if you walk into the only bakery in town and all they have are donuts how do you know that your customers do not like cheese cake?
This assumption that the gaming market is completely a demand issue and not a supply issue is getting silly.
But we do have housing in many games, and it is not a hugely demanded/popular feature.
TOR got ripped by its user base demanding LFD because WOW has it.
Did the WOW player base demand housing because EQ2 (and many other games) has it? No.
This is the ignorance of the "WoW effect." If any game isn't a DIRECT carbon copy with all the features, those sheep will whine and cry about not having it. But when the game is so close to the same design, they complain that they would just play WoW instead.
Developers need to stop listening to these morons and actually develop a game that isn't a copy/paste of that social monstrosity.
Your average MMO gamer today though logs in and goes "What do I do?". The issue here is most people can't function without knowing what to do or have a route for it. I really think it's just built into our DNA has humans.
Trying to explain housing to most people isn't worth it because when they think housing in an MMO they are going to think "Why? I have a bank". This all comes down to people being trained to be on a certain path so they aren't used to actually sitting around and socialising just for the fuck of it or actually being exposed to what I called "true" MMORPGs (they've basically taking the RPG out of it)
They want to log in and go go go go go until they "beat" the game. People don't want to "waste time" (which I get if you have maybe only couple hours), but this wouldn't be an issue if people weren't in a race to beat a non-beatable game. It's how most people are programmed unfortunately unless you actually got to experience or have experienced some legit sandbox games. Somehow the MMO market grabbed the FPS crowd or it's their mindset atleast.
Seems to me back in the day MMOs were built to last years. Now they are built to get the cash grab and go F2P within 4 months of release. People also don't think of Housing as endgame, which I do. But, like I said, the mechanics of the game have to kind of support the housing.
Games like UO, The Repopulation, Darkfall, SWG. Those games work perfect with housing.
Games like WoW, Rift, your basic themepark just don't and probably won't because of the way everything is set up. It has to be in the open world though or just outline a giant area within the game that can be used for housing, or certain areas (think Warhammer RvR lakes instead with housing all within that).
I think its the difference between 'being the best' and 'being first' way of thinking.
'being first' people are intrested in new ideas and always thinking creatively.
'being the best' people dont care what the rules are they just want to win at the most popular standardized rules.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
like I have already pointed out a few times the housing is those games are EXPLICTLY designed to be sh*ty.
They are basically the used car dealership making you think all cars have 200k miles on them with no air coditioning.
Which of those games gives you an ADVANTAGE for visting someones house?
which one of those games allows you to make a crafting room that has supplies that can not be gathered anywhere else in the region?
which one of those games allows you to have a shop offering goods to people that can not be gained anywhere else.
Where the hell do you come up with these theories? Take off your tinfoil hat.
There is no chance that any developer purposefully designs something bad. They only do it within certain timeframe/budget, and you've been told time and time again its not a priority. So they don't get much if any attention unless you're specifically targeting that niche. WoW wasn't targeted towards that niche - it was targeted towards a larger niche, the mainstream niche. Their customers don't give a two shits about housing. That is why Blizzard hasn't spent any time implementing a housing system. That time was better spent in other areas which their customers actually want.
And where is your information coming from showing that people don't want housing in WoW? Because last time I checked, majority of their playerbase is extremely casual, and casual players love fluff because major content is not what they focus on.
I personally love housing and don't know why anyone would want it excluded, it's more content. It makes no sense why people would argue against it. Are you people just mad that you're only thirteen and incapable of owning your own house in real life?
like I have already pointed out a few times the housing is those games are EXPLICTLY designed to be sh*ty.
They are basically the used car dealership making you think all cars have 200k miles on them with no air coditioning.
Which of those games gives you an ADVANTAGE for visting someones house?
which one of those games allows you to make a crafting room that has supplies that can not be gathered anywhere else in the region?
which one of those games allows you to have a shop offering goods to people that can not be gained anywhere else.
Where the hell do you come up with these theories? Take off your tinfoil hat.
There is no chance that any developer purposefully designs something bad. They only do it within certain timeframe/budget, and you've been told time and time again its not a priority. So they don't get much if any attention unless you're specifically targeting that niche. WoW wasn't targeted towards that niche - it was targeted towards a larger niche, the mainstream niche. Their customers don't give a two shits about housing. That is why Blizzard hasn't spent any time implementing a housing system. That time was better spent in other areas which their customers actually want.
first off you are confusing creative ideas with not having the money with 'tinfoil' theories. you are all over the map. That is ok I will pick it up and get it more organized for you.
1. forgetting for a moment about budgets which is an entirely different conversation. The basic point that many people are not intrested in housing becuase housing itself is EXPLICTLY development to be pointless has merit. If housing was more rubust people would like it.
2. now to your money problems. I am not address it becuase ITS NOT PART OF THIS CONVERSATION.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
if you walk into the only bakery in town and all they have are donuts how do you know that your customers do not like cheese cake?
This assumption that the gaming market is completely a demand issue and not a supply issue is getting silly.
But we do have housing in many games, and it is not a hugely demanded/popular feature.
TOR got ripped by its user base demanding LFD because WOW has it.
Did the WOW player base demand housing because EQ2 (and many other games) has it? No.
This is the ignorance of the "WoW effect." If any game isn't a DIRECT carbon copy with all the features, those sheep will whine and cry about not having it. But when the game is so close to the same design, they complain that they would just play WoW instead.
Developers need to stop listening to these morons and actually develop a game that isn't a copy/paste of that social monstrosity.
ahhaha .. you don't like it so it is bad?
The "wow effect" is that a good fun game is successful. The "wow effect" is that good features like LFD/LFR will be in demand.
1. forgetting for a moment about budgets which is an entirely different conversation. The basic point that many people are not intrested in housing becuase housing itself is EXPLICTLY development to be pointless has merit. If housing was more rubust people would like it.
A totally base-less assumption. There is no evidence for or counter to this point.
Plus, what is a "more robust housing"? It is meaningless to discuss somethign that is purely in your imagination. You can imagine how YOU will like it .. that obviously would not translate to me, or the 47M MMO players in the US.
1. forgetting for a moment about budgets which is an entirely different conversation. The basic point that many people are not intrested in housing becuase housing itself is EXPLICTLY development to be pointless has merit. If housing was more rubust people would like it.
A totally base-less assumption. There is no evidence for or counter to this point.
Plus, what is a "more robust housing"? It is meaningless to discuss somethign that is purely in your imagination. You can imagine how YOU will like it .. that obviously would not translate to me, or the 47M MMO players in the US.
look its not hard to figure out.
what is the basic problem with housing? there is literally not a single action that improves your character or his adventures in the field at all whatsoever in any shape or form. Developers went OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure without any deviation or possibility that housing will be meaningless.
Making housing meaningful is A HUGE step in making it actually good. Odd thing about humans, we tend to get bored when something has zero meaning or context to the greater part of what we are doing.
OF COURSE few people like a gaming feature that has no context at all whatsoever in any shape possibly imagined to the greater context of the game. That is the main problem with housing how people cant see that is beyond me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. forgetting for a moment about budgets which is an entirely different conversation. The basic point that many people are not intrested in housing becuase housing itself is EXPLICTLY development to be pointless has merit. If housing was more rubust people would like it.
A totally base-less assumption. There is no evidence for or counter to this point.
Plus, what is a "more robust housing"? It is meaningless to discuss somethign that is purely in your imagination. You can imagine how YOU will like it .. that obviously would not translate to me, or the 47M MMO players in the US.
look its not hard to figure out.
what is the basic problem with housing? there is literally not a single action that improves your character or his adventures in the field at all whatsoever in any shape or form. Developers went OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure without any deviation or possibility that housing will be meaningless.
Making housing meaningful is A HUGE step in making it actually good. Odd thing about humans, we tend to get bored when something has zero meaning or context to the greater part of what we are doing.
Well, you are only explaining why CURRENT HOUSING does not catch on. Which is fine and i agree.
But that does not mean that improving it will make it popular. People may just don't care, just like i won't care if a game has the best starting menu in town. That is not the reason i play a game.
Showing what does not work BEFORE, does not mean the opposite will work in the future.
So once again, you have no evidence and it is just your imagination. I won't believe you until there is some evidence.
Saying you can "making housing meaningful" is vague and useless. 1) There may not be ways to make it "meaning" for many players, 2) it may be too expensive, 3) may be no one cares .. you just don't know.
1. forgetting for a moment about budgets which is an entirely different conversation. The basic point that many people are not intrested in housing becuase housing itself is EXPLICTLY development to be pointless has merit. If housing was more rubust people would like it.
A totally base-less assumption. There is no evidence for or counter to this point.
Plus, what is a "more robust housing"? It is meaningless to discuss somethign that is purely in your imagination. You can imagine how YOU will like it .. that obviously would not translate to me, or the 47M MMO players in the US.
look its not hard to figure out.
what is the basic problem with housing? there is literally not a single action that improves your character or his adventures in the field at all whatsoever in any shape or form. Developers went OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure without any deviation or possibility that housing will be meaningless.
Making housing meaningful is A HUGE step in making it actually good. Odd thing about humans, we tend to get bored when something has zero meaning or context to the greater part of what we are doing.
Well, you are only explaining why CURRENT HOUSING does not catch on. Which is fine and i agree.
But that does not mean that improving it will make it popular. People may just don't care, just like i won't care if a game has the best starting menu in town. That is not the reason i play a game.
Showing what does not work BEFORE, does not mean the opposite will work in the future.
So once again, you have no evidence and it is just your imagination. I won't believe you until there is some evidence.
Saying you can "making housing meaningful" is vague and useless. 1) There may not be ways to make it "meaning" for many players, 2) it may be too expensive, 3) may be no one cares .. you just don't know.
how do you know they wouldnt care?
if they made housing part of your characters progress my view is that people like housing a LOT more than they do now. You disagree. reality is likely somewhere between the two. How do we proove it?
added: and as far as I am concerned unless a developers says something extreemly close to 'good player housing is possible but we dont want to spend the money' then using 'money' as justification for statement of 'players dont like housing' isnt going to work for me. developers are saying we dont want it, they are NOT saying they cant afford it. We should debate based on their word, if they are not telling the truth then we should have THAT conversation, not blow the lie to the side and make up random exuses for them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Where it's a bad thing ? It's a solo-only feature that consumes some vital space in a group-oriented genre.
Why is it solo only? In SWG, I shared a house with another player. We had a large house on Naboo and lived near a player city which, since it took a gorup of players to build, was also not solo. My structures were almost always open to the public so people wandering the wilds could walk in, use the vendors, check out the decoration, etc. As a merchant, I set up some good relationships with repeat customers that way.
Now, I could certainly make structures private, and in the case of my "crafting workshop" house, I did. But, the option for it to be solo and the mandate that it is solo are two different things. Thats like me choosing to quest solo or grouping up with a buddy to do quests. Really, housing can be a social tool just like anything else, but, as many have stated, it needs to be designed with such goals in mind
edit: saw you added "It's like requesting an Angry Bird minigame in WoW : It can be done, and some people will enjoy it, but it's not a priority at all." and couldn't resist.
Angry Birds might not make it, but plenty of room for Plants vs Zombies eh? (http://youtu.be/aWI5XTmGrmo long video, but you get the point)
It's a "solo" feature because no one cares about people's virtual house
(except very rare and ponctual exceptions)
its not if you were crafting a motorcycle and to assemble it you had to find a home that had a motorcycle garage.
Developers EXPLICTLY make housing a virtual single player experience. its doesnt mean it has to be that way.
People underestimate the technology we are dealing with. Nearly anything that can be imagined can be created in a virtual enviroment but what gets developed is EXTREEMLY narrow compared to what is possible
This is true, and I hope that developers one day set things in better perspective. Imagination gets more limited everyday.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
if you walk into the only bakery in town and all they have are donuts how do you know that your customers do not like cheese cake?
This assumption that the gaming market is completely a demand issue and not a supply issue is getting silly.
If they're buying donuts, it doesn't really matter because they're still paying the bakery.
The problem here is that it rests on the people who want player housing to make sure the developers know this. You have to go to them and express your interest. Bitching in a forum doesn't do anything. It's the number of potential players who demand the feature that make a difference. Unless you can get 50k people going to developers and asking for player housing, forget it. This is especially true if you people are just going to play the game anyhow. What do they care if they don't waste the time or money on a feature when you're going to hand over your money regardless?
if you walk into the only bakery in town and all they have are donuts how do you know that your customers do not like cheese cake?
This assumption that the gaming market is completely a demand issue and not a supply issue is getting silly.
If they're buying donuts, it doesn't really matter because they're still paying the bakery.
The problem here is that it rests on the people who want player housing to make sure the developers know this. You have to go to them and express your interest. Bitching in a forum doesn't do anything. It's the number of potential players who demand the feature that make a difference. Unless you can get 50k people going to developers and asking for player housing, forget it. This is especially true if you people are just going to play the game anyhow. What do they care if they don't waste the time or money on a feature when you're going to hand over your money regardless?
actually I dont really have a strong intrest in housing to be honest. I am just explaining to people why the developer statement of 'people do not like housing much' is a silly one given the functions developers have currently applied to housing. I am in the end not really a big housing advocate, I just see the obvious sillyness in their statements.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Housing worked great in UO, and it served many different functions, for all kinds of people.
1. Crafters - If you crafted, you placed a house near a mine, good wood area, etc... Raw materials were heavy and you were better off being close to the house for that reason and for pks. You could unload more often and quicker. Plus have all of your crafting equipment.
2. Vendors - A lot of houses near heavily used cities were good for vendors, since their was no central auction facility. If you had a good spot, you could sell tons of goods. People would drop recall runes to get people to visit their shop that had a bad location, but some people liked to make runes in bad spots of dungeons there for a while, was not fun to recall into a dragon heh. Also outside of dungeons where people would often die, it was good to sell kits that people could buy to help them go get their body back.
3. Dungeon adventurers - If you had a favorite dungeon, it was nice to be close to it, or a land spawning point for something you liked to farm.
4. PKs - Their were many different advantages for PKs, to have houses placed for them and their non-pk alts. Usually had to do with their hunting area, good refuge, and switch out point...
5. Guilds - pooling together to get a nice castle/keep/tower in a nice spot for the guild to moon gate or recall off of a rune together to a hunting spot or anything else they were doing....Lots of people role played and made towns, held events and such also.
Housing was popular in UO, and I can't think of anyone I played with that did not own a house, and it was a neccesity for them, despite having banks, boats (they could store stuff), and alts banks. I do not know if themepark and housing will ever have that neccesity. I liked my house in Vanguard, but it was more extended bank space than dwelling, even though I had fun with all the xmas stuff they gave out and made it pretty crazy looking. I really dislike instanced housing, and would be fine with just more bank space, if thats the option.
On a side note, if they relaunched an official classic UO server and kept with the original theme of doing expansion type stuff, I would be back and be good....I dislike the new skill systems and such...2D client is fine by me.... I know its never happening, so I gotta hope EQ3 will bring back some of what original EQ was like (before LDoN and instance fests), but i am not too hopeful.
if they made housing part of your characters progress my view is that people like housing a LOT more than they do now. You disagree. reality is likely somewhere between the two. How do we proove it?
I don't
I only say "they MAY not care". No one knows. That is the point. You claim there is a market. I only claim you have no evidence and that you do not know. I did NOT claim that there is no market.
You cannot prove it until you have evidence of something that works.
if they made housing part of your characters progress my view is that people like housing a LOT more than they do now. You disagree. reality is likely somewhere between the two. How do we proove it?
I don't
I only say "they MAY not care". No one knows. That is the point. You claim there is a market. I only claim you have no evidence and that you do not know. I did NOT claim that there is no market.
You cannot prove it until you have evidence of something that works.
True.
Only thing is, there isnt really GOOD evidence for the inverse either and a lot of people seem to take that position. I am going out of a limb here (because I am a crazy risk taker) and I am going to say I think that there is a good chance people would like housing a lot more then they do now if housing were better and I have zero evidence to back it up. but then again, I have b*lls
ADDED: actually using your baselines for proof these two statements would be more true then not true.
1. gamers like to kill people because the evidence we have suggests it.
2. more gamers would not play if free bl*w jobs were offered becasue we dont have any evidence suggesting that it would.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
if they made housing part of your characters progress my view is that people like housing a LOT more than they do now. You disagree. reality is likely somewhere between the two. How do we proove it?
I don't
I only say "they MAY not care". No one knows. That is the point. You claim there is a market. I only claim you have no evidence and that you do not know. I did NOT claim that there is no market.
You cannot prove it until you have evidence of something that works.
True.
Only thing is, there isnt really GOOD evidence for the inverse either and a lot of people seem to take that position. I am going out of a limb here (because I am a crazy risk taker) and I am going to say I think that there is a good chance people would like housing a lot more then they do now if housing were better and I have zero evidence to back it up. but then again, I have b*lls
ADDED: actually using your baselines for proof these two statements would be more true then not true.
1. gamers like to kill people because the evidence we have suggests it.
2. more gamers would not play if free bl*w jobs were offered becasue we dont have any evidence suggesting that it would.
I don't agree with (1) since there is no gamer (or very few) that actually kill a person. Virtual violence is not the same as real violence.
(2) .. yeah .. i agree. There is simply no evidence. Wnat to set up an experiment to test that? Note that it is perfectly fine to propose any hypothesis.
I would have no objection if you statement is "my hypothesis is that if housing is improve (in whatever way), then the demand will be much higher". You are obviously entitled to your opinion, and making any hypothesis.
The real question is, will you bet $1M or your own money on your hypothesis. I won't bet a single cent on the demand of housing features. Will you?
if they made housing part of your characters progress my view is that people like housing a LOT more than they do now. You disagree. reality is likely somewhere between the two. How do we proove it?
I don't
I only say "they MAY not care". No one knows. That is the point. You claim there is a market. I only claim you have no evidence and that you do not know. I did NOT claim that there is no market.
You cannot prove it until you have evidence of something that works.
True.
Only thing is, there isnt really GOOD evidence for the inverse either and a lot of people seem to take that position. I am going out of a limb here (because I am a crazy risk taker) and I am going to say I think that there is a good chance people would like housing a lot more then they do now if housing were better and I have zero evidence to back it up. but then again, I have b*lls
ADDED: actually using your baselines for proof these two statements would be more true then not true.
1. gamers like to kill people because the evidence we have suggests it.
2. more gamers would not play if free bl*w jobs were offered becasue we dont have any evidence suggesting that it would.
I don't agree with (1) since there is no gamer (or very few) that actually kill a person. Virtual violence is not the same as real violence.
(2) .. yeah .. i agree. There is simply no evidence. Wnat to set up an experiment to test that? Note that it is perfectly fine to propose any hypothesis.
I would have no objection if you statement is "my hypothesis is that if housing is improve (in whatever way), then the demand will be much higher". You are obviously entitled to your opinion, and making any hypothesis.
The real question is, will you bet $1M or your own money on your hypothesis. I won't bet a single cent on the demand of housing features. Will you?
if I had 10mil yes I would bet 1mil on my 'hypothesis' that I feel pretty confident in
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
if I had 10mil yes I would bet 1mil on my 'hypothesis' that I feel pretty confident in
Meaning you don't have that much confidence. Would you bet every last cent you had that housing, done perfectly, however you want to define it, would make an MMO successful?
Meaning you don't have that much confidence. Would you bet every last cent you had that housing, done perfectly, however you want to define it, would make an MMO successful?
You're aware that the redefinition game, once begun, reaches ad absurdum remarkably quickly, yes? Might not be a free license you want to offer.
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.
Meaning you don't have that much confidence. Would you bet every last cent you had that housing, done perfectly, however you want to define it, would make an MMO successful?
You're aware that the redefinition game, once begun, reaches ad absurdum remarkably quickly, yes? Might not be a free license you want to offer.
Yes and no. It depends on how you define ad absurdum, because ..
I kid! I kid!
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
if I had 10mil yes I would bet 1mil on my 'hypothesis' that I feel pretty confident in
Meaning you don't have that much confidence. Would you bet every last cent you had that housing, done perfectly, however you want to define it, would make an MMO successful?
it has nothing to do with confidence it does however have a lot to do with the fact that I personally have many things more important I want to spend money on then game investments. Plus, to be honest if I had 1 million dollars to invest I wouldnt invest in ANYTHING. I would put it in the bank and just live simply of that.
I will say this however, IF I had decided to create an MMO with my own money you bet your a$$ i would put in very good housing and I WOULDNT waste money on 1/2 a$$ed housing like most devs do. If I am going to do it, its not going to be fluff
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, frankly, I dont know the answer to this. But, its not all as bad as you may think. GW2, will have "districts", sorta like personal housing. Rifts will have "slivers" in their new expac coming this year. We still have EQ2 (which has the best implementation of housing imho). There's also Vanguard with their terrific housing. And, theres SWTOR, with their "ship is a house" philosophy.
I really think WoW missed the boat on housing. Its just one of those things people have to take up there time at max lvl. Never understood WoW's thought process on that, even when they explained it.
Dunno, seems like we have housing. Just not in every game.
if I had 10mil yes I would bet 1mil on my 'hypothesis' that I feel pretty confident in
Meaning you don't have that much confidence. Would you bet every last cent you had that housing, done perfectly, however you want to define it, would make an MMO successful?
it has nothing to do with confidence it does however have a lot to do with the fact that I personally have many things more important I want to spend money on then game investments. Plus, to be honest if I had 1 million dollars to invest I wouldnt invest in ANYTHING. I would put it in the bank and just live simply of that.
I will say this however, IF I had decided to create an MMO with my own money you bet your a$$ i would put in very good housing and I WOULDNT waste money on 1/2 a$$ed housing like most devs do. If I am going to do it, its not going to be fluff
To be fair to SEANCAD, 10% of networth is not nothing .. 1m out of 10m .. there is *some* confidence there.
Personally, I don't invest a dime in ANY GAME .. not even the ones i like, or i see a trend. There is just too many risks. I would MUCH RATHER put money into real estate and BUY the game i like to play.
Comments
This is the ignorance of the "WoW effect." If any game isn't a DIRECT carbon copy with all the features, those sheep will whine and cry about not having it. But when the game is so close to the same design, they complain that they would just play WoW instead.
Developers need to stop listening to these morons and actually develop a game that isn't a copy/paste of that social monstrosity.
I think its the difference between 'being the best' and 'being first' way of thinking.
'being first' people are intrested in new ideas and always thinking creatively.
'being the best' people dont care what the rules are they just want to win at the most popular standardized rules.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And where is your information coming from showing that people don't want housing in WoW? Because last time I checked, majority of their playerbase is extremely casual, and casual players love fluff because major content is not what they focus on.
I personally love housing and don't know why anyone would want it excluded, it's more content. It makes no sense why people would argue against it. Are you people just mad that you're only thirteen and incapable of owning your own house in real life?
first off you are confusing creative ideas with not having the money with 'tinfoil' theories. you are all over the map. That is ok I will pick it up and get it more organized for you.
1. forgetting for a moment about budgets which is an entirely different conversation. The basic point that many people are not intrested in housing becuase housing itself is EXPLICTLY development to be pointless has merit. If housing was more rubust people would like it.
2. now to your money problems. I am not address it becuase ITS NOT PART OF THIS CONVERSATION.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
ahhaha .. you don't like it so it is bad?
The "wow effect" is that a good fun game is successful. The "wow effect" is that good features like LFD/LFR will be in demand.
A totally base-less assumption. There is no evidence for or counter to this point.
Plus, what is a "more robust housing"? It is meaningless to discuss somethign that is purely in your imagination. You can imagine how YOU will like it .. that obviously would not translate to me, or the 47M MMO players in the US.
look its not hard to figure out.
what is the basic problem with housing? there is literally not a single action that improves your character or his adventures in the field at all whatsoever in any shape or form. Developers went OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure without any deviation or possibility that housing will be meaningless.
Making housing meaningful is A HUGE step in making it actually good. Odd thing about humans, we tend to get bored when something has zero meaning or context to the greater part of what we are doing.
OF COURSE few people like a gaming feature that has no context at all whatsoever in any shape possibly imagined to the greater context of the game. That is the main problem with housing how people cant see that is beyond me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well, you are only explaining why CURRENT HOUSING does not catch on. Which is fine and i agree.
But that does not mean that improving it will make it popular. People may just don't care, just like i won't care if a game has the best starting menu in town. That is not the reason i play a game.
Showing what does not work BEFORE, does not mean the opposite will work in the future.
So once again, you have no evidence and it is just your imagination. I won't believe you until there is some evidence.
Saying you can "making housing meaningful" is vague and useless. 1) There may not be ways to make it "meaning" for many players, 2) it may be too expensive, 3) may be no one cares .. you just don't know.
edit
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
how do you know they wouldnt care?
if they made housing part of your characters progress my view is that people like housing a LOT more than they do now. You disagree. reality is likely somewhere between the two. How do we proove it?
added: and as far as I am concerned unless a developers says something extreemly close to 'good player housing is possible but we dont want to spend the money' then using 'money' as justification for statement of 'players dont like housing' isnt going to work for me. developers are saying we dont want it, they are NOT saying they cant afford it. We should debate based on their word, if they are not telling the truth then we should have THAT conversation, not blow the lie to the side and make up random exuses for them
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is true, and I hope that developers one day set things in better perspective. Imagination gets more limited everyday.
My blog is a continuing story of what MMO's should be like.
If they're buying donuts, it doesn't really matter because they're still paying the bakery.
The problem here is that it rests on the people who want player housing to make sure the developers know this. You have to go to them and express your interest. Bitching in a forum doesn't do anything. It's the number of potential players who demand the feature that make a difference. Unless you can get 50k people going to developers and asking for player housing, forget it. This is especially true if you people are just going to play the game anyhow. What do they care if they don't waste the time or money on a feature when you're going to hand over your money regardless?
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
actually I dont really have a strong intrest in housing to be honest. I am just explaining to people why the developer statement of 'people do not like housing much' is a silly one given the functions developers have currently applied to housing. I am in the end not really a big housing advocate, I just see the obvious sillyness in their statements.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Housing worked great in UO, and it served many different functions, for all kinds of people.
1. Crafters - If you crafted, you placed a house near a mine, good wood area, etc... Raw materials were heavy and you were better off being close to the house for that reason and for pks. You could unload more often and quicker. Plus have all of your crafting equipment.
2. Vendors - A lot of houses near heavily used cities were good for vendors, since their was no central auction facility. If you had a good spot, you could sell tons of goods. People would drop recall runes to get people to visit their shop that had a bad location, but some people liked to make runes in bad spots of dungeons there for a while, was not fun to recall into a dragon heh. Also outside of dungeons where people would often die, it was good to sell kits that people could buy to help them go get their body back.
3. Dungeon adventurers - If you had a favorite dungeon, it was nice to be close to it, or a land spawning point for something you liked to farm.
4. PKs - Their were many different advantages for PKs, to have houses placed for them and their non-pk alts. Usually had to do with their hunting area, good refuge, and switch out point...
5. Guilds - pooling together to get a nice castle/keep/tower in a nice spot for the guild to moon gate or recall off of a rune together to a hunting spot or anything else they were doing....Lots of people role played and made towns, held events and such also.
Housing was popular in UO, and I can't think of anyone I played with that did not own a house, and it was a neccesity for them, despite having banks, boats (they could store stuff), and alts banks. I do not know if themepark and housing will ever have that neccesity. I liked my house in Vanguard, but it was more extended bank space than dwelling, even though I had fun with all the xmas stuff they gave out and made it pretty crazy looking. I really dislike instanced housing, and would be fine with just more bank space, if thats the option.
On a side note, if they relaunched an official classic UO server and kept with the original theme of doing expansion type stuff, I would be back and be good....I dislike the new skill systems and such...2D client is fine by me.... I know its never happening, so I gotta hope EQ3 will bring back some of what original EQ was like (before LDoN and instance fests), but i am not too hopeful.
I don't
I only say "they MAY not care". No one knows. That is the point. You claim there is a market. I only claim you have no evidence and that you do not know. I did NOT claim that there is no market.
You cannot prove it until you have evidence of something that works.
True.
Only thing is, there isnt really GOOD evidence for the inverse either and a lot of people seem to take that position. I am going out of a limb here (because I am a crazy risk taker) and I am going to say I think that there is a good chance people would like housing a lot more then they do now if housing were better and I have zero evidence to back it up. but then again, I have b*lls
ADDED: actually using your baselines for proof these two statements would be more true then not true.
1. gamers like to kill people because the evidence we have suggests it.
2. more gamers would not play if free bl*w jobs were offered becasue we dont have any evidence suggesting that it would.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't agree with (1) since there is no gamer (or very few) that actually kill a person. Virtual violence is not the same as real violence.
(2) .. yeah .. i agree. There is simply no evidence. Wnat to set up an experiment to test that? Note that it is perfectly fine to propose any hypothesis.
I would have no objection if you statement is "my hypothesis is that if housing is improve (in whatever way), then the demand will be much higher". You are obviously entitled to your opinion, and making any hypothesis.
The real question is, will you bet $1M or your own money on your hypothesis. I won't bet a single cent on the demand of housing features. Will you?
if I had 10mil yes I would bet 1mil on my 'hypothesis' that I feel pretty confident in
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Meaning you don't have that much confidence. Would you bet every last cent you had that housing, done perfectly, however you want to define it, would make an MMO successful?
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
You're aware that the redefinition game, once begun, reaches ad absurdum remarkably quickly, yes? Might not be a free license you want to offer.
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.
Yes and no. It depends on how you define ad absurdum, because ..
I kid! I kid!
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 like player housing but since the last crop of MMOS have not managed to keep my interest, housing would be relatively pointless.
it has nothing to do with confidence it does however have a lot to do with the fact that I personally have many things more important I want to spend money on then game investments. Plus, to be honest if I had 1 million dollars to invest I wouldnt invest in ANYTHING. I would put it in the bank and just live simply of that.
I will say this however, IF I had decided to create an MMO with my own money you bet your a$$ i would put in very good housing and I WOULDNT waste money on 1/2 a$$ed housing like most devs do. If I am going to do it, its not going to be fluff
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well, frankly, I dont know the answer to this. But, its not all as bad as you may think. GW2, will have "districts", sorta like personal housing. Rifts will have "slivers" in their new expac coming this year. We still have EQ2 (which has the best implementation of housing imho). There's also Vanguard with their terrific housing. And, theres SWTOR, with their "ship is a house" philosophy.
I really think WoW missed the boat on housing. Its just one of those things people have to take up there time at max lvl. Never understood WoW's thought process on that, even when they explained it.
Dunno, seems like we have housing. Just not in every game.
To be fair to SEANCAD, 10% of networth is not nothing .. 1m out of 10m .. there is *some* confidence there.
Personally, I don't invest a dime in ANY GAME .. not even the ones i like, or i see a trend. There is just too many risks. I would MUCH RATHER put money into real estate and BUY the game i like to play.