Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Mark Jacobs article and comments on massively and business model.

boxsndboxsnd Kraxton, ARPosts: 438Member Uncommon

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/05/rvr-unchained-mark-jacobs-returns-to-camelot/

 

 

Folks,

   I’m in-between interviews right now so I’ll get to some questions/comments and then get to more later.

@Baemir ;5m? That's going to be the most ambitious MMO Kickstarter project so far.

>>>> No worries. The initial ask will not be for 5M. I’ll be posting more details over the next few weeks but I’m certainly not going to ask our backers to put that much up.

@mephster666 ;So we are getting a DAOC clone ? Well it is a wait and see for me. Seeing is believing in the mmo genre.

>>>> Nope, it will certainly not be a Dark Age of Camelot clone. I wouldn’t go down that path for a lot of reasons, mainly though because I don’t think that simply cloning that game (or simply re-skinning it), will not work in today’s market.

@AmberACurtis I actually teared up a little when I first saw the news. I will most certainly be funding this Kick-starter. I absolutely cannot wait!! @MarkJacobs, if you're in the market for any volunteers for any purpose whatsoever, no matter how big or small, you've got a small army of us waiting in the wings I imagine. :)

>>>> Such kind words, thank you so very much. In terms of volunteers, I will keep that in mind, absolutely!

@SWTOR_GW2 OK after reading this i know this will be the big thing in PvP if they do this right.I never played Camelot but i will play this ! He is beeing very honest something that is cool. BTW this game better have a trinity and progression, there is a reason GW2 pvp is really boring.Also as a Norwegian i guess i'll be going Viking :) Is there a site up yet for this game?

>>>>Thanks! I have always been honest in what I’ve said. I’ve been wrong and I’ll probably be wrong again but I won’t lie to the players. When I’ve had to admit my screw-ups or take the blame for other people’s screw-ups, I’m willing to do so because I was either CEO or GM of the studio that made the game. As to the trinity, well, what I can say is that the idea of a role-playing game is very important to me, especially the letter ‘R’. As to the site, we have the main site off of our webpage. And I’ll be posting a new dev piece there shortly.

 

Be back later, 

Mark

 

----

So... what does he mean by saying "Multi-tiered subscription"? Like $5 for the basic features and $10-$15 for premium features?

DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann

«1

Comments

  • AeonbladesAeonblades Home, GAPosts: 2,083Member
    Good answers. This guy is spot on today. Hope he can deliver.

    Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
    Have played: You name it
    If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.

  • meddyckmeddyck Athens, GAPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon
    If it's not going be a DAOC clone, then it's probably going to suck just like WAR, GW 2, and other bad games that tried to make RvR for PvErs.

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • Clear8888Clear8888 Elk Grove, ILPosts: 8Member
    it probaly wont get the kind of money star citizen is getting since there is no ship to sell for $5k but i do hope it doesnt make same mistakes as GW2, teleport hacks, long queue, poor performance only using cpu.
  • observerobserver Houston, TXPosts: 3,009Member Uncommon
    Multi-tiered business models are always bad.  It just separates the community.  An excluded vs. inclusive population is a terrible approach.
  • collektcollekt Meridian, MSPosts: 273Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by meddyck
    If it's not going be a DAOC clone, then it's probably going to suck just like WAR, GW 2, and other bad games that tried to make RvR for PvErs.

    Why would you think this is going to be a game for PvErs in any way? He has already stated that everything in this game revolves around RvR which is PvP. I know hype is usually not accurate, but at least give it a chance before you condemn it.

  • GhavriggGhavrigg Halifax, NSPosts: 777Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by observer
    Multi-tiered business models are always bad.  It just separates the community.  An excluded vs. inclusive population is a terrible approach.

    That's entirely how the MMO genre is moving. Excluded vs. inclusive? Sub vs. F2P? Free vs. Premium? Rich vs. poor?

    Nothing in life is fair. At least with a subscription-based economy it was closer than what we'll be seeing in the future.

  • meddyckmeddyck Athens, GAPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by collekt
    Originally posted by meddyck
    If it's not going be a DAOC clone, then it's probably going to suck just like WAR, GW 2, and other bad games that tried to make RvR for PvErs.

    Why would you think this is going to be a game for PvErs in any way? He has already stated that everything in this game revolves around RvR which is PvP. I know hype is usually not accurate, but at least give it a chance before you condemn it.

    Because Jacobs was heavily involved in making DAOC more like Everquest by adding PvE/raid oriented expansions and he was involved in making WAR which at release was definitely RvR for PvErs in that it rewarded avoiding fighting other players and just taking undefended keeps to complete daily quests.

    The population of players who want to pay a monthly sub to play a pure RvR game is fairly small so there will be a strong tempatation to make CU appeal to players outside of its core audience in order to keep it viable. The most likely player pool for them to target is casuals who will do PvP but only if it rewards them with increasing tiers of gear, it doesn't require a high level of player skill, and it doesn't give hardcore players who play a lot more hours and are a lot better advantages via realm abilities or something similar.

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,671Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by observer
    Multi-tiered business models are always bad.  It just separates the community.  An excluded vs. inclusive population is a terrible approach.

    Well, we now know who owns the smallest car on your block.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • redcappredcapp brook, NYPosts: 722Member

    "There's almost no PvE (just a training area, some special events, etc.), and everything we add will always be tied into RvR."

     

    This is pretty discouraging.  Still interested, but part of what made DAoC so great for me was that it had such a rich world supporting the RvR system.

  • RaagnarzRaagnarz North Las Vegas, NVPosts: 269Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by redcapp

    "There's almost no PvE (just a training area, some special events, etc.), and everything we add will always be tied into RvR."

     

    This is pretty discouraging.  Still interested, but part of what made DAoC so great for me was that it had such a rich world supporting the RvR system.

     

    I'll be honest that was a buzzkill for me. I'm not a pve'er die hard as I find no huge accomplishment from beating predictable AI. My favorite games were daoc, and shadowbane honestly. That being said to have next to no PVE is a drag. That means the world and the lore will be almost non existent. Not having a homeworld/realm to explore and do things in means this game might not be much more than planetside 2 with a fantasy skin.

     

    RVR was the focus of DAOC until the atlantis  debacle but even during the vanilla days with rvr being its focus, there was still pve...

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    No PVE eh? Well then he really didn't understand what made DAOC such a great game and I hold little hope for this effort.

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • OgreRaperOgreRaper Detroit, MIPosts: 376Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    No PVE eh? Well then he really didn't understand what made DAOC such a great game and I hold little hope for this effort.

     

    To me DAOC was a great game because of the RvR system. And I personally am sick of MMO's that try to please everyone. He's focusing on RvR, and I applaud that.

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by OgreRaper

    Originally posted by Kyleran
    No PVE eh? Well then he really didn't understand what made DAOC such a great game and I hold little hope for this effort.

     

    To me DAOC was a great game because of the RvR system. And I personally am sick of MMO's that try to please everyone. He's focusing on RvR, and I applaud that.

     

    Meh, I preferred playing on Mordred, the FFA PVP server, the RVR style combat only held my interest for a short while when I first started. But hey, I have still got hope on TESO.

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,217Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by observer
    Multi-tiered business models are always bad.  It just separates the community.  An excluded vs. inclusive population is a terrible approach.

    Well, we now know who owns the smallest car on your block.

    I like hybrid payment models (TSW or Tera), but multi-tiered subscriptions in a sub-locked pvp oriented game definitely rings warning alarms.

  • DevironDeviron Lubbock, TXPosts: 17Member
    Just tell me where to throw my money.
  • Storm_FirebladeStorm_Fireblade FlensburgPosts: 156Member
    Originally posted by redcapp

    "There's almost no PvE (just a training area, some special events, etc.), and everything we add will always be tied into RvR."

     

    This is pretty discouraging.  Still interested, but part of what made DAoC so great for me was that it had such a rich world supporting the RvR system.

     

    Well actually, as far as I understand the informations we could gather until now - a rich world supporting the RvR system, as you preferred in DAoC, isn´t something they aren´t shooting for in Camelot Unchained. Mark did explain that everything is tied into RvR. That doesn´t mean you have to go out and actually do RvR the whole time. No, it means that everything you (can) do is somehow involved with the RvR system. And since Mark stated, that they are going to include housing/crafting and a player-driven economy here....I see a rich world supporting RvR.

    If you meant the PvE-only part, then maybe you will be disappointed with the direction CU is going, but thus far I would wait for the upcoming infos. Im pretty sure we aren´t just getting an empty world with three factions and an RvR system. No, they are trying to improve the whole RvR feeling with a player-driven economy around it by cutting the PvE and thereby becoming able to focus on RvR.

    At this point the market is flooded with games that are trying to cater for every single MMO-gamer out there. And thats why so many games cannot meet their expectations. Taking a step backwards and developing a mostly-needed nichegame might become a much larger succes, than many might except today. At least I see a great future for this game, especially because of the non-pve player-driven three-faction RvR-way they are planning to focus on.

    Camelot Unchained Fanpage
    https://simply-gaming.com/camelot/

  • xSyngexxSyngex streetsboro, OHPosts: 44Member
    Originally posted by Storm_Fireblade
    Originally posted by redcapp

    "There's almost no PvE (just a training area, some special events, etc.), and everything we add will always be tied into RvR."

     

    This is pretty discouraging.  Still interested, but part of what made DAoC so great for me was that it had such a rich world supporting the RvR system.

     

    Well actually, as far as I understand the informations we could gather until now - a rich world supporting the RvR system, as you preferred in DAoC, isn´t something they aren´t shooting for in Camelot Unchained. Mark did explain that everything is tied into RvR. That doesn´t mean you have to go out and actually do RvR the whole time. No, it means that everything you (can) do is somehow involved with the RvR system. And since Mark stated, that they are going to include housing/crafting and a player-driven economy here....I see a rich world supporting RvR.

    If you meant the PvE-only part, then maybe you will be disappointed with the direction CU is going, but thus far I would wait for the upcoming infos. Im pretty sure we aren´t just getting an empty world with three factions and an RvR system. No, they are trying to improve the whole RvR feeling with a player-driven economy around it by cutting the PvE and thereby becoming able to focus on RvR.

    At this point the market is flooded with games that are trying to cater for every single MMO-gamer out there. And thats why so many games cannot meet their expectations. Taking a step backwards and developing a mostly-needed nichegame might become a much larger succes, than many might except today. At least I see a great future for this game, especially because of the non-pve player-driven three-faction RvR-way they are planning to focus on.

    We want DAoC 2 not DAoC-.25

  • Storm_FirebladeStorm_Fireblade FlensburgPosts: 156Member
    Originally posted by xSyngex

    We want DAoC 2 not DAoC-.25


    I do realize from your previous posts, that you do have a unique view and obviously some problems with Mark, whatever that might be. But - even though I realize many out there do crave for a DAoC 2, I have to disagree here. I don´t want a DAoC 2 - but a new way of MMO and thats something, like focusing on RvR without traditional PvE, DAoC 2 couldn´t offer without disappointing a big portion of the original playerbase.

    So, I have no idea who "we" is from your point of view. But it doesn´t include myself and I know other people more than happy the way CU seems to go.

    Besides that - if you want any other comments on your part, I would prefer if you could be more constructive and less offensive in your manner. Critisize Mark, the game as much as you want - thats between you two guys or any mod. But I don´t like my postings getting quoted with a single sentence by someone whos main-reason to post here seems to be to harass, because it isn´t going his way.

    My time is better spent anywhere else. So feel free to comment on other postings from me, but lets in general discuss in a construtive manner here and stop the insults.

    Camelot Unchained Fanpage
    https://simply-gaming.com/camelot/

  • skyexileskyexile MelbournePosts: 692Member

    having no PvE sucks, there wont be such easy kills to be had now...

    On the sub model though, yea I would be concerned about how many players a sub based pure PvP game can really get, guess kickstarter will see, but for a lasting community it would want to atleast break into the hundreds of thousands initially.

    I do like the sub model though, i hate F2P games how they feel so cheap in that alot of the time you can bypass what players have earnt and that they;re such an obvious dash for cash these days....but i agree in alot of cases, they have kept the games going.


    SKYeXile
    TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
    Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,645Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by boxsnd

    As to the trinity, well, what I can say is that the idea of a role-playing game is very important to me, especially the letter ‘R’.

     

    I support his use of the sub and love that more and more indie MMOS are getting a foot in the door to move us away from the corperate steralisation of the market that we have seen (not saying that good games haven't been made, just that choice and variety is good), but...

    What has the ide of a 'role' playing game got to do with the trinity..?

    Has he misunderstood what the 'role' is in 'role playing'? A bit scary if so, considering the time he has been in the industry.

  • wowcloneswowclones Los Angeles, CAPosts: 127Member
    Originally posted by xSyngex
    this guy is a sad loser..

    Couldn't agree more, let's make a quick RVR mmo. 10 million my ass, (oh but wait we can ship with 5 million, he goes on to say). Probably could make it with 1 million as there are not many quest to write, and not much world to build since it doesn't have PVE. Darkfall now has a competitor :)

  • xSyngexxSyngex streetsboro, OHPosts: 44Member
    Originally posted by Storm_Fireblade
    Originally posted by xSyngex

    We want DAoC 2 not DAoC-.25


    I do realize from your previous posts, that you do have a unique view and obviously some problems with Mark, whatever that might be. But - even though I realize many out there do crave for a DAoC 2, I have to disagree here. I don´t want a DAoC 2 - but a new way of MMO and thats something, like focusing on RvR without traditional PvE, DAoC 2 couldn´t offer without disappointing a big portion of the original playerbase.

    So, I have no idea who "we" is from your point of view. But it doesn´t include myself and I know other people more than happy the way CU seems to go.

    Besides that - if you want any other comments on your part, I would prefer if you could be more constructive and less offensive in your manner. Critisize Mark, the game as much as you want - thats between you two guys or any mod. But I don´t like my postings getting quoted with a single sentence by someone whos main-reason to post here seems to be to harass, because it isn´t going his way.

    My time is better spent anywhere else. So feel free to comment on other postings from me, but lets in general discuss in a construtive manner here and stop the insults.

    This guy.. lmao

  • CluckingChickenCluckingChicken Calgary, ABPosts: 54Member
    xSyngex, if you have nothing constructive to bring to the discussion, please take it elsewhere.
  • SuperNickSuperNick CambridgePosts: 460Member

    As interesting as a PvP-only MMO sounds I can't help but think limiting yourself to one direct focus in a game really removes sustainability.

    Sure, it might be fun to log in for an hour every now and then to kill some orcs but is that really worth a sub? DAOC, while yes it did have a hugely fun PvP system, still had a lot more PvE content to be had than PvP. A large portion of the subscriber base enjoyed both aspects, not just one.

    I think if Lord of the Rings online didn't devote 95% of its effort into being a PVE-only game, it would have enjoyed a lot more success. (Not that it wasn't a great game, I just missed real PvP systems when I played that game.)

  • xSyngexxSyngex streetsboro, OHPosts: 44Member
    Originally posted by SuperNick

    As interesting as a PvP-only MMO sounds I can't help but think limiting yourself to one direct focus in a game really removes sustainability.

    Sure, it might be fun to log in for an hour every now and then to kill some orcs but is that really worth a sub? DAOC, while yes it did have a hugely fun PvP system, still had a lot more PvE content to be had than PvP. A large portion of the subscriber base enjoyed both aspects, not just one.

    I think if Lord of the Rings online didn't devote 95% of its effort into being a PVE-only game, it would have enjoyed a lot more success. (Not that it wasn't a great game, I just missed real PvP systems when I played that game.)

    "As interesting as a PvP-only MMO sounds I can't help but think limiting yourself to one direct focus in a game really removes sustainability."

    Thank you..

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.