Aradune said:
Yes, a bad MMO launch is something extremely hard to recover from, if it's even possible. ....
FFXIV beautifully recovered from a horrible launch.
Yeah, and so did Eve and Anarchy online. But far more games have failed due to it and FF XIV did spend a fortune on fixing up the game while the other 2 were launched long ago in a time were people were more excusing for a bad launch.
I keep seeing stuff about incentives to group/community building, but will we see a return to original RPG balance? A world where rogues and wizards OF COURSE do more damage than your paladin, but you have utility and heals that make up for it. I'm tired of games being balanced around damage just because someone is gonna make an addon to measure their epeen against. As soon as games started balancing around damage everyone got their own sustain/escape/movement/cc ability.
Also, bring back buffs? Your max level friends should be able to help you out in ways other than "instantly de-level in 5 level increments, the same gear, but able to group and get rewards with my level 10 friend".
The problem for group-oriented MMO's is how they tend to split up the playerbase all over the world due to level-mechanics. While its not that much of a problem at launch or during primetime it becomes a huge issue if you mostly play during off-hours more than three months after launch.
What kinds of mechanisms do you have in store to make sure people can enjoy your game at hours when very few people are around?
It's all about having enough people online. Too many, and you have over-crowding and too much competition for resources and frustration. But too few is even worse: not having enough people online not only makes it more difficult to find groups, it hinders the development of a real MMO community (something we feel, for a game like Pantheon, is absolutely essential).
So monitoring server/shard populations is very important. If they are too low, then shards need to be combined. If they are too high, then new shards need to be deployed.
So, basically you are just going to do what every other mmo does? You will merge servers when pop is low and open new servers if the servers are bursting at the seems. I really don't think that answers what Shaigh asked. He is asking how you will help in game with making sure a player who doesn't exactly play at the prime times (or weren't there at first month or two during launch) get groups and finish other group related tasks, when at those odd hours players are sometimes hard to find.
How is it possible for developers to make sure enough people play the game everyday, say at 4am? You want them to hand out extra reward to people for playing after 12am? Does this kind of question make any sense? How can developer dictate when players should play or not? They have already said it will be group oriented mmo so that means a player should play during a time when he or she can find a group easily.
Not everyone plays evenings and weekends so I was curious how pantheon devs viewed those kinds of situations and what their plans were to alleviate the problem. There are quite a lot of things that devs can do and I'm curious of the activities @Kilsin made hints about.
This was essentially what I was trying to say lol.
Brad still has a huge hill to climb in order to win most people over. Let's not forget some very good devs, like Vu and Vhalen, left the project in disgust. We were all willing to give Brad a second chance after Vanguard, but a third chance is a little hard to swallow.
That being said, Brad seems to be a very very persistent person. I never thought in a million years the project would ever get this far, but apparently I was wrong. He did get a little lucky that people like Monte and Joppa were willing to work on the project for free, and now they apparently even found some funding and are hiring new people.
Aradune said:
Yes, a bad MMO launch is something extremely hard to recover from, if it's even possible. ....
FFXIV beautifully recovered from a horrible launch.
I think to pull that off you need a company with deep pockets willing to loose money while they fix the game. That is hard to justify in wall street driven companies more focused on short term profits. So, while I take your point, I think it is the exception rather than the rule because it's hard to tell investors "yea it's loosing money but let us spend a little more of your investment and we can turn it around."
Aradune said:
Yes, a bad MMO launch is something extremely hard to recover from, if it's even possible. ....
FFXIV beautifully recovered from a horrible launch.
I think to pull that off you need a company with deep pockets willing to loose money while they fix the game. That is hard to justify in wall street driven companies more focused on short term profits. So, while I take your point, I think it is the exception rather than the rule because it's hard to tell investors "yea it's loosing money but let us spend a little more of your investment and we can turn it around."
FFXIV is something totally different: it is a major IP based MMO run by a Japanese company. The remaking of FFXIV was result of an intersection of Japanese corporate psychology, and a deliberate attempt to protect what has to be an IP that has generated over a $1 billion USD over time.
SE was literally embarrassed with the state that FFXIV was initially launched in, and it brought shame upon the entire company SE is part of.
For the Japanese, that is no small thing.
As a result, they STOPPED taking customer money (a thing unheard of in most business) and spent tens of millions in secondary development costs re-engineering the game from the ground up.
SE did it to repair their reputation with customers and to protect a very profitable IP.
Don't ever expect to see such a thing again, and certainly not from a non-Japanese company.
I love the idea of local markets, they add a lot of possibilities to gameplay for trade such as caravans and other new dynamics. Not knowing anything about the kind of housing or shops that might be planned (if any), there could even be some kind of trade routes for crafters to arrange with other players (and/or NPC traders) for their wares to reach larger markets, etc. When passes through your little village, send your goods to Capital City!
One of the things missing from MMO's has been the ability to have an actual shop and house in a town. Many people want to play blacksmiths, store owners, and so on. Having a physical store front/house in the old medieval style (which you see in Oblivion, etc) populated by players who are townies, paying other players who go off adventuring or seeking resources for their finds, sending goods to market with other players who are tradesman, and so on is probably the essential thing that has been missing from in game (centrally planned) economies. Whatever game can actually tap into this crafting/business itch that so many people seem to have is going to be a hit. Integrating all these aspects of gameplay together into a cohesive whole has never been done, and is probably the next holy grail of massive online gaming.
The economy, for its part, gives meaning to much of the things players do in virtual worlds. If you look at the tightly scripted lives of most current MMO's, there is absolutely no economy to speak of, and it becomes a very boring thing indeed for people who actually want the virtual world experience. The reason there are so many dissatisfied MMO'ers these days is that the framework of their playspace is so sparse. There is no room to imagine doing something unexpected tomorrow. The jackboot method of game creation and management that is the standard these days is a soulless, boring grind with no true social component. (That's a very good point about fake communities made earlier in the thread too, I think. Fake communities, fake social experiences.)
It's a very difficult thing to do, creating new game systems. Brad is one of the few people who has actually done this, innovating where everyone else is just copying. This deserves more respect than it gets from fans of the genre.
I think the MMO player base will do just that once something actually materializes. Up to this point it's been a few screenshots and a lot of lip service. Most people who have been around for a while in this genre know this. I have yet to see anything in this mmo that I think will make it successful. 1999 ideas in a 2016/17 game don't seem like the way to go imo. Most people want to see something new. And the MMO genre is now full of a lot of players who never played in the old mmos. I imagine they will put a game like that on their pay no mind list. The very tiny vocal minority of old timer gamers who want another EQ1 is probably smaller then Wildstar's current population.
See you on release date
I really think you don't understand that an mmo that worked in 1999-2001 will not work today. Do you know why? Because the genre is full of the new generation of gamers who will have zero patience for a game like this (the graphics will probably stop them before they even try it). I was there in EQ1 and DAoC. I wish it would work like that again, but let's be real. Most of the people we played with at that time either no longer have time for games or don't even care anymore. I really don't know what demographic they are looking to launch this for. It reminds me of how Wildstar was looking to cater to the raiding population. Didn't work out well for them did it? As far as your launch day comment. I've had my fill of EQ1 and "camping" mmos. I only look forward to new mmos and/or mmos that actually try something new. Funny thing is, this mmo is still more likely not to launch then launch. So, I guess we'll see if there is even a launch day.
You act like they are making a game for this "current" generation of gamer's you are talking about. You think everyone that played EQ has died of old age? lol.
I really think you don't understand that an mmo that worked in 1999-2001 will not work today. Do you know why? Because the genre is full of the new generation of gamers who will have zero patience for a game like this (the graphics will probably stop them before they even try it). I was there in EQ1 and DAoC. I wish it would work like that again, but let's be real. Most of the people we played with at that time either no longer have time for games or don't even care anymore. I really don't know what demographic they are looking to launch this for. It reminds me of how Wildstar was looking to cater to the raiding population. Didn't work out well for them did it? As far as your launch day comment. I've had my fill of EQ1 and "camping" mmos. I only look forward to new mmos and/or mmos that actually try something new. Funny thing is, this mmo is still more likely not to launch then launch. So, I guess we'll see if there is even a launch day.
I really don't think you have anything to back up what you're saying. None of the MMORPGs around in 1999 were universally hated. So what you're saying amounts to saying is "people are different now." No they aren't history tells us this over and over and over. You are also denying the existence or Product 1999 which may even have enough players to support Pantheon.
You're also essentially denying niche marketing works. Which is nonsense. Catering to a smaller market is the only chance most games have and the amount of money lost trying to copy the leader is staggering. If Wildstar was a niche product, then tell me was it an absolutely brilliant at catering to the raiding population? Did it give them a better raiding experience than EQ or Wow? If not then that is why it failed. To capture a niche market you have to be better at giving that niche what they want. If you aren't and raiding is no better than in Wow, then you fail and people will just play Wow.
As for camping, it was never universally hated. So you're making no sense. You are essentially saying "yeah, some people liked it in 1999 but zero people like it today." Based on what? All I see in your post is "I would never play a game like that and I can't imagine anyone else doing it in 2015 because now they don't have too." Well, here's something you can count on: not everyone has the same tastes. Some people never thought it was progress to move away from certain mechanics because they suited their tastes. Those people haven't gone away they've been ignored and their existence denied, just like you are doing in this post.
Brad still has a huge hill to climb in order to win most people over. Let's not forget some very good devs, like Vu and Vhalen, left the project in disgust. We were all willing to give Brad a second chance after Vanguard, but a third chance is a little hard to swallow.
That being said, Brad seems to be a very very persistent person. I never thought in a million years the project would ever get this far, but apparently I was wrong. He did get a little lucky that people like Monte and Joppa were willing to work on the project for free, and now they apparently even found some funding and are hiring new people.
Who were these devs that left? Vu and Vhalen? Any idea why they left? And oh well, I'm sure every mmo that's in development has people come and go. Not everyone is going to agree on certain things and that goes with ANYTHING in general.
Far as I'm concerned Brad is going to have the create a game that gives out blowjobs and orgasms at the drop of a hat. If rumors that pantheon is where Smed is landing is true. Then all bets are off.
Pantheon is not Smed's type of game. He has a very different outlook and approach to game design. He seems to think mass appeal is a must and niche games won't work any more. Of course, he says this while praising Eve, and their devotion to a niche and unwillingness to change is basically the only thing they have going for them.
Far as I'm concerned Brad is going to have the create a game that gives out blowjobs and orgasms at the drop of a hat. If rumors that pantheon is where Smed is landing is true. Then all bets are off.
Brad and Smed were apart of the crew that made EQ1 what it was, an incredible mmo and the grandfather of all mmo's. Just because Smed has a bad rep since then doesn't necessarily mean he will continue that trend, especially if he isn't in charge how he was at SoE. Lets hope for the best. We have a lot of EQ and Vanguard people working on this game which is a good sign to begin with. All we can do is wait, hope and see.
I love the idea of local markets, they add a lot of possibilities to gameplay for trade such as caravans and other new dynamics. Not knowing anything about the kind of housing or shops that might be planned (if any), there could even be some kind of trade routes for crafters to arrange with other players (and/or NPC traders) for their wares to reach larger markets, etc. When passes through your little village, send your goods to Capital City!
One of the things missing from MMO's has been the ability to have an actual shop and house in a town. Many people want to play blacksmiths, store owners, and so on. Having a physical store front/house in the old medieval style (which you see in Oblivion, etc) populated by players who are townies, paying other players who go off adventuring or seeking resources for their finds, sending goods to market with other players who are tradesman, and so on is probably the essential thing that has been missing from in game (centrally planned) economies. Whatever game can actually tap into this crafting/business itch that so many people seem to have is going to be a hit. Integrating all these aspects of gameplay together into a cohesive whole has never been done, and is probably the next holy grail of massive online gaming.
The economy, for its part, gives meaning to much of the things players do in virtual worlds. If you look at the tightly scripted lives of most current MMO's, there is absolutely no economy to speak of, and it becomes a very boring thing indeed for people who actually want the virtual world experience. The reason there are so many dissatisfied MMO'ers these days is that the framework of their playspace is so sparse. There is no room to imagine doing something unexpected tomorrow. The jackboot method of game creation and management that is the standard these days is a soulless, boring grind with no true social component. (That's a very good point about fake communities made earlier in the thread too, I think. Fake communities, fake social experiences.)
It's a very difficult thing to do, creating new game systems. Brad is one of the few people who has actually done this, innovating where everyone else is just copying. This deserves more respect than it gets from fans of the genre.
I think the MMO player base will do just that once something actually materializes. Up to this point it's been a few screenshots and a lot of lip service. Most people who have been around for a while in this genre know this. I have yet to see anything in this mmo that I think will make it successful. 1999 ideas in a 2016/17 game don't seem like the way to go imo. Most people want to see something new. And the MMO genre is now full of a lot of players who never played in the old mmos. I imagine they will put a game like that on their pay no mind list. The very tiny vocal minority of old timer gamers who want another EQ1 is probably smaller then Wildstar's current population.
It is kind of funny how people think and argue there reasoning behind what they think. I went ahead and bolded literally two sentences in a row.
Now I will repeat what you said:
"Most people want to see something new. And the MMO genre is now full of a lot of players who never played in the old mmos."
Correct me if I am wrong but then that would mean these 1999 ideas would be "new" to them in 2016/17. Then you went and added in more support against what you are arguing by stating in addition to all of these people, that there is a specific group of people who want this type of game.
I agree with everything except the "magic for a 3rd time" part. Vanguard was awful, there was nothing magical about it. The sooner the team comes to terms with this the better Pantheon will be. That doesn't mean there isn't some good ideas to take from VG but for the most part they should distance themselves as much as possible.
The idiots raving about how good VG was are the definition of "vocal minority." The servers were bled down to one shortly after launch then had to go F2P due to lack of players again. I played VG at launch and shortly before it's end and it was equally bad both times, just for different reasons.
That's the thing, he's targeting that vocal minority, as stated in his quote. The big question is whether they can survive on the subs / sales of another game like EQ or Vanguard? I had a love / hate relationship with both EQ and Vanguard, where the hate eventually won out. I'd love to see a more casual, but just as detailed and deep version of both. I'm tired of developers thinking casuals must be simple and brainless.
Just wanted to make a couple of points with some real data.
EQ peaked at 550k players and made over a half a billion in profit for Sony, while costing $8M to develop. And the game is still running, with the rumor that there are still at least 50,000 subscribers. Now, these numbers may not compare to WoW, they are most certainly not niche. In fact, EQ was (and probably still is) the most profitable venture Sony has ever experienced.
Vanguard we had to launch 6+ months early. So even though the game sold around 250k boxes in a very short amount of time, most people couldn't play the game because the framerate/performance was abysmal. I'm not going to re-hash all of the reasons, but I will say lessons were learned. We're not going to let something like that happen again. That said, for those players who stuck around, or returned later, after the client had been optimized, almost always credit Vanguard as one of their favorite games. Even though they had to play in underpopulated shards, making grouping and community development difficult indeed.
Also, since then, WoW (and to some extent a few other MMOs) have exposed millions and millions of people to MMOs.
My point is simply this: of the millions and millions of MMO players, we are very confident that a sizable subset of them will be attracted to the type of gameplay and world we are creating. And because we are not spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build Pantheon, we don't need millions of players. In fact, hundreds of thousands would make the game hugely successful. Could we 'survive' on sub/sales that EQ brought in? Absolutely -- in fact, we would be, from our perspective, fantastically successful. And Vanguard? If 250k players try out Pantheon, and we don't screw up and the game is actually ready to be played and playable, we would also be enormously successful.
Again, if you spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make an MMO then yes, you do also require millions and millions of players to subscribe, or buy the game, or monetize through cash shops in order to be successful. But the reality is that you don't need to spend anywhere near that kind of money. Instead, you can focus on making a game for a solid target audience and have a successful product with far fewer players. You don't have to beat WoW. You don't have to spend SWTOR development costs. You don't need to try to make a game that is all things for all people. Rather, you need to choose a viable target audience and make a really good game for them.
I understand that, I did play both after all. You have to admit though that today's demographics are not the same as they were even five years ago. Wizardry went with a pretty hardcore play set and they didn't make it. I'm sure there were other factors, but it could also mean that there aren't enough old school hardcores to maintain even an indy game. As with most things, there are mulitple variables to consider for any project. I wish you the best of luck, but if you remain too hardcore and too old school, I won't be playing, even though I am a big fan of your world and class design philosophy.
I understand that, I did play both after all. You have to admit though that today's demographics are not the same as they were even five years ago. Wizardry went with a pretty hardcore play set and they didn't make it. I'm sure there were other factors, but it could also mean that there aren't enough old school hardcores to maintain even an indy game. As with most things, there are mulitple variables to consider for any project. I wish you the best of luck, but if you remain too hardcore and too old school, I won't be playing, even though I am a big fan of your world and class design philosophy.
To be fair today's demographics won't be today's demographics tomorrow. It's also hard to say whether the existing games drive the demographics or demographics drive the games. Prior to Wow the demographics were entirely different so didn't they in some sense drive the demographics.
To me classifications such as "old school" are arbitrary and
fall by the wayside with lightning speed when someone comes along that
makes the old fresh again.
My opinion remains that developers are best off letting their understanding of what is a good game drive their development rather than demographics. It is best first to be passionate about what they do, and then prove there's enough of a market for it, than to let the market drive what they do.
They obviously need a business plan to make the case that the project is viable. That plan should make conservative guesses as to the size of their potential audience. Such a plan can use EQ, Project 1999 or a number of other projects to justify their market size projections. Such a plan puts more weight on actual provable numbers than vague notions like "today's demographics." Such a plan is in no way obligated to capture the largest segment of the audience, nor is it wise to do so if it means basing your projections on taking away some huge chunk Blizzard's customers, because that's not going to happen. Once the business plan is done and they're comfortable that the game they want to make is economically viable, that's where the business end stops. After that issues like what Blizzard did, the history of MMORPGs and all the rest fails to matter.
I keep seeing stuff about incentives to group/community building, but will we see a return to original RPG balance? A world where rogues and wizards OF COURSE do more damage than your paladin, but you have utility and heals that make up for it. I'm tired of games being balanced around damage just because someone is gonna make an addon to measure their epeen against. As soon as games started balancing around damage everyone got their own sustain/escape/movement/cc ability.
Also, bring back buffs? Your max level friends should be able to help you out in ways other than "instantly de-level in 5 level increments, the same gear, but able to group and get rewards with my level 10 friend".
Absolutely. The classes are being set up so there is interdependence, where different classes play important roles in group encounters. Our target audience are players who enjoy working together as a team (although that's not to say there won't be any solo content -- there will be, just as there will be some raid content -- but the emphasis is on group, cooperative play).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Far as I'm concerned Brad is going to have the create a game that gives out blowjobs and orgasms at the drop of a hat. If rumors that pantheon is where Smed is landing is true. Then all bets are off.
Brad and Smed were apart of the crew that made EQ1 what it was, an incredible mmo and the grandfather of all mmo's. Just because Smed has a bad rep since then doesn't necessarily mean he will continue that trend, especially if he isn't in charge how he was at SoE. Lets hope for the best. We have a lot of EQ and Vanguard people working on this game which is a good sign to begin with. All we can do is wait, hope and see.
I wrote up a blog back when Smed left Daybreak -- you can read it here:
But I'll sum it up for you because my posts are often long and verbose
Smed will always be someone I look up to, respect, and I will always be thankful to him for the fantastic opportunities he gave me. That said, the kind of games he wants to make are very different than the kinds I want to make. The chances of him being involved in Pantheon at some point are extremely unlikely.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
I keep seeing stuff about incentives to group/community building, but will we see a return to original RPG balance? A world where rogues and wizards OF COURSE do more damage than your paladin, but you have utility and heals that make up for it. I'm tired of games being balanced around damage just because someone is gonna make an addon to measure their epeen against. As soon as games started balancing around damage everyone got their own sustain/escape/movement/cc ability.
Also, bring back buffs? Your max level friends should be able to help you out in ways other than "instantly de-level in 5 level increments, the same gear, but able to group and get rewards with my level 10 friend".
That being said, Brad seems to be a very very persistent person. I never thought in a million years the project would ever get this far, but apparently I was wrong. He did get a little lucky that people like Monte and Joppa were willing to work on the project for free, and now they apparently even found some funding and are hiring new people.
SE was literally embarrassed with the state that FFXIV was initially launched in, and it brought shame upon the entire company SE is part of.
For the Japanese, that is no small thing.
As a result, they STOPPED taking customer money (a thing unheard of in most business) and spent tens of millions in secondary development costs re-engineering the game from the ground up.
SE did it to repair their reputation with customers and to protect a very profitable IP.
Don't ever expect to see such a thing again, and certainly not from a non-Japanese company.
You're also essentially denying niche marketing works. Which is nonsense. Catering to a smaller market is the only chance most games have and the amount of money lost trying to copy the leader is staggering. If Wildstar was a niche product, then tell me was it an absolutely brilliant at catering to the raiding population? Did it give them a better raiding experience than EQ or Wow? If not then that is why it failed. To capture a niche market you have to be better at giving that niche what they want. If you aren't and raiding is no better than in Wow, then you fail and people will just play Wow.
As for camping, it was never universally hated. So you're making no sense. You are essentially saying "yeah, some people liked it in 1999 but zero people like it today." Based on what? All I see in your post is "I would never play a game like that and I can't imagine anyone else doing it in 2015 because now they don't have too." Well, here's something you can count on: not everyone has the same tastes. Some people never thought it was progress to move away from certain mechanics because they suited their tastes. Those people haven't gone away they've been ignored and their existence denied, just like you are doing in this post.
Who were these devs that left? Vu and Vhalen? Any idea why they left? And oh well, I'm sure every mmo that's in development has people come and go. Not everyone is going to agree on certain things and that goes with ANYTHING in general.
Brad and Smed were apart of the crew that made EQ1 what it was, an incredible mmo and the grandfather of all mmo's. Just because Smed has a bad rep since then doesn't necessarily mean he will continue that trend, especially if he isn't in charge how he was at SoE. Lets hope for the best. We have a lot of EQ and Vanguard people working on this game which is a good sign to begin with. All we can do is wait, hope and see.
Now I will repeat what you said:
"Most people want to see something new. And the MMO genre is now full of a lot of players who never played in the old mmos."
Correct me if I am wrong but then that would mean these 1999 ideas would be "new" to them in 2016/17. Then you went and added in more support against what you are arguing by stating in addition to all of these people, that there is a specific group of people who want this type of game.
So, I guess I agree with you?
I understand that, I did play both after all. You have to admit though that today's demographics are not the same as they were even five years ago. Wizardry went with a pretty hardcore play set and they didn't make it. I'm sure there were other factors, but it could also mean that there aren't enough old school hardcores to maintain even an indy game. As with most things, there are mulitple variables to consider for any project. I wish you the best of luck, but if you remain too hardcore and too old school, I won't be playing, even though I am a big fan of your world and class design philosophy.
I have far worst things to hate with mmos than a single person.
- Archeage founders pack, and the trick of it's F2P on release.
- ESO- with its screwed up Mega server technology and carrot on a stick map
- Wildstar- with its silly obnoxious game play.
- FF14 with it's disjointed small zones, and easy open world game play.
- All F2P.....And a long list of other junk that are discouraging many players.
Yet you insist on being mad at a single person, because you chose to dig into the politics. I guess your not the only one. I just can't understand it.
To me classifications such as "old school" are arbitrary and fall by the wayside with lightning speed when someone comes along that makes the old fresh again.
My opinion remains that developers are best off letting their understanding of what is a good game drive their development rather than demographics. It is best first to be passionate about what they do, and then prove there's enough of a market for it, than to let the market drive what they do.
They obviously need a business plan to make the case that the project is viable. That plan should make conservative guesses as to the size of their potential audience. Such a plan can use EQ, Project 1999 or a number of other projects to justify their market size projections. Such a plan puts more weight on actual provable numbers than vague notions like "today's demographics." Such a plan is in no way obligated to capture the largest segment of the audience, nor is it wise to do so if it means basing your projections on taking away some huge chunk Blizzard's customers, because that's not going to happen. Once the business plan is done and they're comfortable that the game they want to make is economically viable, that's where the business end stops. After that issues like what Blizzard did, the history of MMORPGs and all the rest fails to matter.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote up a blog back when Smed left Daybreak -- you can read it here:
https://www.pantheonrotf.com/blogs/151/170/my-response-to-smed-s-stepping-d
But I'll sum it up for you because my posts are often long and verbose
Smed will always be someone I look up to, respect, and I will always be thankful to him for the fantastic opportunities he gave me. That said, the kind of games he wants to make are very different than the kinds I want to make. The chances of him being involved in Pantheon at some point are extremely unlikely.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------