Does MOOS need to attract new players?

Nalates · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:48 pm

Christian Walther wrote:

TOOO (and others) wrote:

We want to attract people, remember?

We do? I certainly don't. What I want is to enjoy myself. If the things that I enjoy attract other people as well, all the better. But if attracting people means making Uru more similar to other, more popular games that I don't enjoy, then that is a loss of value to me and I won't support it.

I for one am very glad that Uru is finally being freed from the need to attract people.

Form another thread: HERE

The above sentiment surprised me. :shock:

It seems obvious, to me, that Uru likely is going to have to pay its way, but many disagree. From the UU days it seems obvious, to me, that fan bases decrease over time and survival requires new blood, for many reasons. So, in my viewpoint, of course we need new fans and any changes to Uru should be made with that in mind. But, is Christian right that Uru is freed? Do we care to attract new players?

I understand wanting to have a game changed to meet ones personal preferences and to see improvements add things one personally enjoys. Makes sense to me. I would like that. As diverse as the Uru Community is, I don’t see that as being possible for each and every member of the community.

There are several issues that will likely impact the necessity of attracting new players or not, which we do NOT know the answers to yet. I see most as being mutually exclusive. Uru servers will be easy and cheap to run or they won’t. We can change MOUL content in some way or we can’t and so on. But, the technical issues are not so much the point here. They are being discussed in other threads. This is more about finding the opinion of the community. So, your opinion is…

Erik · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:59 pm

If we find ways to attract new players that we enjoy as well, we should work on that. The more people discover what Uru is about, the higher the chance that Cyan will be able to contribute eventually.

However, it shouldn't be top priority in my opinion. Christian is right that Uru has been freed somewhat. Sometimes every day on Uru felt as if it could be the last day... Everyone knew that more players were needed for Uru to survive... Many worried about that, and after the season final, the worries became justified. Another example is that Uru adopted the episode format, not because it really suited Uru's nature, but to attract more people.

So Uru has been freed now, there is no more pressure, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look for ways to attract more people. It's just that it doesn't have to be a priority any more.

chucker · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:06 pm

Your poll answers create a false dichotomy. Christian isn't saying that he wants to explicitly exclude new players; he's saying that we shouldn't bend Uru in order to make it more attractive.

Lontahv · **Joined:** Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:51 pm **Posts:** 265

I personally don't feel comfortable when people have been kinda convinced into coming to Uru when it's not really their thing.

You get things like: "Where do I get a gun powerup?" and "How can a change my instant-kill hotkey??!?".

Not super high-priority right now (as Erik said).

MustardJeep · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:13 pm

<Shocking>

Uru needs more people playing it.

If the community can't explore the possibilities trying new things that may interest people I'll eat my hat.

Teedyo · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:28 pm

It would be nice if the poll choices actually made sense. It'd even be nice if the choices followed the list topic.

That said; Does 'MOOSE' need new players? Not really. As Christian stated, the opening of the source has freed URU from that requirement. Would attracting new players be bad/good? Both positions have their detractions/benefits. Would attracting new players help to propel URU into its next commercial form? Maybe. There are just too many variables and subjective opinions as to what is good or bad to make a blanket statement.

SCGreyWolf · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:31 pm

At the risk of stuffing syntax into Christian's mouth, I think all he meant is that we don't need to market Uru to other players now. Play, have fun, and people will show up when they see we're having fun without them.

Sophia · **Joined:** Wed May 17, 2006 11:30 pm **Posts:** 1116

But but... isn't it expensive to attract more players? Think of the server(s) bandwidth(s) :shock:

I say it is high time we kick some OUT so at least WE can play :lol:

/runs!

Nerf Bludgeon · **Joined:** Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:11 pm **Posts:** 77

The first time I played Uru was when I bought Myst Uru: Complete Chronicles back in '05. I was overwhelmed by the amount of content. No other Myst game had as many areas to explore or as many journals and notebooks to read. But over time we've gotten to know the content inside and out and we've lost sight of how much content is there. We're all excited about the new Open Source Uru, but bringing in new people, people who will be as equally overwhelmed by the existing content, will only help this thing grow.

I'm hoping that the more people who know about Uru, the more chances we have of seeing very high quality user created content. I can see a day when aspiring video game designers will use their Uru Ages as a resume. This could bring about the living, breathing Uru we've always wanted.

Neereus · **Joined:** Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:22 pm **Posts:** 243

Problem is you are equating changing Uru and attracting new players. Honestly I agree with Christian, if attracting new players means changing Uru into a FPS or basically into just something Uru was never meant to be, then no.

Now, if you want to attract players by making the interfaces more user friendly, adding more ages/clothes/rewards/ect. then by all means, yes we do.

So your very question and choices are flawed, you merely alienate the people who would rather keep Uru as it was ment to be, by making them seem like people who oppose allowing new people to play. When in reality we would love more people to play Uru, just not at the sacrifice of what Uru is.

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:58 pm

Neereus wrote:

Problem is you are equating changing Uru and attracting new players. Honestly I agree with Christian, if attracting new players means changing Uru into a FPS or basically into just something Uru was never meant to be, then no.

Now, if you want to attract players by making the interfaces more user friendly, adding more ages/clothes/rewards/ect. then by all means, yes we do.

So your very question and choices are flawed, you merely alienate the people who would rather keep Uru as it was ment to be, by making them seem like people who oppose allowing new people to play. When in reality we would love more people to play Uru, just not at the sacrifice of what Uru is.

Since I can't think of anything better to say in reply, "yeah, that" will have to do.

RW. · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:03 am **Posts:** 213

Rusty_Russell wrote:

Neereus wrote:

Problem is you are equating changing Uru and attracting new players. Honestly I agree with Christian, if attracting new players means changing Uru into a FPS or basically into just something Uru was never meant to be, then no.

Now, if you want to attract players by making the interfaces more user friendly, adding more ages/clothes/rewards/ect. then by all means, yes we do.

So your very question and choices are flawed, you merely alienate the people who would rather keep Uru as it was ment to be, by making them seem like people who oppose allowing new people to play. When in reality we would love more people to play Uru, just not at the sacrifice of what Uru is.

Since I can't think of anything better to say in reply, "yeah, that" will have to do.

I'll do you one worse Rusty, I'll just ditto the above.

Sophia wrote:

But but... isn't it expensive to attract more players? Think of the server(s) bandwidth(s) :shock:

I say it is high time we kick some OUT so at least WE can play :lol:

/runs!

Oh Sophia! :shakes head:

Soup_Fork · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:18 am

attracting new players , it seems, is not done by the software nor it's release.

so, it is doubtful that UOS will do much of that at all.

what attracts new players is current players, and advertising in all of its' many forms.

Keeping new players is a whole nother ball of wax !

mszv · **Joined:** Wed May 10, 2006 5:28 am **Posts:** 2266

I don't know. I don't know if it's going to be expensive to run the servers. If it is, then I think we'll need to attract new players, or at the least keep the players who played the last version of MMO Uru.

If it will be inexpensive to run the servers, in the short term it doesn't matter.

Emor D'ni Lap · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am **Posts:** 587

This more-players-is-better thinking seems like a bit of a hangover from MO:UL days, or from Ubi days, when more players meant more income for the hosting companies and therefore a better chance of survival for the game.
But under the coming model, player numbers don't correlate to income for server hosts. In fact, as Sophia has pointed out, more players may actually cost those volunteer server hosts having to pay for extra bandwidth and processing power.

Now, it would be great if, over time, larger and larger numbers of devoted fans were drawn to the game due to word-of-mouth about what a wonderful, enormous world had been created by the agebuilders, what a functional technology had evolved, what a vibrant, healthy community was thriving in the caverns....but these are truly things that will have to evolve. They will not emerge instantaneously, they won't happen without growing pains and without mistakes being made. Let's at least get over the initial stumbling blocks we're inevitably going to encounter.
Once we're satisfied that we have something to really be proud of, once we know our infrastructure is sound, then let's have a discussion about attracting as many players as we think we can handle!

Does MOOS need to attract new players?

Who is online