Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contains a small section that directly concerns PFO:
I am heading a development project for an MMORPG that will feature subscriptions and microtransactions. We’ll begin with subscriptions only, and transition to microtransactions as soon as it makes sense to do so.
On the whole it should look very familiar to those who have read other articles or watched presentations from Ryan Dancey on monetization in MMORPGs, which is to say, it's a good read :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Dancey has failed to say though is he is not going with the hybrid model that lotro has (personal opinion here). Why do I say that easy....no subscription no skill gain....you cannot advance without a subscription (whether by monthly billing or buying plex look alikes it is still basically a subscription).
Both Lotro and Rift allow you to play the game, advance your characters and skills without.(I comment on these two because it is two I have played). In addition a lot of the Lotro subscription count you will find are the lifetimers. Yes they count as monthly subscribers.
Will ESO fail? Yes probably in my opinion but that is more because from what people tell me who have had a chance to get their hands dirty in it that it doesn't really bring anything substantial to the table.
TLDR
PfO is Subscription AND MTX whereas hybrids like lotro and rift are subscription OR MTX
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If ESO is going to fail, I don't think that it will be directly attributable to their monetization choices. I agree with Dancey when he says that the era of the incredibly well funded theme-park game is coming to a close; I have been there, I have done that. WoW perfected what theme-park games do well, unless you can innovate to an absolutely incredible level I will not invest $40+$10 a month to your game. Most developers simply aren't talented enough to bring enough new stuff to the table to make it worth buying in. Each new game puts in a few new things that I like, and if they all happened to exist in the same game I would instantly buy in, but that isn't an option.
If ESO fails it will be because it is a derivative bore-fest that tries to be World of Warcraft, but forgets that the only reason a lot of people play WoW is because everyone else happens to be playing WoW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I have been reading from Dancey for over a year now, I suspect that there will be a training fee of $15/month that will sold as MTX and a $20 "subscription" that gets you the training + goodies. I am going to predict the following 5 tiers of payment.
T5: Play for free/don't train which will be a very small group of mostly transitionary players or players taking a vacation.
T4: Don't train/MTX <$15 which will be another small group of very casual players but mostly crafters and crafter alt types who have already spent about $100 on training. This group could grow when characters start to cap.
T3: $15/month training only basic subscription really just a facade for the crowd that cries at over $15 month. This player carefully buys occasional stuff for MTX
T2: $20 month premium subscription with monthly training + $10-$15 worth of MTX goodies, mostly settlement enhancing stuff to create peer pressure to get it. This is where GW wants you to be and where over 50% of the players probably will be.
T1: Premium sub + MTX and/or extra accounts obviously the players who don't mind shelling out all kinds of money for every shiny pony GW has to offer. Not large group, but important to the sales plan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
T2: $20 month premium subscription with monthly training + $10-$15 worth of MTX goodies, mostly settlement enhancing stuff to create peer pressure to get it. This is where GW wants you to be and where over 50% of the players probably will be.
If it becomes this, I will definitely be part of T2.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most of the subscription + MTX games give you a nominal amount of MTX Credit each month your subscription is active: LOTRO gives you 500 Turbine Points every month; Vanguard (and I think most Sony games) give you 500 Station Cash every month.
I've gotten the impression that this may not happen with PFO. I may have misinterpreted Ryan's statement at the time, and can't find it (don't have time to do a thorough search) right now to link it.
Perhaps Ryan could save me the effort and share his current thoughts with us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
all kinds of money for every shiny pony GW has to offer.
This is the area that I think could be a raging success a few years or so down the road, if it's not just a "sparkle pony" for the "person who has everything except a furry belly-button!". Ie adding more game experiences around the core game experience built on the existing stuff and community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a follow up, I do have one suggestion/request for Ryan as concerns PFO's eventual subscription + MTX model.
I know this is pretty far off, Ryan, but if you guys do have any plans to display adverts for PFO's cash shop either in the UI or in the game world itself, I would suggest that you give subscribers (at least) the option to hide or turn off those adverts. I feel that part of the value that people pay for with a subscription is to not have thier game play disturbed or disrupted with cash shop considerations and I find that adverts during play can be VERY disruptive. Something on a login screen or account management screen is fine.....but during actual game play can really detract from the players experience of the game.
ESO is a joke, and will fail. They keep inviting me to their stupid beta, it's like they're begging me to come in.
The problem, however, isn't that they made it a sub game, it was a sub game from day one when Matt Firor kept saying it would be "Premium". People kept saying "well, we don't know for sure it will be sub-game", and I was like *rolls eyes*. And... sure enough.
The PROBLEM, was them making it a sub game from the start, and then bending to a whole bunch of self-entitled whiners on their forums who played the Single-Player ES games, and wanted a completely different game than they were offering.
So, they CHANGED the game to suit their needs, and made it more like their regular single-player TES games, and then once that happened, people were expecting that it wouldn't be a sub game, just like the other single-player TES games they've played. Originally, it was never like those games, it was more akin to DAoC.
Then they destroyed it. I just hope it causes Zenimax to go bankrupt, and no mroe single player TES games are made. That way I can look at all the Single-Player TES fans who worked to destroy the game with a big smile on my face, and say, "Mission Accomplished". :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a follow up, I do have one suggestion/request for Ryan as concerns PFO's eventual subscription + MTX model.
I know this is pretty far off, Ryan, but if you guys do have any plans to display adverts for PFO's cash shop either in the UI or in the game world itself, I would suggest that you give subscribers (at least) the option to hide or turn off those adverts. I feel that part of the value that people pay for with a subscription is to not have thier game play disturbed or disrupted with cash shop considerations and I find that adverts during play can be VERY disruptive. Something on a login screen or account management screen is fine.....but during actual game play can really detract from the players experience of the game.
thats the reason i dont play lotro anymore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
ESO is a joke, and will fail. They keep inviting me to their stupid beta, it's like they're begging me to come in.
The problem, however, isn't that they made it a sub game, it was a sub game from day one when Matt Firor kept saying it would be "Premium". People kept saying "well, we don't know for sure it will be sub-game", and I was like *rolls eyes*. And... sure enough.
The PROBLEM, was them making it a sub game from the start, and then bending to a whole bunch of self-entitled whiners on their forums who played the Single-Player ES games, and wanted a completely different game than they were offering.
So, they CHANGED the game to suit their needs, and made it more like their regular single-player TES games, and then once that happened, people were expecting that it wouldn't be a sub game, just like the other single-player TES games they've played. Originally, it was never like those games, it was more akin to DAoC.
Then they destroyed it. I just hope it causes Zenimax to go bankrupt, and no mroe single player TES games are made. That way I can look at all the Single-Player TES fans who worked to destroy the game with a big smile on my face, and say, "Mission Accomplished". :)
ah, yes, nothing like watching thousands of people lose their livelihoods so one can say "told you so" on the internet. Burn baby, burn.
I kid, but in part you are right, ESO kinda deserves to fail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
thats the reason i dont play lotro anymore.As a follow up, I do have one suggestion/request for Ryan as concerns PFO's eventual subscription + MTX model.
I know this is pretty far off, Ryan, but if you guys do have any plans to display adverts for PFO's cash shop either in the UI or in the game world itself, I would suggest that you give subscribers (at least) the option to hide or turn off those adverts. I feel that part of the value that people pay for with a subscription is to not have thier game play disturbed or disrupted with cash shop considerations and I find that adverts during play can be VERY disruptive. Something on a login screen or account management screen is fine.....but during actual game play can really detract from the players experience of the game.
It stinks what they did to LOTRO, everything you do now includes some add that tries to get you to go to the cash shop. 'Oh look its a SHINEY , you need to buy a key to unlock it, they are on sale too!, just click here so you can spend some money while you adventure in middle earth, Frodo will wait for you while you visit our store.' They ruin the gameplay in the pursuit of more money, it doesn't have to be that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like them ESO games; I've sank too much time into Oblivion and Skyrim. I hope they do well with the single player games and leave it at that with the series (until maybe 10 or 20 years from now, when computers can do al kinds of crazy stuff and maybe then the format can be adapted to multiplayer). Though I don't care a lick about ESO (I knew it couldn't be the same experience as the single player, and didn't care for what seemed like a rather non-innovative game with the ES franchise title slapped on), I for one hope the company keeps making games in the way they know how.
As for how this relates to PfO, I was at first suspicious of this game in much the same way; that is, assuming it was going to be "just another MMO" with the Pathfinder title slapped on for potential customers. After looking into it though; well, I don't really need to tell you guys, now do I? ;)
ESO is a joke, and will fail. They keep inviting me to their stupid beta, it's like they're begging me to come in.
The problem, however, isn't that they made it a sub game, it was a sub game from day one when Matt Firor kept saying it would be "Premium". People kept saying "well, we don't know for sure it will be sub-game", and I was like *rolls eyes*. And... sure enough.
The PROBLEM, was them making it a sub game from the start, and then bending to a whole bunch of self-entitled whiners on their forums who played the Single-Player ES games, and wanted a completely different game than they were offering.
So, they CHANGED the game to suit their needs, and made it more like their regular single-player TES games, and then once that happened, people were expecting that it wouldn't be a sub game, just like the other single-player TES games they've played. Originally, it was never like those games, it was more akin to DAoC.
Then they destroyed it. I just hope it causes Zenimax to go bankrupt, and no mroe single player TES games are made. That way I can look at all the Single-Player TES fans who worked to destroy the game with a big smile on my face, and say, "Mission Accomplished". :)
ah, yes, nothing like watching thousands of people lose their livelihoods so one can say "told you so" on the internet. Burn baby, burn.
I kid, but in part you are right, ESO kinda deserves to fail.
I was hoping there would be a few of us, and we'd say, "mission accomplished". I already got the opportunity to say "told you so". But yea, I agree, it would be totally worth it. :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most of the subscription + MTX games give you a nominal amount of MTX Credit each month your subscription is active: LOTRO gives you 500 Turbine Points every month; Vanguard (and I think most Sony games) give you 500 Station Cash every month.
I've gotten the impression that this may not happen with PFO. I may have misinterpreted Ryan's statement at the time, and can't find it (don't have time to do a thorough search) right now to link it.
Perhaps Ryan could save me the effort and share his current thoughts with us.
I haven't played LOTRO in a long time, but the EQ2 sub I have was 500 station cash a month, but they've changed it as of this month to be "any item valued up to 2k once a month". I do not believe you get to keep the difference, if you get an item worth less than 2k.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The content locusts will swarm as usual with ESO, remember. They love new content crops to feed on for a few months. So I have slightly more optimistic expectations for ESO that the locusts might pay good money (as Ryan mentions in the article) and eventually the ES fans might find something in the game to tide them over until the single-player game from Bethseda? And of course there's some daoc vets and gw2 vets looking for RvRvR (and possibly the same bunch waiting for CU). That's all just gut feeling tbh. If the combat is not bad then it might do even better.
I'm optimistic about ESO for players and pulling in cash. Not optimistic as ROI in terms of it being a great deal seeing some of the expected numbers involved in that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I thought ESO was a bad IP to pick for making an MMO in general and in particular the type of game Zenimax set out to make.
I love the Elder Scrolls games as many people do....and it's natural that fan's of that series are going to walk in with certain expectations when they see a game with Elder Scrolls in the title. Those expectations are something that's really difficult to translate to an MMO....and particulary the style of MMO they were making.
It almost feels like Zenimax started out wanting to make a particular MMO and then chose the IP as an afterthought based on how much brand recognition they thought it might have, rather then the suitability of the IP to what they were trying to make. Then got caught in thier own trap of fan's expectations.
I don't think it's really fair to blame the ES fans in that regards....picking the IP for it's brand recognition and then not expecting that the very fans you wanted to cash in on because of it wouldn't walk in with alot of preset expectations is kinda like having your cake and wanting to eat it too.
Honestly what I think most ES fans were really interested in for the series wasn't an MMO at all, but a new installment in the Single Player series with the option for some small co-op...like a Diablo or NWN2.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the EQ2 sub I have was 500 station cash a month, but they've changed it as of this month to be "any item valued up to 2k once a month". I do not believe you get to keep the difference, if you get an item worth less than 2k.
I was just having a conversation with my coworker gamer buddy about this. It sounds like that change didn't go over well and they're rethinking it.
3) We're keeping the 500 SC included with the subscription instead of going to the "pick an item" system. We heard you. You didn't like the change. The only change we are making is that we're now going to make you claim it monthly. You can still hoard it though I realize this is a bit of a pain but honestly it's the best compromise we could come up with that solves the problems I mentioned in the other thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the combat is not bad then it might do even better.
This can't be emphasized enough.
There's a lot about LOTRO I enjoyed, but the combat never felt right to me. On the other side, Vanguard has some serious issues with bugs and quality control, but the combat - the game play - is second to none.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my thoughts about free to play in Pathfinder Online.
In a perfect world we would have a free to play tier in our pricing system that was truly free to play - you wouldn't have to pay us anything to play the game at least at some minimal level of character ability. Its the ideal way to get a lot of people into an MMO, and once ours has matured to the point where it is robust in many dimensions of development we'd like to have as many people play it as possible as each additional player creates more content for everyone else already in the game.
The downside is that unlike the traditional theme park MMOs which use shards, and which have hard caps on how many people can log in at any one time (a hard cap only works when you have shards because you can just add more shards as the demand exceeds the caps) we will have one server, with no cap (hopefully). So we are bound by server limitations and could easily find ourselves in a situation where we can't keep up with server demand if we had a huge population of free players. In order to keep the environment optimal for our paying players we could find ourselves in a position where we just can't offer a free to play option.
We will probably experiment with a lot of options in the 2017+ timeframe, by which time we should have a pretty good handle on server loads and strategies to keep characters from "over populating" a given area.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the EQ2 sub I have was 500 station cash a month, but they've changed it as of this month to be "any item valued up to 2k once a month". I do not believe you get to keep the difference, if you get an item worth less than 2k.I was just having a conversation with my coworker gamer buddy about this. It sounds like that change didn't go over well and they're rethinking it.
3) We're keeping the 500 SC included with the subscription instead of going to the "pick an item" system. We heard you. You didn't like the change. The only change we are making is that we're now going to make you claim it monthly. You can still hoard it though I realize this is a bit of a pain but honestly it's the best compromise we could come up with that solves the problems I mentioned in the other thread.
Cool! Good lookin' out, Nihimon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon - No, too early. I haven't even sat down and tried to work out how the store will work in terms as specific as credits yet. So much depends on what we can afford to make to put in the store and what kinds of things we put in the store.
Fair enough.
And I'm still extremely grateful that you take the time to engage with us so directly :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Dancey when he says that the era of the incredibly well funded theme-park game is coming to a close; I have been there, I have done that. WoW perfected what theme-park games do well, unless you can innovate to an absolutely incredible level I will not invest $40+$10 a month to your game.
I would not say a permanent close, though. I expect things of this nature will work in cycles. The next uptick will be well after WoW has diminished to a point where it really isn't awe-inspiring anymore. Only after WoW falls will new Theme-Park oriented games look to innovate on a massive scale again. And when one succeeds, history will repeat. For now, there is just too much market saturation that needs to bleed out of the system to make any new attempts worthwhile.
If ESO fails it will be because it is a derivative bore-fest that tries to be World of Warcraft, but forgets that the only reason a lot of people play WoW is because everyone else happens to be playing WoW.
People play theme-park MMOs because themepark MMOs are fun. But they are only fun if you have a lot of friends playing them (something core to the nature of the MMO is cohesion in the social network). Words like borefest, and other derogatory comments about themepark games sometimes makes me feel surrounded by a population out-of-touch folks who are only focused on what they want in a game and cannot be bothered to try to understand that other people honestly enjoy the games they themselves have come to loathe. I am not bringing this up simply to defend themeparks, but to point out that a lot of contentions across these forums are fed by similar detachments from how other people like to play games. Which in turn makes it easier to ignore each other's points because "they just don't get it and they won't even try."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not bringing this up simply to defend themeparks, but to point out that a lot of contentions across these forums are fed by similar detachments from how other people like to play games. Which in turn makes it easier to ignore each other's points because "they just don't get it and they won't even try."
I won't speak to the other points, but I think there is a line between a moderate level of civility and over policing that might have been crossed here.
I am all for making efforts to tone down personal attacks, but I don't want to stifle opinions (even strong ones)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Only after WoW falls will new Theme-Park oriented games look to innovate on a massive scale again. And when one succeeds, history will repeat.
This sounds right to me.
... folks who are only focused on what they want in a game and cannot be bothered to try to understand... how other people like to play games.
This seems somewhat profound to me. I think one of the best traits of PFO is its attempt to appeal to a broader audience than just hardened killers. I think Ryan is right that a lot of those folks will come to appreciate and enjoy PvP if exposed to it in a more constrained system than a pure free-for-all. I think this is really good for the hardened killers, too, because it has the potential to give them a lot more of the PvP they want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Only after WoW falls will new Theme-Park oriented games look to innovate on a massive scale again. And when one succeeds, history will repeat.This sounds right to me.
... folks who are only focused on what they want in a game and cannot be bothered to try to understand... how other people like to play games.This seems somewhat profound to me. I think one of the best traits of PFO is its attempt to appeal to a broader audience than just hardened killers. I think Ryan is right that a lot of those folks will come to appreciate and enjoy PvP if exposed to it in a more constrained system than wa pure free-for-all. I think this is really good for the hardened killers, too, because it has the potential to give them a lot more of the PvP they want.
Yeah, I was pretty happy with the latest blog as well :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This seems somewhat profound to me.
The Way that can be told
is not the eternal Way
The name that can be named
is not the eternal name.The unnameable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you only see the manifestations.Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
Sry, I had to do it. :) Watch out for the chills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for making efforts to tone down personal attacks, but I don't want to stifle opinions (even strong ones)
I apologize if the post sounded as an effort to stifle opinions or if it seemed to be over-policing.
The comment I was trying to make is that we need to understand the separation between what is opinion and what is fact. This forum has had a solid history of dumping on themepark games, which I understand to a degree as there is a strong sandbox fan-base here. I just felt that the atmosphere was becoming too dismissive of the value that themepark games are still providing to the public at large. I was not trying to police-statements, but to try to go against the "echo chamber" that is forming as well as to point out how the presentation of opinion as fact actually makes your positions less approachable by outsiders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for making efforts to tone down personal attacks, but I don't want to stifle opinions (even strong ones)I apologize if the post sounded as an effort to stifle opinions or if it seemed to be over-policing.
The comment I was trying to make is that we need to understand the separation between what is opinion and what is fact. This forum has had a solid history of dumping on themepark games, which I understand to a degree as there is a strong sandbox fan-base here. I just felt that the atmosphere was becoming too dismissive of the value that themepark games are still providing to the public at large. I was not trying to police-statements, but to try to go against the "echo chamber" that is forming as well as to point out how the presentation of opinion as fact actually makes your positions less approachable by outsiders.
I actually hold the opinion that the themepark model is not failing, and in the early kickstarter days had a lengthy post conversation with Ryan on the subject. I run counter to that popular opinion as well.
I read Morbis's reply as an opinion based on a fact. Themeparks have failed to fulfill their own market goals this last almost decade. I took the rest as Morbis's opinion on why one of them (ESO) is likely to have the same fate.
Maybe I am not reading into it enough, but I never got the impression anyone was offering anything as fact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for making efforts to tone down personal attacks, but I don't want to stifle opinions (even strong ones)I apologize if the post sounded as an effort to stifle opinions or if it seemed to be over-policing.
I think most folks probably took it as you expressing your own opinion. I can't imagine anyone was trying to stifle that, either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for making efforts to tone down personal attacks, but I don't want to stifle opinions (even strong ones)I apologize if the post sounded as an effort to stifle opinions or if it seemed to be over-policing.I think most folks probably took it as you expressing your own opinion. I can't imagine anyone was trying to stifle that, either.
I am starting to forget who is on first. Or was it what is on first?
@all Fair enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for making efforts to tone down personal attacks, but I don't want to stifle opinions (even strong ones)I apologize if the post sounded as an effort to stifle opinions or if it seemed to be over-policing.I think most folks probably took it as you expressing your own opinion. I can't imagine anyone was trying to stifle that, either.
Well, with any chance that I had crossed the line of civility, I wanted to be clear that it was out of an attempt at constructive feedback and not out of disrespect for anyone. Or a step back across the line if possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the real money stores because I don't have the willpower to not spend money there. I'm playing Marvel Heroes, a free game, and I spend more than $15 a month at their store. (I really hope they run out of different Ironman suits soon)
What I really don't like is the subscription game PLUS a cash shop. You end up with the marketing guys taking all the best stuff for the shop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think ESO wont do as well as it hopes to do and that has ZERO to do with its subscription policy. ESO is exactly what it looks like, its a theme park MMO set in the elder scrolls universe. It introduces nothing really new (perhaps ill be surprised this coming beta weekend), it honestly is more of the same.
honestly I agree with Ryan. You have different groups of people. the first wont pay a sub, but they will buy some things from a cash shop. there are folks who just want a sub and there are folks who will sub and buy bunches from a cash shop. I have no issues with a company trying to generate money from all three of those groups.
I just think that cash shops should give almost no mechanical advantages to the people using it. Want to rename your guy? no problem if you pay a bit. Want your crafter to be able to craft a sword that uses that really cool graphic but is the same as other longswords? sure no problem if you pay. Want YOUR horse to be golden instead of brown? no issue if you pay. Want a bunch of non combat pets so you can show off? No problem if you pay. Want to have super really neato furniture in your Settlement Mead Hall? no problem if you pay.
I would like to see F2P later in the life cycle and as soon as possible. Someone who say plays for 3 years, takes a break of a year, then comes back and just come back and play their old character at whatever power level they were at, and if they enjoy coming back they can resub, but you get them back in for free.
The only thing about some f2P games is that their free experience is so restricted or so harsh that you basically are required to sub to not feel like you are banding your head against a wall and that once you sub the game is pretty good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think my idealized Elder Scrolls Online game would have been a non-massively, multiplayer online game. One of those ones where someone sets up a server and it supports 1 - 64 some players or the like. The key feature is the ability to interact with the world and have it persist. Being able to invite a friend into your house to show off your skull collection seemed to be the missing element to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope FTP never becomes a reality, it destroys the community.I do not know about the community, but I find that it often reduces the quality of the game itself. Whether it is causation or coincidence I do not know, but FTP games always seem... lacking.
My experience has been different. I went back to LOTRO when it became Free-to-Play, and I can't think of anything that was missing from before. I've played Vanguard (a lot) both before and after it went Free-to-Play, and again I don't see anything missing. Sure, both games have features that aren't fully available to free players, but that's to be expected. In general, I think Free-to-Play mostly just brings in a lot of players who wouldn't otherwise be there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And Team Fortress 2 is a fantastic and content-filled F2P game as well (which has always been subscriptionless, but originally you had to buy the game itself. Now there's absolutely no purchases). :)
Not an MMO, but when I think of successful F2P I always think to TF2. It's been around for 7 years now and there're still many people who play it, plus it's legitimately fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems somewhat profound to me.Sry, I had to do it. :) Watch out for the chills.The Way that can be told
is not the eternal Way
The name that can be named
is not the eternal name.The unnameable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you only see the manifestations.Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.
As in a garden dreaming
I heard the temple bellSome words cannot contain their meaning
One says one, another hears another
Is this a Bluddwolf I see before me?