Originally posted by SEANMCAD LIfe is .... look just like Wurm Online
It looks at least 1000 times better than wurm and the engine is torque 3d and not java and the systems in this make wurm look like a early 90s game. Considering wurm is almost 10 years old the looks like wurm thing was funny.
Wurm Online got a massive graphic update about a year ago. Its much better now.
My wife has friends there and still has an active account and I know firsthand wurm looks nothing like the screenshot I posted.
Maybe I'm wrong if you could post a screenie so we can do a side by side.
to be clear when I say 'looks like' what I mean is the feature set.
I love Wurm Online
Ahh the feature set, I misunderstood you and I apologize. Well it is strongly influenced by this and several other games but the systems and capabilities of LiF make a 10 year old java based game seem a little primitive.
It isn't the gameplay or the combat, so many MMOs have nailed that aspect, what they get wrong always these days is the world, without the world people get bored and quit. The world offers so much of the game, it gives it the potential, it gives you social interaction, it gives you exploration, a sense of having a home and pride in what you're playing. The world also makes the game dynamic, it creates a sandbox and not a linear Single Player game, it allows you to go wherever you want.
The world is an MMO and without it you have a failure, no MMO in years has been a hit, not since 2004 with WoW, the last MMO. I can speak to people about the genre and the last one they liked is always WoW, they always say the same thing "I tried that MMO but it was like a worse WoW" and it is always because there was no world.
You hit the nail right there and with your first post.
It is true that gameplay or combat is very important but first it is the world.
Take Tera, very good combat, gameplay, etc. " But the world suck " sorry but there is no other way to say it.
First thing i wanted to do in this game when it came out was to explore because the graphic was so amazing and pretty. But what i got instead was loading screens and even in flying from 1 place to another i get a loading screen then i am phased to another part of the world that is just beside where i am at. OMG i left the game 3 hours after i started playing.
The only game i still get back to form time to time is WoW because even after 10 years that it is out from day 1 it had no phasing except for dungeons and raids or changing from 1 xpac to another. That is what keeps me going back even if the graphic is not top notch i still feel more in a world then in any other mmorpg.
The game world is, of course, very important for an MMO. This is exactly the reason I didn't like FFXIV at all. That world felt like nothing but instances tied together and not at all open or immersive.
. Lol a city or kingdom could pop up between here and the mountain being a terraforming sandbox so the phrase "nothing between here and there never changes " tells me you have no idea what you are even posting about. This is a world that the op was afraid weren't being made anymore.
So? You still have to ride for ages to find out. I don't play games to ride a horse.
The World is of course the main asset in the game but 99% if not ALL are auto generating the worlds now.
Square Enix made a quote not long ago that they could never mimmick the creations of old because it would be far too costly.This is imo shared by all devs ,you can simply see it in the designs.Examples Rift,no starting city,Wow no starting city,GW2 the same,these cheap games just plop you down in the middle of that auto generated world ,no reason or why you got there.
Then do these worlds have ECO systems??NO
Do they have real weather,day/night usually no.
Do these worlds have tons of static NPC's with yellow markers over their heads???YES ...NOT a true ROLE playing design,just a lazy cheap design.
The very first thing these worlds should do is create an ECO system,w/o one it is a really bad,fake looking world.Resources and creatures should NOT instantly re-spawn,it should be as a ROLE playing game should be,everyone fights for survival in that world.There should be fruit in the trees,running water with fish.One of my biggest pet peeves are worlds where there is not one door,either instancing or just open doorways again really lazy and cheap game design.My second peeve is buildings/structures with no insides again 10% the effort,lazy and cheap.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The World is of course the main asset in the game but 99% if not ALL are auto generating the worlds now.
Square Enix made a quote not long ago that they could never mimmick the creations of old because it would be far too costly.This is imo shared by all devs ,you can simply see it in the designs.Examples Rift,no starting city,Wow no starting city,GW2 the same,these cheap games just plop you down in the middle of that auto generated world ,no reason or why you got there.
Then do these worlds have ECO systems??NO
Do they have real weather,day/night usually no.
Do these worlds have tons of static NPC's with yellow markers over their heads???YES ...NOT a true ROLE playing design,just a lazy cheap design.
The very first thing these worlds should do is create an ECO system,w/o one it is a really bad,fake looking world.Resources and creatures should NOT instantly re-spawn,it should be as a ROLE playing game should be,everyone fights for survival in that world.There should be fruit in the trees,running water with fish.One of my biggest pet peeves are worlds where there is not one door,either instancing or just open doorways again really lazy and cheap game design.My second peeve is buildings/structures with no insides again 10% the effort,lazy and cheap.
If making the world is so costly, just ditch it and put everything into instances.
The World is of course the main asset in the game but 99% if not ALL are auto generating the worlds now.
Square Enix made a quote not long ago that they could never mimmick the creations of old because it would be far too costly.This is imo shared by all devs ,you can simply see it in the designs.Examples Rift,no starting city,Wow no starting city,GW2 the same,these cheap games just plop you down in the middle of that auto generated world ,no reason or why you got there.
Then do these worlds have ECO systems??NO
Do they have real weather,day/night usually no.
Do these worlds have tons of static NPC's with yellow markers over their heads???YES ...NOT a true ROLE playing design,just a lazy cheap design.
The very first thing these worlds should do is create an ECO system,w/o one it is a really bad,fake looking world.Resources and creatures should NOT instantly re-spawn,it should be as a ROLE playing game should be,everyone fights for survival in that world.There should be fruit in the trees,running water with fish.One of my biggest pet peeves are worlds where there is not one door,either instancing or just open doorways again really lazy and cheap game design.My second peeve is buildings/structures with no insides again 10% the effort,lazy and cheap.
If making the world is so costly, just ditch it and put everything into instances.
I am not convinced that it is more costly.
So games in the past had fewer automated tools and fewer customers and yet turned a profit.
I think the real cost issue is that game development companies have gotten top heavy with accountants, marketing which then turns into consultants, unmotovated employees etc.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The World is of course the main asset in the game but 99% if not ALL are auto generating the worlds now.
Square Enix made a quote not long ago that they could never mimmick the creations of old because it would be far too costly.This is imo shared by all devs ,you can simply see it in the designs.Examples Rift,no starting city,Wow no starting city,GW2 the same,these cheap games just plop you down in the middle of that auto generated world ,no reason or why you got there.
Then do these worlds have ECO systems??NO
Do they have real weather,day/night usually no.
Do these worlds have tons of static NPC's with yellow markers over their heads???YES ...NOT a true ROLE playing design,just a lazy cheap design.
The very first thing these worlds should do is create an ECO system,w/o one it is a really bad,fake looking world.Resources and creatures should NOT instantly re-spawn,it should be as a ROLE playing game should be,everyone fights for survival in that world.There should be fruit in the trees,running water with fish.One of my biggest pet peeves are worlds where there is not one door,either instancing or just open doorways again really lazy and cheap game design.My second peeve is buildings/structures with no insides again 10% the effort,lazy and cheap.
If making the world is so costly, just ditch it and put everything into instances.
I am not convinced that it is more costly.
So games in the past had fewer automated tools and fewer customers and yet turned a profit.
I think the real cost issue is that game development companies have gotten top heavy with accountants, marketing which then turns into consultants, unmotovated employees etc.
well .. he claimed that it is costly .. not me. I am merely pointing out that IF it is costly, ditch it.
The World is of course the main asset in the game but 99% if not ALL are auto generating the worlds now.
Square Enix made a quote not long ago that they could never mimmick the creations of old because it would be far too costly.This is imo shared by all devs ,you can simply see it in the designs.Examples Rift,no starting city,Wow no starting city,GW2 the same,these cheap games just plop you down in the middle of that auto generated world ,no reason or why you got there.
Then do these worlds have ECO systems??NO
Do they have real weather,day/night usually no.
Do these worlds have tons of static NPC's with yellow markers over their heads???YES ...NOT a true ROLE playing design,just a lazy cheap design.
The very first thing these worlds should do is create an ECO system,w/o one it is a really bad,fake looking world.Resources and creatures should NOT instantly re-spawn,it should be as a ROLE playing game should be,everyone fights for survival in that world.There should be fruit in the trees,running water with fish.One of my biggest pet peeves are worlds where there is not one door,either instancing or just open doorways again really lazy and cheap game design.My second peeve is buildings/structures with no insides again 10% the effort,lazy and cheap.
If making the world is so costly, just ditch it and put everything into instances.
I am not convinced that it is more costly.
So games in the past had fewer automated tools and fewer customers and yet turned a profit.
I think the real cost issue is that game development companies have gotten top heavy with accountants, marketing which then turns into consultants, unmotovated employees etc.
well .. he claimed that it is costly .. not me. I am merely pointing out that IF it is costly, ditch it.
The same argument could be made for voice work, or storyline, or just about anything in the game...
I mean, you may as well throw the whole game out with that philosophy lol .
Anyway, I think that both gameplay and world are important...but it's definitely possible for a game to focus on one of those and still be successful.
Look at the Elder Scrolls series...the gameplay (combat) in them is notoriously bad. But people love them because the world is so amazingly rich and fun to explore.
Then look at Dragon's Dogma. It's world is "okay" but the combat is awesome. So it's still a fun game.
My point is that both world and gameplay are important. And it's possible for a game to be successful and fun even if It really focuses on one of those but lacks the other.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Without a world, you don't have a complete game. Instead, you have: - Fighting simulators - Crafting simulators - Dungeon Crawlers What's the point, then?
To have fun, of course.You know there are fighting simulator games, crafting simulator games, and dungeon crawler games out there right?
That was my point. There are games/genres out there already that do this. What sets MMOs apart is their world.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Saxx0n Lol a city or kingdom could pop up between here and the mountain being a terraforming sandbox so the phrase "nothing between here and there never changes " tells me you have no idea what you are even posting about. This is a world that the op was afraid weren't being made anymore.
So? You still have to ride for ages to find out. I don't play games to ride a horse.
So? Nobody says you HAVE to play it? It is OK to make MMOs that nariusseldon does not like. I think the genre would improve ten-fold if more MMOs were created that nariusseldon did not like.
Or are you "one those players" that thinks EVERY MMO should please them?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Saxx0n Lol a city or kingdom could pop up between here and the mountain being a terraforming sandbox so the phrase "nothing between here and there never changes " tells me you have no idea what you are even posting about. This is a world that the op was afraid weren't being made anymore.
So? You still have to ride for ages to find out. I don't play games to ride a horse.
So? Nobody says you HAVE to play it? It is OK to make MMOs that nariusseldon does not like. I think the genre would improve ten-fold if more MMOs were created that nariusseldon did not like.
Or are you "one those players" that thinks EVERY MMO should please them?
So I state my preference, just like everyone else.
Of course i am not going to play it. It is up to the dev to make a MMO ... and obviously this one does not please me.
Are you saying that you can state your preference here, and I can't?
I am not doing anything more than everyone else here ... stating what they like or they don't like.
Worlds are coming back. This is at least going to be 400 sq. km with no zoning all open world and no fast travel unless you call a horse fast. A 1km draw distance for everything including other players. You can actually walk or ride your horse to the mountains in the backround of this shot. http://lifeisfeudal.com/
Lol .. this is a GAME? Is this a riding simulator?
I will pass. Looks very boring to me.
Obviously you didn't read anything about it and I thought fast tavel and hubs were boring lol not even a good troll, try again and be more creative.
Does anyone else have a problem with a developer coming on here and pimping their game by bashing other games? Joining in discussions is one thing, but coming to quite a few posts to make comments about some game you WORK for is quite another. It all seem very biased and unprofessional. However this "Life is Feudal" game turns out, i won't play it out of spite for this asshat.
Worlds are coming back. This is at least going to be 400 sq. km with no zoning all open world and no fast travel unless you call a horse fast. A 1km draw distance for everything including other players. You can actually walk or ride your horse to the mountains in the backround of this shot. http://lifeisfeudal.com/
Lol .. this is a GAME? Is this a riding simulator?
I will pass. Looks very boring to me.
Obviously you didn't read anything about it and I thought fast tavel and hubs were boring lol not even a good troll, try again and be more creative.
Does anyone else have a problem with a developer coming on here and pimping their game by bashing other games? Joining in discussions is one thing, but coming to quite a few posts to make comments about some game you WORK for is quite another. It all seem very biased and unprofessional. However this "Life is Feudal" game turns out, i won't play it out of spite for this asshat.
well .. i think it is fair game that they can come in here to talk up their game, and we can air our honest opinions.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Saxx0n Lol a city or kingdom could pop up between here and the mountain being a terraforming sandbox so the phrase "nothing between here and there never changes " tells me you have no idea what you are even posting about. This is a world that the op was afraid weren't being made anymore.
So? You still have to ride for ages to find out. I don't play games to ride a horse. So? Nobody says you HAVE to play it? It is OK to make MMOs that nariusseldon does not like. I think the genre would improve ten-fold if more MMOs were created that nariusseldon did not like.
Or are you "one those players" that thinks EVERY MMO should please them?
The personal attacks and insults are completely unnecessary. Very immature.
He only said that he would not play such a game, he didnt say anything about every MMO must have instant travel or anything.
YOU are the one saying what MMOs must have and must not have.
YOU are one of the "those" MMO players that thinks every MMO must please them.
Originally posted by Saxx0n Lol a city or kingdom could pop up between here and the mountain being a terraforming sandbox so the phrase "nothing between here and there never changes " tells me you have no idea what you are even posting about. This is a world that the op was afraid weren't being made anymore.
So? You still have to ride for ages to find out. I don't play games to ride a horse.
So? Nobody says you HAVE to play it? It is OK to make MMOs that nariusseldon does not like. I think the genre would improve ten-fold if more MMOs were created that nariusseldon did not like.Or are you "one those players" that thinks EVERY MMO should please them?
So I state my preference, just like everyone else.Of course i am not going to play it. It is up to the dev to make a MMO ... and obviously this one does not please me.Are you saying that you can state your preference here, and I can't?I am not doing anything more than everyone else here ... stating what they like or they don't like.
Of course you have your opinion and are free to state it. After over 17,000 posts from you, I think everyone who has ever been to this board knows exactly what that opinion is.
The post you responded to mentioned how the world could change with player villages/housing popping up in all the empty land. You did not even acknowledge that. You just whined some more about "how boring" you think that would be.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Saxx0n Lol a city or kingdom could pop up between here and the mountain being a terraforming sandbox so the phrase "nothing between here and there never changes " tells me you have no idea what you are even posting about. This is a world that the op was afraid weren't being made anymore.
So? You still have to ride for ages to find out. I don't play games to ride a horse.
So? Nobody says you HAVE to play it? It is OK to make MMOs that nariusseldon does not like. I think the genre would improve ten-fold if more MMOs were created that nariusseldon did not like.
Or are you "one those players" that thinks EVERY MMO should please them?
So I state my preference, just like everyone else.
Of course i am not going to play it. It is up to the dev to make a MMO ... and obviously this one does not please me.
Are you saying that you can state your preference here, and I can't?
I am not doing anything more than everyone else here ... stating what they like or they don't like.
Of course you have your opinion and are free to state it. After over 17,000 posts from you, I think everyone who has ever been to this board knows exactly what that opinion is.
The post you responded to mentioned how the world could change with player villages/housing popping up in all the empty land. You did not even acknowledge that. You just whined some more about "how boring" you think that would be.
Just because something could happen doesn't mean it does. People built houses in Mortal Online too and you had tiny ghost towns here and there with no players in sight. Is that what you want from this upcoming title?
If you merely allow people to build houses but there's no point to it, it is a virtual playground, not a game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Vanguard has that world - shutting down this summer.
I've given up the dream of seeing true worlds like that anymore. I'm good with just a game that makes it feel immersive. For me ESO hits that spot more than any others, even if I do wish it was completely open world and it isn't. The worst example I've found so far of an immersive mmo was probably SWTOR.
Worlds are coming back. This is at least going to be 400 sq. km with no zoning all open world and no fast travel unless you call a horse fast. A 1km draw distance for everything including other players. You can actually walk or ride your horse to the mountains in the backround of this shot. http://lifeisfeudal.com/
Lol .. this is a GAME? Is this a riding simulator?
I will pass. Looks very boring to me.
Obviously you didn't read anything about it and I thought fast tavel and hubs were boring lol not even a good troll, try again and be more creative.
Traveling to a new area is fun once....after that it is simply a time sink. If running across land was so much fun, people would of enjoyed the trek across the Karanas in EQ, rather than looking for the nearest druid doing ports.
Vanguard was the last true world mmo made, unlike wow it has no instances at all. It has vast open world dungeons and everyone shares the same world space. The world is vast. You have Bless which has a vast open world but also has instanced dungeons but a seamless world. Black Desert is also another mmo that has a vast open world, you can climb all buildings amongs other features.
SWG was several worlds, each to be explored, some solo, others only in a group, because on some of those worlds, safety in numbers really meant something. Much like socialising in MMO's used to be the in thing, nowadays it seems like an optional extra. But then so is exploration, everything now has to be linear level based pass go collect £200 kind of thing, trouble is, most players seem to prefer that now
Comments
Ahh the feature set, I misunderstood you and I apologize. Well it is strongly influenced by this and several other games but the systems and capabilities of LiF make a 10 year old java based game seem a little primitive.
Life IS Feudal
You hit the nail right there and with your first post.
It is true that gameplay or combat is very important but first it is the world.
Take Tera, very good combat, gameplay, etc. " But the world suck " sorry but there is no other way to say it.
First thing i wanted to do in this game when it came out was to explore because the graphic was so amazing and pretty. But what i got instead was loading screens and even in flying from 1 place to another i get a loading screen then i am phased to another part of the world that is just beside where i am at. OMG i left the game 3 hours after i started playing.
The only game i still get back to form time to time is WoW because even after 10 years that it is out from day 1 it had no phasing except for dungeons and raids or changing from 1 xpac to another. That is what keeps me going back even if the graphic is not top notch i still feel more in a world then in any other mmorpg.
So? You still have to ride for ages to find out. I don't play games to ride a horse.
Don't talk as if your opinion applies to everyone.
First is gameplay/combat ... world is way way down the list ... after convenient features for me.
Heck, many good games don't even have a world.
The World is of course the main asset in the game but 99% if not ALL are auto generating the worlds now.
Square Enix made a quote not long ago that they could never mimmick the creations of old because it would be far too costly.This is imo shared by all devs ,you can simply see it in the designs.Examples Rift,no starting city,Wow no starting city,GW2 the same,these cheap games just plop you down in the middle of that auto generated world ,no reason or why you got there.
Then do these worlds have ECO systems??NO
Do they have real weather,day/night usually no.
Do these worlds have tons of static NPC's with yellow markers over their heads???YES ...NOT a true ROLE playing design,just a lazy cheap design.
The very first thing these worlds should do is create an ECO system,w/o one it is a really bad,fake looking world.Resources and creatures should NOT instantly re-spawn,it should be as a ROLE playing game should be,everyone fights for survival in that world.There should be fruit in the trees,running water with fish.One of my biggest pet peeves are worlds where there is not one door,either instancing or just open doorways again really lazy and cheap game design.My second peeve is buildings/structures with no insides again 10% the effort,lazy and cheap.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If making the world is so costly, just ditch it and put everything into instances.
I am not convinced that it is more costly.
So games in the past had fewer automated tools and fewer customers and yet turned a profit.
I think the real cost issue is that game development companies have gotten top heavy with accountants, marketing which then turns into consultants, unmotovated employees etc.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
World vs instanced/phased is not a cost or dev ambition issue but a conscious target audience & design desision.
well .. he claimed that it is costly .. not me. I am merely pointing out that IF it is costly, ditch it.
I agree. I am merely pointing out that IF HE thinks that it is costly, ditching the world is a solution.
It boils down to the world is not crucial to the fun of the target audience. If so, devs are obviously going to either minimize it, or even ditch it.
The same argument could be made for voice work, or storyline, or just about anything in the game...
I mean, you may as well throw the whole game out with that philosophy lol
.
Anyway, I think that both gameplay and world are important...but it's definitely possible for a game to focus on one of those and still be successful.
Look at the Elder Scrolls series...the gameplay (combat) in them is notoriously bad. But people love them because the world is so amazingly rich and fun to explore.
Then look at Dragon's Dogma. It's world is "okay" but the combat is awesome. So it's still a fun game.
My point is that both world and gameplay are important. And it's possible for a game to be successful and fun even if It really focuses on one of those but lacks the other.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Or are you "one those players" that thinks EVERY MMO should please them?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
So I state my preference, just like everyone else.
Of course i am not going to play it. It is up to the dev to make a MMO ... and obviously this one does not please me.
Are you saying that you can state your preference here, and I can't?
I am not doing anything more than everyone else here ... stating what they like or they don't like.
Does anyone else have a problem with a developer coming on here and pimping their game by bashing other games? Joining in discussions is one thing, but coming to quite a few posts to make comments about some game you WORK for is quite another. It all seem very biased and unprofessional. However this "Life is Feudal" game turns out, i won't play it out of spite for this asshat.
well .. i think it is fair game that they can come in here to talk up their game, and we can air our honest opinions.
No one has to like what he sells.
So? Nobody says you HAVE to play it? It is OK to make MMOs that nariusseldon does not like. I think the genre would improve ten-fold if more MMOs were created that nariusseldon did not like.
Or are you "one those players" that thinks EVERY MMO should please them?
The personal attacks and insults are completely unnecessary. Very immature.
He only said that he would not play such a game, he didnt say anything about every MMO must have instant travel or anything.
YOU are the one saying what MMOs must have and must not have.
YOU are one of the "those" MMO players that thinks every MMO must please them.
The post you responded to mentioned how the world could change with player villages/housing popping up in all the empty land. You did not even acknowledge that. You just whined some more about "how boring" you think that would be.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Just because something could happen doesn't mean it does. People built houses in Mortal Online too and you had tiny ghost towns here and there with no players in sight. Is that what you want from this upcoming title?
If you merely allow people to build houses but there's no point to it, it is a virtual playground, not a game.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Vanguard has that world - shutting down this summer.
I've given up the dream of seeing true worlds like that anymore. I'm good with just a game that makes it feel immersive. For me ESO hits that spot more than any others, even if I do wish it was completely open world and it isn't. The worst example I've found so far of an immersive mmo was probably SWTOR.
Star Wars Galaxies was a 'world'. A lovely one.
Todays MMOs are just games. Nothing more.
Sad really.
Traveling to a new area is fun once....after that it is simply a time sink. If running across land was so much fun, people would of enjoyed the trek across the Karanas in EQ, rather than looking for the nearest druid doing ports.
SWG was several worlds, each to be explored, some solo, others only in a group, because on some of those worlds, safety in numbers really meant something. Much like socialising in MMO's used to be the in thing, nowadays it seems like an optional extra. But then so is exploration, everything now has to be linear level based pass go collect £200 kind of thing, trouble is, most players seem to prefer that now