MMORPG SotA Column: Concerns Worthy of Note

I would have to disagree - some discussions can not be had in public forum - it has nothing to do with keeping folks out - it has more to do with maintaining a certain level of input

Not everyone can separate themselves from their inner "gamer" and discuss a topic from a "Design" perspective

 

So, having pledged more funds is what makes people able to do this? Does this mean I can miraculously learn it by upping my pledge?

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that money talks. It's all about keeping the dregs out and privileging those who can pay to play. This will reflect poorly on Portalarium in the future.

 

You mean, only people who care to invest that amount of money have this "design" perspective, and leave self-interest out of it utterly & completely.

HAHA!

Nice joke.

 

I'm not talking about the theater-acting sort role-playing where you have to always act in character, I'm just talking about the sandbox environment following some sort of rules that make up the world, and allowing you to play within those rules. That's what UO did, and that's essentially what a role-playing game does.

The weakest points of UO is where those rules were unbalanced to the detriment of the role-playing experience. Like bizarre looking houses eating up the forests with vendors always standing day and night on neon roofs, only a couple of feet away from monsters, who didn't mind you until you went outside your house. Because they destroyed the sense you were in a real world. Its also what drove players away from the game.

 

What do you think goes on in the dev+ section? :>

 

I've had a dev+ account. Don't patronize me.

 

I only played UO for the first few months and a number of the things you just mentioned were things I remember thinking about at the time. So before anyone says no one ever left UO for those reasons, I'll hold my hand up as example 1.

 

No of course not / you don't know me in real life / so you would know that would be the furthest thought in my mind .. but any process needs to be in an environment that is more apt to succeed

gaming fanatics are a passionate lot / and at times can't have a civil discussion - thats all I'm saying / I'm not saying that it should cost 450 - but having private discussion is needed

and your voice is being heard here - to be honest / the dev+ forums / many times reposts things in the public one because they want more input ...

plus there are more effective ways of influencing the devs / and it has nothing to do with the dev + forum

 

I'm not patronizing you. I just think its kind of boring, other than the fact that they release Dev+ assets and once in a while release information first.

When I want to discuss something I usually go to the general forums, because there's where I can get the most input, and I know the devs read the general forums too. In fact, I'm sure Dev+ backers sometimes feel like they've been cheated, because they're not getting their monthly assets and briefings and everything else that was promised :>

 

In my opinion, the last few pages of this discussion thread are unlikely to qualify as "effective".

 

The concept of needing to have a dev+ forum is insulting. As if the general player base are ignorant peasants that need to be kept out.

 

That would be insulting if that were true. It's a good thing it's not even remotely true.

 

money does talk

you need money to eat / to pay rent / to use the internet

What matters is your agency

Are you proactively seeking the change you would like to see or continuing discussing the unfairness of the system

 

Are you seriously trying to apologise for segregating the poorer part of the forums population? Portalarium doesn't have to treat its backers like this.

 

I'm standing outside the door of the internet company yelling at them to give me more features without asking me for more money! I'm also telling the government that I'm not paying taxes and they need to fix these roads!

Not really, I'm not really doing either of those things.

 

Then abolishing it should be a non-issue.

 

Yeah, an internet forum is not similar to a communications company at all, so this is complete rubbish.

 

Let me also add that I had a quite good opinion of Garriott as a designer before this project started. Getting a behind the scenes look completely shattered this. I once saw an interview with a German board game designer (highly famed in his profession) who was asked what he thinks is the most important part of game design in general and board game design in particular. He replied that to him it is thinking possibilities through all the way to the bitter end in order to anticipate problems early and to wind up with a product that remains entertaining and does not suffer from simple winning strategies or exploits. From what Garriott says and writes it is painfully clear to me that he is unable or unwilling to do this. It is also obvious from the fact that the community had to point out many bad ideas that were eventually abandoned with considerable resistance. This is an ongoing process ...

 

It's a non-issue for me. I don't really get much out of it. But there are other people to consider besides myself.

But if you want to start a poll in the forums I'll say "yes - get rid of dev+ it's not really important to me". Does that make you happy?