Re: PBM deposits & value for money

From: Aaron-Dirk Boyden <Aaron-Dirk_Boyden@brown.edu>

Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0000

MadCentral wrote:

> I agree with Kerry on this.  It is important for a game to look good.  In some
> ways its a shame that this is true, but nevertheless it *is* true.  A good game
> that looks cool too is neat.

I assume people are familiar with Ultima Online, Everquest, and those
games?  Not PBEMs, but they're obviously related to the many free and
older pay MUDs out there in a way that, at present, no comparable
service is related to the PBEMs.  I was playing Everquest yesterday, and
in a number of respects it's less sophisticated than the better MUDs.
The major thing it's got in its favor is a GUI with some pretty decent
graphics, which is apparently enough for it to get maybe 50,000 people
playing at a time (and then, of course, just having that many people is
an attraction in itself).  I wouldn't be surprised if somebody
eventually came out with a strategy game on a similar massively
multi-player online design.  Would that be as successful?  And would it
hurt more traditional PBEMs, or would it attract a sufficiently
different market segment?

--
Aaron Boyden

"We are told so little that incredulity cannot gain a foothold.  I
suppose that is one way to gain credibility.  It is not a good way."
						-David Lewis

References

Re: PBM deposits & value for money
"Kerry Harrison" <kerry@madhouseusa.com>
Mon, 06 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBM deposits & value for money
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 07 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0000