[MUD-Dev] BIZ: Who owns my sword?

[Matt Mihaly]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Matthew Dobervich wrote:

> I'm not sure it's fair to say "none".  Would they make a very
> risky property from a publisher's point of view more so?  Yes, to
> a debatable extent, but I'm willing to give you "very much".

Yes, very much. These things are already massive, massive risks.

> But as with all risk, the rewards for success become greater.
> Regardless of the risks, you will always find takers.

How do you figure, exactly? Because the risk is increased they must
make more money. In order to make more money they need to either
charge more or gain more customers.

Let's say they have to charge more. A LOT more, to cover the risk. I
feel pretty safe in saying that what they'd have to charge to make
the risk worthwhile (since every additional customer now represents
a vastly increased lawsuit possibility) is more than most people are
willing to pay. Good case: They cover their operating costs and make
a profit off that but lose money overall because of the development
costs and come nowhere near to the kind of returns such a risky
venture must have to be successful. Bad case: They don't even cover
their operating costs because players scoff at paying such high
fees.

Consider the "more customers" route. There are already only a
handful of games with a really large # of customers. This would be
reduced to what, one or two? And that's assuming that the vastly
increased additional risk that each player represents is worth
getting big for while maintaining current prices.

It's a lose-lose situation for MMOG companies and players.

> Don't you think it took some balls for New Line to commit to
> making THREE EXPENSIVE fantasy films at once headed by some
> "no-name" kiwi hobbit with the initials P.J.?

Not really, no. Peter Jackson's earlier work clearly shows his
competence as a director and in the US, at least, blockbuster movies
aren't driven by the director's name. Not that you need any
additional marketing hype when it's based on the most popular
fantasy property in history.

> In the long run, I don't really see how this can be avoided.
> Especially as Persistant Worlds evolve beyond their current simple
> application as entertainment in a fantasy or science fiction
> setting.

I'm not sure why there's an assumption that persistent worlds are
going to evolve beyond being largely entertainment. People have been
saying that for 20 years and it hasn't happened. I mean, are there
any persistent worlds out there with any decent operating history
that have more than 100 people on simultaneously and are not used
primarily as an entertainment source?

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