Mixed Slush
said
:
Dilbert2001
said
:
Even former OSRS Senior Product Manager Mat K has seen the many pitfalls of OSRS. However, his proposed plan to save OSRS is not to combine it with RS3, but on the contrary he wanted OSRS to break up into different parts and start selling NFT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Bxq8UBaMn0
Jagex aside though.
I mean, they can't sell mod mat k if he's left can they.
Not even sure there's any mods left.
And apparently the jagex just spent a month adjusting a yak track.
I am not saying Jagex's own plan or Mod Mat K's among other people's opinions to save OSRS is right or wrong. Just pointing out hardly anybody think putting RS3 and OSRS into one game will make OSRS live longer because they are two very different games.
Mixed Slush
said
:
That's what I mean.
We don't need a game for all the mods.
Especially if they left.
We need one game for players.
So Jagex aside.
1 game.
ROFL! Do you know we have SCUM, Prominent Poker, the Earthlock Trilogy, Melvor Idle, This Means Warp and at least an unnounced Survival Game and another unannounced Action game in the product list already? One game? ROFL!!!!!!
4. ensuring that all new games and content added are of the highest quality and bug free, to help product succeed in the marketplace and reduce reliance on a smaller pool of games (Oldschool Runescape and Runescape) and legacy technology stacks"
Very clear statement they are adding new games and increase the size of pool of games, and also reduce legacy technology stacks.
Mixed Slush
said
:
Then let's stop saying what jagex can and can't do cos frankly doubt they can do much and get back to the topic of runescape.
" to help product succeed in the marketplace and reduce reliance on a smaller pool of games (Oldschool Runescape and Runescape) and legacy technology stacks"
When we have a smaller pool of games (OSRS and OSRS) Jagex is at risk. How hard is it to understand they will be at far riskier positions when they have just a smaller pool of games of one instead of two?
Their intention is clear, and they have to be very clear, because the statement that issued is commonly referred to as safe harbor statement. It may have legally bound consequences.
They also mentioned the risks of legacy technology stacks and the reduction of reliance on them to. It is crystal clear if they were going to remove something, they would have to remove Legacy Mode, not EOC.
27-Sep-2023 17:47:28
- Last edited on
27-Sep-2023 17:51:36
by
Dilbert2001