On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, James Schuldes wrote:

>
> The 'absolute' part is debatable - imho. We have heard snippets of "we
> were shocked that players got level 50 in xx days played..." makes me think
> that they (Verant) are concerned with 'how hard' it is to make levels, etc.

Heh heh. Please don't think by "absolute" I mean "whatever
Verant thinks." By "absolute" I mean if you had a million
years to play out the change over and over and see if the
outcome were consistently positive or negative. I find myself
scratching my head a lot of times wondering just what the h*ll
Verant is thinking.

> Retention rate of your customer base is gonna depend on the fun factor - and
> that will be the 'absolute' of all absolutes. This is after all the
> entertainment business. When it's no longer entertaining, you are out of
> business.

Ah, but even that is not so clear cut. What may be fun and
have high retention in the short-term may not be so fun and
have cause low retention in the long term. UO had that
problem with houses. You could own a house, everyone liked
it, and it was a major reason for people playing the game.
Then the world filled up with houses, they started to get in
your way, and a lot of players have quit because of them.

By "absolute," I'm referring more to what is best for the game
(and thus the overall playerbase) over the lifespan of the
game.

--
John H. Kim
kim@...