the beta was set for all janery.
mean they got money for make game turn for all the month.
why dont start again server , only run to increase stabiliti server first.
and make wish in P2P now.
like 10 or 15$ per month now , and increase price later when game evolve.
alow them time to go with more open source stuff , like change 3D renderer .....
I can recall that there has been a case where UO counselors (unpaid volunteers) sued EA and tried to get payment for their efforts. After this incident companies have been quite reluctant to include volunteers as part of their customer support...
It was directly in reference to the suggestion of having players be volunteer CS.
Are you sure he ment that to any volunteers like a moderator or a GM? He may of just ment designers and artists who had direct links to the source code.
About MR and volunteers, Marc stated that he was very reluctant to to have any volunteers working for the game because of the legalities that happen once you give someone any sort of compensation, even a game account for free. That is why MR didn't want to go that route.
Hello.
Regarding the problem with maintaining staff for the game I could recommend doing the same as we do in RiskYourLife. There we have volunteers, mature, good people that know lot about the game, all of it's functions, about how to hold up a firm community and alike. They don't get paid, and they do it for free. They are volunteers. Such as GMs, guides, and a forum admin like myself. We do it because we love the game and we want it kept alive. I was really shaken when I heard Wish was cancelled. I had high hopes for it, and I had played it for a couple of days before the cancellation.. I was totally entagled by it. The world was wonderful, everything perfect it felt. I could have spared more than 15 ? a month to play it.
Anyway on topic again. I understand it's harder not to pay a permanent development team, but as far it's regarding community work and GMing you have another option. I wonder if the original Wish team thought about this.
Best Regards.
/Elsy
The problem is not only how much you can afford to play, but also how much time you will pay for it.
Uhm ... it was more about PAY to play. ;)
And no, UO needed people to play for even getting in beta so they would not be the first - actually the unsuspected success with that donation drive made UO was considered seriously suddenly ...
Hamilton, one of the biggest problems with a P2P design for a MMORPG is that of keeping a persistant world. Also, with a MMORPG, you want to make sure your game world is secure. In a P2P network, you are trusting the clients too much. The clients are your least trustworthy part to the whole game since they can be hacked. People will try to cheat in-game by modifying packets, changing files, etc. If the game were P2P, then this could open up huge problems for security.
I've just skimmed the top of this topic. Once we get to the stage of our server design, then this server topology will be considered.
I would have been willing to pay to play the game as it was. The last day I played there was some lag but no server crash. I had already discussed it with my other half and decided that $20.00/month would have been my max amount.
I would like the iea that perhaps the world could have grown with players?
This would have allowed them to start with a smaller dedicated team for live content as well as perhaps a smaller maintenance/dev crew?
Just a couple thoughts.
Asking people to pay would probably give them a bad face in the MMORPG world. No maker has ever done that before and being the first at something so sensitive is not a good idea.
I really wonder why they don't setup a page with how much they would need per month and a donation drive like thing to see REALLY what people would pay now. Speaking about market analyzation ...
Just say we try one more month, but x Dollar have to come in during that, we use it for next month, if it is not enough, next month it is over.
P2P for game mean Pay to Play and not files share as Peer to Peer.
i just whanted to say , why dont ask to MR start again server , maybe with less ppl to take carre about it and player start to play now.
those lets them som time to change som plan like use open source logiciel ....
The problem is they cannot support a staf of 32 people.
P2P for game mean Pay to Play and not files share as Peer to Peer.
i just whanted to say , why dont ask to MR start again server , maybe with less ppl to take carre about it and player start to play now.
those lets them som time to change som plan like use open source logiciel ....
Here are just some thoughts (out of the box type thinking if you will) I have with a P2P system. Say that the final system is capable of running on user machines, something like a P2P network.
There are two possibilities to this:
- One is that the whole P2P network acts as one server, one world. Sound good, but the difficulty of implementation, I have no idea.
- Two, something similar to the old days of table-top RPG's and MUD's. Essentially every user's server is it own game world. Some people can volunteer as GM's, there will be some good ones and some bad ones. Characters can be tranfered from one server to another. Before a character can be used, it must be validated. Such as, this server only accepts characters under Level 10, and no powerful items. Players basically go shopping around in this P2P network until they find one that they like. Kind of like finding a bunch of friends to meet up with and find the right house to play at.
Those ideas are just some brainstorming ideas.