🚀 go-pugleaf

In rec.games.video.sony Charles Doane <gdo...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Console games aren't especially well suited to games which allow
> that, as FPS's are weak on consoles, RPG's which allow it tend to
> be a strength of PC's as well (PSO has been called a Diablo clone
> more than a few times) and so consoles aren't offering anything
> (yet) which can't be done better on a PC.  Now, if someone could
> pull off a fighter (like DOA2's tournaments) online, that would
> be something, but the latency will kill it.

This would be a killer app for a console.  Fighters suck on PCs.

>> I don't really see the whole "tying up the TV" argument, either.
>> Anyone that plays videogames ties up the TV whether they are playing
>> online or not.

> Right, but they can stop instantly once Grandma wants to watch
> "Matlock" or some such thing.  If the kid starts crying about one
> more level or another half hour, that'll be the end of the online
> gaming in that house.

I don't see how this is any more or less a problem with other types
of games.  If anything, online RPGs are better at doing a quick save &
quit than non-online RPGs where you have to use savepoints.

Besides, even when not playing an RPG, how many times have you told
someone "Just one more ..." or "Just 5 more minutes ..." ?

> I think it's got a lot to do with the different style of play.
> An RPG player is used to the idea that he's going to be spending some
> hours on the game in one sitting.  Most other types of games aren't
> like that.

I would think the primary audience of an online RPG would be somewhat
familiar with how RPGs in general work - including the need for some
dedicated playtime.  RPGs aren't usually the sort of thing you can
just casually play for an hour here and there.  Ditto for online RPGs -
especially if it takes time to accumulate some equipment for your
session.

>> The only reason PSO has been dying
>> off has been poor customer service (ie, no resolution for all the
>> cheating), otherwise it was quite popular.  Anyways, maybe it has
>> something to do with the amount of time you have to invest in online
>> RPG's is why people are more willing to pay for them.  FPS's and other
>> online console gaming is so brief in comparison that I suppose no one
>> thinks it's worth paying a fee.

> I think there's another factor which has to do with the maturity
> of the audience.  FPS's, regardless of their "Mature" rating, are
> typically kiddie fare twitch games.  RPG's tend to be much slower
> and more thoughtful in comparison.

I dunno, I've met more than my share of assholes while playing
online RPGs.  Ironically, some of the more mature players were kids.

> Sony's supposedly going to try with an add-on modem/broadband adapter
> but if it costs much more than $35 or so, I think it's doomed.  It's
> the old catch-22.  Nobody will make games for something nobody is
> buying, and nobody will buy something nobody is making games for.

There are two ways to get around this:

1: Make a killer app that requires the add-on.  FFXI or EverQuest might
be that killer app.

2: Bundle the add-on into future consoles.  So maybe the PS2's pricecut
doesn't happen.  Instead, the PS2 comes with the ethernet adapter and HD
already installed.  This would be similar to the Dualshock for the PS1.
Once it came out, lots of games were released that used the sticks.  It was
also quickly bundled in with the PS1 instead of the old controller.

Admitantly, only one game - Ape Escape - has *required* a Dualshock 
controller...