Lizard gave several ways of showing the market. Start a webpage and draw people to it. Hook up with bloggers, start twitter feeds...
Start a database with different users.
May take some time but what are your options. If you want them, these are your choices:
1. Do nothing and continue to complain
2. Hope someone else (dev/or other) will research the market and comes to the conclusion there is a sufficient market.
3. Research the market yourself and present it to a dev.
Thats pretty much it. The devs aren't going for wow market anymore and haven't for awhile. Targetting WoW got them a stable base of a few hundred thousand in most cases.
What will they get if they target a few hundred thousand?
You just have to show there is a market that will justify the costs of making whatever game it is you want them to make.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
What they've stated is if you want them, and you believe there is market, then you need to show the devs that market.
So we're not being blamed, but it's our fault that the games aren't being made because we haven't shown developers that we're a market that exists?
No it isn't your fault that the games you want aren't being made.
However if you want a particular game, it is your responsibility to convince the people that make the games that there is a market for it.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
What they've stated is if you want them, and you believe there is market, then you need to show the devs that market.
So we're not being blamed, but it's our fault that the games aren't being made because we haven't shown developers that we're a market that exists?
No it isn't your fault that the games you want aren't being made.
However if you want a particular game, it is your responsibility to convince the people that make the games that there is a market for it.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
If you are the one thats wants it, then it is no ones responsibility but yours to figure out a way to get it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Did SWG fans show there was a market? Many left yes. but many were leaving before the changes.
DAOC fans showed there was enough to get a demo trial funded. Which is definately a start, and grats to them too. What 14k funded it? Which likely means that a lot more would play it. Yes, definately a start.
And good numbers for people that want to show it.
Combine those numbers with whatever other number you find and now you've got something.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Lizard gave several ways of showing the market. Start a webpage and draw people to it. Hook up with bloggers, start twitter feeds...
Start a database with different users.
May take some time but what are your options. If you want them, these are your choices:
1. Do nothing and continue to complain
2. Hope someone else (dev/or other) will research the market and comes to the conclusion there is a sufficient market.
3. Research the market yourself and present it to a dev.
Thats pretty much it. The devs aren't going for wow market anymore and haven't for awhile. Targetting WoW got them a stable base of a few hundred thousand in most cases.
What will they get if they target a few hundred thousand?
You just have to show there is a market that will justify the costs of making whatever game it is you want them to make.
This isn't how it works though! I can't think of a demographic that has had to do this. It's certainly not the norm. When a new kind of game comes out and hits it big, there wasn't some obvious sign or concentrated effort from the community to make it happen. WoW happened because Blizzard was perceptive about what people want. LoL happened because riot noticed how much people liked other, smaller MOBAs and saw an opportunity to consolidate and dominate that market.
What you're asking for is NOT typical. And also it's not what is going to happen. What probably IS going to happen is the market is going to continue to change and sandbox games are going to make something of a resurgence (probably relatively small in the grand scheme of things) and in the next few years a lot of us "oldschool" players are going to have more games to choose from. The Repopulation, Embers of Caerus, EQN, Camelot Unchained, Albion Online, Wushu, etc etc etc etc.
Lizard gave several ways of showing the market. Start a webpage and draw people to it. Hook up with bloggers, start twitter feeds...
Start a database with different users.
May take some time but what are your options. If you want them, these are your choices:
1. Do nothing and continue to complain
2. Hope someone else (dev/or other) will research the market and comes to the conclusion there is a sufficient market.
3. Research the market yourself and present it to a dev.
Thats pretty much it. The devs aren't going for wow market anymore and haven't for awhile. Targetting WoW got them a stable base of a few hundred thousand in most cases.
What will they get if they target a few hundred thousand?
You just have to show there is a market that will justify the costs of making whatever game it is you want them to make.
This isn't how it works though! I can't think of a demographic that has had to do this. It's certainly not the norm. When a new kind of game comes out and hits it big, there wasn't some obvious sign or concentrated effort from the community to make it happen. WoW happened because Blizzard was perceptive about what people want. LoL happened because riot noticed how much people liked other, smaller MOBAs and saw an opportunity to consolidate and dominate that market.
What you're asking for is NOT typical. And also it's not what is going to happen. What probably IS going to happen is the market is going to continue to change and sandbox games are going to make something of a resurgence (probably relatively small in the grand scheme of things) and in the next few years a lot of us "oldschool" players are going to have more games to choose from. The Repopulation, Embers of Caerus, EQN, Camelot Unchained, Albion Online, Wushu, etc etc etc etc.
They have all had to do that.
A person that wanted a particular game built first had to show that there was a market. In most cases it is the dev or person building the game.
However if a fan wants a particular game built, then it is up to the fan to do the initial work - that is show there is a market.
That is exactly how it works in all businesses everywhere.
There were always signs before a game came out. Sometimes they underestimated the market. Sometimes they overestimated but they never went in blind. They always had a target and an idea of how big it was and what they wanted.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
What they've stated is if you want them, and you believe there is market, then you need to show the devs that market.
So we're not being blamed, but it's our fault that the games aren't being made because we haven't shown developers that we're a market that exists?
No it isn't your fault that the games you want aren't being made.
However if you want a particular game, it is your responsibility to convince the people that make the games that there is a market for it.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
If you are the one thats wants it, then it is no ones responsibility but yours to figure out a way to get it.
If they are the one that wants to make a game, it is nobody's but their responsibility to figure out if it's viable. Yours is the more humble approach to take, and the world would probably be filled with better people if we all thought like that, but taking myself sort of out of the equation and just looking at it objectively: no, it's their responsibility. People don't generally get together, form groups, sign petitions, etc to tell companies what they want. Companies figure out what people want and then give it to them. That's how it has always worked.
Lizard gave several ways of showing the market. Start a webpage and draw people to it. Hook up with bloggers, start twitter feeds...
Start a database with different users.
May take some time but what are your options. If you want them, these are your choices:
1. Do nothing and continue to complain
2. Hope someone else (dev/or other) will research the market and comes to the conclusion there is a sufficient market.
3. Research the market yourself and present it to a dev.
Thats pretty much it. The devs aren't going for wow market anymore and haven't for awhile. Targetting WoW got them a stable base of a few hundred thousand in most cases.
What will they get if they target a few hundred thousand?
You just have to show there is a market that will justify the costs of making whatever game it is you want them to make.
This isn't how it works though! I can't think of a demographic that has had to do this. It's certainly not the norm. When a new kind of game comes out and hits it big, there wasn't some obvious sign or concentrated effort from the community to make it happen. WoW happened because Blizzard was perceptive about what people want. LoL happened because riot noticed how much people liked other, smaller MOBAs and saw an opportunity to consolidate and dominate that market.
What you're asking for is NOT typical. And also it's not what is going to happen. What probably IS going to happen is the market is going to continue to change and sandbox games are going to make something of a resurgence (probably relatively small in the grand scheme of things) and in the next few years a lot of us "oldschool" players are going to have more games to choose from. The Repopulation, Embers of Caerus, EQN, Camelot Unchained, Albion Online, Wushu, etc etc etc etc.
They have all had to do that.
A person that wanted a particular game built first had to show that there was a market. In most cases it is the dev or person building the game.
However if a fan wants a particular game built, then it is up to the fan to do the initial work - that is show there is a market.
That is exactly how it works in all businesses everywhere.
There were always signs before a game came out. Sometimes they underestimated the market. Sometimes they overestimated but they never went in blind. They always had a target and an idea of how big it was and what they wanted.
You're assuming that the fan wants it built and nobody else does. There are developers who want to make these games. And there are publishers who want to make any game that sells.
So when you say "if a fan wants a particular game built, then it's up to them to do the initial work", that's just not an honest way to approach the subject.
What they've stated is if you want them, and you believe there is market, then you need to show the devs that market.
So we're not being blamed, but it's our fault that the games aren't being made because we haven't shown developers that we're a market that exists?
No it isn't your fault that the games you want aren't being made.
However if you want a particular game, it is your responsibility to convince the people that make the games that there is a market for it.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
If you are the one thats wants it, then it is no ones responsibility but yours to figure out a way to get it.
If they are the one that wants to make a game, it is nobody's but their responsibility to figure out if it's viable. Yours is the more humble approach to take, and the world would probably be filled with better people if we all thought like that, but taking myself sort of out of the equation and just looking at it objectively: no, it's their responsibility. People don't generally get together, form groups, sign petitions, etc to tell companies what they want. Companies figure out what people want and then give it to them. That's how it has always worked.
Actually yes that happens all the time.
People tell companies what they want all the time. And companies ask people what they want all the time.
At the end of the day, it is no ones responsibility but yours if you want something done.
The devs are allready doing what they believe will work.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Lizard gave several ways of showing the market. Start a webpage and draw people to it. Hook up with bloggers, start twitter feeds...
Start a database with different users.
May take some time but what are your options. If you want them, these are your choices:
1. Do nothing and continue to complain
2. Hope someone else (dev/or other) will research the market and comes to the conclusion there is a sufficient market.
3. Research the market yourself and present it to a dev.
Thats pretty much it. The devs aren't going for wow market anymore and haven't for awhile. Targetting WoW got them a stable base of a few hundred thousand in most cases.
What will they get if they target a few hundred thousand?
You just have to show there is a market that will justify the costs of making whatever game it is you want them to make.
This isn't how it works though! I can't think of a demographic that has had to do this. It's certainly not the norm. When a new kind of game comes out and hits it big, there wasn't some obvious sign or concentrated effort from the community to make it happen. WoW happened because Blizzard was perceptive about what people want. LoL happened because riot noticed how much people liked other, smaller MOBAs and saw an opportunity to consolidate and dominate that market.
What you're asking for is NOT typical. And also it's not what is going to happen. What probably IS going to happen is the market is going to continue to change and sandbox games are going to make something of a resurgence (probably relatively small in the grand scheme of things) and in the next few years a lot of us "oldschool" players are going to have more games to choose from. The Repopulation, Embers of Caerus, EQN, Camelot Unchained, Albion Online, Wushu, etc etc etc etc.
They have all had to do that.
A person that wanted a particular game built first had to show that there was a market. In most cases it is the dev or person building the game.
However if a fan wants a particular game built, then it is up to the fan to do the initial work - that is show there is a market.
That is exactly how it works in all businesses everywhere.
There were always signs before a game came out. Sometimes they underestimated the market. Sometimes they overestimated but they never went in blind. They always had a target and an idea of how big it was and what they wanted.
You're assuming that the fan wants it built and nobody else does. There are developers who want to make these games. And there are publishers who want to make any game that sells.
So when you say "if a fan wants a particular game built, then it's up to them to do the initial work", that's just not an honest way to approach the subject.
No I am not assuming that no one else does.
I'm stating if the fan wants it, and they are not aware of anyone else doing it, then the better start researching.
So yes it is an honest approach, if you want it, you have to do something about it.
edit - there is no evading this. It is not the devs responsiblity to make the game you want. It is not the devs responsiblity to make a game for the market you want. The devs will make a game that they feel is successfull.
If you want a particular game it is your job, no one else's, to get the data and try to get the dev.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There is no 'us'. Oldschool MMO is just as vague as the words hardcore or sandbox. 10 Different people would come up with 10 different definitions. My experience on this forum is that when people ask for a oldschool MMO, they just ask for their personal list of preferences. The moment they post about it, you have other so called oldschool vets that want something different. Just a popular topics within discussions about oldschool MMO's : fast travel, death penalty, corpse run, item durability, crafting. There is never any concensus about these topics.
So yeah, your appeal has just as much chance to succeed as the 497324 other personal appeals to a dev. And what dev would have the time on their hands to read all of them btw?
Discussing on their forums and voting with your wallet, is all you can do imo.They will never suddenly start to create a MMO just for you because of your personal appeal (which the OP basically was asking).
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I don't think anyone has put the blame on you.What they've stated is if you want them, and you believe there is market, then you need to show the devs that market.
So we're not being blamed, but it's our fault that the games aren't being made because we haven't shown developers that we're a market that exists?
No it isn't your fault that the games you want aren't being made.
However if you want a particular game, it is your responsibility to convince the people that make the games that there is a market for it.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
If you are the one thats wants it, then it is no ones responsibility but yours to figure out a way to get it.
If they are the one that wants to make a game, it is nobody's but their responsibility to figure out if it's viable. Yours is the more humble approach to take, and the world would probably be filled with better people if we all thought like that, but taking myself sort of out of the equation and just looking at it objectively: no, it's their responsibility. People don't generally get together, form groups, sign petitions, etc to tell companies what they want. Companies figure out what people want and then give it to them. That's how it has always worked.
Actually yes that happens all the time.
People tell companies what they want all the time. And companies ask people what they want all the time.
At the end of the day, it is no ones responsibility but yours if you want something done.
The devs are allready doing what they believe will work.
Not to put you on the spot because I only do that when somebody is being an asshole, but when has a group of consumers done more to show a company what they want than we have? We're all over forums and video comments making our opinions known.
Not to put you on the spot because I only do that when somebody is being an asshole, but when has a group of consumers done more to show a company what they want than we have? We're all over forums and video comments making our opinions known.
Look at greenpeice, anti-oil groups, electric car groups, natural make-up groups...vritually every protesting group in the world, all make of hundreds/thousands/millions of people all telling companies what type of products they want, how they want to get them and how they want them to be made.
And people are listening (in general) because there are millions of them, they are known, so they are getting the products they want.
Because of those groups (and other reasons) we are getting hybrids, electric cars, wind farms, wave power, more solar power, animal free cosmetics, organic foods (again a whole other area). They stated they wanted them, they showed how many people they had, and they got them.
edit - now I realize there is a significant difference between an oil protest and a game protest. However the process is the same, you will need to gather enough likeminded people, in some fashion, to show that you are a signficant voice, then you will get what you want.
edit 2 - we all do it in some ways when we shop around for services. e.g my contract with bell mobility expired in september. Couldn't stand their new contracts I'm either going to go 50 minutes over everything, or buy the next plan and have pay for 800 minutes I don't need. For 2 months I complained to their department and shopped and looked at every other carrirer on the market. Finally they passed me to their loyalty department (don't know why they didn't do that first) and yesterday I got a plan with the minutes/data and price I wanted. Now this wasn't an example of me finding a market, but it is an example of me stating the product (service in this case) that I wanted.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Not to put you on the spot because I only do that when somebody is being an asshole, but when has a group of consumers done more to show a company what they want than we have? We're all over forums and video comments making our opinions known.
Look at greenpeice, anti-oil groups, electric car groups, natural make-up groups...vritually every protesting group in the world, all make of hundreds/thousands/millions of people all telling companies what type of products they want, how they want to get them and how they want them to be made.
And people are listening (in general) because there are millions of them, they are known, so they are getting the products they want.
Because of those groups (and other reasons) we are getting hybrids, electric cars, wind farms, wave power, more solar power, animal free cosmetics, organic foods (again a whole other area). They stated they wanted them, they showed how many people they had, and they got them.
But you're not going to get a group of players who want anything uniformed. You're not going to get a uniformed opinion of what they want from any type of MMORPG. MMORPGs has way more feature types than the ordinary game thus your not going to get uniformed on what they want. You will get ideas of a general game though.
I think people would appreciate different types of games being made that aren't WoW Clones. Some people want games like UO or SWG or EQ or DAoC or whatever type of game with polish to bring it into 2013.
Not to put you on the spot because I only do that when somebody is being an asshole, but when has a group of consumers done more to show a company what they want than we have? We're all over forums and video comments making our opinions known.
Look at greenpeice, anti-oil groups, electric car groups, natural make-up groups...vritually every protesting group in the world, all make of hundreds/thousands/millions of people all telling companies what type of products they want, how they want to get them and how they want them to be made.
And people are listening (in general) because there are millions of them, they are known, so they are getting the products they want.
Because of those groups (and other reasons) we are getting hybrids, electric cars, wind farms, wave power, more solar power, animal free cosmetics, organic foods (again a whole other area). They stated they wanted them, they showed how many people they had, and they got them.
But you're not going to get a group of players who want anything uniformed. You're not going to get a uniformed opinion of what they want from any type of MMORPG. MMORPGs has way more feature types than the ordinary game thus your not going to get uniformed on what they want. You will get ideas of a general game though.
I think people would appreciate different types of games being made that aren't WoW Clones. Some people want games like UO or SWG or EQ or DAoC or whatever type of game with polish to bring it into 2013.
I agree.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Did SWG fans show there was a market? Many left yes. but many were leaving before the changes.
DAOC fans showed there was enough to get a demo trial funded. Which is definately a start, and grats to them too. What 14k funded it? Which likely means that a lot more would play it. Yes, definately a start.
And good numbers for people that want to show it.
Combine those numbers with whatever other number you find and now you've got something.
They've been trying to build an emulator for quite some time. It's quite different with such an IP.
Who do you think was creating all the hype for a new sw mmo? It wasn't themepark players. Bioware got a nice price when they sold. It was the worst kept secret because swg fans were all over it since the nge.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Did SWG fans show there was a market? Many left yes. but many were leaving before the changes.
DAOC fans showed there was enough to get a demo trial funded. Which is definately a start, and grats to them too. What 14k funded it? Which likely means that a lot more would play it. Yes, definately a start.
And good numbers for people that want to show it.
Combine those numbers with whatever other number you find and now you've got something.
They've been trying to build an emulator for quite some time. It's quite different with such an IP.
Who do you think was creating all the hype for a new sw mmo? It wasn't themepark players. Bioware got a nice price when they sold. It was the worst kept secret because swg fans were all over it since the nge.
So keep track of it. Add the people that are participating in the emulator to the daoc ones, the number is getting bigger.
btw I do believe it was a lot of themeparkers clamoring for swtor.
I myself am a mix. I thought swg was terrible but was looking forward to swtor.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Did SWG fans show there was a market? Many left yes. but many were leaving before the changes.
DAOC fans showed there was enough to get a demo trial funded. Which is definately a start, and grats to them too. What 14k funded it? Which likely means that a lot more would play it. Yes, definately a start.
And good numbers for people that want to show it.
Combine those numbers with whatever other number you find and now you've got something.
They've been trying to build an emulator for quite some time. It's quite different with such an IP.
Who do you think was creating all the hype for a new sw mmo? It wasn't themepark players. Bioware got a nice price when they sold. It was the worst kept secret because swg fans were all over it since the nge.
So keep track of it. Add the people that are participating in the emulator to the daoc ones, the number is getting bigger.
btw I do believe it was a lot of themeparkers clamoring for swtor.
I myself am a mix. I thought swg was terrible but was looking forward to swtor.
No, it was swg fans. Long before it was announced. You were there after the nge taking surveys with themepark players?
Bioware got a nice price.
Your welcome for sw mmo.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Not to put you on the spot because I only do that when somebody is being an asshole, but when has a group of consumers done more to show a company what they want than we have? We're all over forums and video comments making our opinions known.
Look at greenpeice, anti-oil groups, electric car groups, natural make-up groups...vritually every protesting group in the world, all make of hundreds/thousands/millions of people all telling companies what type of products they want, how they want to get them and how they want them to be made.
And people are listening (in general) because there are millions of them, they are known, so they are getting the products they want.
Because of those groups (and other reasons) we are getting hybrids, electric cars, wind farms, wave power, more solar power, animal free cosmetics, organic foods (again a whole other area). They stated they wanted them, they showed how many people they had, and they got them.
edit - now I realize there is a significant difference between an oil protest and a game protest. However the process is the same, you will need to gather enough likeminded people, in some fashion, to show that you are a signficant voice, then you will get what you want.
edit 2 - we all do it in some ways when we shop around for services. e.g my contract with bell mobility expired in september. Couldn't stand their new contracts I'm either going to go 50 minutes over everything, or buy the next plan and have pay for 800 minutes I don't need. For 2 months I complained to their department and shopped and looked at every other carrirer on the market. Finally they passed me to their loyalty department (don't know why they didn't do that first) and yesterday I got a plan with the minutes/data and price I wanted. Now this wasn't an example of me finding a market, but it is an example of me stating the product (service in this case) that I wanted.
There's a fundamental problem with this. What you're talking about are concessions by companies, for the most part. In the case of the MMORPG market making games, it's beneficial for them to make a successful game. So they have an incentive to make the game.
What they've stated is if you want them, and you believe there is market, then you need to show the devs that market.
So we're not being blamed, but it's our fault that the games aren't being made because we haven't shown developers that we're a market that exists?
No it isn't your fault that the games you want aren't being made.
However if you want a particular game, it is your responsibility to convince the people that make the games that there is a market for it.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
You're starting to catch on now.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There's a fundamental problem with this. What you're talking about are concessions by companies, for the most part. In the case of the MMORPG market making games, it's beneficial for them to make a successful game. So they have an incentive to make the game.
Your going to have to explain that one to me.
You call it a concession that a car company produces a different king of car, done in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it.
However a game company that produces a different kind of game, in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it - is not a concession?
It's beneficial to the car manufacters to make a successfull car, so they have an incentive to make the car.
Whats the difference between the two.
Both are in response to demand from consumers, both done to satisfy that demand, and both done so the company can make a profit.
The only difference is in the car, the consumers were able to show that there were a significant voice, satisfying the car company that it could make a profit.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You're assuming that the fan wants it built and nobody else does. There are developers who want to make these games. And there are publishers who want to make any game that sells.
So when you say "if a fan wants a particular game built, then it's up to them to do the initial work", that's just not an honest way to approach the subject.
I think you're missing something there, and that's the fact that if the developers, publishers or investors had data that showed there was interest for it, then publishers and investors would back it.
You and VR are getting hung up on "WoW changed things" but no one here has contested that. However, it's one of the many factors involved, not the sole factor.
Let's look back at 2006-2009, because that was a great example of one of the shifts in development post-WOW. There was lots of data that showed there was a growing tween and family market. Toon Town and Puzzle Pirates had been out for a while and both were proving reasonable successful, the latter moreso. Habbo Hotel and Maplestory were starting to really kick ass and taking names.
These were the new sandbox players. They didn't have preconceptions about what an MMO should be - they just viewed these as online games. There was far more room to get creative, so more developers, big and small, now having data that this is something viable started entering the market. KingsIsle is one of the smaller developers, creating Wizard 101 and the recent followup of Pirate 101. SOE targeted that group with Free Realms and Star Wars Clone Wars Adventures. GamersFirst (at the ime, K2 Networks), AeriaGames, IJJI, and several others starting heavily porting titles over to the NA/EU audience.
You also had the gamers from other genres getting into online gaming. Again, an audience without preconceptions about what an MMO should be. Players that would look at an online game for what it is and not for a personal checklist of what they feel it should be. Millions of people who would try a new game and judge it on its personal merits rather than thumb thier nose at it for not being a "real" MMO. Action RPGs, MMOFPS, virtual worlds and the insanely popular but now subsiding fad of Facebook games (ex: Mob Wars, Farmville).
All of those groups were identifiable in some way or another. Many of them were simply the transition to online multiplayer gameplay . A recent example of which would be the increase in MOBAs and online TCGs over the past few years.
When there's data showing an untapped or under-served market, the corporations jump on it. It is a convenient excuse to post "They want WOW money so they are all trying to make WOW clones because WOW is successful," but the reality is that NO ONE is trying to make the next WOW right now, nor have they tried for years. They are exploring other avenues in multiplayer online gaming, most of which aren't even on your radar which could very well be why you are only seeing "WOW clones" - the ones that aren't you probably don't consider to be a "real" MMO.
Your first step needs to be something other than "old school" because that means NOTHING to a developer. DAoC? UO? EQ? AC? What is the feature set? What is the gameplay that you want?
Why aren't you playing EQ? Do you want EQ with modern graphics? Ok, so why aren't you playing Vanguard?
Seriously... why? I'm not saying you should or that you need to but genuinely asking why Vanguard - designed and sold as an old school MMO, currently with about a half a decade of updates under its belt - doesn't fit the bill.
When devs look at data, part of that data is history, and so far history has shown that people aren't really playing the games that fit the various "old school" molds. And of the people that are, how many are going to drop their current game to go to the new shiny one? AND... if they will quickly drop their current one to get the new shiny one, what's to say they won't do the same if an even shinier title comes out a few months after that?
Developers, publishers and investors have millions of dollars for a reason - they make educated decisions about the markets and put their money where there is money to be made. If you show them you're a viable group to sink money into, they will gladly do it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There's a fundamental problem with this. What you're talking about are concessions by companies, for the most part. In the case of the MMORPG market making games, it's beneficial for them to make a successful game. So they have an incentive to make the game.
Your going to have to explain that one to me.
You call it a concession that a car company produces a different king of car, done in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it.
However a game company that produces a different kind of game, in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it - is not a concession?
It's beneficial to the car manufacters to make a successfull car, so they have an incentive to make the car.
Whats the difference between the two.
Both are in response to demand from consumers, both done to satisfy that demand, and both done so the company can make a profit.
The only difference is in the car, the consumers were able to show that there were a significant voice, satisfying the car company that it could make a profit.
Yeah I posted that in haste from my phone. There isn't really a difference in that way. The difference is the fact that people have a reason to actively oppose what the company is doing. If I don't like a game, I don't play it. If I disagree with a car company destroying the planet, I protest it.
Aside from whether or not it's fundamentally different, it's also just on a vastly different scale, which you kind of conceded. Are there any examples of this not related to environmental/humanitarian issues? Because I think the point has been made if these are the examples you can give of other times people have had to do what you're asking us to do for videogames.
Comments
Lizard gave several ways of showing the market. Start a webpage and draw people to it. Hook up with bloggers, start twitter feeds...
Start a database with different users.
May take some time but what are your options. If you want them, these are your choices:
1. Do nothing and continue to complain
2. Hope someone else (dev/or other) will research the market and comes to the conclusion there is a sufficient market.
3. Research the market yourself and present it to a dev.
Thats pretty much it. The devs aren't going for wow market anymore and haven't for awhile. Targetting WoW got them a stable base of a few hundred thousand in most cases.
What will they get if they target a few hundred thousand?
You just have to show there is a market that will justify the costs of making whatever game it is you want them to make.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
If you are the one thats wants it, then it is no ones responsibility but yours to figure out a way to get it.
People have been showing a market for multiplayer elder scrolls and a bunch of doac fans get it:/
SWG fans showed there was a market and they give the game to the themepark player again.
I could list quite a few more but I wont.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Did SWG fans show there was a market? Many left yes. but many were leaving before the changes.
DAOC fans showed there was enough to get a demo trial funded. Which is definately a start, and grats to them too. What 14k funded it? Which likely means that a lot more would play it. Yes, definately a start.
And good numbers for people that want to show it.
Combine those numbers with whatever other number you find and now you've got something.
This isn't how it works though! I can't think of a demographic that has had to do this. It's certainly not the norm. When a new kind of game comes out and hits it big, there wasn't some obvious sign or concentrated effort from the community to make it happen. WoW happened because Blizzard was perceptive about what people want. LoL happened because riot noticed how much people liked other, smaller MOBAs and saw an opportunity to consolidate and dominate that market.
What you're asking for is NOT typical. And also it's not what is going to happen. What probably IS going to happen is the market is going to continue to change and sandbox games are going to make something of a resurgence (probably relatively small in the grand scheme of things) and in the next few years a lot of us "oldschool" players are going to have more games to choose from. The Repopulation, Embers of Caerus, EQN, Camelot Unchained, Albion Online, Wushu, etc etc etc etc.
They have all had to do that.
A person that wanted a particular game built first had to show that there was a market. In most cases it is the dev or person building the game.
However if a fan wants a particular game built, then it is up to the fan to do the initial work - that is show there is a market.
That is exactly how it works in all businesses everywhere.
There were always signs before a game came out. Sometimes they underestimated the market. Sometimes they overestimated but they never went in blind. They always had a target and an idea of how big it was and what they wanted.
If they are the one that wants to make a game, it is nobody's but their responsibility to figure out if it's viable. Yours is the more humble approach to take, and the world would probably be filled with better people if we all thought like that, but taking myself sort of out of the equation and just looking at it objectively: no, it's their responsibility. People don't generally get together, form groups, sign petitions, etc to tell companies what they want. Companies figure out what people want and then give it to them. That's how it has always worked.
You're assuming that the fan wants it built and nobody else does. There are developers who want to make these games. And there are publishers who want to make any game that sells.
So when you say "if a fan wants a particular game built, then it's up to them to do the initial work", that's just not an honest way to approach the subject.
Actually yes that happens all the time.
People tell companies what they want all the time. And companies ask people what they want all the time.
At the end of the day, it is no ones responsibility but yours if you want something done.
The devs are allready doing what they believe will work.
No I am not assuming that no one else does.
I'm stating if the fan wants it, and they are not aware of anyone else doing it, then the better start researching.
So yes it is an honest approach, if you want it, you have to do something about it.
edit - there is no evading this. It is not the devs responsiblity to make the game you want. It is not the devs responsiblity to make a game for the market you want. The devs will make a game that they feel is successfull.
If you want a particular game it is your job, no one else's, to get the data and try to get the dev.
There is no 'us'. Oldschool MMO is just as vague as the words hardcore or sandbox. 10 Different people would come up with 10 different definitions. My experience on this forum is that when people ask for a oldschool MMO, they just ask for their personal list of preferences. The moment they post about it, you have other so called oldschool vets that want something different. Just a popular topics within discussions about oldschool MMO's : fast travel, death penalty, corpse run, item durability, crafting. There is never any concensus about these topics.
So yeah, your appeal has just as much chance to succeed as the 497324 other personal appeals to a dev. And what dev would have the time on their hands to read all of them btw?
Discussing on their forums and voting with your wallet, is all you can do imo.They will never suddenly start to create a MMO just for you because of your personal appeal (which the OP basically was asking).
So we're not being blamed, but it's our fault that the games aren't being made because we haven't shown developers that we're a market that exists?No it isn't your fault that the games you want aren't being made.
However if you want a particular game, it is your responsibility to convince the people that make the games that there is a market for it.
It actually isn't. It's the responsibility of the person in charge of determining what is a viable game to figure out what people want. They don't owe it to me personally, but that's what they get paid for. If there's an untapped market, they should know that.
If you are the one thats wants it, then it is no ones responsibility but yours to figure out a way to get it.
If they are the one that wants to make a game, it is nobody's but their responsibility to figure out if it's viable. Yours is the more humble approach to take, and the world would probably be filled with better people if we all thought like that, but taking myself sort of out of the equation and just looking at it objectively: no, it's their responsibility. People don't generally get together, form groups, sign petitions, etc to tell companies what they want. Companies figure out what people want and then give it to them. That's how it has always worked.
Actually yes that happens all the time.
People tell companies what they want all the time. And companies ask people what they want all the time.
At the end of the day, it is no ones responsibility but yours if you want something done.
The devs are allready doing what they believe will work.
Not to put you on the spot because I only do that when somebody is being an asshole, but when has a group of consumers done more to show a company what they want than we have? We're all over forums and video comments making our opinions known.Look at greenpeice, anti-oil groups, electric car groups, natural make-up groups...vritually every protesting group in the world, all make of hundreds/thousands/millions of people all telling companies what type of products they want, how they want to get them and how they want them to be made.
And people are listening (in general) because there are millions of them, they are known, so they are getting the products they want.
Because of those groups (and other reasons) we are getting hybrids, electric cars, wind farms, wave power, more solar power, animal free cosmetics, organic foods (again a whole other area). They stated they wanted them, they showed how many people they had, and they got them.
edit - now I realize there is a significant difference between an oil protest and a game protest. However the process is the same, you will need to gather enough likeminded people, in some fashion, to show that you are a signficant voice, then you will get what you want.
edit 2 - we all do it in some ways when we shop around for services. e.g my contract with bell mobility expired in september. Couldn't stand their new contracts I'm either going to go 50 minutes over everything, or buy the next plan and have pay for 800 minutes I don't need. For 2 months I complained to their department and shopped and looked at every other carrirer on the market. Finally they passed me to their loyalty department (don't know why they didn't do that first) and yesterday I got a plan with the minutes/data and price I wanted. Now this wasn't an example of me finding a market, but it is an example of me stating the product (service in this case) that I wanted.
But you're not going to get a group of players who want anything uniformed. You're not going to get a uniformed opinion of what they want from any type of MMORPG. MMORPGs has way more feature types than the ordinary game thus your not going to get uniformed on what they want. You will get ideas of a general game though.
I think people would appreciate different types of games being made that aren't WoW Clones. Some people want games like UO or SWG or EQ or DAoC or whatever type of game with polish to bring it into 2013.
I agree.
They've been trying to build an emulator for quite some time. It's quite different with such an IP.
Who do you think was creating all the hype for a new sw mmo? It wasn't themepark players. Bioware got a nice price when they sold. It was the worst kept secret because swg fans were all over it since the nge.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
So keep track of it. Add the people that are participating in the emulator to the daoc ones, the number is getting bigger.
btw I do believe it was a lot of themeparkers clamoring for swtor.
I myself am a mix. I thought swg was terrible but was looking forward to swtor.
No, it was swg fans. Long before it was announced. You were there after the nge taking surveys with themepark players?
Bioware got a nice price.
Your welcome for sw mmo.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
There's a fundamental problem with this. What you're talking about are concessions by companies, for the most part. In the case of the MMORPG market making games, it's beneficial for them to make a successful game. So they have an incentive to make the game.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm?category=103&redir=false&val=1&uh=5D7A9F58A8B32E4F176A4F5C8407D017
This was definitely a group of people looking to spend money on a video game. Most of that is after we quit.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You're starting to catch on now.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Your going to have to explain that one to me.
You call it a concession that a car company produces a different king of car, done in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it.
However a game company that produces a different kind of game, in response to an apparent demand by consumers, and so it can make a profit from it - is not a concession?
It's beneficial to the car manufacters to make a successfull car, so they have an incentive to make the car.
Whats the difference between the two.
Both are in response to demand from consumers, both done to satisfy that demand, and both done so the company can make a profit.
The only difference is in the car, the consumers were able to show that there were a significant voice, satisfying the car company that it could make a profit.
I think you're missing something there, and that's the fact that if the developers, publishers or investors had data that showed there was interest for it, then publishers and investors would back it.
You and VR are getting hung up on "WoW changed things" but no one here has contested that. However, it's one of the many factors involved, not the sole factor.
Let's look back at 2006-2009, because that was a great example of one of the shifts in development post-WOW. There was lots of data that showed there was a growing tween and family market. Toon Town and Puzzle Pirates had been out for a while and both were proving reasonable successful, the latter moreso. Habbo Hotel and Maplestory were starting to really kick ass and taking names.
These were the new sandbox players. They didn't have preconceptions about what an MMO should be - they just viewed these as online games. There was far more room to get creative, so more developers, big and small, now having data that this is something viable started entering the market. KingsIsle is one of the smaller developers, creating Wizard 101 and the recent followup of Pirate 101. SOE targeted that group with Free Realms and Star Wars Clone Wars Adventures. GamersFirst (at the ime, K2 Networks), AeriaGames, IJJI, and several others starting heavily porting titles over to the NA/EU audience.
You also had the gamers from other genres getting into online gaming. Again, an audience without preconceptions about what an MMO should be. Players that would look at an online game for what it is and not for a personal checklist of what they feel it should be. Millions of people who would try a new game and judge it on its personal merits rather than thumb thier nose at it for not being a "real" MMO. Action RPGs, MMOFPS, virtual worlds and the insanely popular but now subsiding fad of Facebook games (ex: Mob Wars, Farmville).
All of those groups were identifiable in some way or another. Many of them were simply the transition to online multiplayer gameplay . A recent example of which would be the increase in MOBAs and online TCGs over the past few years.
When there's data showing an untapped or under-served market, the corporations jump on it. It is a convenient excuse to post "They want WOW money so they are all trying to make WOW clones because WOW is successful," but the reality is that NO ONE is trying to make the next WOW right now, nor have they tried for years. They are exploring other avenues in multiplayer online gaming, most of which aren't even on your radar which could very well be why you are only seeing "WOW clones" - the ones that aren't you probably don't consider to be a "real" MMO.
Your first step needs to be something other than "old school" because that means NOTHING to a developer. DAoC? UO? EQ? AC? What is the feature set? What is the gameplay that you want?
Why aren't you playing EQ? Do you want EQ with modern graphics? Ok, so why aren't you playing Vanguard?
Seriously... why? I'm not saying you should or that you need to but genuinely asking why Vanguard - designed and sold as an old school MMO, currently with about a half a decade of updates under its belt - doesn't fit the bill.
When devs look at data, part of that data is history, and so far history has shown that people aren't really playing the games that fit the various "old school" molds. And of the people that are, how many are going to drop their current game to go to the new shiny one? AND... if they will quickly drop their current one to get the new shiny one, what's to say they won't do the same if an even shinier title comes out a few months after that?
Developers, publishers and investors have millions of dollars for a reason - they make educated decisions about the markets and put their money where there is money to be made. If you show them you're a viable group to sink money into, they will gladly do it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Yeah I posted that in haste from my phone. There isn't really a difference in that way. The difference is the fact that people have a reason to actively oppose what the company is doing. If I don't like a game, I don't play it. If I disagree with a car company destroying the planet, I protest it.
Aside from whether or not it's fundamentally different, it's also just on a vastly different scale, which you kind of conceded. Are there any examples of this not related to environmental/humanitarian issues? Because I think the point has been made if these are the examples you can give of other times people have had to do what you're asking us to do for videogames.