what if they made a Wing Commander MMORPG?

TurboTim07

TurboTim07

Rear Admiral
wouldn't it be cool if they made a Wing Commander MMORPG? players could pick between different nations<ConFed, Border Worlds, Andorran, Kilrathi, Nephlim, Pirate, Privateer, etc.> and each nation would have it's own special advantage. they could add new ships, guns, and tech with each update. people would be assigned to carriers and fighters. u could be space forces, militia, marines<don't ask how it would be complicated>, and so on. there could be a helmsperson for the carriers and everything could be real time. Scrambles could happen. You could get promoted and reassigned. For captains or generals they might make it like some sort of strategy game. That way you could choose to be fleet or pilots or something else. I'm not saying that they would make a Wing Commander MMORPG, but it would be interesting if they did. and it would be possible because look at Planetside. it has hundreds of players on at once and it rarely lags. so post with ideas because i wanna see what we could come up with.
 
Someone needs to read the news archive! That's exactly what they were doing from 1998 through 2000, but the project was cancelled through a complicated series of events you can read about in the archive.
 
TurboTim07 said:
wouldn't it be cool if they made a Wing Commander MMORPG?
Click to expand...
Mmmm... possibly. It could possibly really suck, too. The vast majority of the responsibility for the quality of a multiplayer game rests in the players' hands. Since a large portion of the human population on Earth sucks wang, it's a risky business.
and it would be possible because look at Planetside. it has hundreds of players on at once and it rarely lags.
Click to expand...
Eh well, planetside isn't even remotely the same type of game. Nor is "hundreds" of people a lot by any stretch of the imagination.

I will say that it's probably within the realm of technical possibility, but it'd be going head-to-head with some pretty heavy hitters that are already in existence and fairly well entrenched.

I'd far more like to see another standard WC game, or, failing that, I'd like to see all the currently existing games ported to GBA like Prophecy has been.

Still, maybe somewhere down the road it'll strike someone influential as a good idea. If it does, I don't doubt it will interest me.
 
I really liked the Freelancer system, where you have a persistent multiplayer environment, but none of the problems massively multiplayer games typically have. You can hang out with the people you know, without thousands of players getting in your way and finishing all the interesting quests.
 
Crazy Aces' races... I only bothered to post this because I enjoy saying Aces' races

Also, Psych, dump your sig down to 4 lines, including blanks
 
Also, Earth & Beyond isn't a super huge success, and that's what they cancelled Privateer Online for. E&B is doing okay.. but I'm calling it a disappointment along the lines of Sims Online.
 
Actually, the last news article I've seen E&B mentioned in (dated March 4th 2003) said that E&B had only sold 53,000 copies since its release. I doubt that this number would have grown very significantly since then, and for online games, the number of sales does not translate to the number of paid subscriptions. So all in all, I'd say E&B is pretty much a flop. Which isn't likely to encourage EA to make an online WC game, that's for sure.

Hmm, does anybody know how Freelancer is doing in sales?
 
Don't know how Freelancer is selling, but I know that plenty of people play it online. I think the biggest problem with MMOGs is the subscription stuff. It's good for a number of reasons but ultimately I think it just discourges people buying and playing the game.
 
dextorboot said:
Don't know how Freelancer is selling, but I know that plenty of people play it online. I think the biggest problem with MMOGs is the subscription stuff. It's good for a number of reasons but ultimately I think it just discourges people buying and playing the game.
Click to expand...

Well, the "biggest problem" with massively multiplayer games is also the core reason why they make them and the key component to their success. You don't invest in a persistent world unless you're going to get the monthly subscription income, which is partly required just to run the massive world.
 
That's why I said "It's good for a number of reasons." Thanks for reading.
Disagree with what you're saying though. Half Life has no subscription, MOHAA has no subscription, they do just fine without it. I understand they're not exactly the same, no persistant world and all, but games like Freelancer have one and you don't have to pay to play. I know they're in it to make money, but for a game that will solely be an online endeavor, the terms for success are lowered because it's already accepted that not as many people will buy it and keep adding onto the subscription.
 
dextorboot said:
Disagree with what you're saying though. Half Life has no subscription, MOHAA has no subscription, they do just fine without it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they're not even remotely similar to what Tim had in mind.
I understand they're not exactly the same, no persistant world and all, but games like Freelancer have one and you don't have to pay to play.
Click to expand...
Freelancer's persistent world and character files exist on private servers that could blow up or disappear at any time, and don't support many people. Subscription games don't suffer from these issues in nearly as severe a way.
I know they're in it to make money, but for a game that will solely be an online endeavor, the terms for success are lowered because it's already accepted that not as many people will buy it and keep adding onto the subscription.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure how you define "the terms for success," but the MMO racket is a hot ticket these days, and everyone wants in.
 
Frosty said:
Freelancer's persistent world and character files exist on private servers that could blow up or disappear at any time, and don't support many people.
Click to expand...

I've seen some relatively stable servers running up to 120 people at once. It all depends on the operators.

Not to mention you can run private modifications and customize it to a degree impossible in "true" MMORPGs.
 
dextorboot said:
That's why I said "It's good for a number of reasons." Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...

Wow, can the sarcasm or swab the deck. I read your post, and replied to the part that was relevant.

dextorboot said:
Disagree with what you're saying though. Half Life has no subscription, MOHAA has no subscription, they do just fine without it. I understand they're not exactly the same, no persistant world and all, but games like Freelancer have one and you don't have to pay to play.
Click to expand...

Those are completely different. The developers that run those games have a matching service that gets people together where they go play on player-run servers for free. The cost is picked up by thousands of individual people with servers. A massively multiplayer game does not compare one bit. For a subscription based game you have hundreds of servers or more under the control of the developer that must be faithfully manned around the clock. You also have a full team of developers moderating the game and developing new content. It's like the game never stops being made. Games like Freelancer cost tens or hundreds of dollars each year to run multiplayer networks for, Everquests and Ultima Onlines can cost millions.

dextorboot said:
I know they're in it to make money, but for a game that will solely be an online endeavor, the terms for success are lowered because it's already accepted that not as many people will buy it and keep adding onto the subscription.
Click to expand...

And that's perfectly acceptible. With a non-subscription based game the developer will only get perhaps $10-20 of actual revenue max after everyone takes their piece of the pie. With a massively multiplayer game, if everyone just subscribes for an additional month or two they've already doubled their income. Within a year a massively multiplayer game can be more profitable with a userbase of 100,000 people than a standalone game that sells a million copies.
 
Sorry about that sarcasm part, having a bad day. :) Just irritates me when someone tries to address a problem with one sentence when the next sentence or two already does that.

What I meant to say was, that I believe I addressed that part in the rest of my post.

As for the different games types having different server types, I agree with what Bob said. It just depends on the operators. Some developers have good servers, others don't. Some individuals run good servers, some don't. It's all about finding the right one. I've played a few MMOGs and for the most part you usually play with the same people anyway, so playing on a smaller server wouldn't be a problem. Truthfully, you can interact with so many people anyway. Understand?

I think it would be possible for the developers to keep doing things for a game after it's initial release. It happens all the time with add ons and free downloadable content for all those games. Perhaps not to the same degree. But that sort of stuff is usually based on a per need basis. Perhaps that wasn't quite the right wording. What I mean is, if enough people play it then the developers will keep making stuff for it. (Half Life) Games that don't get played won't get anything done to them. If WC MMOG came out it probably wouldn't sell so great. If it was free for people to play then more updates might come for it, unless it were modded a lot like freelancer. I've noticed that if the community takes care of itself in terms of new gameplay elements, and new content then the developers will just update the code so people don't cheat instead of adding a bunch of stuff.

And yes, it's acceptable for them to use subscription servers if they're making more money (since that is really the business of it). What I'm saying is that makes people not want to buy the product to begin with. Most people who do use subscription servers only do so for a few months (and yes the company gets paid), which means people will stop playing and go onto the next game instead of staying with their for the long run.
 
dextorboot said:
As for the different games types having different server types, I agree with what Bob said. It just depends on the operators. Some developers have good servers, others don't. Some individuals run good servers, some don't. It's all about finding the right one. I've played a few MMOGs and for the most part you usually play with the same people anyway, so playing on a smaller server wouldn't be a problem. Truthfully, you can interact with so many people anyway. Understand?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand what you're trying to say and it's not right. It's not a "good server, bad server" type of thing whatsoever. Smaller servers that run CounterStrike and Freelancer are wholly different from a commercial system that hosts thousands of players on a vast world with 99+% uptime and support. They can't even be compared in this context like you're doing. They're completly different experiences. Yeah, I only play fantasy games with other CIC staff people. For that end, it's perfectly fine for ChrisReid's Home Computer to host a 4 player game of Diablo and Blizzard to run a simple matching service for us to get connected. But for Origin to run Ultima Online servers it's completely different. People don't play those games just to hang out with their friends.. the whole point of the game is to have a huge universe with thousands of strangers playing their small role in a universal economy and whatnot. You just cannot do that on free servers and have it be the same experience. People do run free communal Ultima Online servers.. and it's completely a different experience from what people get playing officially. If all you want to do is hang out with your buddies, then that's great, just play with your friends on your own computer, but that is not the experience that massively multiplayer subscribers are going for.

dextorboot said:
I think it would be possible for the developers to keep doing things for a game after it's initial release. It happens all the time with add ons and free downloadable content for all those games. Perhaps not to the same degree. But that sort of stuff is usually based on a per need basis. Perhaps that wasn't quite the right wording. What I mean is, if enough people play it then the developers will keep making stuff for it. (Half Life) Games that don't get played won't get anything done to them. If WC MMOG came out it probably wouldn't sell so great. If it was free for people to play then more updates might come for it, unless it were modded a lot like freelancer. I've noticed that if the community takes care of itself in terms of new gameplay elements, and new content then the developers will just update the code so people don't cheat instead of adding a bunch of stuff.
Click to expand...

Again, you're trying to mix two exclusive types of phenomena. Yeah, Half Life is a great standalone game with communal servers and new content being generated. But people play it to hop in and do their little thing, then leave. There is no persistent world to be maintained and no living environment and economy to constantly enrich. Releasing a new addon pack every 6-12 months is not the same as generating content 24 hours a day for thousands of people simultaneously and persistently. I've already established the sales numbers, and the fact that a massively multiplayer game sells less than a standard game is irrelevant. Raw sales here are irrelevant, so stop bringing them up. Read my previous posts to see how profit is what game developers need, and massively multiplayer games are perfectly capable of generating greater profit with lesser sales.

dextorboot said:
And yes, it's acceptable for them to use subscription servers if they're making more money (since that is really the business of it). What I'm saying is that makes people not want to buy the product to begin with. Most people who do use subscription servers only do so for a few months (and yes the company gets paid), which means people will stop playing and go onto the next game instead of staying with their for the long run.
Click to expand...

Again, irrelevant from a business standpoint. If your mmorpg sales are low and people only subscribe for a few months, but your net profit is much higher, that's what matters and that's what's perfectly possible with subscription based games.
 
Bob McDob said:
I've seen some relatively stable servers running up to 120 people at once. It all depends on the operators.
Click to expand...
120 people is nothing. When you get to around 6000 people, then that's a reasonable amount...
 
Well, since none of my arguments are swaying you at all, let's just agree to disagree. This conversation is boring me. Sorry.

Back to what the thread is supposed to be about...

IF they made a Wing Commander MMOG, I would rather it be free of any subscription charges. It would be entirely cool to play such a game with 10 or 10,000 people. It would also be nice to choose sides (or races) and fight for the Kilrathi or any other race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top