over a boss mob? If anything PoP has made this worse by reducing the level range of blue mobs.

Integrating dynamic content with an ongoing story, or just a background story is difficult.

[RSB]

I find single player games largely boring for 2 reasons.
1) The AI is either not realistic or to predictable
2) I like interaction with other people

I view online games as a new social medium. Some people like bowling I like online games.

AI needs to progress from what they are doing now (which is alot of smoke and mirrors) to actual individual AI. Now we are quickly coming to this situation. Thinks that I'm talking about is like.
1) mobs having FoV and realistic eyesight. For example RtCW, an ok game in my opinion, the enimy in that at certian points seemed to have no problem picking you out in the tree line 500 meters away. Same with MoHAA
2) Hearing also needs to be realistic
3) Thought processes need to be individual and controlled by what they see, hear, feel etc.

I think we'll get to Near human AI before Holo decks
I'd think that something better than holodecks would be some NN interface. Both I see as far fetch in the near (15-20years) future.

Games are about roleplaying. Hey I want to be a race car driver, or I want to be a barbarian. But, unless I unstand you wrong ratt, if you want to play a barbarian with a 100 pound sword in a holodeck you better go work out for 6 months so you can lift it. It would be cool to be more immersed in the games but games are often about shedding our phyiscal limitations and doing stuff we can't do. That means playing basketball on a computergame shouldn't be me going into a holodeck and missing 9 out of 10 shots I through, hell I can do that on the court across the road from my place.

I don't think EQ was all the revolutionary, it just took things a bit further. As we move into the future the games will get bigger and bigger, more eye candy etc. Look as AO, Stunning looking game, HUGE world, crappy AI. EQ's AI is non exsistant. Mobs aren't smart, no tactics are used, closest you get to that is casters random spells they throw at you. The econimy of EQ is mediocer. Its purely the social interaction (big chat room) that keeps me playing. Quests are often stupid and many poorly implimented.

Will I play EQ2? Probably give it a go. SWG? definately its starting off HUGE and just getting bigger. Less limitations it seems.

about smell, be interesting to bring in games. They have dvd units that using base scents can produce a variety of oders to go along with what is being viewed but how many people would play a game where a battlefield smells like a real battlefield

Ratt being a end games person is fine for him. But me I'm a live now kind of person. If I die with 10 cents to my name I've won because I've enjoyed the entire journey of life not just the end game. I like to be competative is some aspects but I don't let it ruin my fun if I'm not the best. If I had to be the best at everything I did I would never have started learning the panio or bass, i would never go out dancing, I would never goto the gym, hell I'd curl up and die because there is always someone better than you out there. I'm happy with who I am. If I play a game, win or loose I'm there to have fun. I feel sorry for those that feel that HAVE to win because there must be a big void that you are trying to fill. Just my 2 cents (and I'm not saying ratt has some emotional void)

RSB

[crcerror]

Here is what I wish to see (what I would consider advancement) graphics are gonna be damn impressive with the advent of N30 near cinema quality ..games are going to have to catchup and pass this level ...course graphics aren't everything I use to love to mud ...made me a fast sloppy typist and you had to read or you would die period. So graphics are in my opinion as good as they need to be ...course with 400 people in the bazaar I take that back ...processors will never ever be fast enough.
Things to currently improve gaming:
1) Sound - maybe if I wore a headset or had a 5 compent speaker set I would feel more involved but I think there is major room for improvement here. But imagine hearing a wolf howl when Sow was cast on you from behind you.
2) Feedback - tatical transducers for spell casting, attacks, bumps walls ..last time I levelled I had my speakers up really high and scared myself when I dinged even though I knew it was coming. Also thunder shaking stuff all over my desk. Bulding things into a real computer chair that actually had instructions sent to it from the game would be awesome.
3) Smells -well for me, while it would bring in realism, I think if I spend my whole life indoors I would never want to smell Swamp of No Hope or Inno Swamp.
4) Taste -no nothing Everquest or Sony makes will ever go in my mouth to make a game better.

Awesome topic though
CrC

[Chutney]

This might veer slightly offtopic, but bear with me.

The future of gameing is such a huge topic, I don't think it can be addressed. As to the quote "There can never be another EQ" ... I say THANK GOD!

Over my years of playing EQ, I believe that it was never designed with players in mind ... players are merely the suckers who pay you. P.T. Barnum said "There is a sucker born every minute" ... EQ proves the point. I am not exempt from that ... for I, too, am a sucker.

It is really a genius business plan if you take a step back and look at it. A veritable "Field of Dreams" of the online community ... build it and "they" will come. Build a HUGE (for it's day) world full of conflict. Make advancement painfully slow. Add an in-game economy which screws players at every opportunity. Make players pay a huge price (exp ... which is really just time) for every mistake they, or anybody around them, makes. Add more time sinks ... Quests. Make the world such a harsh place that it encourages building groups. Add in a nice chat interface (i have yet to see another online game with one as good) & guilds. Design the end game require vast numbers of cooperating players. ... and charge $10/month for it.

What does that leave you? Basically environment in which the world is a harsh harsh place ... which encourages social interactions ... which builds friendships & comradarie in overcomeing common obstacles. IMHO, that reminds me a lot of the military. Genius. They have built one of the largest online support groups ... and THEY are common antagonist as well! Genius.

It also explains why they are so slothful about fixing anything. Anything that slows down or interrupts the leveling progress, helps them financially. They have no incentive to do so.

OK OK OK ... so where am I going with this rant? Here it is. The future of gameing is currently in the hands of corporations similar to Verant whose incentives are purely financial. We've already seen a lot of competition to EQ ... which haven't been nearly as popular. Why? PvP (the rallying call of most recent MMORPGs) is really nothing more than a search for exploits.

IMHO, the only real advancement in online gameing will be by the gamers and for the gamers. A game designed for the players instead of as a $$ crop. Technology wise this is possible now without all the next generation gadgets.

OK. I'm done. Let the flames begin.

[high_jeeves]

Sorry Chutney, but I think that is a very niave approach. Corporations exist to make money. Making a long winded speech in order to say "Verant sucks because all they want to do is make money" is silly. Of course that is what they do. I dont buy any of the gripes about how terrible EQ is. Or how you hope there will never be another EQ. For some reason, 400,000+ people enjoy it. That by itself means that they are doing more things right than the other guys. Taking credit away from them for that because it isnt perfect is silly. Whining about something you are paying for (and probably have been for years) is fairly hypocrytical.

Are there problems in EQ? Sure.
Are there problems in every other game? Sure.
Is this ever going to change? No.
Are you still paying them? Yes.

They are doing something right then...

You say they are "slothful" about fixing bugs? Let me guess, you are not a programmer, or have never worked on a large project. Bugs cant all be fixed right away, some will never be fixed because the ROI just isnt there to fix them.

game designed for the players instead of as a $$ crop.

The problem here is, this just wont happen. The reason? It costs MILLIONS of dollars a month to run a game like this. That isnt going to change anytime in the near future (or probably far-future for that matter). It takes full time coders years and years to develop these projects. Companies dont survive by having happy players, they survive by having money. The two arent necessarily the same thing.

Until gamers start to write their own games, and pay their own hardware and bandwidth costs to host those games, they only have control of one thing: whether or not they play. If you think EQ is so horrible, stop supporting them, and their evil financial empire. Go write your own game.. give it away for free.. a decent game only takes a team of semi-experienced devs a few years to write.. I look forward to yours.

The argue that the future of gaming SHOULD be in the hands of corporations. They are the ones with the financial means to do research, spend time on development, artwork, R&D, and design to make and support excellent games. The opensource/public community does not have these resources (particularly in artwork and hardware/bandwidth).

--Jeeves

[Chutney]

Excellent.

Sorry Chutney, but I think that is a very niave approach. Corporations exist to make money. Making a long winded speech in order to say "Verant sucks because all they want to do is make money" is silly.

I am a naive person. Idealistic, too. I don't contest that. My point was not as you quoted above, however. A point of my post was rather that Verant sucks because of the way in which they treat their players.

For some reason, 400,000+ people enjoy it. That by itself means that they are doing more things right than the other guys.

My beliefs as to why it is popular are stated in my previous post. Purely phychological. Genius plan. I admire the vision while simultaneously loathe them for implementing it.

You say they are "slothful" about fixing bugs? Let me guess, you are not a programmer, or have never worked on a large project. Bugs cant all be fixed right away, some will never be fixed because the ROI just isnt there to fix them.

Programmer by profession for more than 10 years (yes that was after graduating from a 4 year college with a degree in Computer Science) with work experience on a vast many projects of various sizes including Military planning projects (used by joint ops strategic planning), scientific supercollider data analysis projects (silly little place called fermilab), web application design (mostly financial analysis systems & news distribution) ... but this isn't a resume. I honestly believe that I am qualified to have a professional opinion ... and that is that VI is slothful, ineffecient, and has poor implementation in the best of cases. I've seen dogs who put more planning and forethought into sitting down than VI puts into some patches.

Companies dont survive by having happy players, they survive by having money.

Offtopic, but this reminds me of one of my favorite quotes ...

Our users will know fear and cower before our software. Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
- from the list, "Top 12 things likely to be overheard if you had a Klingon programmer in your company"

If you think EQ is so horrible, stop supporting them, and their evil financial empire. Go write your own game.. give it away for free.. a decent game only takes a team of semi-experienced devs a few years to write.. I look forward to yours.

EQ is pretty bad. I have had that opinion for quite some time. As for me writing my own, I really do have quite enough to do already.

The argue that the future of gaming SHOULD be in the hands of corporations.

I agree wholeheartedly that corporations should be the ones developing games, but instead of accepting the canned dog food that has been slapped on my plate, I dream of a company whose dream is satisfied players ... because I honestly believe that if that is ever achieved, the players and $$ will also come. That is MY field of dreams.

[high_jeeves]

Well, i hate to derail this thread further, but here are some considerations:

honestly believe that I am qualified to have a professional opinion ... and that is that VI is slothful, ineffecient, and has poor implementation in the best of cases. I've seen dogs who put more planning and forethought into sitting down than VI puts into some patches.

I am also a developer, and have been for quite some time. And I disagree with your assertion here. I think given the game development talent pool, they do an excellent job. Compare them to other developers within their space (Game development). Take into account the fact that their most senior guys are getting paid half of what an equally qualified non-game developer makes. Take a look at other games in their specific market, AC, DAoC, AO (how many months did it take before AO was even remotely playable?). I think the guys at Verant do a pretty respectable job. I think you give them very little credit, when you have no idea what is involved.

I also dont want to jump on your resume, but have you ever worked on a large client/server project that has 24 hr uptime, the complexity level that we can assume their codebase has, and has 400,000 users that are very passionate? I have not, I doubt you have either, so the judgement of their patching abilites, and comparison of them to dogs sitting is a bit pretentious... you make an implicit assumption that you can do it better, when you have no idea what is involved.

I dream of a company whose dream is satisfied players

This just isnt very realistic. Every company has a dream of satisfied players. Every game is written by gamers. Nothing happens without money. Satisfied players != money. It costs more money to satisfy a player above a base level (the level EQ is at) than that person is willing to pay to be satisfied. If that werent the case, companies would jack up rates, and have more support for players. Look at legends as a prime example of this. Here is a server with more content, better support, and it costs more. There is ONE of those servers...

Lets say Verant decided they were going to really rock on bug fixing. They go hire a few more developers, but that eats into profits. So now they have to raise rates. How many people do they lose if they jack rates by 3 bucks? How does that compare to the people they lose if they continue at their current pricing scheme, and dont fix the old bugs? Its a business, the goal is to make money. Consumers are cheap, they will take a certain level of frustration before they will pay for hapiness. Consumers are also selfish, things that make them happy may be terrible for the game in the long run. Realization of this is what makes for a succesfull game, and company.

So, to try to bring this back around to the topic, and off of the "verant sucks, i can do it better" rant:

Corporations run games, games need to make money to stay around. That is always going to be a part of games in the future. I wonder if anyone else has a view as to how the business aspect of the gaming industry will affect game development in the future? Will competition increase, or decrease?

I think we are about to hit a point of a number of game companies disappearing, especially in the MMORPG space. These games require very large pools of cash to start and run. It is also much less likely that a single player will be actively playing multiple games at once (perhaps 2, maybe 3, but 4+?). Offline (or LAN) games have the advantage that you may own and play many recent ones at once, because the time commitment is low. With the 5+ new online games coming out soon, how many will capture enough players to maintain their costs, and pay for their initial capital output? What will the result of this be for the industry?

--Jeeves

[quackrabbit]

I agree wholeheartedly that corporations should be the ones developing games, but instead of accepting the canned dog food that has been slapped on my plate, I dream of a company whose dream is satisfied players ... because I honestly believe that if that is ever achieved, the players and $$ will also come. That is MY field of dreams.

If you would stop and look at EQ's churn (account retention) rate you will see the same thing that the exec's at Sony see: EQ players ARE happy.

If you're not happy then don't e-bay, but cancel your account instead.

The only way that the suits are going to be able to tell that people are no longer happy is when their pocketbooks run dry.

Quack