The ROI of useful player crafting is on the way out. Loot and Gear Grind is easier
The ROI on a real player economy is null. Easier to RMT
The ROI on any kind of open world or free-form gameplay is out. Easier to do Levels, Classes, Instances
ROI is ignored--another indy sandbox that even the sandbox players ignore?
That's just preachin' for the status quo, right?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Housing is an important feature for some. Just because YOU dont think so doesnt make it so.
Housing just isn't that much of a dealbreaker to the majority of people playing any given game. A developer isn't going to pull programmers off of, say, raid content to go develop player housing. The number of people who may not play a game at all because it doesn't have endgame content is much, much, much higher than the number of people who might not play the game if it doesn't have housing.
Just because you want it doesn't necessarily make it fiscally worthwhile to implement.
Majority of the players never had it to know one way or another. But then you have the same people crying about the same formula of games being pushed. Just because WoW was successful doesn't mean it's the only way to do.
What direction is there to really go in MMORPG's outside of world building? Do you think MMORPG genre will survive pumping out WoW clone after WoW clone?
Sadly I think we are stuck with that for now.. So many current releases are basically WoW clones.. I tried Rift = cancelled.. I tried SWTOR = cancelled.. and soon as I read that Tera was doing dungeons and raids grinds..... I refuse to look any further.. It's just another WoW clone in my eyes.. I'll give GW2 a shot because atleast ti's only B2P and doesnt' cost a monthly sub to grind the same content over and over.. I hear that ArchAge might be going outside the box.. I love character and world building.. It baffles me how lazy devs have become over the years..
The ROI of useful player crafting is on the way out. Loot and Gear Grind is easier
The ROI on a real player economy is null. Easier to RMT
The ROI on any kind of open world or free-form gameplay is out. Easier to do Levels, Classes, Instances
ROI is ignored--another indy sandbox that even the sandbox players ignore?
That's just preachin' for the status quo, right?
Have you actually tried some of those indie sandbox? Have you ever tried an indie themepark? How many good indie MMORPG's have you played period? There aren't many. UO had a huge decently huge subscriber base despite being an introductory game and one that became the study grounds for MMORPG player behavior almost all games learned from. SWG was just a not that great of a game. It wasn't polished like modern MMORPG's but had some good idea's none the less.
Have you actually tried some of those indie sandbox?
I have! I have sincere doubts that more than one player in ten here has, however.
We want the population of WoW, in a far more popular version of SWG (that somehow was the big hit that the original never was)...we don't get it, so we complain incessantly, instead of giving the small developers some long term support.
Catch-22. Aim pistol at foot, pull trigger, complain that it hurts. And no, no simplistic solution exists.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Because it has never been a priority in any MMO after UO, and in UO it ruined the landscape.
Yet player housing is the only reason UO still exists.
And it did not ruin the landscape. It enhanced it. Each server has it's own unique feel to it with the customizations available. Different player cities and houses.
Because by and large it's become useless from a gaming standpoint.
Devs often try to find soemthing useful to do with homes, to encourage players to visit them often. But at best they end up being a location the player jumps into from time to time, to collect some special item, get a buff, ot craft. Then it's back out in the world the other 99% of the time. Why waste resources developing a segment of content players only spend a tiny amount of time in?
Also player hoursing is viewed as a staple of RPing, which has declined quite a bit in MMOs.
Keep in mind I'm not saying I have an opposition to player housing...I remember the fun I had opening up my Jobe house in AO for the first time and decking it out. But I don't thinkit's something enough people care about and will use for most mainstream developers to care.
I agree.
Housing as a side gimmick won't cut it. They need to find a way to make it more integral in the game or it will never gain relevance again.
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
All these developers are busy trying to hook ex-Wow PVPers so they don't have time to make thier games true virtual worlds and add real player housing.
Plus if you add any kind of space for a home it will be instanced and tied to virtual item store to dress it up for cash. it never truly is a virtual home you can just drop your shorts and lay in bed. that idea died with the launch and success of world of warcraft and ended when SWG shut down.
Don't expect it unless it's tied to a heavy grind to allow any kind of functionality or cost cash to unlock a chair.
Housing is an important feature for some. Just because YOU dont think so doesnt make it so.
Housing just isn't that much of a dealbreaker to the majority of people playing any given game. A developer isn't going to pull programmers off of, say, raid content to go develop player housing. The number of people who may not play a game at all because it doesn't have endgame content is much, much, much higher than the number of people who might not play the game if it doesn't have housing.
Just because you want it doesn't necessarily make it fiscally worthwhile to implement.
That is pragmatic. The ROI for housing is not the highest.
Of course it's pragmatic, this is business. They have X number of programmer hours to spend on development, they have to decide how best to utilize those hours to make the best, most cost effective game that will bring them the biggest ROI for their investors. The question is solely, where do we put these programmers that will bring us the most bang for our buck? Player housing, no matter how much some people might want it, just isn't a dealbreaker for most players, whereas many other things absolutely are.
Probably because the devs are correct. If he game sucks, I don't care if it has housing. Similar to the endgame issue. If the game sucks, what do I care of its endgame?
And why should housing in particular be a priority? (vs, like, crafting or w/e) It's not like every game needs housing, even.
What I see is that housing doesn't add to the game play so it adds nothing to the game but wasted coding. Maybe devs also see that wasted coding is wasted money that can go to important features.
It doesnt add anything to the gameplay for YOU. That doesnt mean it doesnt add to the gameplay for others.
Anything that adds enjoyment for people playing the game is not wasted coding.
Housing is an important feature for some. Just because YOU dont think so doesnt make it so.
If the "some" is not massive enough, dev are not going to care. If you are a dev, would you implement a feature that millions want (like LFD), or a feature that only a few people want?
When I was designing the concept for my very own MMO I made housing a top priority. Housing mattered for defense from monsters, for crafting and for social stuff. There were no NPC cities for housing to detract from for one thing.
Currently I am designing and actually coding an RTS/TBS/RPG/SIM hybrid game which is actually already playable because its a modified version of Glest Advanced Engine. I still work on my MMO but of course my current project could actually be finished whereas I have no chance of completing an MMO by myself.
That tangent is somewhat important because the game I am designing is similar in its pure concept to a sandbox MMO. It is focused around non mainstream features with unique and rare game systems that no commercial games use and also drawing from other genres like my MMO/RTS/RPG MMO game was doing to give value to ignored features.
When housing is necessary to play the game, when its totally destructable so that any unused and undefended structures are removed by the monsters quite qucikly or taken over by other players, when there is no NPC city hub for housing to detract from, when housing has multiple real effects on the game like socializing, crafting, defense, not getting your persistent always in the game world character killed, then people care about housing.
Housing only matters if you make it matter. Half assed tacked on housing will never make players happy. They will either ignore it, or trash it, or move to a game with real player structure systems.
Wasn't that the most popular new feature for two months or so back in the early 90s? In consoles?
Sorry, I just remember the FPSes going (briefly) insane en masse. Could be worse, the BLOOM phase or the darky-dark everyone loves exploring pitch black caves video phases.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Player Housing IS possible. It just is not a priority. If people do not like the game or if they do not find the game fun, they will not build a house.
The reasons make sense though. You could create the best housing feature-set we have ever seen in a game but if nobody enjoys the game to that point, they will not stick around just to have a cool house.?
Seem as if developers now days see no importance in this feature known as player housing. The quote has a point. If Developers put too much resources into Housing over other features, than players may not be interested in the game and wont build houses regardless of how detailed that feature is.
but why has this feature been tossed under the bus over the last few years? seem like this feature has become very unpopular in the developers offices lately.
Player Housing seem like a dynamic feature that gives players something to do when raiding/leveling/other grinds come to a end. Seem like a win win feature from a consumer point of view, but not from a developer.
What turn of events causes this?
player housing in every game i've played that has is has been GREAT. i dunno why, but it's a great side distraction from the core game. I'm no role player but the ability to place items from the dungeons and adventures i've had artifacts from places i've been has been a fun distraction. I wish this feature was in every game. LOTRO has the most fun housing i've experienced so far. (I'm playing Aion now so we shall see how fun that housing system is when i get there) in LOTRO one could collect artifacts decorations banners pictures maps from the quests and dungeons one does and place them in the home. Also, their housing system was a great money sink, not too expensive but just enough. Very nice design. I don't understand why housing isn't in every MMO either one would think the Devs would like to make the game the most fun it could be.
Housing is an important feature for some. Just because YOU dont think so doesnt make it so.
Housing just isn't that much of a dealbreaker to the majority of people playing any given game. A developer isn't going to pull programmers off of, say, raid content to go develop player housing. The number of people who may not play a game at all because it doesn't have endgame content is much, much, much higher than the number of people who might not play the game if it doesn't have housing.
Just because you want it doesn't necessarily make it fiscally worthwhile to implement.
That is pragmatic. The ROI for housing is not the highest.
Of course it's pragmatic, this is business. They have X number of programmer hours to spend on development, they have to decide how best to utilize those hours to make the best, most cost effective game that will bring them the biggest ROI for their investors. The question is solely, where do we put these programmers that will bring us the most bang for our buck? Player housing, no matter how much some people might want it, just isn't a dealbreaker for most players, whereas many other things absolutely are.
I don't think some of the gamers around here care to think about it.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Not developing something for the sole reason that most players won't enjoy it or see it is a poor excuse.
How do you think artists feel? Or architects, or movie producers, or musicians, or engineers, or scientists. Spending years working on some scientific formula only for 100 or so other scientists. Spending years on a painting so only a few collectors can look upon it. Pooring your heart and soul into a song x, only for song y to become #1...
The point is, only developing what you want to develop or what you think will be popular is arrogent at best, and lazy and greedy at worst. More and higher quality details make any painting look better.
Of course it's pragmatic, this is business. They have X number of programmer hours to spend on development, they have to decide how best to utilize those hours to make the best, most cost effective game that will bring them the biggest ROI for their investors. The question is solely, where do we put these programmers that will bring us the most bang for our buck? Player housing, no matter how much some people might want it, just isn't a dealbreaker for most players, whereas many other things absolutely are.
I don't think some of the gamers around here care to think about it.
That's the problem, lots of gamers just aren't realistic. They want what they want and who cares if what they want is ridiculous, they still want it. They don't understand that there are limits and tradeoffs and that developers are in business to make money.
Not that fighting for player housing on a forum site will do one iota of good, but it's a topic I feel strongly about, so I feel a need to "chime in." My favorite MMORPG that I've played is probably EQ2 and the reason for that was many many varied things, but not the least of which was player housing. Player housing gave me a place in the world that felt like it was MINE. I decorated it, designed it, and crafted most of what was in it....for several characters....each house having a different theme. It was fun, it was creatively challenging, and it was competitive. There were large groups of people that showcased their houses on forums and websites and competed, in a sense, with other designers. It was pure fun. It was ONE of the best parts of the game.
Every game that doesn't have housing....gets less of my gamer's heart. If you, as a developer, don't see fit to give me my own space in your world.....why would I want to "live" there?
Now I get you. I even agree with you. But I do have to ask you...how much of your time did you spend in your house? What percentage of gaming time was in there doing something, as opposed to being outside? I'm betting that, even as a positive estimate, it was maybe 25%. Let's jsut say it was. Let's just say out of every hour of game play, you spent 15 minutes in your home, another 15 minutes in cities/hub locations, and the other 30 minutes in instances/questing. Probably a fair allotment, maybe even generous for the first two categories.
Should I, as a developer, spend money developing a portion of the game content that you do not use 75% of the time? And honestly, I think in most games with player housing, the average % of time spent in a house is FAR less. Am I giving you the best experience by focusing on a portion of content hardly ever used?
What I THINK a dveloper needs to do is encourage a housing system where it can be part of mainstream progression. Take GW2 for example. Imagine your home could have farms you could gather materials for xp and loot. Crafting tablets, so you could level up there too. Imagine every bit of work you did designing, building, and outfitting your home contributed to your progression as a character, and could be used just as readily as killing mobs/questing/what have you. Imagine DEs spawning where NPC robers attack your home, and you have to run back anf kick them out. Or other interactive gameplay elements like that.
Put that in a game and I think housing will become more viable.
I don't spend a huge amount of time in my house except when I get a bunch of new stuff and need to re-arrange things. Usually I get quest and other rewards slowly enough that it just builds on itself. It's not that I spend a lot of time in the house doing nothing, but that I spend a huge amount of time everywhere else in the game to get the odd rewards to put in my house. It is a showcase of my achievements and filled with mementos of my adventures. If I didn't have that piece of the gameworld that is all my own to come back to I probably never would have returned to EQ2 the second time.
Good housing is what keeps me coming back to a game whenI take a break, but it isn't where I spend a huge amount of my time. In my opinion it is a resource worth doing right. I think personalization and ownership mean a lot in a typically transient and shallow virtual world.
Both good responses. I appreciate both, thank you. However, I DID spend a good deal of time in my house. I did crafting in my house too and in EQ2 you actually (well...used to anyway, I'm not sure about now, I've been gone over 6 mths) can make a "living" in the game via your crafting. My cook made a small fortune because of the need for raid foods and drinks.
Anyway....no one can change my mind about housing being important for ME. I know most young kids playing games now don't care at all about it, which is fine. I go with the flow to keep gaming, BUT....I will never be as committed to a game that does not give me my own personal space to grow and build. That's just me, but it's 100 PERCENT me. Housing in a game makes the game more robust to me and makes me more apt to continue to be a part of said game as well.
Wasn't that the most popular new feature for two months or so back in the early 90s? In consoles?
Sorry, I just remember the FPSes going (briefly) insane en masse. Could be worse, the BLOOM phase or the darky-dark everyone loves exploring pitch black caves video phases.
Destructuable .. but not buildable. I think Starhawks is the one which has both recently. If you know more games are doing this, do enlighten.
Red Faction Armageddon does have destructable environment, and you can "restore" destroyed stuff .. but you cannot put a structure anywhere you want to.
Anyway....no one can change my mind about housing being important for ME. I know most young kids playing games now don't care at all about it, which is fine. I go with the flow to keep gaming, BUT....I will never be as committed to a game that does not give me my own personal space to grow and build. That's just me, but it's 100 PERCENT me. Housing in a game makes the game more robust to me and makes me more apt to continue to be a part of said game as well.
Every feature is important to someone. There are people who want permanant death as adamante as you want your housing.
The real question is how many are there out there like you? Obviously since dev is not paying attention to this feature, there are not many.
Of course it's pragmatic, this is business. They have X number of programmer hours to spend on development, they have to decide how best to utilize those hours to make the best, most cost effective game that will bring them the biggest ROI for their investors. The question is solely, where do we put these programmers that will bring us the most bang for our buck? Player housing, no matter how much some people might want it, just isn't a dealbreaker for most players, whereas many other things absolutely are.
I don't think some of the gamers around here care to think about it.
That's the problem, lots of gamers just aren't realistic. They want what they want and who cares if what they want is ridiculous, they still want it. They don't understand that there are limits and tradeoffs and that developers are in business to make money.
As to the OP's thread title. Housing might not have been a "priority" but rather the devs throwing out number of different things in a new gaming style and seeing what sticks. Had housing clearly demonstrated housing as a sales imperative there is no doubt that housing would be here today.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I really like the point about player owned structures. In SWG I got to visit player run shopping malls, small shops, a zoo that charged admission, player run hospitals, an art gallery, guild cities with mission terminals and shuttles, harvesters, etc etc.
The buildings were not just personal storage space.
Sadly I don't think we will ever see anything like what SWG had for a complex player owned structure system again.
The reason this isn't in games like WoW is because you have to design it as a core feature, a lot of systems and the world design are directly linked to the functionality of these buildings.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Of course it's pragmatic, this is business. They have X number of programmer hours to spend on development, they have to decide how best to utilize those hours to make the best, most cost effective game that will bring them the biggest ROI for their investors. The question is solely, where do we put these programmers that will bring us the most bang for our buck? Player housing, no matter how much some people might want it, just isn't a dealbreaker for most players, whereas many other things absolutely are.
I don't think some of the gamers around here care to think about it.
That's the problem, lots of gamers just aren't realistic. They want what they want and who cares if what they want is ridiculous, they still want it. They don't understand that there are limits and tradeoffs and that developers are in business to make money.
As to the OP's thread title. Housing might not have been a "priority" but rather the devs throwing out number of different things in a new gaming style and seeing what sticks. Had housing clearly demonstrated housing as a sales imperative there is no doubt that housing would be here today.
The amusing part is that you guys think that people who want housing are apparently a very small population, combined with this idea of crappy housing you all have in mind, which makes you have this opinion in the first place. Yeah, people who are into housing are likely something of a minority, but there are more than enough to support the idea financially in games.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
Comments
ROI is ignored--another indy sandbox that even the sandbox players ignore?
That's just preachin' for the status quo, right?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Sadly I think we are stuck with that for now.. So many current releases are basically WoW clones.. I tried Rift = cancelled.. I tried SWTOR = cancelled.. and soon as I read that Tera was doing dungeons and raids grinds..... I refuse to look any further.. It's just another WoW clone in my eyes.. I'll give GW2 a shot because atleast ti's only B2P and doesnt' cost a monthly sub to grind the same content over and over.. I hear that ArchAge might be going outside the box.. I love character and world building.. It baffles me how lazy devs have become over the years..
Have you actually tried some of those indie sandbox? Have you ever tried an indie themepark? How many good indie MMORPG's have you played period? There aren't many. UO had a huge decently huge subscriber base despite being an introductory game and one that became the study grounds for MMORPG player behavior almost all games learned from. SWG was just a not that great of a game. It wasn't polished like modern MMORPG's but had some good idea's none the less.
I have! I have sincere doubts that more than one player in ten here has, however.
We want the population of WoW, in a far more popular version of SWG (that somehow was the big hit that the original never was)...we don't get it, so we complain incessantly, instead of giving the small developers some long term support.
Catch-22. Aim pistol at foot, pull trigger, complain that it hurts. And no, no simplistic solution exists.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Yet player housing is the only reason UO still exists.
And it did not ruin the landscape. It enhanced it. Each server has it's own unique feel to it with the customizations available. Different player cities and houses.
I agree.
Housing as a side gimmick won't cut it. They need to find a way to make it more integral in the game or it will never gain relevance again.
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
All these developers are busy trying to hook ex-Wow PVPers so they don't have time to make thier games true virtual worlds and add real player housing.
Plus if you add any kind of space for a home it will be instanced and tied to virtual item store to dress it up for cash. it never truly is a virtual home you can just drop your shorts and lay in bed. that idea died with the launch and success of world of warcraft and ended when SWG shut down.
Don't expect it unless it's tied to a heavy grind to allow any kind of functionality or cost cash to unlock a chair.
Of course it's pragmatic, this is business. They have X number of programmer hours to spend on development, they have to decide how best to utilize those hours to make the best, most cost effective game that will bring them the biggest ROI for their investors. The question is solely, where do we put these programmers that will bring us the most bang for our buck? Player housing, no matter how much some people might want it, just isn't a dealbreaker for most players, whereas many other things absolutely are.
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
Probably because the devs are correct. If he game sucks, I don't care if it has housing. Similar to the endgame issue. If the game sucks, what do I care of its endgame?
And why should housing in particular be a priority? (vs, like, crafting or w/e) It's not like every game needs housing, even.
If the "some" is not massive enough, dev are not going to care. If you are a dev, would you implement a feature that millions want (like LFD), or a feature that only a few people want?
When I was designing the concept for my very own MMO I made housing a top priority. Housing mattered for defense from monsters, for crafting and for social stuff. There were no NPC cities for housing to detract from for one thing.
Currently I am designing and actually coding an RTS/TBS/RPG/SIM hybrid game which is actually already playable because its a modified version of Glest Advanced Engine. I still work on my MMO but of course my current project could actually be finished whereas I have no chance of completing an MMO by myself.
That tangent is somewhat important because the game I am designing is similar in its pure concept to a sandbox MMO. It is focused around non mainstream features with unique and rare game systems that no commercial games use and also drawing from other genres like my MMO/RTS/RPG MMO game was doing to give value to ignored features.
When housing is necessary to play the game, when its totally destructable so that any unused and undefended structures are removed by the monsters quite qucikly or taken over by other players, when there is no NPC city hub for housing to detract from, when housing has multiple real effects on the game like socializing, crafting, defense, not getting your persistent always in the game world character killed, then people care about housing.
Housing only matters if you make it matter. Half assed tacked on housing will never make players happy. They will either ignore it, or trash it, or move to a game with real player structure systems.
I love housing. That's why I find EQ2 so appealing. Although sometimes the Sims looks like a good option for housing fanboys.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
The only modern game that integrate player built (and destructable) structures into combat gameplay is Starhawk. Is that game doing well?
Wasn't that the most popular new feature for two months or so back in the early 90s? In consoles?
Sorry, I just remember the FPSes going (briefly) insane en masse. Could be worse, the BLOOM phase or the darky-dark everyone loves exploring pitch black caves video phases.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
player housing in every game i've played that has is has been GREAT. i dunno why, but it's a great side distraction from the core game. I'm no role player but the ability to place items from the dungeons and adventures i've had artifacts from places i've been has been a fun distraction. I wish this feature was in every game. LOTRO has the most fun housing i've experienced so far. (I'm playing Aion now so we shall see how fun that housing system is when i get there) in LOTRO one could collect artifacts decorations banners pictures maps from the quests and dungeons one does and place them in the home. Also, their housing system was a great money sink, not too expensive but just enough. Very nice design. I don't understand why housing isn't in every MMO either one would think the Devs would like to make the game the most fun it could be.
I don't think some of the gamers around here care to think about it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Not developing something for the sole reason that most players won't enjoy it or see it is a poor excuse.
How do you think artists feel? Or architects, or movie producers, or musicians, or engineers, or scientists. Spending years working on some scientific formula only for 100 or so other scientists. Spending years on a painting so only a few collectors can look upon it. Pooring your heart and soul into a song x, only for song y to become #1...
The point is, only developing what you want to develop or what you think will be popular is arrogent at best, and lazy and greedy at worst. More and higher quality details make any painting look better.
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
That's the problem, lots of gamers just aren't realistic. They want what they want and who cares if what they want is ridiculous, they still want it. They don't understand that there are limits and tradeoffs and that developers are in business to make money.
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
Both good responses. I appreciate both, thank you. However, I DID spend a good deal of time in my house. I did crafting in my house too and in EQ2 you actually (well...used to anyway, I'm not sure about now, I've been gone over 6 mths) can make a "living" in the game via your crafting. My cook made a small fortune because of the need for raid foods and drinks.
Anyway....no one can change my mind about housing being important for ME. I know most young kids playing games now don't care at all about it, which is fine. I go with the flow to keep gaming, BUT....I will never be as committed to a game that does not give me my own personal space to grow and build. That's just me, but it's 100 PERCENT me. Housing in a game makes the game more robust to me and makes me more apt to continue to be a part of said game as well.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Destructuable .. but not buildable. I think Starhawks is the one which has both recently. If you know more games are doing this, do enlighten.
Red Faction Armageddon does have destructable environment, and you can "restore" destroyed stuff .. but you cannot put a structure anywhere you want to.
Every feature is important to someone. There are people who want permanant death as adamante as you want your housing.
The real question is how many are there out there like you? Obviously since dev is not paying attention to this feature, there are not many.
As to the OP's thread title. Housing might not have been a "priority" but rather the devs throwing out number of different things in a new gaming style and seeing what sticks. Had housing clearly demonstrated housing as a sales imperative there is no doubt that housing would be here today.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I really like the point about player owned structures. In SWG I got to visit player run shopping malls, small shops, a zoo that charged admission, player run hospitals, an art gallery, guild cities with mission terminals and shuttles, harvesters, etc etc.
The buildings were not just personal storage space.
Sadly I don't think we will ever see anything like what SWG had for a complex player owned structure system again.
The reason this isn't in games like WoW is because you have to design it as a core feature, a lot of systems and the world design are directly linked to the functionality of these buildings.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The amusing part is that you guys think that people who want housing are apparently a very small population, combined with this idea of crappy housing you all have in mind, which makes you have this opinion in the first place. Yeah, people who are into housing are likely something of a minority, but there are more than enough to support the idea financially in games.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.