Sunday 10/2/2022 Post

 

A little too close for my comfort but the boys sweated it out in the end.

Mounts in New World

 As mentioned in the New World September development update; mounts will be coming to Aeternum.  Here are some of my thoughts.

First I will admit that I was not one of the players that argued for mounts in the game.  The world of Aeternum feels small enough that even the farthest depots are not that tough of a run.  Part of what makes it feel small is that it is jam packed with things to stop and do along the way; something of interest is never more than a few steps away.  Mounts would ruin that feeling.

However, now that we've seen how BIG the new zone Brimstone Sands mounts start to make some more sense.  Before we get into what I would like to see out of mounts lets list a few things I don't want.

1. No random creature mounts; no wolf mounts, no elk mounts.  No flying mounts!  Just stick with horses please.
2. No mounts in town.  It is crowded enough already; we don't need mounts in town.
3. No insta-mounts; make it a decision to call a mount and make use of them.

With the "please don't" covered; lets look at a few things I'd like to see starting with a few ideas I'd lift from other games.

The first idea I'd steal is the way Roach (the horse) works in The Witcher 3 (and no I am not talking about Roach randomly appearing on a roof -- see picture above). When you call your horse in The Witcher it appears from just off screen; no magic horse from your pants.  This obviously is difficult to pull off in a multiplayer game, but if the mount could appear from a cloud of azoth and charge towards you that'd be neat. 

Secondly, the horse in The Witcher will automatically follow paths/roads and the player can basically AFK to their destination if its at the end of the road.  This would be awesome in my book; I already spend a ton of time on the roads of Aeternum and the world is beautiful so I'd love kicking back and watching the scenery pass by.

In Albion Online players can have pack mounts that can both be ridden but also can be used for increased storage as long as the player stays in range.  This would be awesome with the gathering that can be done in New World; I can just imagine an hours long logging spree without having to stop every few minutes to zip back to town.  Since we don't want mounts out in town the pack mount would just be stabled with the extra storage capacity available just like town storage.

Next I'd steal a couple features of Guild Wars 2 mounts.  First, the way you unlock mounts via in game quests and objectives is a great way to engage the player instead of just making it something they purchase.  Next progressing your mount so that it can do more and more makes the mount system in Guild Wars 2 its own entire horizontal end game progression system.  Lastly the way mounts control in Guild Wars 2 is definitely worth stealing.  Mounts in Guild Wars 2 have unique control characteristics (which can improve with leveling them up); not all mounts can stop or turn on a dime - some are slower to turn and some are faster to stop and some are slow but can bounce really high.  

While we don't want the flying or "silly" side of Guild Wars 2 mounts (for example the kangaroo mount that is meant for jumping puzzles) we want the core concept that mounts are their own track of content for the player to explore, progress, and then ultimately feel like they have some skill in using rather than just being a flat speed boost.

Another idea I'd like to see mounts take on is a role in combat of some sort with the possibility for armor that gives them different abilities just like light/medium/heavy armor for players.  I don't want the combat aspects to be defining but whenever I think of mounts in games I also think of charging down my enemies, flying off the mount, and launching into an attack.  If my enemy is taking off on a mount I want mechanisms to knock them off and engage them in combat.

I am hopeful that there is some care and thought put into mounts for New World so they do not just become a visual speed boost.  They need to fit into the game just as any other system.  If we look at things like music became a tradeskill and how musical instruments fit into crafting then I'd hope to see mounts and mount accessories fit right in.  And I really, really like the idea of mounts appearing out of a mist of azoth at full gallop when called.

Want to mount up?  Leave a comment.

Old Post, New Thoughts on Games and Business Models

 Getting back into blogging (apologies for missing yesterday for my post a day commitment) has also had me reminiscing through my 17+ years of posts.  I stumbled across This is WHY Free 2 Play works, quote from Pirates of the Burning Seas team today and it got me thinking.  I find it odd how, as a gamer, I jumped in to defend a company making money.  More odd is I still hold to this line of thinking.

It took me reading a few posts to wrangle what my younger self held as opinion on the topic of business models for games, but here is my "years later" assessment of that journey.

• Back in the day you bought a game in a box and got everything with it.  
• If the game was online you paid for a subscription and that made sense.
• Online games with player trading often had real money trade (RMT) where players would sell in game items and game accounts to other players for real cash (usually via eBay)
  
• RMT was part of how we played Ultima Online back in the day; you had to go to eBay to buy a house as an example.
  
• After moving on from Ultima Online to newer games like Dark Ages of Camelot (DAoC) it became clear to me RMT ruins these games
• Anti-RMT, buy the box, and pro-subscription became my mantra; just look at how much a player could get out of World of Warcraft for $15 a month!
• Micro transactions (the infamous horse armor DLC) made no sense
• At some point I then tried some free 2 play games and I still remember when I posted: My First Microtransaction (in retrospect that was money NOT well spent)
  
• I seem to have turned the corner around the time of this post
• "So, color me conflicted on micro-transaction business models. I still don't believe it beats a subscription model, but no longer is it the EVIL that I thought it was."
• Ever since that time I seem to have adopted the moniker of "games are a business and have to make money first"

With that last bullet I am going to hop off the autobiography train and focus on "games are a business and have to make money first".  In my older age I find this really odd as a position for a consumer of a product to take, but as a gamer who really-really wants to see my niche of games (MMORPGs) have new options to try.  Basically I want to "vote with my wallet" for games that I want to be successful or from developers I want to be successful.

Speaking of "voting with my wallet" that brings us back full circle to business models.  In the subscription model players have a single vote; my vote counts the same as yours -- either I am a subscriber or I am not.  In a micro-transaction model each player's vote is variable.  A player in a free 2 play game may abstain from voting by just playing for free or a player may be a whale 

There are so many issues with this.  The biggest problem of video games making money is that it preys on human weakness.  For some of us it's just a case of "I have more money than time so I want to buy my way ahead or buy things that are fun", but for others it preys on impaired decision making (children, addiction, FOMO, etc) and works to extract maximum cash.  Yet, I still defend that a game is a business first and has to make money.

To the post I kicked this off with on why free 2 play works (which is really to say micro transactions work) is that it does let players invest at their level so developers/publishers can maximize per-player return. I do still believe as I mentioned in that post that good game design can keep the playing field level.  

At the simplest level for my argument are the games that "just sell cosmetics"; games like New World where after you buy the game you can play for free (no subscription) but then there is a store that offers all sorts of goofy outfits and stuff to put in your house; none of which affects power level when playing.  If you really like and want to support the game then drop $50 on the store, but there is no requirement to do so.

In the more complex category are games with things like battle passes/premium/season pass (for my purposes just called battle pass).  I think battle passes came from a marriage of game design and business model.  For many games battle passes offer unique rewards and drive players to participate in the game in a certain manner.  Good game designers marry battle passes with great game play and it's a great experience.  Every time I jump back into Apex Legends I snag the battle pass and it is worth it.  In Guild Wars 2 I've bought multiple living seasons (which are battle pass like).  Battle pass is the modern day subscription, but this time around players get a benefit.

Of course there is the opposite end of this where battle passes are required to make any meaningful progress and the entire game is designed to get you to pay up.  This is where I start drawing the line as it falls into an area of abusing players.  This is basically why I don't play any mobile games; every single one I've ever looked into, while looking fun, are just designed to make me depart with my cash.

In conclusion: I support game companies making money and I believe good game design can go hand in hand.  It is important to keep this in mind when looking at future games; the sooner they outline the business model the more likely it is the game design will support it in a positive manner.  The later a game decides on it's business model the more likely it is to be abusive and/or insufficient to be successful for the game.  

Want me to review more of my old posts?  Want to argue with me?  Leave a comment.