OP - SoE is not going to spend 100mil to recreate something that has less than 100-200k players even interested in, the active playerbase after a month would most likely be around 50k players.
Expensive MMO projects need a huge playerbase.
Can't compare that to a small budge game.
to be honest....f8ck sony.
No longer are the days where millions of players are needed to fund a game we like.
extreemly small teams (like 10 or less developers) are creating games in mass that people want. Such small budget games do not need millions of players to cover the cost.
Its a great day for gaming, a bad day for large gaming companies
+1, Bravo, CHEERS!
Seriously this is the point, big companys are starting to be overshadowed by the little guys. If Divinty Devs can make a game based off a Turn-Based RPG genre that was popular in 90-fucking-5, there is no reason we can see Classic MMO gaming make the rise once more.
Leave out the fact Im in love with the idea of a modern EQ and just think of making a game Liken to that, and you have a perfect niche game with a proven fanbase.
And please, dont cite Pantheon as an excuse to why this wouldnt work out. Panth is headed by Brad Mcquaid, who since Vanguard has had a bullseye on his back and a cloud over his head to the gaming world. Some sad individuals will never let that man rest *cough ReROLLED cough*.
If there was a game being made like classic EQ right now it would sell, it would turn a profit, and the fact that SOE doesnt realize that further shows their lack of knowledge about their fanbase, old and new.
Modern EQ is WoW and all the clones that has proliferated over the last 8 years.
NO THANKS. make a new game, innovate and invent new designs or at least change the whole EQ concept. Give me Asheron's Call 2.0 or UO 2.0 any day of the week.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
What I was trying to illustrate is that you could only think of one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim.
No, the person you quoted only listed one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim, that in no way, shape, or form implies that they could only think of one.
To imply that it does is frankly absurd.
I find it interesting though how they instinctively thought of just one. But that and the fact that sony is currently making a carbon copy of DayZ aside for the moment in order to continue this conversation one has to establish what they mean by 'outshine'. Now given he is rebutting me before i can reply I need to know what he considers 'outshine' so that i can answer in the proper context.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What I was trying to illustrate is that you could only think of one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim.
No, the person you quoted only listed one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim, that in no way, shape, or form implies that they could only think of one.
To imply that it does is frankly absurd.
I find it interesting though how they instinctively thought of just one. But that and the fact that sony is currently making a carbon copy of DayZ aside for the moment in order to continue this conversation one has to establish what they mean by 'outshine'. Now given he is rebutting me before i can reply I need to know what he considers 'outshine' so that i can answer in the proper context.
You are really splitting hairs here. There are so many more successful AAA games other there. If you don't know what they are, you must be very new to gaming. The only side that has anything to prove is the indie scene. You know, the scene that spews out 1000s of games and maybe 5 are gems. Ya, the large studios are really shaking in their boots
What I was trying to illustrate is that you could only think of one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim.
No, the person you quoted only listed one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim, that in no way, shape, or form implies that they could only think of one.
To imply that it does is frankly absurd.
I find it interesting though how they instinctively thought of just one. But that and the fact that sony is currently making a carbon copy of DayZ aside for the moment in order to continue this conversation one has to establish what they mean by 'outshine'. Now given he is rebutting me before i can reply I need to know what he considers 'outshine' so that i can answer in the proper context.
You are really splitting hairs here. There are so many more successful AAA games other there. If you don't know what they are, you must be very new to gaming. The only side that has anything to prove is the indie scene. You know, the scene that spews out 1000s of games and maybe 5 are gems. Ya, the large studios are really shaking in their boots
again...it depends on what you mean by 'outshine'.
If your measuring line is money earned then neither side can say for sure can they?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You are really splitting hairs here. There are so many more successful AAA games other there. If you don't know what they are, you must be very new to gaming. The only side that has anything to prove is the indie scene. You know, the scene that spews out 1000s of games and maybe 5 are gems. Ya, the large studios are really shaking in their boots
This ^^^
There are certainly count some successful fun (to me) indie games (like Van Helsing). But certainly there are many more AAA games which are entertaining and consistent. Just recently .. Wolfenstein is good, Sniper Elite v3 is fun (for me), and there is a huge backlog of AAA games that I have not yet finished (like Witcher 2 .. and 3 is on the horizon). Even something like D3 is getting fresh again because of new game modes and new builds (because of new gear) coming in the next patch. And the PvE content of Hearthstone is coming this month.
What I was trying to illustrate is that you could only think of one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim.
No, the person you quoted only listed one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim, that in no way, shape, or form implies that they could only think of one.
To imply that it does is frankly absurd.
I find it interesting though how they instinctively thought of just one. But that and the fact that sony is currently making a carbon copy of DayZ aside for the moment in order to continue this conversation one has to establish what they mean by 'outshine'. Now given he is rebutting me before i can reply I need to know what he considers 'outshine' so that i can answer in the proper context.
You are really splitting hairs here. There are so many more successful AAA games other there. If you don't know what they are, you must be very new to gaming. The only side that has anything to prove is the indie scene. You know, the scene that spews out 1000s of games and maybe 5 are gems. Ya, the large studios are really shaking in their boots
again...it depends on what you mean by 'outshine'.
If your measuring line is money earned then neither side can say for sure can they?
You can't be serious. Money is the bottom line for all game companies. Even your precious indies.
What I was trying to illustrate is that you could only think of one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim.
No, the person you quoted only listed one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim, that in no way, shape, or form implies that they could only think of one.
To imply that it does is frankly absurd.
I find it interesting though how they instinctively thought of just one. But that and the fact that sony is currently making a carbon copy of DayZ aside for the moment in order to continue this conversation one has to establish what they mean by 'outshine'. Now given he is rebutting me before i can reply I need to know what he considers 'outshine' so that i can answer in the proper context.
You are really splitting hairs here. There are so many more successful AAA games other there. If you don't know what they are, you must be very new to gaming. The only side that has anything to prove is the indie scene. You know, the scene that spews out 1000s of games and maybe 5 are gems. Ya, the large studios are really shaking in their boots
again...it depends on what you mean by 'outshine'.
If your measuring line is money earned then neither side can say for sure can they?
You can't be serious. Money is the bottom line for all game companies. Even your precious indies.
I asked the person who responded to me what he thinks of as 'outshine' so that we can be on the same page.
For me money doesn't mean its better but knowing what HE thinks it means helps me in responding such that I do not respond in a way that show MY bias toward game play itself rather than just income.
Now....
1. many companies do not report revenue so its all speculation.
2. If a AAA company spend twice as much on advertising as an indie does then pure number of boxes sold is also not a good indicator because AAA has to pay for those add while the indie does not.
3. If an indie company as 10 developers and a AAA has 200. One would assume that the AAA would get 20 times the positive coveratge and income. Something to ponder. A AAA gaming is not supposed to be better than an indie they are supposed to be 20 TIMES better.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
3. If an indie company as 10 developers and a AAA has 200. One would assume that the AAA would get 20 times the positive coveratge and income. Something to ponder. A AAA gaming is not supposed to be better than an indie they are supposed to be 20 TIMES better.
You erroneously assume quality is linear in resources. Anyone in business knows that 80-20 rule .. the last 20 percent cost 80% of the resources.
It is a highly non-linear relationship with diminishing returns.
AAA is not supposed to be 20 times better .. but they are supposed to be better .. and they are in many cases (at least for me). I have yet to see an indie stealth game came close to the fun i had in Dishonored (Mark of the Ninja wasn't bad .. but it is no Dishonored either).
What I was trying to illustrate is that you could only think of one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim.
No, the person you quoted only listed one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim, that in no way, shape, or form implies that they could only think of one.
To imply that it does is frankly absurd.
I find it interesting though how they instinctively thought of just one. But that and the fact that sony is currently making a carbon copy of DayZ aside for the moment in order to continue this conversation one has to establish what they mean by 'outshine'. Now given he is rebutting me before i can reply I need to know what he considers 'outshine' so that i can answer in the proper context.
You are really splitting hairs here. There are so many more successful AAA games other there. If you don't know what they are, you must be very new to gaming. The only side that has anything to prove is the indie scene. You know, the scene that spews out 1000s of games and maybe 5 are gems. Ya, the large studios are really shaking in their boots
again...it depends on what you mean by 'outshine'.
If your measuring line is money earned then neither side can say for sure can they?
You can't be serious. Money is the bottom line for all game companies. Even your precious indies.
I asked the person who responded to me what he thinks of as 'outshine' so that we can be on the same page.
For me money doesn't mean its better but knowing what HE thinks it means helps me in responding such that I do not respond in a way that show MY bias toward game play itself rather than just income.
Now....
1. many companies do not report revenue so its all speculation.
2. If a AAA company spend twice as much on advertising as an indie does then pure number of boxes sold is also not a good indicator because AAA has to pay for those add while the indie does not.
3. If an indie company as 10 developers and a AAA has 200. One would assume that the AAA would get 20 times the positive coveratge and income. Something to ponder. A AAA gaming is not supposed to be better than an indie they are supposed to be 20 TIMES better.
Thing is, the AAA games are usually a lot better then most indies. Personally, I have only seen a few indies even worth my money. AAA games on the other hand have launched a ton of good games in the last few years. Hell, I still have a mile long backlog of AAA games. Can't say the same for indies.
It might just be that indies are still pretty new and still haven't caught on for everyone. Maybe at some point they might even surpass AAA titles. That time is not now though.
Thing is, the AAA games are usually a lot better then most indies. Personally, I have only seen a few indies even worth my money. AAA games on the other hand have launched a ton of good games in the last few years. Hell, I still have a mile long backlog of AAA games. Can't say the same for indies.
It might just be that indies are still pretty new and still haven't caught on for everyone. Maybe at some point they might even surpass AAA titles. That time is not now though.
I could not disagree more.
BUT that is both of our opinion.
If you look however at how many articles are being written about indies one would think 'if they are not doing as well as AAA then why isn't there 20 times more articles about AAA games'. why would the press be writing stories about games people don't seem to care about?
kinda odd
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If you look however at how many articles are being written about indies one would think 'if they are not doing as well as AAA then why isn't there 20 times more articles about AAA games'. why would the press be writing stories about games people don't seem to care about?
Because they are novel? And there are more articles about AAA games than indie games. And no one says "more article" = "better games".
There are plenty of articles of failure of games too.
Thing is, the AAA games are usually a lot better then most indies. Personally, I have only seen a few indies even worth my money. AAA games on the other hand have launched a ton of good games in the last few years. Hell, I still have a mile long backlog of AAA games. Can't say the same for indies.
It might just be that indies are still pretty new and still haven't caught on for everyone. Maybe at some point they might even surpass AAA titles. That time is not now though.
I could not disagree more.
BUT that is both of our opinion.
If you look however at how many articles are being written about indies one would think 'if they are not doing as well as AAA then why isn't there 20 times more articles about AAA games'. why would the press be writing stories about games people don't seem to care about?
kinda odd
I agree with you on the red part. The articles you are talking about are just news fillers between AAA game launches. Not to mention it's a fairly new sub-genre. So people want to hear about it. Then again, just look at the home page on this site for example. Other then the Divinity review, where are all these indie articles you are talking about? Go to PCGamer, Gameinformer. The articles about AAA games to indies is a 1000 to 1. Not really sure where you are getting this idea that indies are taking over.
Thing is, the AAA games are usually a lot better then most indies. Personally, I have only seen a few indies even worth my money. AAA games on the other hand have launched a ton of good games in the last few years. Hell, I still have a mile long backlog of AAA games. Can't say the same for indies.
It might just be that indies are still pretty new and still haven't caught on for everyone. Maybe at some point they might even surpass AAA titles. That time is not now though.
I could not disagree more.
BUT that is both of our opinion.
If you look however at how many articles are being written about indies one would think 'if they are not doing as well as AAA then why isn't there 20 times more articles about AAA games'. why would the press be writing stories about games people don't seem to care about?
kinda odd
I agree with you on the red part. The articles you are talking about are just news fillers between AAA game launches. Not to mention it's a fairly new sub-genre. So people want to hear about it. Then again, just look at the home page on this site for example. Other then the Divinity review, where are all these indie articles you are talking about? Go to PCGamer, Gameinformer. The articles about AAA games to indies is a 1000 to 1. Not really sure where you are getting this idea that indies are taking over.
if there are more articles about indie games then does it not suggest that there are people who are also interested in them? Think about it for a second.
Also, I want to break this out mathematically a bit.
Lets say that for every developer you get a 1 quality rating.
So company X with 10 developers is expected to have a quality 10 game where company Y with 200 developers is expected to have 200 quality game.
If company X produces a game that is 11 (recall this is the one with 10 devs). Then it becomes very curious indeeded. Questions become well, if company Y does the same then they would be higher than 200 as well.
Thus if a company X even comes close to company Y in quality is a HUGE thing.
I argue (granted in my view) that many indie games EXCEED company Y making the ratio obscene
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Thing is, the AAA games are usually a lot better then most indies. Personally, I have only seen a few indies even worth my money. AAA games on the other hand have launched a ton of good games in the last few years. Hell, I still have a mile long backlog of AAA games. Can't say the same for indies.
It might just be that indies are still pretty new and still haven't caught on for everyone. Maybe at some point they might even surpass AAA titles. That time is not now though.
I could not disagree more.
BUT that is both of our opinion.
If you look however at how many articles are being written about indies one would think 'if they are not doing as well as AAA then why isn't there 20 times more articles about AAA games'. why would the press be writing stories about games people don't seem to care about?
kinda odd
I agree with you on the red part. The articles you are talking about are just news fillers between AAA game launches. Not to mention it's a fairly new sub-genre. So people want to hear about it. Then again, just look at the home page on this site for example. Other then the Divinity review, where are all these indie articles you are talking about? Go to PCGamer, Gameinformer. The articles about AAA games to indies is a 1000 to 1. Not really sure where you are getting this idea that indies are taking over.
if there are more articles about indie games then does it not suggest that there are people who are also interested in them? Think about it for a second.
Also, I want to break this out mathematically a bit.
Lets say that for every developer you get a 1 quality rating.
So company X with 10 developers is expected to have a quality 10 game where company Y with 200 developers is expected to have 200 quality game.
If company X produces a game that is 11 (recall this is the one with 10 devs). Then it becomes very curious indeeded. Questions become well, if company Y does the same then they would be higher than 200 as well.
Thus if a company X even comes close to company Y in quality is a HUGE thing.
I argue (granted in my view) that many indie games EXCEED company Y making the ratio obscene
You are looking into this a lot deeper then I am. See, I just look to see which game is more fun for me. 99% of time it's a AAA game. I don't care if the game had 10 developers or 1000. If the game is not fun, what do I care about the algorithm involved?
You are looking into this a lot deeper then I am. See, I just look to see which game is more fun for me. 99% of time it's a AAA game. I don't care if the game had 10 developers or 1000. If the game is not fun, what do I care about the algorithm involved?
I can understand that. I however prefer indies to AAA because I find the game play better.
However the reason I say this is because its highly unfair to suggest a team of 10 should sell more or be better than a team of 200 in order of the point to be valid. very unfair.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
OP - SoE is not going to spend 100mil to recreate something that has less than 100-200k players even interested in, the active playerbase after a month would most likely be around 50k players.
Expensive MMO projects need a huge playerbase.
Can't compare that to a small budge game.
to be honest....f8ck sony.
No longer are the days where millions of players are needed to fund a game we like.
extreemly small teams (like 10 or less developers) are creating games in mass that people want. Such small budget games do not need millions of players to cover the cost.
Its a great day for gaming, a bad day for large gaming companies
+1, Bravo, CHEERS!
Seriously this is the point, big companys are starting to be overshadowed by the little guys. If Divinty Devs can make a game based off a Turn-Based RPG genre that was popular in 90-fucking-5, there is no reason we can see Classic MMO gaming make the rise once more.
Leave out the fact Im in love with the idea of a modern EQ and just think of making a game Liken to that, and you have a perfect niche game with a proven fanbase.
And please, dont cite Pantheon as an excuse to why this wouldnt work out. Panth is headed by Brad Mcquaid, who since Vanguard has had a bullseye on his back and a cloud over his head to the gaming world. Some sad individuals will never let that man rest *cough ReROLLED cough*.
If there was a game being made like classic EQ right now it would sell, it would turn a profit, and the fact that SOE doesnt realize that further shows their lack of knowledge about their fanbase, old and new.
Your comparing apples to oranges and as already pointed out in EQ's case your math simply doesn't add up.
As to Brad how many breaks does the man need? He names his own salary, decided when he'll get advances took 40% of the developement fund for Pantheon to pay hiself without telling anyone else on the team till they found out he had gutted the games funding and there was nothing left.
Seriously though you want EQ new so keep sending your money to Brad, I wish you best of luck.
Originally posted by DMKanoOP - SoE is not going to spend 100mil to recreate something that has less than 100-200k players even interested in, the active playerbase after a month would most likely be around 50k players.Expensive MMO projects need a huge playerbase.Can't compare that to a small budge game.
to be honest....f8ck sony.No longer are the days where millions of players are needed to fund a game we like.extreemly small teams (like 10 or less developers) are creating games in mass that people want. Such small budget games do not need millions of players to cover the cost.Its a great day for gaming, a bad day for large gaming companies
+1, Bravo, CHEERS!Seriously this is the point, big companys are starting to be overshadowed by the little guys. If Divinty Devs can make a game based off a Turn-Based RPG genre that was popular in 90-fucking-5, there is no reason we can see Classic MMO gaming make the rise once more. Leave out the fact Im in love with the idea of a modern EQ and just think of making a game Liken to that, and you have a perfect niche game with a proven fanbase. And please, dont cite Pantheon as an excuse to why this wouldnt work out. Panth is headed by Brad Mcquaid, who since Vanguard has had a bullseye on his back and a cloud over his head to the gaming world. Some sad individuals will never let that man rest *cough ReROLLED cough*.If there was a game being made like classic EQ right now it would sell, it would turn a profit, and the fact that SOE doesnt realize that further shows their lack of knowledge about their fanbase, old and new.
Your comparing apples to oranges and as already pointed out in EQ's case your math simply doesn't add up. As to Brad how many breaks does the man need? He names his own salary, decided when he'll get advances took 40% of the developement fund for Pantheon to pay hiself without telling anyone else on the team till they found out he had gutted the games funding and there was nothing left. Seriously though you want EQ new so keep sending your money to Brad, I wish you best of luck.
a game where all you do is drive a truck in the mud picking up wood sold 100,000 copies in something like 6 weeks.
OP - SoE is not going to spend 100mil to recreate something that has less than 100-200k players even interested in, the active playerbase after a month would most likely be around 50k players.
Expensive MMO projects need a huge playerbase.
Can't compare that to a small budge game.
to be honest....f8ck sony.
No longer are the days where millions of players are needed to fund a game we like.
extreemly small teams (like 10 or less developers) are creating games in mass that people want. Such small budget games do not need millions of players to cover the cost.
Its a great day for gaming, a bad day for large gaming companies
+1, Bravo, CHEERS!
Seriously this is the point, big companys are starting to be overshadowed by the little guys. If Divinty Devs can make a game based off a Turn-Based RPG genre that was popular in 90-fucking-5, there is no reason we can see Classic MMO gaming make the rise once more.
Leave out the fact Im in love with the idea of a modern EQ and just think of making a game Liken to that, and you have a perfect niche game with a proven fanbase.
And please, dont cite Pantheon as an excuse to why this wouldnt work out. Panth is headed by Brad Mcquaid, who since Vanguard has had a bullseye on his back and a cloud over his head to the gaming world. Some sad individuals will never let that man rest *cough ReROLLED cough*.
If there was a game being made like classic EQ right now it would sell, it would turn a profit, and the fact that SOE doesnt realize that further shows their lack of knowledge about their fanbase, old and new.
How many cases of this are actually happening? Divinity isn't exactly made by the little guys BTW... That team has many titles under their belt, they're more like Obsidian, neither have their own publishing arm, hence going to kickstarter.
Either way what do you mean by outshine? They're not reaching Skyrim levels of acclaim, at least not yet. Divinity:OS sounds great so don't read me wrong (I enjoyed their past games in the series as well),
I just don't see what you both mean by Indies out shining the triple-A studios.There are certainly areas where indies shine, Minecraft or Dayz in MOD form. Those cases are few and far between in regard to what games catch the greater spotlight though.
you just named 2 indie games and 1 AAA game.
Think about that for a second.
My post wasn't meant to make a list of games, do you really need such a list?
What I was trying to illustrate is that you could only think of one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim.
Now before we begin this rabbit hole....
what does 'outshine' mean to you?
that's total BS and you know it.. He already stated he wasn't trying to think of all the AAA games he could he just mentioned one off hand, Actually he mentioned 2 if you read as Divinty wasn't made by a indie company persay . The fact you then try and stop him from actually posting a list of AAA games he could think of off hand that did well as it doesn't fit your arguement is in itself laughable and pretty lame.
What I was trying to illustrate is that you could only think of one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim.
No, the person you quoted only listed one AAA game that reached high levels of acclaim, that in no way, shape, or form implies that they could only think of one.
I completely agree that the classic mmo can make a comeback. It will never happen though if the developer is shooting for Wow-like or even Swtor-like player numbers. The right company shooting for the proper "niche" that is old school mmorpg may and will hit the mark someday. The game must be developed around a specific game play style and community instead of opening the flood gates through F2P and ease of access development focus.
Originally posted by DMKanoOP - SoE is not going to spend 100mil to recreate something that has less than 100-200k players even interested in, the active playerbase after a month would most likely be around 50k players.Expensive MMO projects need a huge playerbase.Can't compare that to a small budge game.
to be honest....f8ck sony.No longer are the days where millions of players are needed to fund a game we like.extreemly small teams (like 10 or less developers) are creating games in mass that people want. Such small budget games do not need millions of players to cover the cost.Its a great day for gaming, a bad day for large gaming companies
+1, Bravo, CHEERS!Seriously this is the point, big companys are starting to be overshadowed by the little guys. If Divinty Devs can make a game based off a Turn-Based RPG genre that was popular in 90-fucking-5, there is no reason we can see Classic MMO gaming make the rise once more. Leave out the fact Im in love with the idea of a modern EQ and just think of making a game Liken to that, and you have a perfect niche game with a proven fanbase. And please, dont cite Pantheon as an excuse to why this wouldnt work out. Panth is headed by Brad Mcquaid, who since Vanguard has had a bullseye on his back and a cloud over his head to the gaming world. Some sad individuals will never let that man rest *cough ReROLLED cough*.If there was a game being made like classic EQ right now it would sell, it would turn a profit, and the fact that SOE doesnt realize that further shows their lack of knowledge about their fanbase, old and new.
Your comparing apples to oranges and as already pointed out in EQ's case your math simply doesn't add up. As to Brad how many breaks does the man need? He names his own salary, decided when he'll get advances took 40% of the developement fund for Pantheon to pay hiself without telling anyone else on the team till they found out he had gutted the games funding and there was nothing left. Seriously though you want EQ new so keep sending your money to Brad, I wish you best of luck.
a game where all you do is drive a truck in the mud picking up wood sold 100,000 copies in something like 6 weeks.
and this game where you drive a truck through mud to pick up wood is a subscription game like EQ1? If not then how are you not comparing apples to oranges.
if as you are saying the smart AAA companies are paying attention then the indies will be in trouble as the AAA companies should be able to produce the same quality game far quicker and cheaper then the indies. However since big companies also generally look for HUGE profit margins I'm guessing the indies that are happy with a million in profit are safe fro the triple A companies that want at least 50 million in profit, (just MO)
I completely agree that the classic mmo can make a comeback. It will never happen though if the developer is shooting for Wow-like or even Swtor-like player numbers. The right company shooting for the proper "niche" that is old school mmorpg may and will hit the mark someday. The game must be developed around a specific game play style and community instead of opening the flood gates through F2P and ease of access development focus.
I honestly do not mind the wow-like MMOs, but what I would like to see more so than the Classic RPGs is more Sandbox MMORPGs, Where did they run off to? :P
Comments
Modern EQ is WoW and all the clones that has proliferated over the last 8 years.
NO THANKS. make a new game, innovate and invent new designs or at least change the whole EQ concept. Give me Asheron's Call 2.0 or UO 2.0 any day of the week.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I find it interesting though how they instinctively thought of just one. But that and the fact that sony is currently making a carbon copy of DayZ aside for the moment in order to continue this conversation one has to establish what they mean by 'outshine'. Now given he is rebutting me before i can reply I need to know what he considers 'outshine' so that i can answer in the proper context.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I hate staring at a spellbook, camping, trains, and many ancient no-one-will-use-again mechanics ... so I say it is pretty well founded.
I mean, if you can get some insane devs to invest in something like that, don't expect me to play.
You are really splitting hairs here. There are so many more successful AAA games other there. If you don't know what they are, you must be very new to gaming. The only side that has anything to prove is the indie scene. You know, the scene that spews out 1000s of games and maybe 5 are gems. Ya, the large studios are really shaking in their boots
again...it depends on what you mean by 'outshine'.
If your measuring line is money earned then neither side can say for sure can they?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This ^^^
There are certainly count some successful fun (to me) indie games (like Van Helsing). But certainly there are many more AAA games which are entertaining and consistent. Just recently .. Wolfenstein is good, Sniper Elite v3 is fun (for me), and there is a huge backlog of AAA games that I have not yet finished (like Witcher 2 .. and 3 is on the horizon). Even something like D3 is getting fresh again because of new game modes and new builds (because of new gear) coming in the next patch. And the PvE content of Hearthstone is coming this month.
So much entertainment .. so little time ...
You can't be serious. Money is the bottom line for all game companies. Even your precious indies.
I asked the person who responded to me what he thinks of as 'outshine' so that we can be on the same page.
For me money doesn't mean its better but knowing what HE thinks it means helps me in responding such that I do not respond in a way that show MY bias toward game play itself rather than just income.
Now....
1. many companies do not report revenue so its all speculation.
2. If a AAA company spend twice as much on advertising as an indie does then pure number of boxes sold is also not a good indicator because AAA has to pay for those add while the indie does not.
3. If an indie company as 10 developers and a AAA has 200. One would assume that the AAA would get 20 times the positive coveratge and income. Something to ponder. A AAA gaming is not supposed to be better than an indie they are supposed to be 20 TIMES better.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You erroneously assume quality is linear in resources. Anyone in business knows that 80-20 rule .. the last 20 percent cost 80% of the resources.
It is a highly non-linear relationship with diminishing returns.
AAA is not supposed to be 20 times better .. but they are supposed to be better .. and they are in many cases (at least for me). I have yet to see an indie stealth game came close to the fun i had in Dishonored (Mark of the Ninja wasn't bad .. but it is no Dishonored either).
Thing is, the AAA games are usually a lot better then most indies. Personally, I have only seen a few indies even worth my money. AAA games on the other hand have launched a ton of good games in the last few years. Hell, I still have a mile long backlog of AAA games. Can't say the same for indies.
It might just be that indies are still pretty new and still haven't caught on for everyone. Maybe at some point they might even surpass AAA titles. That time is not now though.
I could not disagree more.
BUT that is both of our opinion.
If you look however at how many articles are being written about indies one would think 'if they are not doing as well as AAA then why isn't there 20 times more articles about AAA games'. why would the press be writing stories about games people don't seem to care about?
kinda odd
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Because they are novel? And there are more articles about AAA games than indie games. And no one says "more article" = "better games".
There are plenty of articles of failure of games too.
I agree with you on the red part. The articles you are talking about are just news fillers between AAA game launches. Not to mention it's a fairly new sub-genre. So people want to hear about it. Then again, just look at the home page on this site for example. Other then the Divinity review, where are all these indie articles you are talking about? Go to PCGamer, Gameinformer. The articles about AAA games to indies is a 1000 to 1. Not really sure where you are getting this idea that indies are taking over.
if there are more articles about indie games then does it not suggest that there are people who are also interested in them? Think about it for a second.
Also, I want to break this out mathematically a bit.
Lets say that for every developer you get a 1 quality rating.
So company X with 10 developers is expected to have a quality 10 game where company Y with 200 developers is expected to have 200 quality game.
If company X produces a game that is 11 (recall this is the one with 10 devs). Then it becomes very curious indeeded. Questions become well, if company Y does the same then they would be higher than 200 as well.
Thus if a company X even comes close to company Y in quality is a HUGE thing.
I argue (granted in my view) that many indie games EXCEED company Y making the ratio obscene
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
bad assumption.
Quality is not linear in resources. In fact, anyone who work in business know that is not true.
You are looking into this a lot deeper then I am. See, I just look to see which game is more fun for me. 99% of time it's a AAA game. I don't care if the game had 10 developers or 1000. If the game is not fun, what do I care about the algorithm involved?
Are you confused?
Divinity is nothing like EQ classic so I don't see your point
I can understand that. I however prefer indies to AAA because I find the game play better.
However the reason I say this is because its highly unfair to suggest a team of 10 should sell more or be better than a team of 200 in order of the point to be valid. very unfair.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Your comparing apples to oranges and as already pointed out in EQ's case your math simply doesn't add up.
As to Brad how many breaks does the man need? He names his own salary, decided when he'll get advances took 40% of the developement fund for Pantheon to pay hiself without telling anyone else on the team till they found out he had gutted the games funding and there was nothing left.
Seriously though you want EQ new so keep sending your money to Brad, I wish you best of luck.
http://www.carscoops.com/2014/07/spintires-surprises-on-steam-already.html
the smart AAA companies are paying attention
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
that's total BS and you know it.. He already stated he wasn't trying to think of all the AAA games he could he just mentioned one off hand, Actually he mentioned 2 if you read as Divinty wasn't made by a indie company persay . The fact you then try and stop him from actually posting a list of AAA games he could think of off hand that did well as it doesn't fit your arguement is in itself laughable and pretty lame.
+1 said better then I did.
I completely agree that the classic mmo can make a comeback. It will never happen though if the developer is shooting for Wow-like or even Swtor-like player numbers. The right company shooting for the proper "niche" that is old school mmorpg may and will hit the mark someday. The game must be developed around a specific game play style and community instead of opening the flood gates through F2P and ease of access development focus.
You stay sassy!
and this game where you drive a truck through mud to pick up wood is a subscription game like EQ1? If not then how are you not comparing apples to oranges.
if as you are saying the smart AAA companies are paying attention then the indies will be in trouble as the AAA companies should be able to produce the same quality game far quicker and cheaper then the indies. However since big companies also generally look for HUGE profit margins I'm guessing the indies that are happy with a million in profit are safe fro the triple A companies that want at least 50 million in profit, (just MO)
I honestly do not mind the wow-like MMOs, but what I would like to see more so than the Classic RPGs is more Sandbox MMORPGs, Where did they run off to? :P