You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
And where is the difference to Darkfall or Mortal Online there? Both games are still alive.. with a string shoe budget and met both probably their expectations.. Darkfall even released a second part. And that could even said for EvE.. they started with 22 developer and expected maybe 50k.. now they have 500k subs and over 100 developers. That is at least somewhat of a success.
Nevertheless a game made for 1,000 sub base is barely a AAA game.. and 3,500 subs is by far not a huge remarkable success.
That's the point. And it should be really crystal clear, when you look at my post as response from another post.
And i said even more in that post(which you quoted just partially) that is not the fault from the developer, or that they are sandboxes.. it's is because they are indy companies with a very small budget... and what you usually get out of that is a indy game, and can't and shouldn't be compared to games from major companies with ten times and more the budget and developers.
Neither was on time. Neither actually implemented all of the advertised features at launch. Budgets for both MO and DF would have been considerably higher than ATitD's budget. Darkfall did eventually get their game running right, but I don't think Mortal Online is running right to this day, though a lot of that could be blamed on the mods.
Well... both didn't advertised features at all. The community of both hoped, wished for a lot more features.. and the indy developer hinted that some features could be implemented at one point or the other.. Both are pure indy games.. there was no announced feature set.
Yeap.. Budget was most probably a little bit higher than ATITD, as their sub base.. doesn't change anything at all.
Originally posted by DamonVile Can anyone name one in the last 8 years that would make an aaa developer say lets try and copy that success?
Minecraft. And many companies are trying to copy it.
Player-governed, multiplayer servers of 32 or less work fine, and no one is really questioning that. The countless servers for the various survival shooters/sims are also an example of that. However, a company-operated massively multiplayer online game is a whole different animal. Are you suggesting that to make FFA PVP work in a sandbox game they should cap servers at 32 players and have both separate rulesets and separate admins for each?
To be fair.. there are private servers of up to 200 players for minecraft.
And even more.. nowadays i ask myself more often, if private servers or smaller servers for lets say 500 players online, would be a good solution for a lot of problems.
Most MMOs (except EvE) don't even take advantage of the high amount of players online. For most MMOs it would not change a lot if the server can't hold 5000 players, but just 500. Although to get private servers with 500 players online is at least not easy.. if even possible.. and 200 or less could be not enough to create a world feeling.
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
And where is the difference to Darkfall or Mortal Online there? Both games are still alive.. with a string shoe budget and met both probably their expectations.. Darkfall even released a second part. And that could even said for EvE.. they started with 22 developer and expected maybe 50k.. now they have 500k subs and over 100 developers. That is at least somewhat of a success.
Nevertheless a game made for 1,000 sub base is barely a AAA game.. and 3,500 subs is by far not a huge remarkable success.
That's the point. And it should be really crystal clear, when you look at my post as response from another post.
And i said even more in that post(which you quoted just partially) that is not the fault from the developer, or that they are sandboxes.. it's is because they are indy companies with a very small budget... and what you usually get out of that is a indy game, and can't and shouldn't be compared to games from major companies with ten times and more the budget and developers.
Neither was on time. Neither actually implemented all of the advertised features at launch. Budgets for both MO and DF would have been considerably higher than ATitD's budget. Darkfall did eventually get their game running right, but I don't think Mortal Online is running right to this day, though a lot of that could be blamed on the mods.
Well... both didn't advertised features at all. The community of both hoped, wished for a lot more features.. and the indy developer hinted that some features could be implemented at one point or the other.. Both are pure indy games.. there was no announced feature set.
Yeap.. Budget was most probably a little bit higher than ATITD, as their sub base.. doesn't change anything at all.
AtitD met goals and expectations. ATitD got more players than expected. MO & DF did not meet goals or expectations. MO & DF did not get as many players as hoped or expected. MO & DF had more money to play with than ATitD.
Someone else will have to compare Istaria & MO/DF. I know zip about Istaria.
You asked what the difference was. That's the answer.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Players have demonstrated since UO that they would prefer to have a choice about PvP, with flags or extensive "safe" areas. It doesn't matter what other elements come into play. If a developer doesn't offer players the option to opt out of PvP in an MMORPG, they will sell fewer copies of their game and keep fewer players. There have been sandbox games without PvP, and with PvP flags that seemed to work just fine, economy and all. Sandbox does not equal PvP. PvP is not required for a sandbox to not only be workable, but to have a fully functional "world".
**
Does anyone else notice the parallels here between ATitD v. MO/DF and, say, Eve v. SWToR?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And yet the PvP croud seems to be fishing for the idea that sandboxes and PvP are synonyms. But yet there's nothing in sand that says go kill your neighbour.
No, it doesn't say you have to, but for most sandbox fans, they want the ability to do anything and that includes FFA PvP if someone wants that. They want the ability to go kill their neighbors if the mood strikes them. Lots of people don't consider a game a sandbox unless that's a possibility.
Originally posted by Beatnik59 Second Life...Not only does it have no FFA PvP, it is also the most important sandbox game, from an intellectual standpoint.
Second Life is not an MMO, which the OP specifically asked for. Try again.
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
And where is the difference to Darkfall or Mortal Online there? Both games are still alive.. with a string shoe budget and met both probably their expectations.. Darkfall even released a second part. And that could even said for EvE.. they started with 22 developer and expected maybe 50k.. now they have 500k subs and over 100 developers. That is at least somewhat of a success.
Nevertheless a game made for 1,000 sub base is barely a AAA game.. and 3,500 subs is by far not a huge remarkable success.
That's the point. And it should be really crystal clear, when you look at my post as response from another post.
And i said even more in that post(which you quoted just partially) that is not the fault from the developer, or that they are sandboxes.. it's is because they are indy companies with a very small budget... and what you usually get out of that is a indy game, and can't and shouldn't be compared to games from major companies with ten times and more the budget and developers.
Neither was on time. Neither actually implemented all of the advertised features at launch. Budgets for both MO and DF would have been considerably higher than ATitD's budget. Darkfall did eventually get their game running right, but I don't think Mortal Online is running right to this day, though a lot of that could be blamed on the mods.
Well... both didn't advertised features at all. The community of both hoped, wished for a lot more features.. and the indy developer hinted that some features could be implemented at one point or the other.. Both are pure indy games.. there was no announced feature set.
Yeap.. Budget was most probably a little bit higher than ATITD, as their sub base.. doesn't change anything at all.
AtitD met goals and expectations. ATitD got more players than expected. MO & DF did not meet goals or expectations. MO & DF did not get as many players as hoped or expected. MO & DF had more money to play with than ATitD.
Someone else will have to compare Istaria & MO/DF. I know zip about Istaria.
You asked what the difference was. That's the answer.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Players have demonstrated since UO that they would prefer to have a choice about PvP, with flags or extensive "safe" areas. It doesn't matter what other elements come into play. If a developer doesn't offer players the option to opt out of PvP in an MMORPG, they will sell fewer copies of their game and keep fewer players. There have been sandbox games without PvP, and with PvP flags that seemed to work just fine, economy and all. Sandbox does not equal PvP. PvP is not required for a sandbox to not only be workable, but to have a fully functional "world".
**
Does anyone else notice the parallels here between ATitD v. MO/DF and, say, Eve v. SWToR?
And from where did you hear or know that MO or DF did not meet their expectations? Most probably not from the DF team(don't know enough about MO), because they were rather happy about their success. Made even a second game, expanded their development team. It could be called a tiny success story.. Though a lot of fans expected more.. feature wise, state of the game.. but well.. that's more or less true for any game.
And where do you get that more players want PvE Sandboxes, or that they sell less copies?.. ATITD with their 3,500 sub base guaranteed didn't prove that. As any other PvE Sandbox couldn't prove that.
And what sandbox game without PvP worked just fine, with economy and all?
And yes.. there is a parallel between those.. you can't compare games with completely different budgets, with a complete different size and experience of developers, with a lot of advertisement and all.. or no advertisement at all. And therefor i already said before.. that those comparsion are bullshit.. and therefore i brought up the ATITD comparsion... because it is bullshit, too. Now you get the picture? So.. let MO and DF rest in peace and stop claiming stupid "facts" out of even more stupid comparsions.
And.. i never said anything like pvp is required for a sandbox, or pvp equals a sandbox.. i just said the comparsions and conclusions, which a lot of you made are bullshit.. like figuring out of two games.. DF and MO that pvp sandbox can not be successful.. and as i showed.. with the same stupid comparsion with PvE and PvE sandboxes.. PvE sandboxes can't be successful, too.. and showed furthermore that any such kind of comparsion is bullshit. And yes.. any comparsion with WoW and any other game is even more ridiculous.. so shall we stop with making bad comparsions and even more bad conclusions?
Ohh.. and about another bullshit conclusion:
Originally posted by lizardbones
Players have demonstrated since UO that they would prefer to have a choice about PvP, with flags or extensive "safe" areas. It doesn't matter what other elements come into play. If a developer doesn't offer players the option to opt out of PvP in an MMORPG, they will sell fewer copies of their game and keep fewer players.
Yeap..
And now i do the same the other way around.
Player have demonstrated since EvE and any PvE MMO out there.. if you don't offer EvE like PvP(FFA) and stuff you can't keep your players.. and will lose players over time.
See what i did there? Yeah.. EvE is the only MMO not losing any players over time.. but to draw a fishy conclusion out of it is just bullshit.. as the conclusion above from you.
But as much as i care you can believe, and talk whatever you want. Yeah.. PvE is superior. PvP will result in insta failure. PvP players are evil. PvE players are angels and good-will people. And whatever you want.
All that won't change anything.. all that will not prevent the development of another pvp game or pve game, sandbox or themepark.. because.. the big AAA companies don't listen to us(me and you and everyone here) anyway.
We do see movement in sandbox gaming, and sandbox MMOs, because of two games, and non of them is a MMO. DayZ and Minecraft. And both offer FFA pvp.. just bytheway. And yeah.. granted, Minecraft offers a PvE only experience, too. But again.. nothing about PvP or PvE is proved out of that.. just that there is some money earned in sandbox games.. and that is the only message publisher understand anyway.
Originally posted by DamonVile Can anyone name one in the last 8 years that would make an aaa developer say lets try and copy that success?
Eve.
And Darkfall, believe it or not. Tiny dev studio, microscopic budget, yet they've managed to continuously grow over the last 6 years with a SUBSCRIPTION FEE and FFA PVP. As a publisher I'd look at that and say "HOw can we do that but on a bigger scale?"
Originally posted by DamonVile Can anyone name one in the last 8 years that would make an aaa developer say lets try and copy that success?
Minecraft. And many companies are trying to copy it.
Player-governed, multiplayer servers of 32 or less work fine, and no one is really questioning that. The countless servers for the various survival shooters/sims are also an example of that. However, a company-operated massively multiplayer online game is a whole different animal. Are you suggesting that to make FFA PVP work in a sandbox game they should cap servers at 32 players and have both separate rulesets and separate admins for each?
I wasn't suggesting anything, only pointing out that Minecraft is a sandbox game that is a huge hit that others are trying to copy.
This is where the debate begins over how many people per server make an "MMO" game... I'm not in the mood for that discussion though.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
I wasn't suggesting anything, only pointing out that Minecraft is a sandbox game that is a huge hit that others are trying to copy.
This is where the debate begins over how many people per server make an "MMO" game... I'm not in the mood for that discussion though.
Either way, Landmark, although not "out" yet, is kind of like Minecraft, except with MMO graphics and IS a MMO. Its still got quite aways to go yet before its done/out, but if your mention of Minecraft warrants, mention so does Landmark.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Darkfall has not grown at all with subscribers anyway. It's lost most of its playerbase with both releases.
Eve released more 8 years ago.
And what should that prove?
Any MMO(except EvE) did lose subscribers over time. That's nothing new.. that doesn't say anything.
Fact is... Aventurine hired developers after release(and not layed off as some other Game developers.. hint SWTOR hint), and further more developed another game Darkfall Unholy Wars.
And as much as i know up until now Darkfall Servers are up, and people play it. So what was your point?
Originally posted by DamonVile Can anyone name one in the last 8 years that would make an aaa developer say lets try and copy that success?
Minecraft. And many companies are trying to copy it.
Player-governed, multiplayer servers of 32 or less work fine, and no one is really questioning that. The countless servers for the various survival shooters/sims are also an example of that. However, a company-operated massively multiplayer online game is a whole different animal. Are you suggesting that to make FFA PVP work in a sandbox game they should cap servers at 32 players and have both separate rulesets and separate admins for each?
I wasn't suggesting anything, only pointing out that Minecraft is a sandbox game that is a huge hit that others are trying to copy.
This is where the debate begins over how many people per server make an "MMO" game... I'm not in the mood for that discussion though.
You're cherrypicking points to argue and conveniently ignoring all the rest.
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
I think the most obvious sandbox game that came out in that time frame, that didn't have PvP at all, was 'A tale in the Desert' like most sandbox games it was a bit of a niche game, but it was well made. The fact is, is that there has not been a single Sandbox MMO made in the last 8 years that has FFA PVP that is actually successful, i think the closest is probably Eve online, and there the PvP is not really FFA, but Corp/Alliance, effectively Guild v Guild, or 'faction based' with 'safe areas' although safe is a bit misleading, rather its 'protected' sort of. What few attempts have actually been made at a FFA sandbox MMO, inevitably failed, or have a player base so small that they might just as well not exist.
Originally posted by Phry I think the most obvious sandbox game that came out in that time frame, that didn't have PvP at all, was 'A tale in the Desert' like most sandbox games it was a bit of a niche game, but it was well made. The fact is, is that there has not been a single Sandbox MMO made in the last 8 years that has FFA PVP that is actually successful, i think the closest is probably Eve online, and there the PvP is not really FFA, but Corp/Alliance, effectively Guild v Guild, or 'faction based' with 'safe areas' although safe is a bit misleading, rather its 'protected' sort of. What few attempts have actually been made at a FFA sandbox MMO, inevitably failed, or have a player base so small that they might just as well not exist.
+1
Wish a PvE oriented game with GM directed enemies would be created.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Darkfall has not grown at all with subscribers anyway. It's lost most of its playerbase with both releases.
Eve released more 8 years ago.
And what should that prove?
Any MMO(except EvE) did lose subscribers over time. That's nothing new.. that doesn't say anything.
Fact is... Aventurine hired developers after release(and not layed off as some other Game developers.. hint SWTOR hint), and further more developed another game Darkfall Unholy Wars.
And as much as i know up until now Darkfall Servers are up, and people play it. So what was your point?
If your trying to suggest that DF'UW is in any way as successful as SW;TOR, then you are very, as in extremely, mistaken, never mind that SW;TOR is not even close to being a sandbox game, but DF;UW is a game that seems to be always one step away from the precipice, its future has probably never been so shaky as it is currently, but i seriously doubt the game has ever showed a profit and Aventurine is a company that i have no doubt struggles to exist on a monthly basis, honestly, i don't know how they are still operating. And if their latest attempt to recoup players doesnt succeed, then they probably won't, the weird thing is, is that the game itself isn't actually all that bad, its even fun to play, its just that because the focus of the game is the PvP, it has very limited appeal, despite that. If the game had a bit more PvE focus, i dare say that it would be a lot more successful, but the safe area is far too small, which also oddly enough describes the spectrum of 'players' that have any interest in those kinds of games.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Darkfall has not grown at all with subscribers anyway. It's lost most of its playerbase with both releases.
Eve released more 8 years ago.
It has actually had numerous periods of growth and decline, but its overall been growth for Aventurine. They started in a basement with 10 people. Now they're in a huge office in Athens with 60+ people, 3 different servers (started with 1), and are once again growing in subscribers. They've gotten boxes in stores too. Not too bad for an indie, it's a proof of concept. A smart publisher (as if there is any), would look to reproduce that on a larger scale.
And it doesn't matter that Eve is 8 years old, it's still the second highest number of subs in the industry, and the only one that has continued to grow every year it's been around.
And it doesn't matter that Eve is 8 years old, it's still the second highest number of subs in the industry, and the only one that has continued to grow every year it's been around.
It does matter. If it was something developers wanted to copy, they would have done it by now. That was the whole point of the time limit. Wow has been copied a billion times over...eve once as far as I know of and that game didn't do so well.
And it may have a large number of subs but compare it to actual player numbers and you get a very different stat. That matters to people looking at how popular a game really is. You can't always count on people running 3..4...5+ accounts like people often do in eve. It's still an impressive player base but it's not what people make it out to be.
Lineage 2 is a theme park not a sandbox. What makes Lineage 2 stand out is that it is clearly not a WoW clone. It is a Korean grind style theme park. They did have a huge seamless world, contested raiding, open PK system, castle sieges, player factions, player economy, and a dozen different starting areas. This gave players a lot of freedom and was one of the last AAA games made that was not on rails. World wide L2 had over 2 million subs and was the biggest MMO before WoW.
Archage and Black Desert are both heavily influenced by Lineage 2.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Darkfall has not grown at all with subscribers anyway. It's lost most of its playerbase with both releases.
Eve released more 8 years ago.
It has actually had numerous periods of growth and decline, but its overall been growth for Aventurine. They started in a basement with 10 people. Now they're in a huge office in Athens with 60+ people, 3 different servers (started with 1), and are once again growing in subscribers. They've gotten boxes in stores too. Not too bad for an indie, it's a proof of concept. A smart publisher (as if there is any), would look to reproduce that on a larger scale.
And it doesn't matter that Eve is 8 years old, it's still the second highest number of subs in the industry, and the only one that has continued to grow every year it's been around.
I didn't say the game hadn't grown in developers. I said it hasn't grown in subscribers. Over the 6 year period and even shortly after both releases it lost subscribers. Overall it has lost subscribers.
Eve is not the second highest number of subs in the industry, not by a long shot. Heck swtor, the "failure" has more subs than Eve. As I believe L1, L2, aion and a half dozen other eastern games do. And you can't use the excuse "I meant in the West' as Eve's subscriber count is counted on a global market over about 20+ different countries. However Eve is still a very successful game, no doubt about that.
The question was "a game released in the last 8 years". Eve does not meet that category, it was released more than 8 years ago. It took Eve 8 years to grow to about 300,000 subs. What is smarter, starting off at 10,00 and growing to ~500,000 over a decade, or starting at 2 million at dropping to 500,000 in 2 months.
You ended up at the same place, but one brought in a whole lot more dollars and eyeballs and they both end up with the same number of subs. And yes those "other" games will be around for years and years as well.
Devs should copy what Eve is doing now to keep their subs and look at how they grew. They should learn from Eve's awful launch.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
And where is the difference to Darkfall or Mortal Online there? Both games are still alive.. with a string shoe budget and met both probably their expectations.. Darkfall even released a second part. And that could even said for EvE.. they started with 22 developer and expected maybe 50k.. now they have 500k subs and over 100 developers. That is at least somewhat of a success.
Nevertheless a game made for 1,000 sub base is barely a AAA game.. and 3,500 subs is by far not a huge remarkable success.
That's the point. And it should be really crystal clear, when you look at my post as response from another post.
And i said even more in that post(which you quoted just partially) that is not the fault from the developer, or that they are sandboxes.. it's is because they are indy companies with a very small budget... and what you usually get out of that is a indy game, and can't and shouldn't be compared to games from major companies with ten times and more the budget and developers.
Neither was on time. Neither actually implemented all of the advertised features at launch. Budgets for both MO and DF would have been considerably higher than ATitD's budget. Darkfall did eventually get their game running right, but I don't think Mortal Online is running right to this day, though a lot of that could be blamed on the mods.
Well... both didn't advertised features at all. The community of both hoped, wished for a lot more features.. and the indy developer hinted that some features could be implemented at one point or the other.. Both are pure indy games.. there was no announced feature set.
Yeap.. Budget was most probably a little bit higher than ATITD, as their sub base.. doesn't change anything at all.
AtitD met goals and expectations. ATitD got more players than expected. MO & DF did not meet goals or expectations. MO & DF did not get as many players as hoped or expected. MO & DF had more money to play with than ATitD.
Someone else will have to compare Istaria & MO/DF. I know zip about Istaria.
You asked what the difference was. That's the answer.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Players have demonstrated since UO that they would prefer to have a choice about PvP, with flags or extensive "safe" areas. It doesn't matter what other elements come into play. If a developer doesn't offer players the option to opt out of PvP in an MMORPG, they will sell fewer copies of their game and keep fewer players. There have been sandbox games without PvP, and with PvP flags that seemed to work just fine, economy and all. Sandbox does not equal PvP. PvP is not required for a sandbox to not only be workable, but to have a fully functional "world".
**
Does anyone else notice the parallels here between ATitD v. MO/DF and, say, Eve v. SWToR?
And from where did you hear or know that MO or DF did not meet their expectations? Most probably not from the DF team(don't know enough about MO), because they were rather happy about their success. Made even a second game, expanded their development team. It could be called a tiny success story.. Though a lot of fans expected more.. feature wise, state of the game.. but well.. that's more or less true for any game.
And where do you get that more players want PvE Sandboxes, or that they sell less copies?.. ATITD with their 3,500 sub base guaranteed didn't prove that. As any other PvE Sandbox couldn't prove that.
And what sandbox game without PvP worked just fine, with economy and all?
And yes.. there is a parallel between those.. you can't compare games with completely different budgets, with a complete different size and experience of developers, with a lot of advertisement and all.. or no advertisement at all. And therefor i already said before.. that those comparsion are bullshit.. and therefore i brought up the ATITD comparsion... because it is bullshit, too. Now you get the picture? So.. let MO and DF rest in peace and stop claiming stupid "facts" out of even more stupid comparsions.
And.. i never said anything like pvp is required for a sandbox, or pvp equals a sandbox.. i just said the comparsions and conclusions, which a lot of you made are bullshit.. like figuring out of two games.. DF and MO that pvp sandbox can not be successful.. and as i showed.. with the same stupid comparsion with PvE and PvE sandboxes.. PvE sandboxes can't be successful, too.. and showed furthermore that any such kind of comparsion is bullshit. And yes.. any comparsion with WoW and any other game is even more ridiculous.. so shall we stop with making bad comparsions and even more bad conclusions?
Ohh.. and about another bullshit conclusion:
Originally posted by lizardbones
Players have demonstrated since UO that they would prefer to have a choice about PvP, with flags or extensive "safe" areas. It doesn't matter what other elements come into play. If a developer doesn't offer players the option to opt out of PvP in an MMORPG, they will sell fewer copies of their game and keep fewer players.
Yeap..
And now i do the same the other way around.
Player have demonstrated since EvE and any PvE MMO out there.. if you don't offer EvE like PvP(FFA) and stuff you can't keep your players.. and will lose players over time.
See what i did there? Yeah.. EvE is the only MMO not losing any players over time.. but to draw a fishy conclusion out of it is just bullshit.. as the conclusion above from you.
But as much as i care you can believe, and talk whatever you want. Yeah.. PvE is superior. PvP will result in insta failure. PvP players are evil. PvE players are angels and good-will people. And whatever you want.
All that won't change anything.. all that will not prevent the development of another pvp game or pve game, sandbox or themepark.. because.. the big AAA companies don't listen to us(me and you and everyone here) anyway.
We do see movement in sandbox gaming, and sandbox MMOs, because of two games, and non of them is a MMO. DayZ and Minecraft. And both offer FFA pvp.. just bytheway. And yeah.. granted, Minecraft offers a PvE only experience, too. But again.. nothing about PvP or PvE is proved out of that.. just that there is some money earned in sandbox games.. and that is the only message publisher understand anyway.
I said developers need to offer players a choice. I did not say PvE was superior to PvP. I don't think I even said that PvP wasn't important.
UO opened Trammel, offering players a choice through PvP flags and guess what? Most of the player auction houses were on Trammel, not Felucca. I wonder why that was? Oh, because there wasn't much incentive to walk into an auction house if someone killed you as soon as you bought something really nice.
SWG offered players a choice through PvP flags and it seemed to do just fine too. Up to a point anyway.
Finally, Eve offers players a choice as well. Eve seems to be doing just fine too.
The major, successful sandbox MMORPGs all offer(ed) players a choice about PvP.
I'll retract my statement about Darkfall. It seemed to do very well post launch, even though it had pre-launch issues including an 8 year development cycle. I've stated in the past on these forums that Darkfall seems successful and couldn't have launched another game if it weren't successful. It runs at a larger scale than ATitD, but a smaller scale than the other sandbox games listed above at their peak(s). My statements on MO still stand.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And yet the PvP croud seems to be fishing for the idea that sandboxes and PvP are synonyms. But yet there's nothing in sand that says go kill your neighbour.
I supposed I would consider myself part of the pvp crowd and I disagree with the idea they are required to be together, but I"m likely in the minority. SWG was a sandbox that was not FFA and thank god it wasn't. When I wanted pvp my guild would go special forces and look for a fight and when I just wanted to hang out with friends and quest I could do that too. I doubt I'll ever enjoy a system as much as I enjoyed SWG's.
Comments
Well... both didn't advertised features at all. The community of both hoped, wished for a lot more features.. and the indy developer hinted that some features could be implemented at one point or the other.. Both are pure indy games.. there was no announced feature set.
Yeap.. Budget was most probably a little bit higher than ATITD, as their sub base.. doesn't change anything at all.
To be fair.. there are private servers of up to 200 players for minecraft.
And even more.. nowadays i ask myself more often, if private servers or smaller servers for lets say 500 players online, would be a good solution for a lot of problems.
Most MMOs (except EvE) don't even take advantage of the high amount of players online. For most MMOs it would not change a lot if the server can't hold 5000 players, but just 500. Although to get private servers with 500 players online is at least not easy.. if even possible.. and 200 or less could be not enough to create a world feeling.
Seems significant to me.
AtitD met goals and expectations. ATitD got more players than expected. MO & DF did not meet goals or expectations. MO & DF did not get as many players as hoped or expected. MO & DF had more money to play with than ATitD.
Someone else will have to compare Istaria & MO/DF. I know zip about Istaria.
You asked what the difference was. That's the answer.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this is. Players have demonstrated since UO that they would prefer to have a choice about PvP, with flags or extensive "safe" areas. It doesn't matter what other elements come into play. If a developer doesn't offer players the option to opt out of PvP in an MMORPG, they will sell fewer copies of their game and keep fewer players. There have been sandbox games without PvP, and with PvP flags that seemed to work just fine, economy and all. Sandbox does not equal PvP. PvP is not required for a sandbox to not only be workable, but to have a fully functional "world".
**
Does anyone else notice the parallels here between ATitD v. MO/DF and, say, Eve v. SWToR?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
villagers and hero's
...u didnt hear it from me. *steps back into the shadows*
No, it doesn't say you have to, but for most sandbox fans, they want the ability to do anything and that includes FFA PvP if someone wants that. They want the ability to go kill their neighbors if the mood strikes them. Lots of people don't consider a game a sandbox unless that's a possibility.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Second Life is not an MMO, which the OP specifically asked for. Try again.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
And from where did you hear or know that MO or DF did not meet their expectations? Most probably not from the DF team(don't know enough about MO), because they were rather happy about their success. Made even a second game, expanded their development team. It could be called a tiny success story.. Though a lot of fans expected more.. feature wise, state of the game.. but well.. that's more or less true for any game.
And where do you get that more players want PvE Sandboxes, or that they sell less copies?.. ATITD with their 3,500 sub base guaranteed didn't prove that. As any other PvE Sandbox couldn't prove that.
And what sandbox game without PvP worked just fine, with economy and all?
And yes.. there is a parallel between those.. you can't compare games with completely different budgets, with a complete different size and experience of developers, with a lot of advertisement and all.. or no advertisement at all. And therefor i already said before.. that those comparsion are bullshit.. and therefore i brought up the ATITD comparsion... because it is bullshit, too. Now you get the picture? So.. let MO and DF rest in peace and stop claiming stupid "facts" out of even more stupid comparsions.
And.. i never said anything like pvp is required for a sandbox, or pvp equals a sandbox.. i just said the comparsions and conclusions, which a lot of you made are bullshit.. like figuring out of two games.. DF and MO that pvp sandbox can not be successful.. and as i showed.. with the same stupid comparsion with PvE and PvE sandboxes.. PvE sandboxes can't be successful, too.. and showed furthermore that any such kind of comparsion is bullshit. And yes.. any comparsion with WoW and any other game is even more ridiculous.. so shall we stop with making bad comparsions and even more bad conclusions?
Ohh.. and about another bullshit conclusion:
Yeap..
And now i do the same the other way around.
Player have demonstrated since EvE and any PvE MMO out there.. if you don't offer EvE like PvP(FFA) and stuff you can't keep your players.. and will lose players over time.
See what i did there? Yeah.. EvE is the only MMO not losing any players over time.. but to draw a fishy conclusion out of it is just bullshit.. as the conclusion above from you.
But as much as i care you can believe, and talk whatever you want. Yeah.. PvE is superior. PvP will result in insta failure. PvP players are evil. PvE players are angels and good-will people. And whatever you want.
All that won't change anything.. all that will not prevent the development of another pvp game or pve game, sandbox or themepark.. because.. the big AAA companies don't listen to us(me and you and everyone here) anyway.
We do see movement in sandbox gaming, and sandbox MMOs, because of two games, and non of them is a MMO. DayZ and Minecraft. And both offer FFA pvp.. just bytheway. And yeah.. granted, Minecraft offers a PvE only experience, too. But again.. nothing about PvP or PvE is proved out of that.. just that there is some money earned in sandbox games.. and that is the only message publisher understand anyway.
Eve.
And Darkfall, believe it or not. Tiny dev studio, microscopic budget, yet they've managed to continuously grow over the last 6 years with a SUBSCRIPTION FEE and FFA PVP. As a publisher I'd look at that and say "HOw can we do that but on a bigger scale?"
I wasn't suggesting anything, only pointing out that Minecraft is a sandbox game that is a huge hit that others are trying to copy.
This is where the debate begins over how many people per server make an "MMO" game... I'm not in the mood for that discussion though.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Eve released more 8 years ago.
Either way, Landmark, although not "out" yet, is kind of like Minecraft, except with MMO graphics and IS a MMO. Its still got quite aways to go yet before its done/out, but if your mention of Minecraft warrants, mention so does Landmark.
~I am Many~
And what should that prove?
Any MMO(except EvE) did lose subscribers over time. That's nothing new.. that doesn't say anything.
Fact is... Aventurine hired developers after release(and not layed off as some other Game developers.. hint SWTOR hint), and further more developed another game Darkfall Unholy Wars.
And as much as i know up until now Darkfall Servers are up, and people play it. So what was your point?
You're cherrypicking points to argue and conveniently ignoring all the rest.
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
+1
Wish a PvE oriented game with GM directed enemies would be created.
If your trying to suggest that DF'UW is in any way as successful as SW;TOR, then you are very, as in extremely, mistaken, never mind that SW;TOR is not even close to being a sandbox game, but DF;UW is a game that seems to be always one step away from the precipice, its future has probably never been so shaky as it is currently, but i seriously doubt the game has ever showed a profit and Aventurine is a company that i have no doubt struggles to exist on a monthly basis, honestly, i don't know how they are still operating. And if their latest attempt to recoup players doesnt succeed, then they probably won't, the weird thing is, is that the game itself isn't actually all that bad, its even fun to play, its just that because the focus of the game is the PvP, it has very limited appeal, despite that. If the game had a bit more PvE focus, i dare say that it would be a lot more successful, but the safe area is far too small, which also oddly enough describes the spectrum of 'players' that have any interest in those kinds of games.
It has actually had numerous periods of growth and decline, but its overall been growth for Aventurine. They started in a basement with 10 people. Now they're in a huge office in Athens with 60+ people, 3 different servers (started with 1), and are once again growing in subscribers. They've gotten boxes in stores too.
Not too bad for an indie, it's a proof of concept. A smart publisher (as if there is any), would look to reproduce that on a larger scale.
And it doesn't matter that Eve is 8 years old, it's still the second highest number of subs in the industry, and the only one that has continued to grow every year it's been around.
It does matter. If it was something developers wanted to copy, they would have done it by now. That was the whole point of the time limit. Wow has been copied a billion times over...eve once as far as I know of and that game didn't do so well.
And it may have a large number of subs but compare it to actual player numbers and you get a very different stat. That matters to people looking at how popular a game really is. You can't always count on people running 3..4...5+ accounts like people often do in eve. It's still an impressive player base but it's not what people make it out to be.
Lineage 2 is a theme park not a sandbox. What makes Lineage 2 stand out is that it is clearly not a WoW clone. It is a Korean grind style theme park. They did have a huge seamless world, contested raiding, open PK system, castle sieges, player factions, player economy, and a dozen different starting areas. This gave players a lot of freedom and was one of the last AAA games made that was not on rails. World wide L2 had over 2 million subs and was the biggest MMO before WoW.
Archage and Black Desert are both heavily influenced by Lineage 2.
I didn't say the game hadn't grown in developers. I said it hasn't grown in subscribers. Over the 6 year period and even shortly after both releases it lost subscribers. Overall it has lost subscribers.
Eve is not the second highest number of subs in the industry, not by a long shot. Heck swtor, the "failure" has more subs than Eve. As I believe L1, L2, aion and a half dozen other eastern games do. And you can't use the excuse "I meant in the West' as Eve's subscriber count is counted on a global market over about 20+ different countries. However Eve is still a very successful game, no doubt about that.
The question was "a game released in the last 8 years". Eve does not meet that category, it was released more than 8 years ago. It took Eve 8 years to grow to about 300,000 subs. What is smarter, starting off at 10,00 and growing to ~500,000 over a decade, or starting at 2 million at dropping to 500,000 in 2 months.
You ended up at the same place, but one brought in a whole lot more dollars and eyeballs and they both end up with the same number of subs. And yes those "other" games will be around for years and years as well.
Devs should copy what Eve is doing now to keep their subs and look at how they grew. They should learn from Eve's awful launch.
I said developers need to offer players a choice. I did not say PvE was superior to PvP. I don't think I even said that PvP wasn't important.
UO opened Trammel, offering players a choice through PvP flags and guess what? Most of the player auction houses were on Trammel, not Felucca. I wonder why that was? Oh, because there wasn't much incentive to walk into an auction house if someone killed you as soon as you bought something really nice.
SWG offered players a choice through PvP flags and it seemed to do just fine too. Up to a point anyway.
Finally, Eve offers players a choice as well. Eve seems to be doing just fine too.
The major, successful sandbox MMORPGs all offer(ed) players a choice about PvP.
I'll retract my statement about Darkfall. It seemed to do very well post launch, even though it had pre-launch issues including an 8 year development cycle. I've stated in the past on these forums that Darkfall seems successful and couldn't have launched another game if it weren't successful. It runs at a larger scale than ATitD, but a smaller scale than the other sandbox games listed above at their peak(s). My statements on MO still stand.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I supposed I would consider myself part of the pvp crowd and I disagree with the idea they are required to be together, but I"m likely in the minority. SWG was a sandbox that was not FFA and thank god it wasn't. When I wanted pvp my guild would go special forces and look for a fight and when I just wanted to hang out with friends and quest I could do that too. I doubt I'll ever enjoy a system as much as I enjoyed SWG's.