We're working on a new RuneScape MMO
play.runescape.com
play.runescape.com
Stopped playing after a few years but still have many fond memories of the joy I had everyday after school logging onto that game.
So what I think was magical about the game was that the ends were different back then (process then vs levels now). I really have to think about it consciously today when I play various games because it really does improve the enjoyment.
Honestly still enjoy writing automation today because of it, I've gotten to use a lot of the skills I learned from OG RS at work.
It is one of three games I would love to see made into software, with the other two being Traveller and Paranoia (the computer is your friend, trust the computer)
This is also not their first Unreal game, as they just released the 1.0 version of RuneScape Dragonwilds, their survival-crafting multiplayer game that has been both a critical and commercial success. It appears that RS4 is to some extent an expansion of Dragonwilds into a proper MMO.
Besides, if they're going to create a brand new big-budget MMO, what else other than Unreal could they realistically use? Graphics aren't the primary reason to replace the RS engine with Unreal - the reason is gameplay.
Their internal engine that they use for RS3 (and OSRS) is only suitable for games like current RS. Even RS3 is still fundamentally based on a 1 square meter grid, gameplay-wise 3D is an illusion (no jumping, climbing or flying), and most importantly game logic updates only once every 600ms, which is about one tenth of even World of Warcraft. They've made two pretty good games despite those limitations throughout the decades, but it can't scale to anything that feels more "modern".
3D is an illusion in this sense in every game, with the potential exception of space combat simulators. And they can only make it work by pretending inertia doesn't exist.
You can fly in World of Warcraft, but all of the content is on the ground, and the designers keep griping about how they don't want you to fly because it makes them feel bad when you skip their content.
You can jump in Quake. You can't jump in Doom. This makes no difference. Level layout is the same. Jumping gives you the ability to cross very small walls and/or gaps, which Doom handles by simply not placing things to jump over in its levels. Elevation is real in both games; you can always walk up a ramp. There are three dimensions whether you can jump or not.
> 3D is an illusion in this sense in every game, with the potential exception of space combat simulators.
In almost all general-purpose game engines, most game objects are modeled as 3D polygonal meshes and placed in the world using three coordinates. They can be scaled and rotated freely. The world can be viewed from any position and angle and with any projection (disregarding some of the limitations imposed by rasterization). Object movement and physics are continuous and handled uniformly regardless of direction. Whether or not this is an illusion is a question of philosophy, but I can't think of a way this could reasonably be more "real".
> And they can only make it work by pretending inertia doesn't exist.
This hasn't been true for decades. The Elite series has done this since the 90s, and the latest entry Elite Dangerous implements physics-based space dogfighting with momentum and inertia, though you need to disable Flight Assist to get the full simulation. For a more grounded simulation, Kerbal Space Program implements enough orbital mechanics to support satellites in different orbits, and is realistic enough to enable many real-world spaceflight techniques. And I also have to mention Outer Wilds and its small solar system with simulated spherical explorable planets and moons. All of these games would be fundamentally impossible without 3D.
> You can fly in World of Warcraft, but all of the content is on the ground, and the designers keep griping about how they don't want you to fly because it makes them feel bad when you skip their content.
This is a statement about Blizzard's game design, rather than anything fundamental about 3D. Yes, giving players the ability to fly requires a different approach to world design. That doesn't make WoW any less 3D. You can have a bridge, and one player can walk on it while another is under it. And a third player could be flying over it with a flying mount.
> You can jump in Quake. You can't jump in Doom. This makes no difference. Level layout is the same.
Doom levels are 2D with added height information. Quake levels are actually 3D. This imposes many fundamental limitations on Doom level design. You can't build a multi-floor building in Doom where you can see down to the previous floors. You can't have a pit in the middle of a room and leave the pit via a tunnel, because you can't have two walkable surfaces laid vertically on top of each other. You can't walk on top of a building and then enter it, or have floating platforms, walk under a bridge, have a spiral staircase that overlaps itself, etc.
> Elevation is real in both games; you can always walk up a ramp. There are three dimensions whether you can jump or not.
Doom has heights, but it cannot represent arbitrary 3D geometry, only a very limited subset.
RuneScape is somewhere between Doom and Quake, with its own set of limitations. While the game uses actual 3D models and therefore can display any 3D shape, much like Doom the world consists of top-down 2D levels with per-tile & object height information. The game does enable "rooms over rooms" by having up to four floors / layers per tile, used for things like multi-floor buildings. The player can't walk between floors; they must use an object like a ladder, a portal or agility shortcut to teleport to another floor.
What are you smoking, lol. It makes all the difference.
You need to write you own version of all that stuff and effectively just use UE as the graphics engine.
"Congratulations, you have reached level 99 in buerocracy."
If anything, they're one of the first companies proving that getting away from gatcha/pay-to-win/pay-for-aesthetic/seasonal mechanics can be a good business decision in 2026, where there are many, many gamers who care about earned power (and earned aesthetic) and no longer want to be on a seasonal loot/rating treadmill.
For me, that's personal and I'm happy about it. I've played MMORPGs my whole life, really the only genre I'm interested in. Everquest, EQ2, GW, WoW (and many xpacs), OSRS, etc. Other than OSRS more recently, I've felt left behind for many, many years now. I want to play games where the journey is the point, and where earning what you have is fundamental.
WoW Forever, which in terms of player numbers is looking to be Blizzard's most successful move in over a decade, is coming largely due to the trail blazed by OSRS and the Jagex team.
OSRS as a product is unique in the MMO space because it really is a product of passion. RS3, the former Jagex cash cow, was a product of a private equity. Now, after over a decade of profit extraction, everyone I knew who played it has long since quit because the updates became sparse, the artstyle because sanitized and generic, and the game mechanics became predatory. I don't blieve that any specifics have ever been made public, but the general understanding is that OSRS is largely unmolested because the playerbase were provably people who violently reject microtransactions, and the private equity owners would have killed their best possible investment by modelling it after RS3.
Jagex the company, for all its success, is a bad game studio. Look into all their shuttered and unreleased games, and their declining playerbases. Christ, their Transformers Universe game went live for a public beta and was shuttered after 2 weeks with full refunds, at the development expense of Stellar Dawn. OSRS is an anomaly that Jagex is lucky to have, and not something they are capable of recreating.
What you're describing at the end is an attempt for a company to diversify and cutting their losses early to stem bleeding from projects which wouldn't have met the expected ROI. Gaming is a difficult industry and the majority of games do not get big. It's not surprising that the majority of their efforts to branch out failed.
None of your criticisms of the main game apply during the past year of updates. That + their attempt to create "sanitized" servers this year looks like another attempt to diversify - away from the microtransaction-based revenue source into a stable subscription source, assuming they get the playercounts.
What the MTX team apparently did is pocket all of it while not using the money to improve the game
Whether or not they're doing a good job now, their behavior across many years was/is despicable
I do think Riot is in a good position to develop an MMO though, and maybe GW3 will deliver something as well, but the genre is on life support IMHO.
I hesitate to fully confirm it a resurgence as if it's going to be an indicator of a trend in greater pop culture. The genre before was just kind of excessively strangling itself of potential sales that were there due to the high capital costs for new entrants and the major developers previously not wanting to field anything else but one major game.
1. The original player base of these games is starting to hit retirement
2. AI has made it more profitable to develop a reasonable pace of content for these games
is that true?
I'm not familiar with the market economics around indie games. Is there any value that Jagex would've added by being the publisher, rather than solo publishing as an indie dev?
Am I misremembering?
https://www.reddit.com/r/runescape/comments/6av3sa/runescape...
From what I could tell they have zero client-side detection like other, more competitive games. Maybe they wanted to pull out of that cat-and-mouse game? Their solution’s likely very domain-specific.
And bot detection isn’t a field where you can cleanly get a bot/human result. Especially with how bot-like some hardcore players get at the game. If it’s too strict you’ll get false bans, which is a support nightmare. It can’t be easy threading this line