You're forgetting a key figure, MMOs were VASTLY less popular 11 years ago, when SWG came out, and ~17 years ago when UO came out. Warcraft was the first game in western culture that gained massive popularity thus bringing it much closer to social acceptance. By the time people grew tired of WOW and such, why would they go back and play an 'old' game such as SWG that hadn't t caught the popularity wave and basically had no content added to it, only core systems changed to try and grab the wow crowd.
True but what kinds of people did the mmo market attract ?
Sandbox is a very loud group of people but are they numerous enough to support a game and open minded enough to stick with one that doesn't get everything exactly how they think it should be made ? Of course they'll tell you that are...unfortunatly history would disagree.
EvE is obviously the most successful sandbox game and how many people does it actually have playing ( not subs but people ) 250k...maybe ? Those are still swg/UO numbers 10 years later. They just found a way to get people to have multiple accounts.
If you're going to make an AAA title with a 50-100 mil budget there isn't a lot of incentive to go after that tiny market of people or even to take the massive risk of " but if you do it right you might get more "...but get it wrong and no plays and f2p wont save you.
I disagree, a sandbox in theory has something for everyone, the creators, the social, the economists, the political factions, the pvpers, the themepark riders(who play off the creations). This is why Minecraft and GTA are so popular.
I disagree with your disagreement. The idea of "something for everyone" is a nice dream, but obviously not often (or ever) the case. Both GTA and Minecraft carry no subscription. GTA is also wrapped in a pre-existing, billion-dollar brand, so it really can't fail regardless what they do. Minecraft, I would argue, isn't a single game. I would agree that it's a sandbox, but it's not a single-cohesive game. It's millions of other little games. It's kind of like Little Big Planet, but without the story.
Sandbox games are traditionally, and inherently, more complex than themeparks. They might have all the content that a themepark "rider" loves, but it's hidden behind tons of additional content that is too heavy for the average themeparker. Use ESO as an example. I would say ESO is a themepark with sandbox elements, but call it a themepark for arguement. After release it was, probably, less than a week before we started hearing stuff like "no auction house?", "wow, this is really slow levelling.", "holy! Crafting is so slow in this game!". This from a game that is not even 10% as complex as EVE Online. These sorts of comments only illustrate that sandbox elements aren't as mainstream as you think they are, at least not in an MMORPG. I'd love to think that a sandbox can survive today, but I just don't think that the majority of people "get" sandbox or even want a true sandbox. EQN might be the game to really illustrate whether or not it's something that can appeal to "everyone". We'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
Thats not necessarily true. I kind of subscribed to that idea for awhile. But...
The same thing could have been said of the entire MMORPG genre. Back in the day, people said that it was too "nerdy" or it was too "deep" or "it was only for no lifers" for people to understand. Back in 2003, most people couldnt fathom the idea of guilds, the idea of staying online for large amounts of time, getting absorbed into these online communities.
People were saying this until a game broke the mold - WoW. WoW had mass appeal. WoW came out with the right elements, the right design, the right community at the right time. It was inviting and non threatening enough to bring other players in. And the market was ready.
The same thing could be said of sandboxes. Perhaps the market has not been ready for a sandbox that has mass appeal. I think these "sandbox" elements can be quite enjoyable, if presented correctly. Once again, we just need a developer to come out with a game that presents this correctly and easily for the masses.
Sandboxes can be intimidating to the casual player. They have a high barrier of entry. They require an initial investment of time into something that you dont know will return. But MMOS in general back in the day also had high barriers of entry. 20 years from now, we might be saying how stupid it was to think that sandboxes would be a niche genre forever.
In fact, I daresay Sandboxes are the future. The pull and allure of virtual worlds is very strong - after all, I played them. They just need to be presented in an easy way for people to digest and to get used to. If people are looking for the next big thing, the "Sandpark" model might be it - especially if developers find a way to merge mobile platforms with traditional PC gaming.
Sandboxes allow truly unlimited potential because it feeds on player generated content. This is why games that have built in editors, like Counterstrike, Morrowind, or Warcraft 3, are still going strong today. These games do not rely on developer generated content, but player created content instead. Its a self sufficient system. This allows developers to focus on improving the overall game, and working on REAL quests, long, epic quests.
This might seem stupid right now. But let's be honest with ourselves here. The market has gone stale. People are starting to get sick of Themeparks. Gamers are more savvy than ever now, they understand "on rails" gameplay and its boring. Its boring. I repeat, it's boring.
In a couple years, we might see another breakthrough. I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard's Titan is a sandpark.
In fact...I'm kind of expecting it.
If a Sandbox were to have set paths like the instanced quests, instanced PVP areas, and guided paths in general I doubt I would like it. EQ was a themepark, but it allowed for you to go in and find things to do as you like. I find again there is an illusion of choice in games today. I've pointed out how classes seem to offer a lot of variety, but in face end up not being much different. They all are of equal power and can do all tasks more or less equally well. Now lets look to quests, crafting, PvP, and Raiding in current MMOs. It sounds like there are a lot of choices, but there aren't. Each of these has a predefined path set before them. There is no room for creativity. You choose to PvP it will be the same as everyone elses PvP experience (battle grounds). You choose to level up it will be the same quest path that everyone else has taken. You choose to raid and it will be the same raid path that everyone else has taken. If you add set paths to follow into the game then it's no longer a sandbox anyway IMO. The point of a sandbox is to dump you in and let you figure what you want to do. That is what is fun to me in a MMO weather it is a sandbox or themepark. I don't find it fun to follow a set path that is clearly laid out before me. I know the masses like that because it gives them a feeling of comfort and the feeling they are doing something meaningful in the game, but it couldn't be further from the truth IMO.
Which looks like a hybrid between SWG and a less harsh (mechanics-wise) EVE-Online on the PVP servers.
As far as UO.... Albion Online and Gloria Victis.
So knowing those upcoming games how are your predictions holding up OP?
Since none of these games could be called "AAA", pretty well. If you read my last paragraph.
Neither SWG nor UO can be considered AAA productions either so your point is moot hence why I omitted it from consideration (EQ could nominally be called AAA and WoW most certainly).
Both games were AAA productions for their time. Especially SWG.
Keep dreaming. SWG in terms of graphics and overall bling factor was below games 4-5 years older and UO wasn't even remotely comparable in terms of bling factor to Diablo 1 or other similar isometric games of the day.
Now kindly stop trying to retroactively apply shitty labels idiots use today to segment gaming in completely arbitrary categories and which usually do not impact the quality of gameplay in any way.
Whoa what? SWG was "below games" 4-5 years older? I had to log in to comment on this. Because its completely wrong.
When SWG came out, it was indeed considered to be a AAA game - for its time. Again, repeat, for its time. I know, I was there, I remember. When SWG came out, it's graphics were actually considered to be excellent. You needed a high end rig to put it to max.
Same thing for UO. UO came out in 1997 and for the small amount of people that had the privilege to play it (Pre-trammel), it was quite revolutionary. Sorry - you don't know what you're talking about.
The market was vastly different back in 2005. WoW is an anomaly and should be treated as such. It is a product that broke through to a "mainstream" audience and is a social revolution in and of itself. Games in the current market should not and can not compare themselves to anything made before 2007,
Nope, simply because you misread what I meant: Below as in graphics and production quality (what ostensibly makes a AAA AAA) and WoW didn't launch in 2005 so you need to get your facts straight.
Money =/= better mechanics
Money = (usually) = more overhead, less innovation, less risk. All the lauded MMOs of old didn't class as AAA and no amount of bending facts over and savaging them will change that/
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Again.
SWG was not "below" in any sort of fashion. It had high production quality. Its graphics were excellent. You are the one misreading. Like I said, you needed a really good computer to run SWG on high graphics. When SWG first came out, one of the major things lauded in reviews was its graphics quality. Hell, I remember reading reviews about the sunflare.
I never said WoW launched in 2005. Once again, you are the one misreading. WoW launched in 2004, but it is generally considered to have reached the "scene" in 2005 as a year had passed and it reached European shores.
The "lauded" MMOs of old did indeed classify as AAA. For their time, and their genre. For today's standards, they are more indie than anything. But Lucas Arts had their name behind SWG. That is no small feat. It had massive hype for the time and was predicted to be the biggest MMO ever to hit the scene. Of course, we know what happened next. But for its time, it was considered to be a large production, probably one of the biggest MMO's ever to be built, with many, many planets from Star Wars. SWG was no joke. Saying anything else just shows you know nothing fundamentally of the industry and what transpired.
Money does not equal better mechanics, but the games of old were made in a completely different era as of now. it was a totally different time back then and comparing old games like DAOC, UO, AC and SWG to today's games is truly comparing apples to oranges.
Which looks like a hybrid between SWG and a less harsh (mechanics-wise) EVE-Online on the PVP servers.
As far as UO.... Albion Online and Gloria Victis.
So knowing those upcoming games how are your predictions holding up OP?
Since none of these games could be called "AAA", pretty well. If you read my last paragraph.
Neither SWG nor UO can be considered AAA productions either so your point is moot hence why I omitted it from consideration (EQ could nominally be called AAA and WoW most certainly).
Both games were AAA productions for their time. Especially SWG.
Keep dreaming. SWG in terms of graphics and overall bling factor was below games 4-5 years older and UO wasn't even remotely comparable in terms of bling factor to Diablo 1 or other similar isometric games of the day.
Now kindly stop trying to retroactively apply shitty labels idiots use today to segment gaming in completely arbitrary categories and which usually do not impact the quality of gameplay in any way.
Whoa what? SWG was "below games" 4-5 years older? I had to log in to comment on this. Because its completely wrong.
When SWG came out, it was indeed considered to be a AAA game - for its time. Again, repeat, for its time. I know, I was there, I remember. When SWG came out, it's graphics were actually considered to be excellent. You needed a high end rig to put it to max.
Same thing for UO. UO came out in 1997 and for the small amount of people that had the privilege to play it (Pre-trammel), it was quite revolutionary. Sorry - you don't know what you're talking about.
The market was vastly different back in 2005. WoW is an anomaly and should be treated as such. It is a product that broke through to a "mainstream" audience and is a social revolution in and of itself. Games in the current market should not and can not compare themselves to anything made before 2007,
Nope, simply because you misread what I meant: Below as in graphics and production quality (what ostensibly makes a AAA AAA) and WoW didn't launch in 2005 so you need to get your facts straight.
Money =/= better mechanics
Money = (usually) = more overhead, less innovation, less risk. All the lauded MMOs of old didn't class as AAA and no amount of bending facts over and savaging them will change that/
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Again.
SWG was not "below" in any sort of fashion. It had high production quality. Its graphics were excellent. You are the one misreading. Like I said, you needed a really good computer to run SWG on high graphics. When SWG first came out, one of the major things lauded in reviews was its graphics quality. Hell, I remember reading reviews about the sunflare.
I never said WoW launched in 2005. Once again, you are the one misreading. WoW launched in 2004, but it is generally considered to have reached the "scene" in 2005 as a year had passed and it reached European shores.
The "lauded" MMOs of old did indeed classify as AAA. For their time, and their genre. For today's standards, they are more indie than anything. But Lucas Arts had their name behind SWG. That is no small feat. It had massive hype for the time and was predicted to be the biggest MMO ever to hit the scene. Of course, we know what happened next. But for its time, it was considered to be a large production, probably one of the biggest MMO's ever to be built, with many, many planets from Star Wars. SWG was no joke. Saying anything else just shows you know nothing fundamentally of the industry and what transpired.
Money does not equal better mechanics, but the games of old were made in a completely different era as of now. it was a totally different time back then and comparing old games like DAOC, UO, AC and SWG to today's games is truly comparing apples to oranges.
10, size of planet 16 sq km, while for example Everquest 1 and 2 (so pre-dating and contemporary to SWG) had much more than 160 sq km. By that logic EQ 1 and EQ 2 could be AAA while SWG AA though in your own words comparing old MMOs to modern ones is pointless thus even using the term AAA (a post-WoW term) is utterly pointless and it does not equate remotely well to the old guard MMOs.
Which looks like a hybrid between SWG and a less harsh (mechanics-wise) EVE-Online on the PVP servers.
As far as UO.... Albion Online and Gloria Victis.
So knowing those upcoming games how are your predictions holding up OP?
Since none of these games could be called "AAA", pretty well. If you read my last paragraph.
Neither SWG nor UO can be considered AAA productions either so your point is moot hence why I omitted it from consideration (EQ could nominally be called AAA and WoW most certainly).
Both games were AAA productions for their time. Especially SWG.
Keep dreaming. SWG in terms of graphics and overall bling factor was below games 4-5 years older and UO wasn't even remotely comparable in terms of bling factor to Diablo 1 or other similar isometric games of the day.
Now kindly stop trying to retroactively apply shitty labels idiots use today to segment gaming in completely arbitrary categories and which usually do not impact the quality of gameplay in any way.
Whoa what? SWG was "below games" 4-5 years older? I had to log in to comment on this. Because its completely wrong.
When SWG came out, it was indeed considered to be a AAA game - for its time. Again, repeat, for its time. I know, I was there, I remember. When SWG came out, it's graphics were actually considered to be excellent. You needed a high end rig to put it to max.
Same thing for UO. UO came out in 1997 and for the small amount of people that had the privilege to play it (Pre-trammel), it was quite revolutionary. Sorry - you don't know what you're talking about.
The market was vastly different back in 2005. WoW is an anomaly and should be treated as such. It is a product that broke through to a "mainstream" audience and is a social revolution in and of itself. Games in the current market should not and can not compare themselves to anything made before 2007,
Nope, simply because you misread what I meant: Below as in graphics and production quality (what ostensibly makes a AAA AAA) and WoW didn't launch in 2005 so you need to get your facts straight.
Money =/= better mechanics
Money = (usually) = more overhead, less innovation, less risk. All the lauded MMOs of old didn't class as AAA and no amount of bending facts over and savaging them will change that/
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Again.
SWG was not "below" in any sort of fashion. It had high production quality. Its graphics were excellent. You are the one misreading. Like I said, you needed a really good computer to run SWG on high graphics. When SWG first came out, one of the major things lauded in reviews was its graphics quality. Hell, I remember reading reviews about the sunflare.
I never said WoW launched in 2005. Once again, you are the one misreading. WoW launched in 2004, but it is generally considered to have reached the "scene" in 2005 as a year had passed and it reached European shores.
The "lauded" MMOs of old did indeed classify as AAA. For their time, and their genre. For today's standards, they are more indie than anything. But Lucas Arts had their name behind SWG. That is no small feat. It had massive hype for the time and was predicted to be the biggest MMO ever to hit the scene. Of course, we know what happened next. But for its time, it was considered to be a large production, probably one of the biggest MMO's ever to be built, with many, many planets from Star Wars. SWG was no joke. Saying anything else just shows you know nothing fundamentally of the industry and what transpired.
Money does not equal better mechanics, but the games of old were made in a completely different era as of now. it was a totally different time back then and comparing old games like DAOC, UO, AC and SWG to today's games is truly comparing apples to oranges.
10, size of planet 16 sq km, while for example Everquest 1 and 2 (so pre-dating and contemporary to SWG) had much more than 160 sq km. By that logic EQ 1 and EQ 2 could be AAA while SWG AA though in your own words comparing old MMOs to modern ones is pointless thus even using the term AAA (a post-WoW term) is utterly pointless and it does not equate remotely well to the old guard MMOs.
But let's not use that logic. True EQ was much larger - I think it had 350km at launch. But hold on, brute world size does not equal production quality and scale of a game. You are forgetting crafting and skill trees, player towns and cities, resource gathering, class balance, lore, player housing, etc. Theres alot more that goes into a game than just world size. Don't forget the fact that SWG planets were built with the idea of player cities in mind. These worlds were made differently than traditional themepark zones. Looking back on it, it was pretty innovative stuff especially for 2004.
And don't forget the Space Expansion. Which I believe was 15x15x15 for space zones. Not nearly as large as EQ's zones, but ya gotta give credit where credit is due. It was pretty ambitious for an MMO at the time - real free roaming space combat. They had a flight simulator and everything. Different combat from what was on the ground. Really ambitious. Contrast that to SWTOR's pathetic on rails space gameplay.
It's a real shame MMO's had gone in the opposite direction, but it is what it is.
What is the point of this analysis without factoring in expenses? Why look at revenue without taking into account costs? Or stated goals? You're comparing transformers 3 with Primer. Not every developer has to go for the next WoW. Just like not every movie producer is trying to make the next lord of the rings.
Not only that, the whole industry is larger. It's not just inflation you'd have to adjust for.
Edit: I get that you're saying some non-aaa titles may crop up, but then what's the point of this prediction? Very few people expect a AAA UO. Sandbox fans recognize (and might even prefer) that their games will not be as polished or popular as the big titles. That's true for pretty much everything in life. So again, I'm just not sure what the actual prediction is here.
You're basically saying "face it, a niche game will never again be made....unless of course it's niche."
Originally posted by Holophonist What is the point of this analysis without factoring in expenses? Why look at revenue without taking into account costs? Or stated goals? You're comparing transformers 3 with Primer. Not every developer has to go for the next WoW. Just like not every movie producer is trying to make the next lord of the rings. Not only that, the whole industry is larger. It's not just inflation you'd have to adjust for.
Edit: I get that you're saying some non-aaa titles may crop up, but then what's the point of this prediction? Very few people expect a AAA UO. Sandbox fans recognize (and might even prefer) that their games will not be as polished or popular as the big titles. That's true for pretty much everything in life. So again, I'm just not sure what the actual prediction is here.
You're basically saying "face it, a niche game will never again be made....unless of course it's niche."
You are assuming, like others, that both UO and SWG were niche games. UO might have been a niche game, but SWG was intended to be THE game in the MMORPG genre. It was going to be THE AAA MMORPG. It didn't make it, but that was the goal. SWG was not intended to be a niche game when they developed it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Holophonist What is the point of this analysis without factoring in expenses? Why look at revenue without taking into account costs? Or stated goals? You're comparing transformers 3 with Primer. Not every developer has to go for the next WoW. Just like not every movie producer is trying to make the next lord of the rings. Not only that, the whole industry is larger. It's not just inflation you'd have to adjust for.
Edit: I get that you're saying some non-aaa titles may crop up, but then what's the point of this prediction? Very few people expect a AAA UO. Sandbox fans recognize (and might even prefer) that their games will not be as polished or popular as the big titles. That's true for pretty much everything in life. So again, I'm just not sure what the actual prediction is here.
You're basically saying "face it, a niche game will never again be made....unless of course it's niche."
You are assuming, like others, that both UO and SWG were niche games. UO might have been a niche game, but SWG was intended to be THE game in the MMORPG genre. It was going to be THE AAA MMORPG. It didn't make it, but that was the goal. SWG was not intended to be a niche game when they developed it.
With a development bugdet of 15$ Mio... and not even two years later Blizzard splashed out around 200$ Mio. on WoW...
In all honestly SOE just overestimates their status as AAA developer.. the complete MMO genre before WoW was niche, and SOE is more or less a niche or better said not a AAA developer up to now. Hell... even Anet with NCsoft in the background has higher development bugdet as SOE for any given title.
Originally posted by Holophonist What is the point of this analysis without factoring in expenses? Why look at revenue without taking into account costs? Or stated goals? You're comparing transformers 3 with Primer. Not every developer has to go for the next WoW. Just like not every movie producer is trying to make the next lord of the rings. Not only that, the whole industry is larger. It's not just inflation you'd have to adjust for.
Edit: I get that you're saying some non-aaa titles may crop up, but then what's the point of this prediction? Very few people expect a AAA UO. Sandbox fans recognize (and might even prefer) that their games will not be as polished or popular as the big titles. That's true for pretty much everything in life. So again, I'm just not sure what the actual prediction is here.
You're basically saying "face it, a niche game will never again be made....unless of course it's niche."
You are assuming, like others, that both UO and SWG were niche games. UO might have been a niche game, but SWG was intended to be THE game in the MMORPG genre. It was going to be THE AAA MMORPG. It didn't make it, but that was the goal. SWG was not intended to be a niche game when they developed it.
With a development bugdet of 15$ Mio... and not even two years later Blizzard splashed out around 200$ Mio. on WoW...
In all honestly SOE just overestimates their status as AAA developer.. the complete MMO genre before WoW was niche, and SOE is more or less a niche or better said not a AAA developer up to now. Hell... even Anet with NCsoft in the background has higher development bugdet as SOE for any given title.
Or WoW redefined what it meant to publish a AAA MMORPG. It may never have occurred to anyone before that point that they could put that much money into an MMORPG and get their money back.
Though, I would say if a developer could put $15M into a game now, and run that game for a decade and have nearly 300k people paying $15 a month for a large part of that time, they would be deliriously happy.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I disagree, a sandbox in theory has something for everyone, the creators, the social, the economists, the political factions, the pvpers, the themepark riders(who play off the creations). This is why Minecraft and GTA are so popular.
So everyone who plays minecraft play with groups of people? Same with GTA?
And there are people who don't want to deal with "the pvp'ers" which some people claim is a "must" for a sandbox game.
As another poster put it "if one builds a house and it's destroyed the next day will players really be keen on this?"
Some will, and some won't.
How many times must one's creations be destroyed in a week's time before it becomes tiresome to some?
Very few people are playing Minecraft on public servers. Most people are playing the game either in single player, or as private servers with a select group of friends. That doesn't mean large scale, with many players sandboxes aren't viable, just that the mechanics haven't been worked out to make it a widely acceptable idea. They need to work out minimizing the impact that players have on each other, while at the same time allowing for the freedom that sandbox style games seem to offer.
And that's exactly what I think the stumbling block is for "Sandbox mmo's".
I have no problem with open ffa pvp but I do know that if i'm constantly rebuilding structures I'm going to eventually stop building them. It will get too tedious.
Or just not have a pvp sandbox game which would be hard for some to swallow given that there are people who believe a sandbox game "must" have pvp.
And now think about it. In my humble opinion the future of MMOs is much more in the not so Massive market.. with a lot more public servers, with optional private servers with very different rulesets.
Albeit from EvE in all most all games you have "theoretical servers" with 10k players on it, but you don't play with more than 200 in any given moment. So why not make smaller servers with just 1000 players online or even just 500 players online. And options for private servers with around 200 players online possible. And option for additional modding and very specific rulesets for the private servers.
And another fact is, for not a single MMO game feature(expect territorial warfare) you even need more than 100 players at the same time.
And this is even scientifically recognized with Dunbar's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that the ideal size of a healthy community would be around 100 - 250 people. And all those micro communities in DayZ and Minecraft just prove the point further more. And with all that some Minecraft survival server or DayZ server feel a lot more like a virtual world as any current MMO.
Even if you would do a territorial warfare game with regional markets(which would most probably require the most players), any segment should consist in this segment (100-250 players).. take now 9 different regions or communities, and you are still somewhere between 1000 and 2000 players.
And in my opinion this is one of the more important reasons, why Minecraft and DayZ are that successful. Maybe after all it was a huge mistake to go from MUD size to current MMO size with UO.. even UO was early just designed for around 500 players and would be better for that small map of UO.. and a lot of problems would have never existed.
UO and SWG combined probably took less to make than a quarter of SWTOR's total production cost.
You cannot use these number becouse it obfucates the truth. For example there were far fewer internet connection when UO and SWG launched.
The indefatigable element is that UO and SWG were MMOprgs that engaged your creativity and mind, while Bio / EA simply designed SWTOR to seperate people from their money.
I disagree, a sandbox in theory has something for everyone, the creators, the social, the economists, the political factions, the pvpers, the themepark riders(who play off the creations). This is why Minecraft and GTA are so popular.
So everyone who plays minecraft play with groups of people? Same with GTA?
And there are people who don't want to deal with "the pvp'ers" which some people claim is a "must" for a sandbox game.
As another poster put it "if one builds a house and it's destroyed the next day will players really be keen on this?"
Some will, and some won't.
How many times must one's creations be destroyed in a week's time before it becomes tiresome to some?
Very few people are playing Minecraft on public servers. Most people are playing the game either in single player, or as private servers with a select group of friends. That doesn't mean large scale, with many players sandboxes aren't viable, just that the mechanics haven't been worked out to make it a widely acceptable idea. They need to work out minimizing the impact that players have on each other, while at the same time allowing for the freedom that sandbox style games seem to offer.
And that's exactly what I think the stumbling block is for "Sandbox mmo's".
I have no problem with open ffa pvp but I do know that if i'm constantly rebuilding structures I'm going to eventually stop building them. It will get too tedious.
Or just not have a pvp sandbox game which would be hard for some to swallow given that there are people who believe a sandbox game "must" have pvp.
And now think about it. In my humble opinion the future of MMOs is much more in the not so Massive market.. with a lot more public servers, with optional private servers with very different rulesets.
Albeit from EvE in all most all games you have "theoretical servers" with 10k players on it, but you don't play with more than 200 in any given moment. So why not make smaller servers with just 1000 players online or even just 500 players online. And options for private servers with around 200 players online possible. And option for additional modding and very specific rulesets for the private servers.
And another fact is, for not a single MMO game feature(expect territorial warfare) you even need more than 100 players at the same time.
And this is even scientifically recognized with Dunbar's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that the ideal size of a healthy community would be around 100 - 250 people. And all those micro communities in DayZ and Minecraft just prove the point further more. And with all that some Minecraft survival server or DayZ server feel a lot more like a virtual world as any current MMO.
Even if you would do a territorial warfare game with regional markets(which would most probably require the most players), any segment should consist in this segment (100-250 players).. take now 9 different regions or communities, and you are still somewhere between 1000 and 2000 players.
And in my opinion this is one of the more important reasons, why Minecraft and DayZ are that successful. Maybe after all it was a huge mistake to go from MUD size to current MMO size with UO.. even UO was early just designed for around 500 players and would be better for that small map of UO.. and a lot of problems would have never existed.
I've played on a couple of Minecraft servers that felt very much like "worlds", with less than 200 concurrent players on the server. There was a relatively stable community, drama, a reason to build, and a reason to explore. It was pretty cool.
I think the only tricky bit would be having a stable community of people, not just in numbers, but in identities. There are going to be people who move around from server to server a lot, but it might make sense to try and move the more stable people to 'core' servers or something.
I dunno. I instinctively like the idea you've laid out. Also, it seems Dunbar's number applies to Facebook friends, Twitter contacts, etc. People may have a bunch of friends or fans, but they interact with a hundred to two hundred fifty people max at any given time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
UO and SWG combined probably took less to make than a quarter of SWTOR's total production cost.
You cannot use these number becouse it obfucates the truth. For example there were far fewer internet connection when UO and SWG launched.
The indefatigable element is that UO and SWG were MMOprgs that engaged your creativity and mind, while Bio / EA simply designed SWTOR to seperate people from their money.
Which means that what we'll see in the future are games designed more like SWToR (separate people from money) than UO or SWG (engage creativity and cognition). Flash versus substance, Story versus Self Direction, This versus That. The bottom line is what makes more money, and whatever SWToR does makes more money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Back in the days of those old and 1st MMOS, the players were 95% super geeks, most of those people are about 40-60+ years old now and not the focus of developers anymore. They are making games for the new generation of players that are 15-30+ or so.
On top of that, those games were not very good, you may think they were using your nostalgic touches on them, but they sucked. Why they felt good back then was that that is all there was, it was fresh, new, everything was original back then, there were no other games to compare them to.
IDK why people sit there and post like miserable, depressed people trying to say how great those old days were, its like a grandfather saying how nice it was when you had to go out walk 10 miles, go catch a wild animal, gut it, skin it, make a fire, cook it and finally eat some crappy piece of meat, but to him it was the best piece of meat ever and nothing now can compare.
You guys should all enjoy what there is now, find some kind of game, maybe not even an MMORPG since most of you seem burned out on them.
Back in the days of those old and 1st MMOS, the players were 95% super geeks, most of those people are about 40-60+ years old now and not the focus of developers anymore. They are making games for the new generation of players that are 15-30+ or so.
Warhammer Online had a number of fresh ideas, and more importantly World of warcraft is a stolen mythos based on the Warhammer franchise. Yet, Wow is still going strong and Hammer no longer even exists.
I thought, or i tried to though the same as you.. but i changed my mind once again.
Originally posted by khameleon
Back in the days of those old and 1st MMOS, the players were 95% super geeks, most of those people are about 40-60+ years old now and not the focus of developers anymore. They are making games for the new generation of players that are 15-30+ or so.
Hmmpf.. nah.. i am more like 30+ a few years left before i will be in the 40-60+ years category. And still over 20 as UO launched. And have been playing since pong and pacman in the '80ies.
On top of that, those games were not very good, you may think they were using your nostalgic touches on them, but they sucked. Why they felt good back then was that that is all there was, it was fresh, new, everything was original back then, there were no other games to compare them to.
Technically, graphic quality, and overall polish? Yeap.. not so good. But they were a lot more creative, fresh, and intriguing than more or less all current MMOs. Nostalgica? As i said.. at some point i tried to convince myself that all that was just because of my pink nostalgica glasses. And just thought i may be to old for MMOs and all that social online experience. But then i have played on Minecraft Survival Servers and DayZ, and all those old feelings i got from early MMOs come back, like a revival.. hell even the technical, graphical quality and overall polish both titles lack are almost the same as the early MMOs.
IDK why people sit there and post like miserable, depressed people trying to say how great those old days were, its like a grandfather saying how nice it was when you had to go out walk 10 miles, go catch a wild animal, gut it, skin it, make a fire, cook it and finally eat some crappy piece of meat, but to him it was the best piece of meat ever and nothing now can compare.
You guys should all enjoy what there is now, find some kind of game, maybe not even an MMORPG since most of you seem burned out on them.
With that said.. you are wrong, at least from my experience and in my humble opinion. Current MMOs actually lack a lot what MMOs in the past made that glorious.. somewhere on the way the just lost it and delivered something completely different noone, or better said some old timers never wanted. Maybe we will get some of it back in the near future.. and not just in titles like Minecraft or DayZ.
MMO Games today are now letting you actually terraform the world in an MMO, build whole cities, houses from scratch nothing pre-made. They have systems in place where you have to take into account food level, weather(need fire or die of cold), dangerous nights where you might not live past the night without preparing with a fire and shelter and so many other advanced systems.
All I can see is that there is less open world PVP with full looting in the mainstream MMOs, but who cares, only less than 5% of the players want that and when it does appear, everyone quits and hates the games, see Darkfall, the griefers stay and 90% that try the game quit once they see how you are playing just to be griefed by no lifers.
Most games now have tons and tons of features those old games never dreamed of. They may lack the interactivity you want with other humans role playing with you and talking for hours in chat and all this, but thats the playerbase, not the games fault.
Like I said those old games felt good since there was nothing to compare it to, if they were so great youd still be playing them there UO, EQ1, etc servers still going now.....
Games are being made for FUN!!! Not for you to sit thee 12+ hours a day and replace your life. The gamers of today have a life, but want to game with spare time. Thats another main difference. So many gamers grew up, got married, have jobs, do stuff all day and only have 1-4 hours a day or every few days to play, they want something that they can jump into and enjoy in that time. Most do not want to walk around town role playing and chatting for hours with strangers online, form a group for 2 hours before even going on the raid or quest, you understand what im saying?
Thats why many games are making content that can be "devoured" in that time and not require you to sit there 10 hours every day to get anywhere. IDK how hard it is to understand this stuff, the average gamer has changed a ton in the last 20 years and so games have to cater to the average gamer.
Thats why many games are making content that can be "devoured" in that time and not require you to sit there 10 hours every day to get anywhere. IDK how hard it is to understand this stuff, the average gamer has changed a ton in the last 20 years and so games have to cater to the average gamer.
Once upon a time you could write complex script (Star Wars Galaxies) to level an entire character and not be at the keyboard, which goes contrapuntal to what your statement.
Frankly the new mmo systems are often too time consuming and grindy, not less.
Originally posted by Holophonist What is the point of this analysis without factoring in expenses? Why look at revenue without taking into account costs? Or stated goals? You're comparing transformers 3 with Primer. Not every developer has to go for the next WoW. Just like not every movie producer is trying to make the next lord of the rings. Not only that, the whole industry is larger. It's not just inflation you'd have to adjust for.
Edit: I get that you're saying some non-aaa titles may crop up, but then what's the point of this prediction? Very few people expect a AAA UO. Sandbox fans recognize (and might even prefer) that their games will not be as polished or popular as the big titles. That's true for pretty much everything in life. So again, I'm just not sure what the actual prediction is here.
You're basically saying "face it, a niche game will never again be made....unless of course it's niche."
You are assuming, like others, that both UO and SWG were niche games. UO might have been a niche game, but SWG was intended to be THE game in the MMORPG genre. It was going to be THE AAA MMORPG. It didn't make it, but that was the goal. SWG was not intended to be a niche game when they developed it.
And you're forgetting that the MMO genre has been becoming less and less niche. So just because SWG was trying to be THE game in the MMORPG genre doesn't tell the whole story. Your analysis is incomplete and one sided unless you include how much these games cost to make and what the nominal expectations were.
EDIT: If they were profitable, then there's no reason to think somebody wouldn't make something similar. Not every creative person is going to try to make the biggest budget/highest REVENUE game/movie/music/whatever that they can. Like I said before, we still have indie movies. Why did Shane Carouth make Primer when he could just make Transformers 4? For two reasons:
1. He couldn't afford it.
2. He didn't want to.
There are always going to be developers that don't want to make a watered down, unobjectionable, boring themepark even if it's technically going to make the most money. They won't WANT to make one, and they CAN'T make one because they wouldn't be able to afford/secure the start up capital.
UO and SWG combined probably took less to make than a quarter of SWTOR's total production cost.
You cannot use these number becouse it obfucates the truth. For example there were far fewer internet connection when UO and SWG launched.
The indefatigable element is that UO and SWG were MMOprgs that engaged your creativity and mind, while Bio / EA simply designed SWTOR to seperate people from their money.
Which means that what we'll see in the future are games designed more like SWToR (separate people from money) than UO or SWG (engage creativity and cognition). Flash versus substance, Story versus Self Direction, This versus That. The bottom line is what makes more money, and whatever SWToR does makes more money.
Except as I pointed out, this really isn't true in any other facet of entertainment. I think the MMO genre was thoroughly screwed up with WoW but after a period of time will (or is currently) start to reach an equilibrium where we'll see a more balanced market, not everybody trying to get a piece of the big budget themepark pie.
I mean think about it... are you actually claiming that no niche games will be made? Not every developer can afford to make a AAA game, especially with so many of them failing over the past ~5 years. We're already seeing games like Albion Online, Gloria Victis, The Repopulation, Life is Feudal, etc. These are games that a lot of UO/SWG fans will be very happy with, some of them are taking ideas directly from them. My gosh The Repopulation CLAIMS to be Shadowbane mixed with SWG. So... I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming, because it seems like you're being disproved as we speak.
MMO Games today are now letting you actually terraform the world in an MMO, build whole cities, houses from scratch nothing pre-made. They have systems in place where you have to take into account food level, weather(need fire or die of cold), dangerous nights where you might not live past the night without preparing with a fire and shelter and so many other advanced systems.
Which MMO? To some extent Wurm Online. Maybe EQN or TUG will deliver something like that. But the usual AAA MMO like ESO, Wildstar, GW2, Rift and endlessly deliver the same old same as any other game, no terraforming, no whole player cities, no player made houses from scratch, no nothing. So no.. todays MMO let you do nothing unheard off.
All I can see is that there is less open world PVP with full looting in the mainstream MMOs, but who cares, only less than 5% of the players want that and when it does appear, everyone quits and hates the games, see Darkfall, the griefers stay and 90% that try the game quit once they see how you are playing just to be griefed by no lifers.
Most games now have tons and tons of features those old games never dreamed of. They may lack the interactivity you want with other humans role playing with you and talking for hours in chat and all this, but thats the playerbase, not the games fault.
What features does GW2, Rift, ESO or any other of those AAA games deliver we have dreamed off? Auction houses? xx player Instances? I can't remember that i have dreamt of that stuff.. no i really don't. I actually dreamt of Terraforming, Player Cities, Player made houses from scratch, more advanced and sophisated economy with regional cultivation and markets, trading routes.. but well not a lot of that is really any better or advanced in any AAA MMO of the recent years.. or even existent.
Like I said those old games felt good since there was nothing to compare it to, if they were so great youd still be playing them there UO, EQ1, etc servers still going now.....
Games are being made for FUN!!! Not for you to sit thee 12+ hours a day and replace your life. The gamers of today have a life, but want to game with spare time. Thats another main difference. So many gamers grew up, got married, have jobs, do stuff all day and only have 1-4 hours a day or every few days to play, they want something that they can jump into and enjoy in that time. Most do not want to walk around town role playing and chatting for hours with strangers online, form a group for 2 hours before even going on the raid or quest, you understand what im saying?
Thats why many games are making content that can be "devoured" in that time and not require you to sit there 10 hours every day to get anywhere. IDK how hard it is to understand this stuff, the average gamer has changed a ton in the last 20 years and so games have to cater to the average gamer.
UO and SWG combined probably took less to make than a quarter of SWTOR's total production cost.
You cannot use these number becouse it obfucates the truth. For example there were far fewer internet connection when UO and SWG launched.
The indefatigable element is that UO and SWG were MMOprgs that engaged your creativity and mind, while Bio / EA simply designed SWTOR to seperate people from their money.
Which means that what we'll see in the future are games designed more like SWToR (separate people from money) than UO or SWG (engage creativity and cognition). Flash versus substance, Story versus Self Direction, This versus That. The bottom line is what makes more money, and whatever SWToR does makes more money.
Except as I pointed out, this really isn't true in any other facet of entertainment. I think the MMO genre was thoroughly screwed up with WoW but after a period of time will (or is currently) start to reach an equilibrium where we'll see a more balanced market, not everybody trying to get a piece of the big budget themepark pie.
I mean think about it... are you actually claiming that no niche games will be made? Not every developer can afford to make a AAA game, especially with so many of them failing over the past ~5 years. We're already seeing games like Albion Online, Gloria Victis, The Repopulation, Life is Feudal, etc. These are games that a lot of UO/SWG fans will be very happy with, some of them are taking ideas directly from them. My gosh The Repopulation CLAIMS to be Shadowbane mixed with SWG. So... I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming, because it seems like you're being disproved as we speak.
Not at all. I'm saying that a "return to old school values" isn't going to happen on a large scale. We are far more likely to see something brand new, that may be similar to past games, but not the same as past games. The more similar something is to e.g. UO, SWG or even EQ, the less funding and the smaller the development scale is going to be. That's all. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. More games, with more focus, targeting more specific audiences might be what the MMORPG genre needs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You're forgetting a key figure, MMOs were VASTLY less popular 11 years ago, when SWG came out, and ~17 years ago when UO came out. Warcraft was the first game in western culture that gained massive popularity thus bringing it much closer to social acceptance. By the time people grew tired of WOW and such, why would they go back and play an 'old' game such as SWG that hadn't t caught the popularity wave and basically had no content added to it, only core systems changed to try and grab the wow crowd.
True but what kinds of people did the mmo market attract ?
Sandbox is a very loud group of people but are they numerous enough to support a game and open minded enough to stick with one that doesn't get everything exactly how they think it should be made ? Of course they'll tell you that are...unfortunatly history would disagree.
EvE is obviously the most successful sandbox game and how many people does it actually have playing ( not subs but people ) 250k...maybe ? Those are still swg/UO numbers 10 years later. They just found a way to get people to have multiple accounts.
If you're going to make an AAA title with a 50-100 mil budget there isn't a lot of incentive to go after that tiny market of people or even to take the massive risk of " but if you do it right you might get more "...but get it wrong and no plays and f2p wont save you.
Eve may be the most popular in the west but its not the most succesful sandbox by a long shot. Age Of Wulin hit the 20 mill mark and still has millions playing. Mmo are played all over the world not just in the west.
UO and SWG combined probably took less to make than a quarter of SWTOR's total production cost.
You cannot use these number becouse it obfucates the truth. For example there were far fewer internet connection when UO and SWG launched.
The indefatigable element is that UO and SWG were MMOprgs that engaged your creativity and mind, while Bio / EA simply designed SWTOR to seperate people from their money.
Which means that what we'll see in the future are games designed more like SWToR (separate people from money) than UO or SWG (engage creativity and cognition). Flash versus substance, Story versus Self Direction, This versus That. The bottom line is what makes more money, and whatever SWToR does makes more money.
Except as I pointed out, this really isn't true in any other facet of entertainment. I think the MMO genre was thoroughly screwed up with WoW but after a period of time will (or is currently) start to reach an equilibrium where we'll see a more balanced market, not everybody trying to get a piece of the big budget themepark pie.
I mean think about it... are you actually claiming that no niche games will be made? Not every developer can afford to make a AAA game, especially with so many of them failing over the past ~5 years. We're already seeing games like Albion Online, Gloria Victis, The Repopulation, Life is Feudal, etc. These are games that a lot of UO/SWG fans will be very happy with, some of them are taking ideas directly from them. My gosh The Repopulation CLAIMS to be Shadowbane mixed with SWG. So... I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming, because it seems like you're being disproved as we speak.
Not at all. I'm saying that a "return to old school values" isn't going to happen on a large scale. We are far more likely to see something brand new, that may be similar to past games, but not the same as past games. The more similar something is to e.g. UO, SWG or even EQ, the less funding and the smaller the development scale is going to be. That's all. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. More games, with more focus, targeting more specific audiences might be what the MMORPG genre needs.
Well this is all just kind of conveniently vague/noncommittal. I don't know if anybody is expecting/asking for it to come back on a "large scale" or for oldschool games/sandbox games to be the norm, but we are asking for them to make a resurgence, and they are.
"Oldschool" fans have been upset because the market has been dominated by somewhat cookie-cutter themeparks for the past decade or so. That seems to be balancing out some and a lot of oldschool-type games are consequently cropping up. This is exactly what myself and others have predicted and hoped for.
EDIT: BTW, I'm not all that interested in this whole "they will be something NEW" idea. Of course they will be something new. Franchies change, genres change. But there's a clear divide between games made to turn out the biggest profit possible, and games made because somebody wants to make a game. Oldschool players want more of the latter. While I'm sure a lot of people would play (and do play!) on just a re-opened UO/SWG server, almost every fan of either would expect/hope that a sequel to one of them would be updated in at least some ways. So of course they'd be some new type of game, but funadmentally they would return to oldschool roots in key, meaningful ways.
Comments
If a Sandbox were to have set paths like the instanced quests, instanced PVP areas, and guided paths in general I doubt I would like it. EQ was a themepark, but it allowed for you to go in and find things to do as you like. I find again there is an illusion of choice in games today. I've pointed out how classes seem to offer a lot of variety, but in face end up not being much different. They all are of equal power and can do all tasks more or less equally well. Now lets look to quests, crafting, PvP, and Raiding in current MMOs. It sounds like there are a lot of choices, but there aren't. Each of these has a predefined path set before them. There is no room for creativity. You choose to PvP it will be the same as everyone elses PvP experience (battle grounds). You choose to level up it will be the same quest path that everyone else has taken. You choose to raid and it will be the same raid path that everyone else has taken. If you add set paths to follow into the game then it's no longer a sandbox anyway IMO. The point of a sandbox is to dump you in and let you figure what you want to do. That is what is fun to me in a MMO weather it is a sandbox or themepark. I don't find it fun to follow a set path that is clearly laid out before me. I know the masses like that because it gives them a feeling of comfort and the feeling they are doing something meaningful in the game, but it couldn't be further from the truth IMO.
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Again.
SWG was not "below" in any sort of fashion. It had high production quality. Its graphics were excellent. You are the one misreading. Like I said, you needed a really good computer to run SWG on high graphics. When SWG first came out, one of the major things lauded in reviews was its graphics quality. Hell, I remember reading reviews about the sunflare.
I never said WoW launched in 2005. Once again, you are the one misreading. WoW launched in 2004, but it is generally considered to have reached the "scene" in 2005 as a year had passed and it reached European shores.
The "lauded" MMOs of old did indeed classify as AAA. For their time, and their genre. For today's standards, they are more indie than anything. But Lucas Arts had their name behind SWG. That is no small feat. It had massive hype for the time and was predicted to be the biggest MMO ever to hit the scene. Of course, we know what happened next. But for its time, it was considered to be a large production, probably one of the biggest MMO's ever to be built, with many, many planets from Star Wars. SWG was no joke. Saying anything else just shows you know nothing fundamentally of the industry and what transpired.
Money does not equal better mechanics, but the games of old were made in a completely different era as of now. it was a totally different time back then and comparing old games like DAOC, UO, AC and SWG to today's games is truly comparing apples to oranges.
10, size of planet 16 sq km, while for example Everquest 1 and 2 (so pre-dating and contemporary to SWG) had much more than 160 sq km. By that logic EQ 1 and EQ 2 could be AAA while SWG AA though in your own words comparing old MMOs to modern ones is pointless thus even using the term AAA (a post-WoW term) is utterly pointless and it does not equate remotely well to the old guard MMOs.
But let's not use that logic. True EQ was much larger - I think it had 350km at launch. But hold on, brute world size does not equal production quality and scale of a game. You are forgetting crafting and skill trees, player towns and cities, resource gathering, class balance, lore, player housing, etc. Theres alot more that goes into a game than just world size. Don't forget the fact that SWG planets were built with the idea of player cities in mind. These worlds were made differently than traditional themepark zones. Looking back on it, it was pretty innovative stuff especially for 2004.
And don't forget the Space Expansion. Which I believe was 15x15x15 for space zones. Not nearly as large as EQ's zones, but ya gotta give credit where credit is due. It was pretty ambitious for an MMO at the time - real free roaming space combat. They had a flight simulator and everything. Different combat from what was on the ground. Really ambitious. Contrast that to SWTOR's pathetic on rails space gameplay.
It's a real shame MMO's had gone in the opposite direction, but it is what it is.
Not only that, the whole industry is larger. It's not just inflation you'd have to adjust for.
Edit: I get that you're saying some non-aaa titles may crop up, but then what's the point of this prediction? Very few people expect a AAA UO. Sandbox fans recognize (and might even prefer) that their games will not be as polished or popular as the big titles. That's true for pretty much everything in life. So again, I'm just not sure what the actual prediction is here.
You're basically saying "face it, a niche game will never again be made....unless of course it's niche."
You are assuming, like others, that both UO and SWG were niche games. UO might have been a niche game, but SWG was intended to be THE game in the MMORPG genre. It was going to be THE AAA MMORPG. It didn't make it, but that was the goal. SWG was not intended to be a niche game when they developed it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
With a development bugdet of 15$ Mio... and not even two years later Blizzard splashed out around 200$ Mio. on WoW...
In all honestly SOE just overestimates their status as AAA developer.. the complete MMO genre before WoW was niche, and SOE is more or less a niche or better said not a AAA developer up to now. Hell... even Anet with NCsoft in the background has higher development bugdet as SOE for any given title.
We will see another UO and SWG like game... very odd post.
Especially considering Albion Online is coming out. Have you not been watching where games are heading?
Or WoW redefined what it meant to publish a AAA MMORPG. It may never have occurred to anyone before that point that they could put that much money into an MMORPG and get their money back.
Though, I would say if a developer could put $15M into a game now, and run that game for a decade and have nearly 300k people paying $15 a month for a large part of that time, they would be deliriously happy.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And now think about it. In my humble opinion the future of MMOs is much more in the not so Massive market.. with a lot more public servers, with optional private servers with very different rulesets.
Albeit from EvE in all most all games you have "theoretical servers" with 10k players on it, but you don't play with more than 200 in any given moment. So why not make smaller servers with just 1000 players online or even just 500 players online. And options for private servers with around 200 players online possible. And option for additional modding and very specific rulesets for the private servers.
And another fact is, for not a single MMO game feature(expect territorial warfare) you even need more than 100 players at the same time.
And this is even scientifically recognized with Dunbar's number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that the ideal size of a healthy community would be around 100 - 250 people. And all those micro communities in DayZ and Minecraft just prove the point further more. And with all that some Minecraft survival server or DayZ server feel a lot more like a virtual world as any current MMO.
Even if you would do a territorial warfare game with regional markets(which would most probably require the most players), any segment should consist in this segment (100-250 players).. take now 9 different regions or communities, and you are still somewhere between 1000 and 2000 players.
And in my opinion this is one of the more important reasons, why Minecraft and DayZ are that successful. Maybe after all it was a huge mistake to go from MUD size to current MMO size with UO.. even UO was early just designed for around 500 players and would be better for that small map of UO.. and a lot of problems would have never existed.
UO and SWG combined probably took less to make than a quarter of SWTOR's total production cost.
You cannot use these number becouse it obfucates the truth. For example there were far fewer internet connection when UO and SWG launched.
The indefatigable element is that UO and SWG were MMOprgs that engaged your creativity and mind, while Bio / EA simply designed SWTOR to seperate people from their money.
http://wyrdblogging.blogspot.com/
I've played on a couple of Minecraft servers that felt very much like "worlds", with less than 200 concurrent players on the server. There was a relatively stable community, drama, a reason to build, and a reason to explore. It was pretty cool.
I think the only tricky bit would be having a stable community of people, not just in numbers, but in identities. There are going to be people who move around from server to server a lot, but it might make sense to try and move the more stable people to 'core' servers or something.
I dunno. I instinctively like the idea you've laid out. Also, it seems Dunbar's number applies to Facebook friends, Twitter contacts, etc. People may have a bunch of friends or fans, but they interact with a hundred to two hundred fifty people max at any given time.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Which means that what we'll see in the future are games designed more like SWToR (separate people from money) than UO or SWG (engage creativity and cognition). Flash versus substance, Story versus Self Direction, This versus That. The bottom line is what makes more money, and whatever SWToR does makes more money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Back in the days of those old and 1st MMOS, the players were 95% super geeks, most of those people are about 40-60+ years old now and not the focus of developers anymore. They are making games for the new generation of players that are 15-30+ or so.
On top of that, those games were not very good, you may think they were using your nostalgic touches on them, but they sucked. Why they felt good back then was that that is all there was, it was fresh, new, everything was original back then, there were no other games to compare them to.
IDK why people sit there and post like miserable, depressed people trying to say how great those old days were, its like a grandfather saying how nice it was when you had to go out walk 10 miles, go catch a wild animal, gut it, skin it, make a fire, cook it and finally eat some crappy piece of meat, but to him it was the best piece of meat ever and nothing now can compare.
You guys should all enjoy what there is now, find some kind of game, maybe not even an MMORPG since most of you seem burned out on them.
GAME TIL YOU DIE!!!!
Warhammer Online had a number of fresh ideas, and more importantly World of warcraft is a stolen mythos based on the Warhammer franchise. Yet, Wow is still going strong and Hammer no longer even exists.
http://wyrdblogging.blogspot.com/
I thought, or i tried to though the same as you.. but i changed my mind once again.
With that said.. you are wrong, at least from my experience and in my humble opinion. Current MMOs actually lack a lot what MMOs in the past made that glorious.. somewhere on the way the just lost it and delivered something completely different noone, or better said some old timers never wanted. Maybe we will get some of it back in the near future.. and not just in titles like Minecraft or DayZ.
MMO Games today are now letting you actually terraform the world in an MMO, build whole cities, houses from scratch nothing pre-made. They have systems in place where you have to take into account food level, weather(need fire or die of cold), dangerous nights where you might not live past the night without preparing with a fire and shelter and so many other advanced systems.
All I can see is that there is less open world PVP with full looting in the mainstream MMOs, but who cares, only less than 5% of the players want that and when it does appear, everyone quits and hates the games, see Darkfall, the griefers stay and 90% that try the game quit once they see how you are playing just to be griefed by no lifers.
Most games now have tons and tons of features those old games never dreamed of. They may lack the interactivity you want with other humans role playing with you and talking for hours in chat and all this, but thats the playerbase, not the games fault.
Like I said those old games felt good since there was nothing to compare it to, if they were so great youd still be playing them there UO, EQ1, etc servers still going now.....
Games are being made for FUN!!! Not for you to sit thee 12+ hours a day and replace your life. The gamers of today have a life, but want to game with spare time. Thats another main difference. So many gamers grew up, got married, have jobs, do stuff all day and only have 1-4 hours a day or every few days to play, they want something that they can jump into and enjoy in that time. Most do not want to walk around town role playing and chatting for hours with strangers online, form a group for 2 hours before even going on the raid or quest, you understand what im saying?
Thats why many games are making content that can be "devoured" in that time and not require you to sit there 10 hours every day to get anywhere. IDK how hard it is to understand this stuff, the average gamer has changed a ton in the last 20 years and so games have to cater to the average gamer.
GAME TIL YOU DIE!!!!
Once upon a time you could write complex script (Star Wars Galaxies) to level an entire character and not be at the keyboard, which goes contrapuntal to what your statement.
Frankly the new mmo systems are often too time consuming and grindy, not less.
http://wyrdblogging.blogspot.com/
And you're forgetting that the MMO genre has been becoming less and less niche. So just because SWG was trying to be THE game in the MMORPG genre doesn't tell the whole story. Your analysis is incomplete and one sided unless you include how much these games cost to make and what the nominal expectations were.
EDIT: If they were profitable, then there's no reason to think somebody wouldn't make something similar. Not every creative person is going to try to make the biggest budget/highest REVENUE game/movie/music/whatever that they can. Like I said before, we still have indie movies. Why did Shane Carouth make Primer when he could just make Transformers 4? For two reasons:
1. He couldn't afford it.
2. He didn't want to.
There are always going to be developers that don't want to make a watered down, unobjectionable, boring themepark even if it's technically going to make the most money. They won't WANT to make one, and they CAN'T make one because they wouldn't be able to afford/secure the start up capital.
Except as I pointed out, this really isn't true in any other facet of entertainment. I think the MMO genre was thoroughly screwed up with WoW but after a period of time will (or is currently) start to reach an equilibrium where we'll see a more balanced market, not everybody trying to get a piece of the big budget themepark pie.
I mean think about it... are you actually claiming that no niche games will be made? Not every developer can afford to make a AAA game, especially with so many of them failing over the past ~5 years. We're already seeing games like Albion Online, Gloria Victis, The Repopulation, Life is Feudal, etc. These are games that a lot of UO/SWG fans will be very happy with, some of them are taking ideas directly from them. My gosh The Repopulation CLAIMS to be Shadowbane mixed with SWG. So... I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming, because it seems like you're being disproved as we speak.
Which MMO? To some extent Wurm Online. Maybe EQN or TUG will deliver something like that. But the usual AAA MMO like ESO, Wildstar, GW2, Rift and endlessly deliver the same old same as any other game, no terraforming, no whole player cities, no player made houses from scratch, no nothing. So no.. todays MMO let you do nothing unheard off.
Not at all. I'm saying that a "return to old school values" isn't going to happen on a large scale. We are far more likely to see something brand new, that may be similar to past games, but not the same as past games. The more similar something is to e.g. UO, SWG or even EQ, the less funding and the smaller the development scale is going to be. That's all. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. More games, with more focus, targeting more specific audiences might be what the MMORPG genre needs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You're forgetting a key figure, MMOs were VASTLY less popular 11 years ago, when SWG came out, and ~17 years ago when UO came out. Warcraft was the first game in western culture that gained massive popularity thus bringing it much closer to social acceptance. By the time people grew tired of WOW and such, why would they go back and play an 'old' game such as SWG that hadn't t caught the popularity wave and basically had no content added to it, only core systems changed to try and grab the wow crowd.
True but what kinds of people did the mmo market attract ?
Sandbox is a very loud group of people but are they numerous enough to support a game and open minded enough to stick with one that doesn't get everything exactly how they think it should be made ? Of course they'll tell you that are...unfortunatly history would disagree.
EvE is obviously the most successful sandbox game and how many people does it actually have playing ( not subs but people ) 250k...maybe ? Those are still swg/UO numbers 10 years later. They just found a way to get people to have multiple accounts.
If you're going to make an AAA title with a 50-100 mil budget there isn't a lot of incentive to go after that tiny market of people or even to take the massive risk of " but if you do it right you might get more "...but get it wrong and no plays and f2p wont save you.
Eve may be the most popular in the west but its not the most succesful sandbox by a long shot. Age Of Wulin hit the 20 mill mark and still has millions playing. Mmo are played all over the world not just in the west.Well this is all just kind of conveniently vague/noncommittal. I don't know if anybody is expecting/asking for it to come back on a "large scale" or for oldschool games/sandbox games to be the norm, but we are asking for them to make a resurgence, and they are.
"Oldschool" fans have been upset because the market has been dominated by somewhat cookie-cutter themeparks for the past decade or so. That seems to be balancing out some and a lot of oldschool-type games are consequently cropping up. This is exactly what myself and others have predicted and hoped for.
EDIT: BTW, I'm not all that interested in this whole "they will be something NEW" idea. Of course they will be something new. Franchies change, genres change. But there's a clear divide between games made to turn out the biggest profit possible, and games made because somebody wants to make a game. Oldschool players want more of the latter. While I'm sure a lot of people would play (and do play!) on just a re-opened UO/SWG server, almost every fan of either would expect/hope that a sequel to one of them would be updated in at least some ways. So of course they'd be some new type of game, but funadmentally they would return to oldschool roots in key, meaningful ways.