|
How do you ensure that you survive that long? Because when you
look at it that way, MMOs launch... I mean, you guys have ambition, and I
think, from what I've seen, you have a really promising game. I'm not criticizing
the game, but promising games have come and gone.
EJ: Promising games come and go, and I've actually been involved
with the release of three initial MMOs, as well as expansions. I've worked on Ultima
Online; I've worked on EverQuest II; I've worked on Star Wars
Galaxies; I've worked on several MMOs that didn't make it to the light of
day. So, you know, we certainly have a broad experience, and we understand
that.
To us, it's all about initial execution. It's why we're not
throwing a bunch of extra features into the game. We want it to come out,
really fulfill its purpose -- really feel like value for its money -- and for
people to be really satisfied with it.
We know if we do that, we'll have all of
the opportunity in the world to expand it past that. So it's really kind of
this trade-off, and it's really difficult for us, because we're so excited
about all the aspects, but we have to focus in on just an initial set of
aspects.
I think a lot of games are -- I don't want to say "guilty of
it", but they're not so good at picking
what their limitations are. I think people get inspired and just go crazy...
EJ: I've certainly been guilty of doing that exact thing, in a
variety of situations. It's something that, I think, as a developer, you learn
more from your mistakes than you do successes.
So, as the lead designer, and as someone who's at the top of
helping to shape the product, it's very important to me that we
definitely explore those things, and look for the ones that are important
enough to include. But at the end of the day, we need to bring that down to a very
focused, very specific set of executed features.
The customization system is something we have to execute on
well; the action game has to be done well. I mean, everyone thinks that
you can release these types of online games, and, "Oh, it can be okay,
because it's online, it's multiplayer, so it doesn't have to be as good as a
single player experience." And we realize that there are trade-offs, but
we want it to be the best it can be, and so it's all about execution at this
point, for us.
It's why we just now started to talk about the game. We don't want
to put it out there and let people see it until we feel like it's ready to be
there.
There's also been a belief where people seem to think that they
can release an online game and it can be shaky at first, then improve -- and that idea is over, I
think.
EJ: Yes. It's absolutely over. My observation from releasing games
is: what you release on day one sets your curve. Sets your curve, so that no
matter what you do, no matter how much money you throw at it, you never really
break out of that curve. So it's very, very important for us to get that right.
We don't have the belief that we can ship something incomplete and get it out
there.
Now, the reality of the situation is, you know: there's always the
variables that occur as you get the game to ship -- there may be areas that we
could do better at. But the fact of the matter is, we're very, very focused
on the fact that the game has to be executed well. It has to be stable, it has
to be enjoyable, and it has to be worth the money, day one. Period. End of
story.
You're talking about "curve", and I find that an
interesting concept. Because if you look at some games, they start at maybe 800,000, and then they shrink down to 300,000, right? But then you look at EVE
Online, and it started really small, and grown to 300,000. And that's a big
victory.
EJ: Absolutely.
How do you look at those sorts of issues?
EJ: So, EVE Online is a great game, because what they did
is they came out, they didn't have a lot of press, and they had a really
dedicated fan base. So they used that dedicated fan base to get away with what
you can't necessarily get away with in a game that's heavily publicized. They
stayed quiet; they stayed under the radar; they built the core features, they
built the core player base, and then they just started attracting more and more
players. It's a growth curve.
That's not the average curve. Most games -- that are fairly
mainstream, that have a lot of money behind them -- tend to have to make a big
splash. And then they release, and the curve starts high, but it immediately
starts to decline. I've seen that multiple times -- have actually been a key
factor into why it occurred, so I have sins to pay for it in the past.
|
[quote]
Features
APB blends fast-paced third-person action, deep customization, and meaningful achievement to create a unique persistent online multiplayer experience.
APB utilizes cutting edge technology to create a “living, breathing” city where players clash — on foot and in vehicles — to determine the future of San Paro, a fictional metropolis, where two factions — Enforcement and Criminal — vie for control.
APB is being developed by Realtime Worlds — creators of the award-winning Xbox 360 title Crackdown — and is one of the largest and most ambitious online game projects in development worldwide.
[/quote]
So it's really got nothing new by the sounds of that! Features used to be WTF the game is about.
When will people learn, BYE
I can't tell you how many games have said, "We're gonna do X or we're gonna do Y" and then when the game is released, it's a steaming pile because all the promises they made were either over ambitious or they totally didn't care about getting them in before the deadline.
If APB delivers on what it has promised then the game will be better than any game before it that has used these "same" features because the features that were delivered by other games were wrapped in a lining that was less than silver.