Originally posted by Cephus404

Be sure to let us know when they've actually changed.  I'm really tired of people announcing big things are on the way, they never seem to actually arrive.

Indeed. 38 studios has some great names attached, but I haven't heard anything that tells me that 'Copernicus' will be anything but a darker WoW.

IF it ever gets made.

Originally posted by pojung

 

Sadly, you missed the post I made following this one.

Business, as a by-product, creates revenue. But one must first understand what revenue symbolizes. What is currency? What defines its value?

The primary goal of business is to offer services, products etc that generate increased wellbeing- again through fair trade.

Approach this from your angle: if the primary goal of business *was* to *make money* then it wouldn't matter *what* you're in business *for*. It doesn't matter what you're peddling, so long as it's making dough. Under this angle, you quickly see how that falls apart. Remember that currency is defined based on what it can purchase, not based on the value that is written on its tender. 100,000USD is nothing. But in a market of free trade, I might be able to purchase a Porsche.

But the person selling the Porsche is not approaching business from the angle of 'make mad cash'. They are arguably interested in delivering the best *PRODUCT* to the market that they are able. Yet, because of this focus, and as a by-product of 'good business', their PRODUCT *generates* cash flow.

 

This example complete avoids the major, glaring, issue with profit-focused industry: breakdown in ethics. Just because the 'measuring stick' chooses currency as its standard unit, and just because of the reality of maintaining a business involves currency... does not allude in the slightest that it should be the primary focus. When it does become the primary focus, you get beauties like Enron, Schwinn, GM and the like. Less product, more revenue... which ironically leads to more bankrupt.

What you are defending is something which is usually called stakeholder theory and what the other guy is stating is shareholder theory. Most finance professionals generally have faith in the latter. If you are a bit interested, there's some simple reading readily avaliable.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Cephus404

Be sure to let us know when they've actually changed.  I'm really tired of people announcing big things are on the way, they never seem to actually arrive.

Indeed. 38 studios has some great names attached, but I haven't heard anything that tells me that 'Copernicus' will be anything but a darker WoW.

IF it ever gets made.

IDK. Valid points, but... idk.

Let's preface this by saying that we, the public, the consumers, only know what is exposed to us. Most of which being filtered information.

On Curt: we know he was a huge fan of UO, EQ, WoW... and we know he's financially independant, and his kids' kids will likely be as well. From newsclippings, we know he has reached the point of 'personal investment' that if he 'takes one more step, there's no turning back'. Reading between the lines, he's put all his stock into making something that he's obviously passionate about. We know he's assembled some of, if not the most, creative minds in the biz. He's assembled some amazing chiefs of PR (Denise Kaigler), operations (Bill Thomas) etc. He bought out a solid gaming studio that fell into financial straights. He has a head for business, and he has a passion for gaming. Hype aside, it's more than evident that the man is equipped with the possibility of making it happen (excess of 100 million in salaray alone?) and knowing how to make it happen (assembled a who's who role call of the industry within a single building in MA).

But let's sidetrack a bit. Arena.Net and GW2. This is clearly a title that is going to launch. And while I'm not 'sold' just quite yet on how well it will deliver, there's hard evidence that there is an a studio that is clearly marching to the beat of their own drum (the *only* AAA studio with a B2P business model, for starts). There is no denying that the vision is very concise, very purposeful and organized from the manifesto that was published. There's also no denying that the quality of work that was put into the animations that were released is... well, I personally can't say I've seen their equal in the genre- can you?

Sidetracking some more. WAR 40k. Out of this short list of three, this is the one most guilty of speculation-ridden. Not to beat that horse's corpse, but we have witnessed what Vigil has done with Darksiders, and seeing the dilligence to the WAR40k MMO project's secrecy bodes well for a statement that 'this studio is taking this seriously'. Equally, there's undeniably a desire to create hype, but the subjective opinion of mine is that THQ isn't a financial titan, and know with an IP like 40k, it's gotta be a 'make it, or break it' deal.

I know it's been touted for a while now this whole 'the storm is clearing'. But, hype aside, I truly do humbly believe the industry has finished teething and is ready to produce some worthwhile products.

Will Coper be a dark WoW? Maybe. Undeniably there will be elements present- either by design or correlation. Will GW2 deliver a playing experience that brings some 'old school' elements back into the present-day AAA offerings? Will 40k bomb or live up to the droves of [aging] 40k fans worldwide?

Gotcha- who knows, right? But here's to hoping while remaining skeptical.

Originally posted by Aercus

Originally posted by pojung

 

Sadly, you missed the post I made following this one.

Business, as a by-product, creates revenue. But one must first understand what revenue symbolizes. What is currency? What defines its value?

The primary goal of business is to offer services, products etc that generate increased wellbeing- again through fair trade.

Approach this from your angle: if the primary goal of business *was* to *make money* then it wouldn't matter *what* you're in business *for*. It doesn't matter what you're peddling, so long as it's making dough. Under this angle, you quickly see how that falls apart. Remember that currency is defined based on what it can purchase, not based on the value that is written on its tender. 100,000USD is nothing. But in a market of free trade, I might be able to purchase a Porsche.

But the person selling the Porsche is not approaching business from the angle of 'make mad cash'. They are arguably interested in delivering the best *PRODUCT* to the market that they are able. Yet, because of this focus, and as a by-product of 'good business', their PRODUCT *generates* cash flow.

 

This example complete avoids the major, glaring, issue with profit-focused industry: breakdown in ethics. Just because the 'measuring stick' chooses currency as its standard unit, and just because of the reality of maintaining a business involves currency... does not allude in the slightest that it should be the primary focus. When it does become the primary focus, you get beauties like Enron, Schwinn, GM and the like. Less product, more revenue... which ironically leads to more bankrupt.

What you are defending is something which is usually called stakeholder theory and what the other guy is stating is shareholder theory. Most finance professionals generally have faith in the latter. If you are a bit interested, there's some simple reading readily avaliable.

Skimmed. Ironically, when disputing this topic, I don't mentally even picture Wall Street, but mom and pops shops. The terminology alone might give indication to the canter of the argument.

What came first: the product or the cash? The product.

What purpose does cash serve? To purchase products.

What purpose do products server? To increase quality of life.

Put the focus on the products.

Edit: there are also ample 'industry professional' opinions concerning this matter that fly opposite to the course suggested here. One such is an article linked from US News and World Report concerning business ethics that the quoted post makes reference to (the first line).

Originally posted by pojung

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Cephus404

Be sure to let us know when they've actually changed.  I'm really tired of people announcing big things are on the way, they never seem to actually arrive.

Indeed. 38 studios has some great names attached, but I haven't heard anything that tells me that 'Copernicus' will be anything but a darker WoW.

IF it ever gets made.

IDK. Valid points, but... idk.

Let's preface this by saying that we, the public, the consumers, only know what is exposed to us. Most of which being filtered information.

That really doesn't need to be said. It's obvious.

On Curt: we know he was a huge fan of UO, EQ, WoW...

He is (or at least, was) a tabletop wargamer and well known (in certain geeky circles) for playing Advanced Squad Leader.

and we know he's financially independant, and his kids' kids will likely be as well. From newsclippings, we know he has reached the point of 'personal investment' that if he 'takes one more step, there's no turning back'. Reading between the lines, he's put all his stock into making something that he's obviously passionate about. We know he's assembled some of, if not the most, creative minds in the biz. He's assembled some amazing chiefs of PR (Denise Kaigler), operations (Bill Thomas) etc. He bought out a solid gaming studio that fell into financial straights. He has a head for business, and he has a passion for gaming. Hype aside, it's more than evident that the man is equipped with the possibility of making it happen (excess of 100 million in salaray alone?) and knowing how to make it happen (assembled a who's who role call of the industry within a single building in MA).

At least one of the big names has left. Jeff Strain?

But let's sidetrack a bit. Arena.Net and GW2. This is clearly a title that is going to launch. And while I'm not 'sold' just quite yet on how well it will deliver, there's hard evidence that there is an a studio that is clearly marching to the beat of their own drum (the *only* AAA studio with a B2P business model, for starts). There is no denying that the vision is very concise, very purposeful and organized from the manifesto that was published. There's also no denying that the quality of work that was put into the animations that were released is... well, I personally can't say I've seen their equal in the genre- can you?

It's not a hgih priority for me.

Ask me who is more beautiful - Jessica Alba or Janeane Garafalo. Alba, of course. Ask me who I would rather have a relationship with. Garafalo, without a doubt.

Games are like women -  past a certain point, appearance is less important than personality and intelligence.

Sidetracking some more. WAR 40k. Out of this short list of three, this is the one most guilty of speculation-ridden. Not to beat that horse's corpse, but we have witnessed what Vigil has done with Darksiders, and seeing the dilligence to the WAR40k MMO project's secrecy bodes well for a statement that 'this studio is taking this seriously'. Equally, there's undeniably a desire to create hype, but the subjective opinion of mine is that THQ isn't a financial titan, and know with an IP like 40k, it's gotta be a 'make it, or break it' deal.

 

I know it's been touted for a while now this whole 'the storm is clearing'. But, hype aside, I truly do humbly believe the industry has finished teething and is ready to produce some worthwhile products.

Will Coper be a dark WoW? Maybe. Undeniably there will be elements present- either by design or correlation. Will GW2 deliver a playing experience that brings some 'old school' elements back into the present-day AAA offerings? Will 40k bomb or live up to the droves of [aging] 40k fans worldwide?

Gotcha- who knows, right? But here's to hoping while remaining skeptical.

I don't know if I have any hope left. Cynicism is in unlimited supply.

In my dreams - I have both women.

Originally posted by pojung

Originally posted by Aercus

Originally posted by pojung

 

Sadly, you missed the post I made following this one.

Business, as a by-product, creates revenue. But one must first understand what revenue symbolizes. What is currency? What defines its value?

The primary goal of business is to offer services, products etc that generate increased wellbeing- again through fair trade.

Approach this from your angle: if the primary goal of business *was* to *make money* then it wouldn't matter *what* you're in business *for*. It doesn't matter what you're peddling, so long as it's making dough. Under this angle, you quickly see how that falls apart. Remember that currency is defined based on what it can purchase, not based on the value that is written on its tender. 100,000USD is nothing. But in a market of free trade, I might be able to purchase a Porsche.

But the person selling the Porsche is not approaching business from the angle of 'make mad cash'. They are arguably interested in delivering the best *PRODUCT* to the market that they are able. Yet, because of this focus, and as a by-product of 'good business', their PRODUCT *generates* cash flow.

 

This example complete avoids the major, glaring, issue with profit-focused industry: breakdown in ethics. Just because the 'measuring stick' chooses currency as its standard unit, and just because of the reality of maintaining a business involves currency... does not allude in the slightest that it should be the primary focus. When it does become the primary focus, you get beauties like Enron, Schwinn, GM and the like. Less product, more revenue... which ironically leads to more bankrupt.

What you are defending is something which is usually called stakeholder theory and what the other guy is stating is shareholder theory. Most finance professionals generally have faith in the latter. If you are a bit interested, there's some simple reading readily avaliable.

Skimmed. Ironically, when disputing this topic, I don't mentally even picture Wall Street, but mom and pops shops. The terminology alone might give indication to the canter of the argument.

 

What came first: the product or the cash? The product.

What purpose does cash serve? To purchase products.

What purpose do products server? To increase quality of life.

Put the focus on the products.

 

Edit: there are also ample 'industry professional' opinions concerning this matter that fly opposite to the course suggested here. One such is an article linked from US News and World Report concerning business ethics that the quoted post makes reference to (the first line).

What actually came first was the company :)

My opinion on the matter is highly Friedman/classical liberal oriented: Companies exist to maximize their shareholders wealth. In that view, what you are saying is a mean to that end and not the end itself.

Originally posted by Aercus

What actually came first was the company :)

My opinion on the matter is highly Friedman/classical liberal oriented: Companies exist to maximize their shareholders wealth. In that view, what you are saying is a mean to that end and not the end itself.

I think you got my quip with that , so in a more literal sense I'll ask the following:

Can a company exist without cash? Can a company exist without a product? Sure, but it's kinda moot to be registered and not making money/producing.

Do I even need a company to collect cash? Do I even need a company to make a product? Why, come to think of it, I don't golly-gee-willakers!

The problem with the Friedman mindset is that it promotes inflation. Money's worth is determined by what it purchases. Making more money while a market loses product quality results in precisely this. To the contrary, if I make better products while a market fluctuates, I hold steady in true 'value'. Under the premise that a company exists to maximize shareholder gain, we first skip over the fact that company's aren't a necessity to begin with, and that the gain in question is 'worth less' (or worthless!) if corners are cut (as they always are) to maximize that gain. Because other companies play the same game, everyone's profits go up everywhere, but product value diminishes. End result: inflation, often fraud. Hence why many of the 'industry experts' I read directly oppose the point of you suggested was the norm. I think our findings are absolutely empirical in that regard.

And yes, that is very much the angle I argue: only I use the term 'by-product' due to its pun brother, the 'buy-product'

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by pojung

That really doesn't need to be said. It's obvious.

 

He is (or at least, was) a tabletop wargamer and well known (in certain geeky circles) for playing Advanced Squad Leader.

 

At least one of the big names has left. Jeff Strain?

 

It's not a hgih priority for me.

Ask me who is more beautiful - Jessica Alba or Janeane Garafalo. Alba, of course. Ask me who I would rather have a relationship with. Garafalo, without a doubt.

Games are like women -  past a certain point, appearance is less important than personality and intelligence.

I don't know if I have any hope left. Cynicism is in unlimited supply.

 

In my dreams - I have both women.

My momma always told me to introduce everyone. There was an elephant in the room...

The point being he's a passionate gamer- and he's in a position to influence the gaming market.

Jeff Strain? The name was never on the 38 Studios radar? Timelines would suggest this. But if indeed he was... that's one name in a sea of many others who are 'in the know' in their respective fields that are still working away. I'm not here to argue for or against the casting call that Curt has assembled, but merely observing it.

I'm not sure you registered the 2 seperate points for GW2? Or if you did, I'm the one not registering the register! I mentioned how the design of the overall game (its mechanics) was very solid, very focused... and that the animations (aestethics) have been nothing short of industry best. My suggestion being that *based on what Arena.Net will have us know at this time*, the merger of these 2 will/should result in a solid playing experience.

(GL with that whole woman pickle)

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by Varny

People dismiss it as purely nostalgia but frigging we've pointed out what is wrong with modern MMOs....

First off, you've pointed out your opinion about modern MMOs, that doesn't mean there is anything actually wrong with them, only that you, as an individual, don't care for them.  Your opinion is noted.  Secondly, it's clear that you represent a tiny minority of the overall MMO marketplace, someone who is part of an infinitessimally small group that is unhappy with the direction MMOs went.  Also noted.  However, you have to be realistic and acknowledge that no MMO developer in their right mind is going to cater to a group so financially irrelevant as the old school gamer.  You had your shot.  You lost.  At least admit defeat gracefully.  It's the mature thing to do.

Says you with all the facts to back your claims .....

There was plenty of features in older MMOs that were great. I don't know, nor do you know the percentage of players that would play a game with features of the previous MMOs if it was a great game. Don't pretend you have these facts.

I guess a lot of people were nostaglic for the original Coke too, despite the fact that management ran a bunch of taste tests and studies and decided New Coke was better.  That didn't go over so well.  The People like what the like, and no amount of corporate execs shoving crap down our throats is going to change that.  Coke learned its lesson.

How many other colas predated the current formula coca-cola currently uses in the market place on its eventual rise to dominance of the cola industry?

It is pretty easy to craft an analogy to suit any viewpoint without really reinforcing the topic being discussed.

Originally posted by Daffid011

How many other colas predated the current formula coca-cola currently uses in the market place on its eventual rise to dominance of the cola industry?

 

It is pretty easy to craft an analogy to suit any viewpoint without really reinforcing the topic being discussed.

 My analogy doesn't reinforce the topic, it refutes it. 

And there is only one Coke.  If you're a Pepsi drinker that's your problem.

Originally posted by pojung

Jeff Strain? The name was never on the 38 Studios radar? Timelines would suggest this. But if indeed he was... that's one name in a sea of many others who are 'in the know' in their respective fields that are still working away. I'm not here to argue for or against the casting call that Curt has assembled, but merely observing it.

I'm not sure you registered the 2 seperate points for GW2? Or if you did, I'm the one not registering the register! I mentioned how the design of the overall game (its mechanics) was very solid, very focused... and that the animations (aestethics) have been nothing short of industry best. My suggestion being that *based on what Arena.Net will have us know at this time*, the merger of these 2 will/should result in a solid playing experience.

(GL with that whole woman pickle)

It was Brett Close the CEO, who left.

My point about the animations was that they were not a high priority for me WRT game quality.

Originally posted by qombi

There was plenty of features in older MMOs that were great. I don't know, nor do you know the percentage of players that would play a game with features of the previous MMOs if it was a great game. Don't pretend you have these facts.

Nobody knows because nobody has done any credible research and that's what any company is going to need before spending millions of dollars and many years developing a game which may or may not have an audience!  These companies do tons of market research before committing to a game design, the fact that they do not make old-school games has to say something about the results of that research.

Companies make games for the market that actually exists, not the one that only exists in your head.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by qombi

There was plenty of features in older MMOs that were great. I don't know, nor do you know the percentage of players that would play a game with features of the previous MMOs if it was a great game. Don't pretend you have these facts.

Nobody knows because nobody has done any credible research and that's what any company is going to need before spending millions of dollars and many years developing a game which may or may not have an audience!  These companies do tons of market research before committing to a game design, the fact that they do not make old-school games has to say something about the results of that research.

Companies make games for the market that actually exists, not the one that only exists in your head.

I see, that must be why all these newly release games are doing great, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, Age of Conan and other "researched" MMOs? In my opinion they go by the biggest loud mouths on forum boards that complain about everything in games being too hard or tediious. I believe these newest crop of games took it too far, leaving people unsatisfied. 

There has been studies that suggest humans think they want everything laid in their lap but in actuality people do want to struggle some to obtain what they want. This makes them feel satisfied. Marketing research can only take you so far. I never claimed to know what everyone wants, I said you and I both don't know how many people would like a lot of features of previous MMOs that are not included in new MMOs. You are the one with facts that only exist in your head.

Originally posted by qombi

I see, that must be why all these newly release games are doing great, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, Age of Conan and other "researched" MMOs? In my opinion they go by the biggest loud mouths on forum boards that complain about everything in games being too hard or tediious. I believe these newest crop of games took it too far, leaving people unsatisfied.

Bad market research is as bad as no market research.  A lot of them get stuck between what the gamers want and what the investors want, or in the case of STO, perhaps what the license owners want.  I think most developers are relatively intelligent and, if given the time and the money, would come up with games that the majority of players would want to play, they just get pushed toward a cheaper and faster solution by impatient investors who want a return on their investment right now.

Originally posted by Scot

You are right guys everything about old MMO’s was just awful.

Just a second guys, I am getting on my new MMO bicycle:

Scot climbs on his new bicycle, puts on his pink and white fluffy cycling helm, cartoon themed elbow and knee pads, looks back to make sure his stabilisers are on otherwise he might fall off! Then with a grin worthy of a Stepford dad he rides of into the sunrise pressing his bell so everyone knows not to bump into him (tring! tring!).

 

Yeah it was all just so awful.

Vanilla EQ travel times? Final Fantasy XI gil sinks?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by qombi

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by qombi

There was plenty of features in older MMOs that were great. I don't know, nor do you know the percentage of players that would play a game with features of the previous MMOs if it was a great game. Don't pretend you have these facts.

Nobody knows because nobody has done any credible research and that's what any company is going to need before spending millions of dollars and many years developing a game which may or may not have an audience!  These companies do tons of market research before committing to a game design, the fact that they do not make old-school games has to say something about the results of that research.

Companies make games for the market that actually exists, not the one that only exists in your head.

I see, that must be why all these newly release games are doing great, Champions Online, Star Trek Online, Age of Conan and other "researched" MMOs? In my opinion they go by the biggest loud mouths on forum boards that complain about everything in games being too hard or tediious. I believe these newest crop of games took it too far, leaving people unsatisfied. 

There has been studies that suggest humans think they want everything laid in their lap but in actuality people do want to struggle some to obtain what they want. This makes them feel satisfied. Marketing research can only take you so far. I never claimed to know what everyone wants, I said you and I both don't know how many people would like a lot of features of previous MMOs that are not included in new MMOs. You are the one with facts that only exist in your head.

Research still can't produce a good game if the developers aren't talented enough and/or can't make it fun.   

Hrmmm,  so I guess the result of this discussion is plyers have different types of interests in games?

Whodathunkit?    kkbuhby.

Originally posted by Josher

Research still can't produce a good game if the developers aren't talented enough and/or can't make it fun.   

"Good" is entirely subjective.  What one person considers good, another person will hate.  What really matters in the realm of MMOs, whether you like it or not, is profitability.  Studios are only going to make games they think they can make a profit off of.  No profit = no game.  The reality is, if you fall into a tiny little minority, then nobody is going to make a game catering to you because they'll go out of business.

That's life.  The sooner everyone deals with it, the easier life will be.