[MUD-Dev] Retention without Addiction?

[Sean Kelly]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Koster, Raph wrote:
> From: Matthew Dobervich

>> My initial gut reaction is that instancing creates more problems
>> in a persistant world than it attempts to solve.

It also defeats the whole point of persistent worlds.  I do like the
idea of restricting access to some world areas (especially if there
is a GM managing play in the area), but even group-based instancing
hurts the potential for socialization outside of designated social
areas.

>> If there are any PC game developers that could prove me wrong, I
>> wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard could, and they aren't
>> completely wet behind the ears when it comes to the challenges of
>> large scale networked games.

> I've got friends at Blizzard. I hope none of them take offense to
> what I am about to say, but...

> Yes, they ARE completely wet behind the ears when it comes to the
> challenges of large-scale network games.

> What they have done, and done pretty well, is build a large-scale
> lobby.  This lobby connects many instances of small-scale
> networked games.  Tremendously popular and successful networked
> games, definitely. A major achievement, to be sure. But a
> large-scale network GAME is a very different beast.

For one thing, Blizzard South develops and maintains Battle.Net and
Blizzard North handles game development.  So you could really
consider them separate companies.  And even BNet has had quite a few
problems in the past.  Personally, my experiences with Blizzard have
soured considerably since Diablo 1.  Sometimes I feel like I'm the
only one that isn't planning on buying any more Blizzard games.


Sean


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev