At the 04 Game Developer's Conference I attended a tutorial Tuesday by the Sony contingent (Raph, Rich, Gordon, Developing a Massively Multiplayer Game). Somewhere in the QA late in the day, a claim regarding the business of MMOGs emerged. Namely, given the current western MMOG ecosystem consisting of "AAA", "Mid-range" and "Boutique" games, the claim was that the economics of the subscription business model will eventually squeeze out the Mid-range MMOGs.
What would it be like to live in an MMOG ecosystem at whose center were a few big generic MMOGs and at whose fringes were lots of smaller, less-stable, yet arguably more innovative MMOG experiments? There would be a vague problem of transitions: how to flow ideas from the edges to the center? How to encourage players to play in the fringes without being orphaned?
Fast forward to a point floated by Peter Molyneux (AI: Gameplay and Design) in a later session: wouldn't it be nice if in the future player profiles could be exchanged between games. Somehow games might collect, save, and then share player meta-info with other games. Then games could then adapt and configure themselves using this information to enhance the player experience.
On the face of it Peter's idea is interesting. Could there be a universe of confederated MMOGs linked by shared player information? But why stop with player metadata, why not outright transfer characters?
Would character transfer lower the barrier of entry of players to participate in small MMOGs and thereby encourage a vibrant, innovative, game-design culture? This may smack of nuttiness for those of you who played AD&D and can recall endless Game Master (GM) "multi-universe" arguments (how to move characters between different GM universes), but perhaps not.
One of the things I would like to jumpstart is the concept of an avatar transfer protocol that would allow you to teleport between different worlds. Take your 50 Cabalist from Camelot to Anarchy Online, where he becomes a 200 Metaphysicist. At your choice, the protocol could transmit reputational data as well, so that your ability to land a guild invite would be preserved.
The eBay account market is a de facto avatar transfer system that erases all role-playing choices (name, appearance) and transmits no reputational information. Not a very good system.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Mar 25, 2004 at 11:08
GDC's wireless seems to be working quite well, so I will risk posting a reply from lobby bar . . .
It seems that account mobility could be used as a way for the central, large MMOs (especially those from the same publisher) to further protect their lead. While the arguments of what your Jedi would become if moved back to EQ would be large and loud, at least Raph and/or other senior Sony mucky-mucks could swoop in and say "It will work like this . . ."
Getting the big players to share would seem to be more difficult, especially as it doesn't seem, at first blush, to be in the leader's best interest to allow their players to experiment with other MMOs.
Posted by: Cory Ondrejka | Mar 25, 2004 at 11:17
This is something I’ve talked to people about a lot but not seen much written about. I’m also interested in it from the perspective of having a fixed root identity on line and then having different instances of that i.e. avatars in worlds.
From a market perspective it would be interesting to know if the reduction of one element of switching cost would, overall, help MMOs as a market. Of course you can do cross world trading of items and stuff now – though in effect this is just a system of: trade out of a VW to a value represented ‘real’ currency then trade into the second VW.
Posted by: Ren | Mar 25, 2004 at 11:20
Switching costs and user lock-in are only issues for centralized, for-profit implementations of entire worlds. I'm guessing Nate is pointing to a future of worldspace where peer to peer and non-profit / voluntary / hobby world-building are also important. Those structures are not nearly as desperate to hang on to users.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Mar 25, 2004 at 11:30
Players would never tolerate 'immigrants' who were granted levels of power and items that they did not earn in _their_ game. People are outraged by other purchasing accounts or passing equipment from one character to another (twinking) and would instantly be up in arms the first time someone who had never even played their game before was handed for free what it took them hundreds or thousands of hours to earn.
Posted by: Brian Miller | Mar 25, 2004 at 11:30
Ted> Take your 50 Cabalist from Camelot to Anarchy Online, where he becomes a 200 Metaphysicist
Cory> While the arguments of what your Jedi would become if moved back to EQ would be large and loud...
Sorry, but I'm *really* skeptical. Obviously there could always be reasons to do this if it might attract a player base -- but it seems like a sure-fire way to make a bad game. You'd have L50 avatars from one VW just "porting" to a different rule set, quest set, and back story? They'd be bored L50 n00bs who wouldn't understand the game and who missed all the content!
I think Peter Molyneux's idea *might* work in MMOG space, but only insofar as the metadata involved was not simply analogous power/level transfer (which seems like a pretty vapid concept), but something along the lines of personality/identity/playstyle transfer (along the lines of avatar customization or the Bartle player typologies).
Posted by: greglas | Mar 25, 2004 at 11:34
Ted>Switching costs and user lock-in are only issues for centralized, for-profit implementations of entire worlds.
Taken broadly - i dont agree.
If we look at cost in a very wide sense then I’d say that they are of issue to everyone as things like social capital are at play here and as a member of a community I’m bothered if someone leave that community and joins another. Similarly if I want to join another world then portability of community is important to me.
Now I suppose like the uber guilds my community could span worlds but I’m not sure how common that would be.
But I think this is one way in which the notion of root identity might come into play as I might want to move my identity around in some sense that is separate from the economics of items or subscription costs.
Posted by: Ren | Mar 25, 2004 at 12:01
I'll chime in with the sceptics here, speaking as a player (my only "expertise" in VWs) this doesn't sound useful or even fun.
1. LV50 n00bs have been addressed. This is the reason many people hate online sales.
2. So you have a high level character in a game about which you know nothing. End game content is so much different from the content designed to introduce the game that you're lost, confused, and a hazard to those around you. Unless, of course, the game is exactly the same as the last one you played. But we're were trying to encourage innovation.
3. Many players enjoy the leveling and low-level content of games more than anything else. The proliferation of "alts" demonstrates this.
4. Codifing reputation systems is something I activly resist. I'll put my opinion out there and say that every game that's tried anything close to this has failed miserably and the feature is a source of grief and abuse by metagamers. I've heard eBay or /. cited as examples of this working, and I disagree, as well as question its ability to port to MMOGs. What is the rep system going to show? If you're a griefer, RP'er, etc? I'd never believe it anyway, and you can find that out in about 5 min with an /invite. The concept of my guild inviting someing based on a rep tag is so rediculous that it will continue to be the source great amusement to me for several more minutes here. Ah, where were we. Anyhow, asuming it worked and people believed it, your ability to organize epic PvE raids doesn't equal your ability to lead epic PvP raids which doesn't equal your ability to run a large PvE guild, which is different from a PvP or RP guild, etc etc, so again let's allow for different end game models and leave reputations to be earned the old way.
5. There's not that much value imho. What you're leaving behind is more than just a high level character and phat lewt. It's about community and "real" reputation/noteriety.
Posted by: Staarkhand | Mar 25, 2004 at 12:09
On the meta-info topic, I can't imagine a system where truly neutral data could be collected from one game and applied to another. Avg time per play session? Social interaction meta stats? A holistic 'risk' rating? Any meta statistic, from the tiny and empirical to the nebulous and encompassing, will be affected by the dynamics of that particular VW, and its correlation to the next game may range from high to zero. Assuming a high correlation could actually impede a new player's enjoyment.
I do find it odd that Edward, stong opponent of breaking the 'immersivity' of game worlds, is so keen on the universe-jumping idea. I think there are some similarities to RL as to why people cannot transfer their citizenships between countries on a whim. It is in a nation's best interest to require some level of commitment before granting those priviledges, regardless of nation size.
"There would be a vague problem of transitions: how to flow ideas from the edges to the center? How to encourage players to play in the fringes without being orphaned?"
Even if the midrange games somehow disappeared, ideas would still flow. Players and developers alike often play more than game, and have friends who play others. In so much as you could call the current crop of big games uninnovative, that seems to be less because the developers don't have any new ideas, than that the money men don't see an established market for it. "Innovative" is the hallmark of small games. "Innovative + popular" will make its way to the big ones quickly enough as long as they are competing with each other.
On the other hand, I do believe that sooner or later we're going to see a new protocol or undernet on which to set VWs and their progeny. That will force many of these questions and change their nature entirely--we just can't see that point from here.
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Mar 25, 2004 at 12:56
Euphrosyne> I do find it odd that Edward, stong opponent of breaking the 'immersivity' of game worlds, is so keen on the universe-jumping idea.
Social/cultural/economic forces are making universe-jumping a reality already, and I think there may be no way to stop it. So, my thoughts go to second best solutions: The hope for an explicit protocol (which, after reading the counter-arguments here, I agree is not much hope at all) would be to have this universe-jumping be much more respectful of the magic circle than it is now.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Mar 25, 2004 at 13:09
Seems like increased portability of avatars would just make it easier for players to aggregate on The Best MMOG, whatever that might be at the moment. I'm not sure making a switch easier is a good idea for any game #2 or lower. ;) WoW will be coming out soon - I can imagine a scenario where long-time EQ'ers bring their L50 with them, perhaps if only to twink their alt's as they proceed through the low-end game. It's bad for EQ and WoW both because it would make for both an expeditious exit from EQ and an increased content consumption rate for WoW.
Posted by: Mithra | Mar 25, 2004 at 13:37
One of the things I would like to jumpstart is the concept of an avatar transfer protocol that would allow you to teleport between different worlds. Take your 50 Cabalist from Camelot to Anarchy Online, where he becomes a 200 Metaphysicist
I think that it's a cool concept that might work for some one companies games (the way you can transfer your Pallasium characters between all the different Palladium RPGs). But the cons definitely outweigh the pros here:
Currently it's not your 50 Cabalist... it's the game providers. So for this idea to be possible we'd need s new EULA (and possibly pricing structure) that gives the player permenant owenrship of their avatar. This would bring about the official right to sell said avatar to whomever you wish making the avatar the true captial investment we spoke about in other threads.
Technically, to move between games we'd also need industry standardization on certain gameplay mechanics. This would could mean that all companies agree to use similar "stat/level/xp/etc" systems either across the industry or at least across a genre (would you want to move that 50 Cabalist to Sims Online?). The downside is that this removes the developers ability to adjust their systems for balance or to try out different game structure ideas.
Alternatly there could be some sort of "exchange rate" set up between games... this would allow designers to alter and tweak their systems as they see fit... but to you tweak your system for a better exchange rate for exisintg avatars or doyou tweak it for better gameplay for your existing players?
This sort of service would also likely cause a number of other problems - avatars rapidly hopping from universe to universe depending on who's system lets them level up fastest at the time. Add in the assumption that they would be able to take items with them and you have a whole new level of mudflation.
These are in addition to the many good points against this service others have listed.
Social/cultural/economic forces are making universe-jumping a reality already, and I think there may be no way to stop it.
I don't see how you mean. Sure players buy avatars on e-bay but this is far from "universe hopping" as the avatar was created in that world. You're not taking your effort put into and avatar on one world and moving it to another, you're simply buying access to an experienced avatar from another player. Sure you could say that if you sell your experienced avatar for $X and then use that money to buy an avatar in a another game for the same amount that is the player is changing worlds. But I don't see any reason that game desingers should begin condoning this practice by making it an official one or providing support for it.
Really though any cry for this kind of support is coming from a niche group - the majority of players do not eBay and typically hold a great amount of disdain for those who do.
Not all neat ideas are good ideas
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 25, 2004 at 14:07
I can imagine a scenario where long-time EQ'ers bring their L50 with them
This made me think of another negative to this kind of service:
Imagine if all players eventually start doing this... what happens to all your conntent that doesn't deal with the "end-game"? Is the remainder of your game just a barren wasteland where you do nothing but grind levels because from the moment you launch the majority of your players will already be at the max level?
All something like this does is re-enforce the idea that all MMOG's are about is reaching the level cap. I don't think developers meant to design the games this way - the enjoyment you get from these games is suppsoed to be in the journey itself. If you no longer journey through each game but just show up already maxed out then there is no journey. At which point why have levels or advancement at all? So we remove the "journey" from MMOG's as unecessary and have the only differences between characters be some sort of class and whatever gear they have. Well gear too can be e-bayed so obviously we have to transfer that between games as well.... and now we have gamers hopping from universe to universe attempting to collect the most powerful items.
So now instead of mudflation in individual games we have industry wide mudflation, classes that are impossible to balance due to the infinite variety of items that may show up, impossibly unstable in-game economies (assuming anyone even buys things in-game anymore), scattered communites that span multiple universe, and player bases that can't be counted on beyond the release fo the next game.
At this point will there be any RPG's left?
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 25, 2004 at 14:27
At which point why have levels or advancement at all? So we remove the "journey" from MMOG's as unecessary and have the only differences between characters be some sort of class and whatever gear they have. Well gear too can be e-bayed so obviously we have to transfer that between games as well.... and now we have gamers hopping from universe to universe attempting to collect the most powerful items.
This part here kind of reminds me of SL. There is no real journey and the point is social advancment and the collection and production of cool "gear" and other stuff.
Posted by: G_RAM | Mar 25, 2004 at 20:36
A possible method is that MMOG developers form an industry association (Assoc). One purpose of this Assoc is to acquire and identify players of VWs with useful meta-tags (think of a EU-type citizenship). Developers will share the cost of converting new players and then compete among themselves for the interest of the newly converted by offering incentives to try their VWs. The avatars they create in different VWS will be linked to their association account (root identiy).
Frank
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 25, 2004 at 21:04
Another variation used in certain PnP game conventions is that the root identity also engages in a metaverse endgame that requires the player to master a number of member games to a certain level. At this point, special features and contents are unlocked. One example is the unlocking of metaverse endgame quests in each of the participating VWs or single-player games for the special few.
Imagine a metagame where you are charged the special task of fighting hidden "evil" AI virus programs embedded into VWs and single-player video games. You have to enter into each VW and create avatars according to each VW's TOS & EULA and meet certain objectives. As you complete each assigned quests, pieces of the grand puzzle and mythology are revealed.
This concept can be a compelling reason to make avatars and players more VW portable.
In LARP land, characters and items are transferable at the point where players can skip the newbie tutorial levels and start at a predermined mid-point with common items. The primary objective is to reduce the cost of transition without unbalancing the VW.
Example: You can transfer characters level-for-level up to the cap of 10th level. Your character will have full backpack with your choice of 1 armor, 2 weapons, and accessories of average quality and 100 silver pieces. As an added incentive, you can chose one among a list of bonuses that is only available to tranfered characters.
Frank
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 26, 2004 at 00:56
Hmm, let's see...
So if I play in world X and become a huge success, I can go to world Y and take with me everything that makes me a success, translated into the equivalent for that world?
Instantiate world X as "EverQuest" and world Y as "reality" and you have your answer as to why this is a dumb idea.
It's possible that a number of virtual worlds that completely trust each other could implement a protocol for transference between worlds. Then what you'd have would be effectively a single virtual world with a bunch of different "countries". Believe it or not, I actually implemented this with MUD1: because of memory restrictions on how big a program could be run in "prime time", I created an add-on part for MUD1 (named "Valley") that ran in 35K rather than 70K (yes, I know, don't laugh). I then made it possible for people to walk from one to the other and back (assuming it was a time when MUD1 itself could be run). What happened? People played in whichever one offered the least competition (usually Valley) then went back to the one where status mattered (usually MUD1).
In general, the issue of trust is the hardest one to guarantee. One rogue world would completely compromise the whole system. If one world is easier than the others, you can almost guarantee that a bunch of players will go there, level up (or skill up or kit up or whatever) then return to the harder worlds to brag to their friends about how much better their character is now. This is not something their friends, nor anyone else, will appreciate.
If the virtual worlds are too different, there are problems with exact translations - it should not be possible that you could go from X to Y then immediately back to X and be more powerful than you started. This means that the VWs would need to be over-harsh in situations where exact translations weren't possible. Even relatively friendly, non-competative world such as SL and There would have major problems ensuring that if you left one for the other and immediately returned then you'd be just the same as you were when you left.
This kind of thing has been discussed before on MUD-DEV, of course, some 6 years ago. There was a big thread about what a GeneRic Universal MUD-Playing System ("GRUMPS") would involve, and part of it veered off into discussing transfers between different GRUMPS worlds. Use this post as a jumping-off point to see what the main issues were/are.
Inter-world communication is less of an issue, and has been implemented successfully several times for textual worlds.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Mar 26, 2004 at 06:36
Richard>>"In general, the issue of trust is the hardest one to guarantee. One rogue world would completely compromise the whole system."
As proof of what Richard is talking about... take a look at a game that already allows avatars to move between totally autonomus virtual worlds: Neverwinter Nights.
You have your choice of game worlds... and they fall along the same lines as PnP GM's always did. Sure there are a number of "normal" worlds being run... but there are alos a wealth of Monty Hall worlds where a few clicks gets you to the level cap and equipes you with the most powerful itesm the game can generate.
Admittedly taking the MMOG marekt might not be that bad since I'm sure you'd have to have certain credability as a game company to join the group of worlds that allows this transfer... but in their constant struggle to ever improve and balance the "end-game" certian classes are always accidnetially ending up over-powered for a short period of time. The minute you over-power a class and they realize it was by accident you can see all those players suddenly jump worlds to retain that power level in a world where they can't be nerfed back down.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 26, 2004 at 09:59
" GeneRic Universal MUD-Playing System ("GRUMPS") "
You mean GURPS. Never cared for it myself... I was more a fan of Rifts. I single game world in which you could incorporate all the otehr Palladium game worlds. A cross-roads world if you will.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 26, 2004 at 10:01
ST> You mean GURPS.
A joke? Richard definitely means GRUMPS, not GURPS -- but the GRUMPS discussion did reference GURPS...
http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/1998Q2/msg00034.php.
Posted by: greglas | Mar 26, 2004 at 10:30
I fail to see any benefit of porting avatars among "big name" VWs that would even start to justify the insane amount of trouble they would bring.
Enabling some sort of "Player Unique ID", on the other hand could prove beneficial at many levels, with some major pitfalls.
Metadata such as PUIDs could serve the game operating companies and the players - both directly and indirectly.
[Fair warning: freewheeling ahead.]
PUID could carry data about behavioral patterns (playstyle), CS/QoS history etc., which could support a better customization of the player experience from the get-go in a new VW.
VW operators could trade information about troublesome players to help with some types of griefing, but also to better cater to individual/specific playstyles, thus saving on churn and CS costs.
Why would a commercial game favor the mobility of its users towards competion (which would be an obvious effect of such mechanics) ?
Basically it boils down to a classic case of game theory (in the sense of prisoner's dilemma):
Because there is room for only two "big names" on a given playground, beyond wich number the other me-too games in the same sub-genre will fight a sisyphaean uphill battle for crumbs.
(the definition of a given playground depend on many parameters beyond the topic of this post, just think Pepsi<->Coke, among sodas, among soft drinks).
As the market evolves, incentive will grow for differentiation as the current trend of trying to please all will hopefully lose momentum.
If/when the industry gets its collective minds together, VW operators will figure that some users, however desirable their dollars, are better left to the competition if their expectations and playstyle fit another VW more than yours.
One could even foresee a brave new world where competing VW would both share user metadata and "trade" users (by way of competitive offers and discounts).
This context would be supported by the convergent interest of player's and VW compnies to see players reach their "optimal position".
Of course, the very idea of sharing PUID-related metadata among separate VWs and legal entities can prove an exercise in hazardous material handling, from a PR, community management and possibly legal (privacy, fair trade) perspective...
/freewheeling
Back to Avatar-porting:
the only situation I can see where Avatar porting could be beneficial (along with metadata) is for cluster-type VWs, where subsections of a metaverse are handled by separate companies/operators, among wich the Avatar is able to travel in-game without breaking the fabled "magic circle".
Not radically new per se, and already implemented in some MUDs and NWN-based PWs (albeit to a very limited extent), such mechanics could allow for small-scale operations to reach the threshold to profitability in terms of userbase size and scale savings.
Note that from a design perspective, not all subsections of such a clustered metaverse need to have exactly the same ruleset and setup, some level of variation could be allowed without ruining consistency ("This peculiar continent/planet triggers magical abilities in inhabitants that are unknown of anywhere else in the universe.").
Roll ball, roll...
Posted by: Yaka St.Aise | Mar 26, 2004 at 11:04
Yaka St.Aise>Enabling some sort of "Player Unique ID", on the other hand could prove beneficial at many levels, with some major pitfalls.
I'm sure that even if the major virtual world developers hated one another to distraction, they would nevertheless still feel able to co-operate on preparing lists of problem players. The main requirement would be some formal industry body (which we need anyway) that could act as honest broker to provide yes/no answers to "has this credit card been banned by another member of the scheme before?". The organisation would need the power to withhold information from developers who tried to exploit the system, oherwise some might be tempted to list their best players as problems so that other VWs won't take them if they try to leave.
I'm sure there are hideously complex data protection laws in the EU about this kind of system, but the USA seems less worried as far as I can tell.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Mar 26, 2004 at 11:24
Why not just use the existing X.509 cert structure (extended a bit) and the pre-existing systems of trust that have been established – here I’m thinking of the peer to peer type trust systems as well as the heavily top down ones.
I’m in two minds about the whole thing though. While I think that VW identity is in a strong sense identity and I mooted the idea of moving identity (rather than character or economic value). I don’t like the idea of proving ever more tracking / fraud mechanism that could be abused on the back of the carrot of VWs (or anything else for that matter).
Posted by: Ren | Mar 26, 2004 at 11:43
Didn't any of you run a pen and paper RPG where you tried to switch your players from, say, D&D to GURPS? Or White Wolf to Rolemaster? Don't you remember how many complaints you recieved, not from strangers, but from close friends who did not *appreciate* the fair and balanced methods you used to convert their character?
The only thing I like about the idea is how it might force more direct competition between MMORPGs. There would be one less "barrier to leaving" a bad game. Of course, this might also remove the 1-3 month grace period current games have to fix a problem that results in a massive loss of subscribers.
Posted by: AFFA | Mar 26, 2004 at 12:49
Completely, utterly, and wholly against this idea.
Transfering data between worlds is a desire borne of bad design.
If it was fun to level up in DAoC, who would want to automatically start at the top by transferring over their EQ character?
The problem is that our commercial games are currently only speaking to borderline OCD sufferers who are strongly opposed to losing 'all their work' - because the next game isn't fun. My friends who are long-term EQ players aren't switching to FFXI because it's just another level grind - and it's no fun compared to a properly balanced end-game.
Has it ever occurred to anyone:
"Hey, my team got to the Rose Bowl, so we should automatically get into the final four in the NCAA basketball tournament."?
Or:
"Hey, I finally got this 40,000 piece puzzle put together, so when I buy that 100,000 piece puzzle, it should come finished."?
Only people who don't like putting together puzzles in the first place would consider that a feature.
Posted by: weasel | Mar 26, 2004 at 16:10
Hallelujah weasel!
Seeing as this idea came from the GDC it seems some developers out there are ready to through up their hands and just assume players only want to play in the end-game.
You can blame the players warped perception on bad game design.
How about making the journey to the end game more fun so that players will want to take the time to enjoy all the content you painstakingly create instead of just seeing it as something they have to get through so they can be "ub3r l3v3l".
Echoing an early comment from an early thread - maybe characters having an "end" instead of an "end-game" isn't such a bad idea.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 26, 2004 at 17:56
Ironically when I was a kid I knew people who would open a puzzle box and leave any parts they found already put together (from their family's previous efforts). Then they could toil through putting it together faster (not enjoyable to them) and say to their friends/parents "look what I did" and enjoy their approval. This is representative of a large percentage (majority?) of gamers who have an external locus of enjoyment. It sounds a bit needy perhaps, but think about the perenial arguments against account/item sales saying it devalues real accomplishments. It certainly wouldn't do that in one's own eyes, so wanting others approval of accomplishments is pretty normal in MMOGs.
Designing for end game is not a bad thing, it's a lesson learned that is being applied to this generation of MMOGs in an attempt to provide lasting content other than raising the level cap a couple times. Eventually you will have finished leveling your character, explored the world, learned the cultures and it's nice to have something other than a glorified chat medium at that point.
I totally agree that getting there needs to be worth playing, but yes, to many the end game is the game.
Posted by: Staarkhand | Mar 26, 2004 at 18:30
If we can design an end-game that is fun, that doesn't require monotonous gameplay, timesinks, and artificial barriers -- why don't we just start the game at the fun part?
Why must there always be monotony?
If growth and advancement is the point - then that should be fun, in and of itself.
Posted by: weasel | Mar 26, 2004 at 19:10
There are many reasons against, but how about ways to make this idea work?
Would anyone like to comment on my previous post. Reformated it here again:
Industry Association:
A possible method is that MMOG developers form an industry association (Assoc). One purpose of this Assoc is to acquire and identify players of VWs with useful meta-tags. Developers will share the cost of converting new players and then compete among themselves for the interest of the newly converted by offering incentives to try their VWs (using the meta-tags). The avatars they create in different VWs will be linked to their association account (root identiy).
Games Within Games:
Another variation used in certain PnP game conventions is that the root identity also engages in a metaverse endgame that requires the player to master a number of member games to a certain level. At this point, special features and contents are unlocked. One example is the unlocking of metaverse quests in each of the participating VWs or single-player games for the special few.
Imagine a metagame where you are charged the special task of fighting hidden "evil" AI virus programs embedded into VWs and single-player video games. You have to enter into each VW and create avatars according to each VW's TOS & EULA and meet certain objectives. As you complete each assigned quests, pieces of the grand puzzle and mythology are revealed.
Example of Transfer in LARP worlds:
In LARP land, characters and items are transferable at the point where players can skip the newbie tutorial levels and start at a predermined mid-point with common items. The primary objective is to reduce the cost of transition without unbalancing the VW.
Example: You can transfer characters level-for-level up to the cap of 10th level. Your character will have full backpack with your choice of 1 armor, 2 weapons, and accessories of average quality and 100 silver pieces. As an added incentive, you can chose one among a list of bonuses that is only available to tranfered characters.
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 26, 2004 at 21:27
Staark>>"This is representative of a large percentage (majority?) of gamers who have an external locus of enjoyment. It sounds a bit needy perhaps, but think about the perenial arguments against account/item sales saying it devalues real accomplishments. It certainly wouldn't do that in one's own eyes, so wanting others approval of accomplishments is pretty normal in MMOGs. "
Very good call on that one... you're totally correct. Of course this also negates the idea of doing away with the journey as without it there is no accomplishment (nor a differention between those who have made it and those who haven't).
>>"but think about the perenial arguments against account/item sales saying it devalues real accomplishments"
What's interesting about that is that the account/item sale is also a form of external validation for the seller. I wonder if this is two seperate camps of glory seekers... or are the people who claim "buying your character devlaues others accomplishments" the same people who eventually end up selling their characters?
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 26, 2004 at 23:22
On brief reading of this fascinating thread, I just wanted to suggest perhaps that the originators of the portable avatar idea might not just have been thinking just about XP..
I agree that porting XP across games would break the system. But at a more simple level, I can see much benefit in carrying across an identity. A basic example: a player might want to use their SWG character (low level, but *fabulous*-looking, thanks to that particular game's avatar-building detail) as a default, irrespective of the game being played. Or, the avatar character being of SWG ethnicity may in itself be a badge, an identity.
Keeping it simple is undoubtedly key - such as, visiting an unplayed VW of course means XP there is zero, but the name, the looks, special designs, XP "reputation", etc, are all carried across, just for 'recognisability'.
It just makes me think of what happens when I go to France. I'm there, I look like me, they have no idea who I am, I can function, but I don't have to become a French person and I have no history there.
The popularity of moulding the characters themselves isn't part of a game, it's part of the fantasy - pure play. Presumably it wouldn't be too hard to make that part game-neutral?
Posted by: Alice | Mar 27, 2004 at 05:20
Not a good idea.
The design of these games is very complex and from what I have seen they are pretty easy for the player to ‘break’ for lack of a better word.
You can see this in the statement “players are the enemy” you can see it in Jessica Mulligan’s posting a while back that explained how auctioning of property and characters caused customer service headaches, and you can see it other examples as well.
The problem with this idea is that it would put a major unpredictable element into the games, one that designers would be very hard pressed to deal with. When you’re designing a game you try to either anticipate what players will do, guide them to do certain things or constrain them from doing certain things. If you do this well you can make some fairly accurate predictions about what will happen in your game.
Accurate predictions are important because they help you plan sales, marketing and customer service. In virtual worlds there is a real interaction between these 3 areas and the player experience that is not there in offline games.
Simple examples:
• If there is no marketing of the game the player base may be too small to support enjoyable game play
• If marketing attracts 50,000 players in the first day but the log in system was designed for 20,000 per day 30,000 people will be unhappy and customer service costs will soar
More complex example:
You design your game so that is takes an average of 2 months for people to reach high level content with higher level drops. You have designed exciting, challenging content where knowledge of the game systems is an important part of successful play. Your game is a success so thousands of high level players from another game migrate over. A bunch of things happen:
The high level migrants don’t know the game system so they lose to the challenging content. Some of them become unhappy and they start calling customer service increasing your customer care costs and reducing the money you have for development.
They uncover your high end bugs all at once instead of gradually so you have to rush programming resources to the problem. There are more customer care calls as well.
The economy starts to distort because of the sudden influx of higher level items. Lower level players working their way up get angry. The boards fill with complaints, and then they start to leave.
I don’t see any real benefit to game designers but I do see a lot of downside. This suggestion might create benefit to players but I am not even convinced of that. People often wish for things that look attractive at the time but are not that great in retrospect, this idea looks like an example of that.
Posted by: Tom Hunter | Mar 27, 2004 at 08:35
Alice>>"Keeping it simple is undoubtedly key - such as, visiting an unplayed VW of course means XP there is zero, but the name, the looks, special designs, XP "reputation", etc, are all carried across, just for 'recognisability'."
Now that's not a bad idea... a static and unique online player identity outside the avatar structure. The identity could hold what level your avatar has reached across all the games you've ever played, you player type, or a variety of other information. This could also allow a tracking by the companies of the players various issues and hardware configuration for troubleshooting purposes as well as (and I think someone had this idea earlier) allow companies to tap this usage data to custom taylor content.
However, I think the benefit that would most attract players to this would be the ability this would provide to reserve character names. With a centralized uniform database of player info it could be known that I am Sourtone and that any aatar you come across named Sourtone (at least in games utilizing the identity system) will also be me and only me.
You get the same portability of reputation without risking the dilution or even destruction of opposing/incompatible game worlds.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 27, 2004 at 09:14
Hi All,
Just wanted to jump in and connect two dots.
Sourtone> I was more a fan of Rifts. I single game world in which you could incorporate all the other Palladium game worlds. A cross-roads world if you will.
With the post on 'There's Island of Women' announcing the connection of those two communities, I think you are going to start to see a very new trend arise in the VW space.
Not only might community relationships someday be transferable through a central crossroads, but with There's economic model or through GamingOpenMarket, I think we will increasingly see that economic relationships are transferable as well.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Mar 27, 2004 at 14:04
Bruce>>"With the post on 'There's Island of Women' announcing the connection of those two communities, I think you are going to start to see a very new trend arise in the VW space"
True - so perhaps we are talking about two different things:
On the one hand are the Character Progression games, like EQ and DAoC, where as you level your character you gain more and more power and thus access to "higher level" content.
On the other hand are the true Virtual World games, like There and iVillage, where there is no real "progression" to your character. True there is still accumulation of wealth but there is no real "end game" where you've accomplished all there is to accomplish in the game world until the next expansion/story update comes out.
More than just a difference in design is the difference of the perception by players. In the True Virtual World the avatar is a representation of self and you simply co-exist with the other denzins of the world. Which is why you see no real market for account/character slaes for these games. As well, being able to move between different True Virtual Worlds is not really any different than moving to a different country - the currency, customs, and types of jobs available are different but that's about it... who you were in your old country is represented only by how much money you can bring with you.
In the Character Progression genre the avatars, as Staark pointed out, are status symbols of a sort and it's felt that status must be earned. So characters who, in essence, grew up in one world would be very angered by characters who migrated there and were simply given everything they natives worked so hard to earn (the fact it might have been earned elsewhere is irrelevant). Further the differences between Character Progression worlds are much more vast as much of it is defined by the different abilities of the characters themselves which are frequently based on wholley different systems.
So maybe none of us should be making blanket statements on this issue.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 27, 2004 at 21:16
Hi Sourtone,
Yes, very true. And, at the heart of the issue, it is not just about transferable RL wealth and blanket statements.
One of the design challenges of a virtual world, be it MMORPG or OLIVE (On-Line Interactive Virtual Environment), is that if at all possible you want to bring the prevalent gray market activities of the membership into the world, and into the storyline.
This means that if members are using eBay, then the developer's challenge is to find out how to bring that activity both into the world and into the story being told in that world.
Along those same lines, I think its pretty clear that while gear/rank/exp may not be transferable from one world to the next (except through RL markets), relationships are both transferable, and being transfered.
Sure, the awe factor of seeing a Jedi is pretty high, but I'm not sure how it would compare to seeing a well balanced group of 25, land in a new world all together, take orders from a single commander, and split into groups with several teams of combat, resource collectors, crafters and merchants, each heading out to scout for opportunities. I don't care how many levels the world has, it is just a matter of time before that group is a major factor and most players would know that from day one.
With the recent activities in TSO, E&B and URU, we are now seeing whole sub-populations migrate at once.
Over time, I think 'cross-roads worlds' will increasingly play a central role in how these groups form, move, maintain and recruit over the years.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Mar 27, 2004 at 22:32
"This means that if members are using eBay, then the developer's challenge is to find out how to bring that activity both into the world and into the story being told in that world."
This means that if athletes are using steroids, then the Olympic Committee's challenge is to find out how to bring that activity into the Olympic Games and into the world of sports.
Posted by: DivineShadow | Mar 28, 2004 at 02:18
Most of the talk here of world-jumping is entertaining in a way, but isn't really talking about any of the games themselves. On the contrary, there's a disregard for the individual VWs for the sake of this new metagame, in which you spend your time collecting regard and property (and avatar skins, and names) across worlds instead of within them. Seems to me that explicitly associating across game worlds devalues the content of them all. Certainly it sticks a RL foot across the magic circle.
I don't see a convincing reason why it is in the interest of the developer or the VW to grant the player an 'identity' without any in-game context. It may be cool for a necromancer to show up in There, but if a guy in T-shirt and jeans shows up in FFXI, I for one am going to be pissed off.
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Mar 28, 2004 at 05:40
Actually I'd think a Necromancer showing up and slaughtering the suddenly helpless population of There (they don't have spells do they?) wouldn't go over well with it's players.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 28, 2004 at 17:42
Tech like PS2 Eye Toy may enable avatar-identity tranfers among different VWs. Imagine the ability to realistically model your face in many VWs. The implications are interesting to ponder. Would you use your actual face or someone else's face? Perhaps everyone will use the face of a celebrity. Now, this would complicate publicity issues.
From another angle, online game bundles already have a form of meta-IDs: make one account and play many games. Characters are not transfered, but the root identity are kept and tracked.
Frank
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 28, 2004 at 22:47
"From another angle, online game bundles already have a form of meta-IDs: make one account and play many games. Characters are not transfered, but the root identity are kept and tracked."
The next step would be to allow players to reserve specific names only they have access to...
Of course one of the cherished things about online gaming is the anonimity and the freedom to be anyone you want to pretend you are. Wouldn't this dilute, if not eliminate, much of that anonimity?
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 28, 2004 at 23:44
Reserving names may end up being an asset worth trading. Domain names went for $1m at one time, so perhaps reserved name may have the same value.
--
A counter to the benefit of anon. is the benefit of publicity. A few already pointed out the benefit of tranfer of reputation based on name recognition. So, as the trend of guilds migrate to different VWs as a group accelerate, metagame content targeting guilds may be the next killer feature to attract customers.
One implementation can be a specific server for high level guild PvP or raids. If there can be RP servers, why not a server for guild vs. guild?
Frank
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 29, 2004 at 00:47
DivineShadow> This means that if athletes are using steroids, then the Olympic Committee's challenge is to find out how to bring that activity into the Olympic Games and into the world of sports.
Touché. Good point!
Sourtone> Actually I'd think a Necromancer showing up and slaughtering the suddenly helpless population of There (they don't have spells do they?) wouldn't go over well with it's players.
Yes, most defiantly. Screen-shots, souvenirs, memorabilia, maybe even a t-shirt that says "I killed Zebuxoruk" sure. Spells and metaphysical powers? Don't think so. I think crossroad worlds could have the ability to verify what you have done in other worlds without having to bring those worlds with them. Or better yet, give you a small taste of what it would feel like to be in that other world. Think Indiana Jones/PeterPan/StarTours rides at Disneyland.
Euphrosyne> Seems to me that explicitly associating across game worlds devalues the content of them all. Certainly it sticks a RL foot across the magic circle.
So, I think one of the great misconceptions in the industry is that there is only 'one' magic circle. It also seems that many people assume that this single circle can only be either open, or closed. And by default, if anyone can see outside the circle, then its declared an open circle for everyone.
But, I'm not sure if those claims are entirely accurate, as there are a few other 'storytelling' industries, that tell stories very well, without just 'one' magic circle.
The movie industry I think is the easiest example. Maybe it's just me, but I can't just watch the 3.5+ hr main show on a DVD like LOTR. I have to spend another 6-12 hours going through all the extra material and checking out the way they did this, or the way they did that, and then talk about it with my wife or friends. Does the fact that I know that Elijah Wood was in Flipper break the magic circle of either movie? No. Or the fact that I know he's getting paid for the the job, ruin the fun? Nope. Or the fact that the orcs were just guys in really good make-up make the story any less believable?No way.
Clearly, the movie industry has mastered the art of creating circles within circles. They do it all the time, and the public loves it. There is a small magic circle around every scene, another one around every act, then around every sub-plot, and around the whole movie, around the cast, around the back scenes, around post-production, around the production house, around the release, around the awards, around Hollywood, and around the whole industry. Every time you think you have broken out of one magic circle you find yourself smack dab in the middle of another one. And, from what I can see, that model serves them pretty well.
In fact, in many cases, you have to break the inner circle, just to see what the bigger picture is. Going back to LOTR for example, does anyone really get the full message without breaking the circle to read the biography of Professor John Ronald Reuel Tolkien?
In a similar way, I think we will see a number of circles continue to appear throughout our industry, within worlds, across worlds, across genres, across communities, across industries. And every time we think we have lost the magic of the inner circle, there is a pretty good chance we will fall in love with a bigger one.
Just ask Julian. That seems to be what he's going though these days.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Mar 29, 2004 at 01:16
Bruce> "Does the fact that I know that Elijah Wood was in Flipper break the magic circle of either movie? No. Or the fact that I know he's getting paid for the the job, ruin the fun?"
Certainly there isn't just one objective magic circle, but I still think that starting to play a larger metagame with VWs isn't something to rush into. There's no reason to treat VWs like Hollywood movies just because Hollywood doesn't have the ability to be like VWs. Famous actors add box office value, but there's little alternative for getting seasoned anonymous actors--VWs have more potential in many ways than old media, even Hollywood's massive budgets.
Short example: Watching LotR, during a scene with Elrond, didn't you think to yourself (or someone next to you say outloud), "Mister Anderson..." That was annoying. A registry ouside the game worlds which doesn't intrude would be different--but don't force the acknowledgement of other game worlds (and, implicitly, the heirarchical superiority of RL to all of them) on me while I'm playing.
I have similarly low opinion of name reserving. Can anyone tell me why it is a good idea for someone who only plays WoW to prevent other players in other games from using an arbitrary name--just so others can't "be him" in another world that he'll never visit?
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Mar 29, 2004 at 02:02
Bruce>>"I think crossroad worlds could have the ability to verify what you have done in other worlds without having to bring those worlds with them."
That I could go along with - a transportable reputation (like many put in their message board posts) might be a nice feature. It would need to be optional of course.
The only thing I don't think is workable is the transition of characters between/from worlds based around character progression (Be they RPG/FPS/RTS). In these the player reputation/profile could still be transportable.
Maybe we need to start www.ipdb.org?(International Player DataBase)
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 29, 2004 at 09:34
"Over time, I think 'cross-roads worlds' will increasingly play a central role in how these groups form, move, maintain and recruit over the years."
I think I found the perfect cross-world world. It's called the World Wide Web. Guilds meet up there, they use web pages, message boards and IRC to develop and shape their personas, then they move in groups to different games and play. Right under our nose all along...
Posted by: DivineShadow | Mar 29, 2004 at 09:44
Sourtone:
"However, I think the benefit that would most attract players to this would be the ability this would provide to reserve character names. With a centralized uniform database of player info it could be known that I am Sourtone and that any aatar you come across named Sourtone (at least in games utilizing the identity system) will also be me and only me."
Am I the only one that quakes with fear at the idea of a globalized name space? This whole unique-name push that VWs have taking has been completely misdirected, IMO. Unique names are HORRIBLE! There's a reason why we don't have them in the real world, you know.
What will inevitably happen isn't that you get to be Sourtone in every world, but you don't get to be Sourtone in ANY world. Why? Because:
1) Someone else took it and still uses it.
2) Someone else took it, and hasn't played a MMORPG in 5 years, but oh well, it's taken.
3) A friendly broker informs you that Sourtone can be yours for a reasonable registration fee.
This isn't even the start of the problem, however. One thing I hated about Everquest was the player names. Unique player names + strong enforcement of naming policy = lots of dot com style Arenathaka style names. Just a bunch of syllables thrown together at random. I would MUCH rather have 20 Raistilin's roaming around - that at least is a good name. Why do people get upset when a name becomes common? I know plenty of Mark's, but I'm not going to whine that no one else should be called Mark. Or that everyone is breaking the Magic Circle in Real Life by naming after a Gospel in the New Testament.
The right course of action, on the other hand, is pretty simple. Allow other people access to the Unique Player IDs. Then provide client side tools for adding notes to certain player ids. When I meet Sourtone in game (the one I like), I can add a note: "Friend in EQ". Then when I meet Sourtone in WoW, if the note "Friend in EQ" is present, I know it is the same Sourtone. If not, I know it is merely someone with the same name.
But, by all means let people name themselves duplicate names. Let them name themselves stupid names. It all just helps me filter them out :>
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 29, 2004 at 11:19
DivineShadow> I think I found the perfect cross-world world. It's called the World Wide Web.
Yes, I think that's exactly what's happening today. And, maybe my prediction isn't all that grandiose, as it may simply be predicting that this activity will increasingly move from a 2d world, to a 3d world. But, then again, I also think that over time almost all 'social' activities on the web will form a 3d component; be that casual conversation, or listening to music with friends, or hooking up with guild-mates before a raid.
Brask> The right course of action, on the other hand, is pretty simple. Allow other people access to the Unique Player IDs.
Yeah, I tend to agree with this. Going back to anonymity vs. publicity, I tend to think that the tools to enable either anonymity or publicity can be developed, and the decision to use those tools, or not, can be left to the players.
Re: saved names, in any case, I think we would have to assume that the tool would allow as many or as few of a person's avatars in one world to be associated with as many or as few of that same person's avatars in other worlds. A single name that you use anywhere doesn't seem like much use, as anyone that has multiple MMORPG accounts, is also very likely to have multiple avatars under each account.
Sourtone> Maybe we need to start www.ipdb.org?(International Player DataBase)
As DivineShadow mentioned, some of this is already happening in the 2d world.
See http://www.xfire.com.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Mar 29, 2004 at 12:34
DS>"I think I found the perfect cross-world world. It's called the World Wide Web."
This is along the lines of my sentiments (or expectations) for the creation of a protocol or undernet for VWs. If and when VWs reach a certain critical mass, the need for something like this will be filled--the WWW does a good enough job for today. The key point in my mind is that this ephemeral platform should be permissive rather than restrictive; it should require a bare minimum of compliance from a VW. Ideally, it should offer a wealth of possibilities and enforce none of them. Let people develop their own metagame tools (and I have no doubt that interesting metagames will appear), and let individual VWs remain sovereign.
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Mar 29, 2004 at 12:36
Brask>>"Unique player names + strong enforcement of naming policy = lots of dot com style Arenathaka style names. Just a bunch of syllables thrown together at random."
Well first off the difference between Samuel Jackson the actor and Samuel Jackson my neighbor is that they live in two seperate locations and are visually distinctive.
For two people on the internet named SamJ the only thing you have to say that they are or aren't the same person is their word. On the internet there is no physical location or visual difference (even within a single VW the obvious visual differences are usually minimal no matter how much you can customize the 3" by 3" face) so all you have to identify you is your name.
This also hinders communication between players... if I want to send SamJ a /tell how does the game know which SamJ to send the message to? We could key it off player ID's (and that would certianly eliminate unwanted tells) but when you have to consider that to talk to this SamJ I have to enter SAMJ00345 and this other one I have to enter SAMJ00784 then dont' their names actually just become their user ID's?
True, unique names does lend itself to some interesting ways to generate random names: Iurhefgusi... but then players that actually try to come up with a uniqe name are the minority. As it is most players will just add extra letters to the name they really wanted anyway or put together anything they can to try and slip it past the name filter: Hoose Yerdidy.
In either case there still need to be name police. While in some VW's silly names aren't that big a deal, in an RPG a lot (though not all by any means) of players crave the immersion factor and hate anything that breaks that. Seeing 50 people named George Bush running around in EQ or a Luke Skywalker and a Luuke Skyywalker running around DAoC disolves the "magic circle" faster than any OOC conversation.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 29, 2004 at 14:07
Sourtone:
"Seeing 50 people named George Bush running around in EQ or a Luke Skywalker and a Luuke Skyywalker running around DAoC disolves the "magic circle" faster than any OOC conversation. "
I have never bought into that argument, and I spent most of my time in UO, which was notorious for inane names. If your magic circle is so fragile as to be damaged by what other people name themselves, I don't think you will ever be happy with VWs. In the end, I'd much rather have 50 people named "Who's your daddy?" than 50 variants of "Hoose Yerdidy". The former are much easier to recognize & then avoid. To me, naming provides a beautiful self-selecting filter. Those who don't want the magic circle name themselves something stupid, and you can thus avoid associating yourself with them. Forcing them to come up with "real" names is like forcing wolves to wear sheep's clothing. Sure, you don't get as many reports of wolves, but you are losing more sheep.
Sourtone:
"This also hinders communication between players... if I want to send SamJ a /tell how does the game know which SamJ to send the message to?"
The /tell mechanism is silly. I don't know how people talked themselves into liking it - too much IRC or something, I think.
If I want to send an instant message to someone, I don't type in their instant message ID# every time. Yet ICQ somehow managed to allow duplicate names...
One would, presumeably, have an alias or shortcut for /telling SamJ. "/tell SamJ" could very well be bound to go to YOUR SamJ. If you know two SamJs, then you will need to disambiguate them in your tell filter.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 29, 2004 at 17:31
Brask>>"If your magic circle is so fragile as to be damaged by what other people name themselves, I don't think you will ever be happy with VWs"
There is a point there. VW's accept all players regardless of play style (at least until they begin abusing the system). Frankly I've found that not only do the bulk of players prefer silly names for their own characters (regardless of what they feel about others characters) few people who actually dis-like silly names can actually agree on what should or should not be defined as a "silly" name. Luke by itself, after all, is a normal name... other than the pop culture reference what's the real difference between the name Luke Skywalker and Luke Earthdiver? Names that are phrases are a bit more ridiculous but again it's all a matter of taste. By and large I think people choose goofy "phrase" names because they know it will get a rise out of (or at least annoy) certain other players.
Brask>>"The /tell mechanism is silly."
Perhaps - but so is global chat for an RP setting. Both of these facilitate greater communication between players which is the foundation of community. /tell merely lets players speak privately without clogging up the general global chat. Forcing your players to rely on third party applications for the most basic chat features is not really a great idea.
Brask>>"Yet ICQ somehow managed to allow duplicate names..."
Because ICQ issues you a user ID when you begin communicating with someone you have to find out their painfully long user ID and add that to your friend list. Once you've added them the chat program displays what they've selected as their nickname as differenetiating chat from 98847663 and 6298345 would be difficult to keep track of at best. So basically it works as I described above. So players can't just send you a tell (say if you're a merchant) you'd have to advertise your ID and then they'd have to manually add it to their "list".
So just to give people the ability to use any name they like you're not only creating more work for yourself on the development side but more work for your players on the interface side as well.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 29, 2004 at 18:38
Brask>>"The /tell mechanism is silly."
Sourtone>> "Perhaps - but so is global chat for an RP setting."
I was unclear here. I did not mean the existence of a form of private point to point communication was silly. I meant engaging in that communication via typing
/tell Sourtone What's up?
is silly.
Sourtone>> "Because ICQ issues you a user ID when you begin communicating with someone you have to find out their painfully long user ID and add that to your friend list."
Well, to start communicating with someone in the unique name VW I have to find out their painfully obtuse name and type it in typo free. It annoys me that in SWG that when I send a /tell, a simple typo could direct it to an unrelated player who I've never met.
Sourtone>> "So just to give people the ability to use any name they like you're not only creating more work for yourself on the development side but more work for your players on the interface side as well."
If it was just to give people any name they'd like, I'd agree with you, this seems extravagent. I, however, think many of these interface issues need to be addressed anyways. I shouldn't have to type in my friends name every time I want to /tell him. (And anyways, most communication in a VW should be in spatially localized chat. If it isn't, there's little point in having the VW, IMHO) I should be able to record notes about other players that I meet. Etc.
Sourtone>>
"So players can't just send you a tell (say if you're a merchant) you'd have to advertise your ID and then they'd have to manually add it to their "list"."
Merchants already have to advertise location. Usually that is more important than a /tell address. UO had the best location advertising (via rune stones).
Having to manually add a merchant to my list doesn't sound that harsh. Indeed, I can't see why I'd want it automatically added by the advertisement :>
Even with unique names, if I meet merchant Zanzibar, and want to /tell him in the future, I should not be forced to write down on a real world piece of paper: "Zanzibar: Spice merchant, good prices". I should go to my (client side!) contact list and add Zanzibar. Then put him in the Merchant folder I've made, and add a note about his spice prices.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 29, 2004 at 21:43
Brask.
Context, Natural Interfaces and Smart Agents... Here is the *right* place to apply this.
Do I care how many people named Ron there are? Nope. Do we need Ron2004 and Ron01 and RonRon? Nope.
I should be playing my game happily with my haptic-feedback-enabled data-glove, shout "Call that guy who gave me a hand yesterday" and my game agent (could be a fairy, a spirit, an implant or what have you depending on the fiction) would try to find the guy. Or ask me for more specifics. Once located my agent already tells the other player "DivineShadow is in the Catacombs, fighting the Gnartok and needs help". The recipient's agent might in turn reply with something relevant to Ron's state.
My 'agent' who does duties of contact manager, is very context-aware. If I say "Call Ron" while editing a spreadsheet, it will call Ron from work and not "Ron" form Ultima Online XII. It will know this because it saw me get a call from Ron yesterday while I was editing a presentation. My agent is also my information broker, and talks to other agents to develop a web of relevant information dispersal and delivery.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it goes to show an answer that is right around the corner to the problem of contact tracking and information overload in a world where there will be 6 Billion people online, each of them creating as well as consuming information, much of it duplicate, and all of them using similar (or the same) name.
Posted by: DivineShadow | Mar 29, 2004 at 23:53
Brask,
I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill...
Of all the issues I've heard players discuss the difficulty of in-game communications wasn't one of them. What you seem to want is for someone to build an ICQ style interface into their game. While not a bad idea it's a lot of feature where there's not a lot of demand.
Coming up with a unique name does not necessitate it being long and complex - I've never had a problem finding a short unique name. If you make your name long and complex then your just asking people never to give you a /tell.
Of course now we've wandered way off topic...
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 30, 2004 at 10:07
DivineShadow>>
"My 'agent' who does duties of contact manager, is very context-aware. If I say "Call Ron" while editing a spreadsheet, it will call Ron from work and not "Ron" form Ultima Online XII."
But I was editting a spread sheet of the sales on my Ultima Online XII vendor...
Call me a control freak, but this sort of uber-context aware "Do What I Mean" agents scares me. I really don't see why I don't have Ron_Work and Ron_UXII on my speed dial.
Sourtone>>
"Of all the issues I've heard players discuss the difficulty of in-game communications wasn't one of them. What you seem to want is for someone to build an ICQ style interface into their game. While not a bad idea it's a lot of feature where there's not a lot of demand."
This surprises me. VW are often accused of being glorfied chat rooms. And, if you consider how most people spend their time in them, they *are* glorified chat rooms. All the mobs, weapons, etc, are gravy. The game imbalancing issues are actually an important part of the MMORPG metagame - bitching about the state of the game. Lacking weather, people talk about the recent patch, or lag, etc. But people talk, talk, and talk. Thus, it should be easy to talk. Efficient communication should be an essential part of the design process.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 30, 2004 at 10:47
Brask>>Efficient communication should be an essential part of the design process.
Totally agree on that. Communication is the foundation of community so anything that facilitates it is a positive. I just question how much ROI you could get from an ICQ style interface. Would the amount which it improves community growth and stabilization justify the extra development costs? Might be worth looking in to.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 30, 2004 at 11:36
"But I was editting a spread sheet of the sales on my Ultima Online XII vendor...
Call me a control freak, but this sort of uber-context aware "Do What I Mean" agents scares me. ...."
You're absolutely right its all about control. Today you have the situation under control and see no need for this. As your (and other peoples) networked-ness increases it will spiral out of control and this will become a solution to gain that control back, not relinquish it. You'll get there.
Today your computer makes more and more decisions for you, like what network to use, what drivers to load, what display to use, what path to take your e-mail on (anyone remember "bang-paths"? Look it up). It assists on ever more complex tasks, and this is no different. I'm not saying go jump on the future, they call the 'bleeding edge' bleeding for something, but don't be surprised when the future gets here.
Posted by: DivineShadow | Mar 30, 2004 at 12:55
One thing to say.
BAD IDEAL on so many levels. I recommend that referees, game masters and dungeon masters be consulted long before this transgression comes to pass as well as developers of interactive games. I don't see it as a problem, most people realize this is at best a flawed concept.
Also, I advocate player ownership of characters in MMORPGs. By instituting this proposal you are saying your original work (character) has no real intellectual property value.
Brandon
Posted by: Brandon | Jul 18, 2005 at 21:30