Which still wouldn't do what you suggest. The mass is the same, so it has the same effect from a distance. Unless by "eat earth" you meant it would take in dirt until it suck to the core, still about the same mass.
So with the enhancements since then $10 is probably a fair price. I just figure being okay to pay $12 but bailing for a few more dollars for a "luxury" product seems overblown, but again...it's up to the buyer on if they feel they are getting a good buy.
I never was a Runescape player, but I was hardcore Ultima Online in the early days. Looking at the newest versions out there, it's intriguing, but also so much more complex now that I think I'd enjoy watching gameplay more than playing it now. Age catches up to you.
It's not a popular opinion, and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for the reminder, but what is $5 then in 2024 dollars? Just to keep a perspective that inflation does happen, and $5 is not a lot of money now.
However, if you're getting less of a product with a lot of eye candy to hide that fact, then get the pitchforks back out. In the end it's a matter of if it's worth the cost, no matter what the amount is.
A mark of a great game is its replayability. I know for some that's difficult because of the knowledge you have afterwards, but it can still be fun to relive things. On the flip side, a not so great game is the one where you never want to go through the struggle and grind again because it frankly wasn't fun.
My first live sighting of one of them I realized how god-awful ugly they really are. Even in some bronze/pewter terrible color. Or maybe it got left in the rain and that's just corrosion.
Spore made a huge impact, not only in mainstreaming the idea of an evolving game but in the ability to control characteristics and shape interactively and easily. Plus being able to share creations online was huge, even though so many of them ended up in certain shapes (humans being humans). Where I think Spore failed is in trying to rush through the first stages and get to the "civilization" parts. It would have better if it had a slower pace staying within the animal world. They also failed when they dumbed down and sanitizing the original game, which was much more violent (see the demo with Robin Williams)...but that's how nature is.
Thrive is very impressive, but it might be too realistic in its complexity and trying to include everything and that will keep it from getting popular. If I remember you can dial it back some, but it's still very technical compared to the simplicity that made Spore work. Maybe there can't be a good middle ground.
Looking at the petition itself it wasn't very specific on the terms, which is why I questioned the very broadness of the request . "Keep" implies maintaining how it is currently, not a transition to open source and player run.
I'm curious on how signers of this petition think companies could afford to do this. Often times shutting a game down is because the interest of players has waned. Making a law to require them to keep that server and software running...forever? Is the end goal to kill any online game development?
It would make sense to require a company to release the code for players to host their own servers, which has been done by many games in the past. Not to continue to run it themselves.