Thread: Why no MMO?
View Single Post
Old 04-02-07, 04:29 PM   #7
XanderF
Samurai Navy
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 554
Downloads: 14
Uploads: 0
Default

I'm not sure why everyone seems to think I'm suggesting "WoW with submarines".

It seems to be where this thread is getting derailed, and I never implied (or want) any such thing - I said so specifically in an earlier post.

All I'm looking for is Sh3/Sh4 with a more expansive multiplayer component - expansive enough to be considered 'massive'. No 'grinding', indeed no levelling at ALL (who said levelling was a requirement of an MMO? How did that even come UP in this conversation?)

Again, we are not talking about changing the foundation of the game to try and target a 6 million+ install base. Nobody wants that. The idea is to just take what is already IN Sh3/Sh4, and just add onto the multiplayer. Ideally, we'd hit 50% of the target audience that ALREADY BOUGHT Sh3/Sh4. No more than that is needed, as each individual copy of any MMO title sold represents many times greater profitability to a company that individual copies of single-player/offline games.

IE., in a cost-benefit analysis of MMOs vs 'offline' games, you don't need to sell MORE copies to make the MMO more profitable, as each copy has much higher value over time. You only need to sell a significant fraction of the number that you would have sold anyway. An MMO is a license to print money for most companies (monthly fees, from every subscriber, for EVERY MONTH they play). What WE get out of it is a much more massive game, interaction with thousands of people playing at the same time, and more active, continued development than the half dozen patches we can at most optimistically expect of SP games.
__________________
XanderF is offline   Reply With Quote