Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

We dont want games - we want worlds.

1161719212230

Comments

  • TsaboHavocTsaboHavoc PinheiralPosts: 351Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones


    There is plenty of competition. MMORPG don't operate in a vacuum. They compete against all the other games that are available to play. Even limiting the choice of games to the MMORPG space, there is still competition. For there to be no competition, there would have to be one game, and nothing else. There are many games, and the most popular ones are the short content theme parks.
     

    This is a very good point. MMO is competing with MOBA, FPS, ARPG for my time. It is only wise for devs to a) focus, and b) adapt and take good features from other genre.

    Look at Borderlands .. combine FPS and RPG, with an online MP mode (sort of like Diablo) and huge success. I can see the RPG purist now .. "what .. add FPS to RPG? It is blasphemy. The devs don't understand the original intent of RPG" ... LOL

     

    they arent competing, they Unfortunaly are merging to be the same thing.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by TsaboHavoc
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by lizardbones


    There is plenty of competition. MMORPG don't operate in a vacuum. They compete against all the other games that are available to play. Even limiting the choice of games to the MMORPG space, there is still competition. For there to be no competition, there would have to be one game, and nothing else. There are many games, and the most popular ones are the short content theme parks.
     

    This is a very good point. MMO is competing with MOBA, FPS, ARPG for my time. It is only wise for devs to a) focus, and b) adapt and take good features from other genre.

    Look at Borderlands .. combine FPS and RPG, with an online MP mode (sort of like Diablo) and huge success. I can see the RPG purist now .. "what .. add FPS to RPG? It is blasphemy. The devs don't understand the original intent of RPG" ... LOL

     

    they arent competing, they Unfortunaly are merging to be the same thing.

    Of course they are. Did you read the whole sentence? I have limited time to play. If i am playing a MOBA, i won't be playing a MMO.

    And they merge precisely because they are competing. MMO devs are trying to get players who like MOBA, and lobby style dungeon runs.

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Onomas

    Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.

    Cost?

    Sandbox/world games have been tried. They are old ideas. I thought people here like innvoation .. new direction of MMOs. MMOFPS, MOBA are newer, and successful ideas.

    @Onomas,

    Nope right from the beginning, first post was was attacking themeparks, basically saying they are crap.  "And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012."

    You should re-read the thread, there are dozens of posts attacking themeparks.  Including yours, "just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again."

    Lots have included ideas of better games, however they like the games currently.  You don't, simple.

     

    You should learn to read. I said garbage games, did not specify theme park. More than one genre of game types.
    You guys are trying to find every little thing to make your opinion better than anyone else's, even put words in their mouth.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,296Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Onomas
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Onomas

    Tell me a reason not to have it all in a mmo? No most the themepark gamers here whine about insignificant things. While sandboxers just want a real game that will provide content and longjevity for years to come. Think if you go back and read from the begining its actualy the themepark guys attacking sandboxes saying they are crap, because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again.

    Cost?

    Sandbox/world games have been tried. They are old ideas. I thought people here like innvoation .. new direction of MMOs. MMOFPS, MOBA are newer, and successful ideas.

    @Onomas,

    Nope right from the beginning, first post was was attacking themeparks, basically saying they are crap.  "And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012."

    You should re-read the thread, there are dozens of posts attacking themeparks.  Including yours, "just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again."

    Lots have included ideas of better games, however they like the games currently.  You don't, simple.

     

    You should learn to read. I said garbage games, did not specify theme park. More than one genre of game types. You guys are trying to find every little thing to make your opinion better than anyone else's, even put words in their mouth.

    You should learn to read what you wrote.  You stated it was actually the themepark guys attacking sandboxes, I stated the first post was attacking themeparks.

    From your statement, "because not one post from here pertaining to themeparks tries to promote a better game just defends the garbage that keeps being released over and over and over again."  When someone says something like, "pertaining to themparks", a logical inference is that they are talking about themeparks.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,754Member Uncommon

    There are decent theme parks and there are rubbish ones.

    What we see from ”our side” is the easyMMO apologists defending the whole genre. Some of these posters are no doubt flogging their current MMO to death with criticism after playing it for a month then coming on here and telling us all how wonderful the current MMO genre is!

    I don’t mind a decent themepark, SWTOR hit the spot, but long term the choice of rides became very limiting. As it always does.

    I can understand posters hitting out at easyMMO’s as a whole, there are not exactly that many that are decent. The industry is awash with poor quality MMO’s.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     

    Well, obviously I'm paraphrasing, condensing a lot of posts and a lot of statements down to a few words. The games you're calling garbage (cr@p could be in garbage, yes?) are keeping a few million people happy. The games you consider 'good' are keeping less than a million people happy. Guess which of these is going to attract more developers?

    The reasons games get made the way they are made is simple. It's all about money. Games sell accounts, worlds don't. Obviously the best case scenario is selling a lot of accounts, and then keeping them for years. The reality is that developers can choose between selling a lot of boxes and keeping a low percentage of accounts, or selling fewer boxes and keeping a higher percentage of those accounts. So far, selling a lot of accounts and keeping a low percentage of them makes more money.

     

    Yes, because the only choice is wotlk and eve, nothing else, we have no other game, no other systems, no other choices.

    And you still see only the numbers you want.

    But the problem is not money in these arguments, the problem is that you and other arguers constrantly try to move this into the area of purist sandboxes just to try to push your point across and smash everyone with quaint gameplay they offer.

    Where in reality most of "us" would be happy (or atleast satisfied with, if not happy) with TBC.

    The difference is small, the devil lies in the detail, more specifically we are arguing McDonalds vs a cheap diner, the difference between having a steak or not, between having your food wrapped in boxes or served on plates.

    We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Well, obviously I'm paraphrasing, condensing a lot of posts and a lot of statements down to a few words. The games you're calling garbage (cr@p could be in garbage, yes?) are keeping a few million people happy. The games you consider 'good' are keeping less than a million people happy. Guess which of these is going to attract more developers? The reasons games get made the way they are made is simple. It's all about money. Games sell accounts, worlds don't. Obviously the best case scenario is selling a lot of accounts, and then keeping them for years. The reality is that developers can choose between selling a lot of boxes and keeping a low percentage of accounts, or selling fewer boxes and keeping a higher percentage of those accounts. So far, selling a lot of accounts and keeping a low percentage of them makes more money.  
    Yes, because the only choice is wotlk and eve, nothing else, we have no other game, no other systems, no other choices.

    And you still see only the numbers you want.

    But the problem is not money in these arguments, the problem is that you and other arguers constrantly try to move this into the area of purist sandboxes just to try to push your point across and smash everyone with quaint gameplay they offer.

    Where in reality most of "us" would be happy (or atleast satisfied with, if not happy) with TBC.

    The difference is small, the devil lies in the detail, more specifically we are arguing McDonalds vs a cheap diner, the difference between having a steak or not, between having your food wrapped in boxes or served on plates.

    We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce.

    Flame on!

    :)




    No, because that's how it is. The minimum buy in for writing an MMORPG is ten million dollars and five years of labor. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG you plan on writing, that's the minimum buy in. Kurt Schilling blew forty five million dollars of his own money and got an iffy single player RPG and some art assets for an MMORPG. Dominus, formerly Dominus: Battle for Prime went through ten million dollars and got nothing. I would have to research it, but the Earthrise dev went through millions of dollars and developed a non-functional game...essentially nothing.

    When ten million dollars just gets you in the door, money is the single biggest road block to getting a game written. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have people desperately using KickStarter to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to write Tech Demos so they could get a company to actually write their games.

    When the biggest road block to getting a game written is money, you have to have something that says the game will make money. It's not relevant if that something is a fancy Italian Restaurant, or if it's a license to a chain of restaurants, or if it's a ponzi scheme.

    When the development costs drop to the point that an indie developer can write an MMORPG or even better, when newbie developers can experiment with MMORPG development in a time frame that isn't forever, we'll see some fast changes and more variety. Until then, developers are going to go with what works. They'll make little changes to differentiate themselves from other games, but mostly they're doing to stick to formulas that work.

    Of course, things could go in the opposite direction. Development costs remain the same, but the money being put into the games just keeps getting bigger. I've heard that TSO's development costs are in the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars. In that direction you're still going to get known formulas, you're just hopefully going to get more of them in the same game.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • erikk3189erikk3189 New York City, NYPosts: 306Member

    Basically, the OP is talking about a game like SWG (pre NGE).

    SWG was way ahead of it's time. They had things that you don't see anymore which is why they had such a hardcore following and people went mad when they changed the game.

    The amount of social options that game had was very large which made it so much fun. Sad to say, they took it off and no other game has come close to duplicating some of the things from back then.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by TsaboHavoc
    Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbones There is plenty of competition. MMORPG don't operate in a vacuum. They compete against all the other games that are available to play. Even limiting the choice of games to the MMORPG space, there is still competition. For there to be no competition, there would have to be one game, and nothing else. There are many games, and the most popular ones are the short content theme parks.  
    This is a very good point. MMO is competing with MOBA, FPS, ARPG for my time. It is only wise for devs to a) focus, and b) adapt and take good features from other genre. Look at Borderlands .. combine FPS and RPG, with an online MP mode (sort of like Diablo) and huge success. I can see the RPG purist now .. "what .. add FPS to RPG? It is blasphemy. The devs don't understand the original intent of RPG" ... LOL  
    they arent competing, they Unfortunaly are merging to be the same thing.


    The result of competition is that there is a winner and a loser. If a game that costs five million dollars to produce gets as many players and as much money as a game that costs fifty million dollars to produce, the five million dollar game wins, and others will try to incorporate some of the winning features into their games.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,423Member Uncommon

    It most certainly is what we want,however i beleive devs know it as well,but they are not about to put in the effort.

    Recent game designs i have seen look really pathetic,it is like the devs/board get together and try to figure out the cheapest way to make a game stick and turn the largest profit possible.

    To begin with a WORLD involves what i have been asking for awhile,versatile NPC's NOT these 3 possible choice questions with some minimal change/motive depending on your choice,that is too cheap/fabricated and eventually predictable.

    I also have been asking for an ECO system for a very long time.

    problems arise however,vast amounts of complex AI equals way too many memory resources.

    I beleive there is a possible answer,IF we believe what marketing has been telling us.They CLAIM that the Physx engines/code can help speed up graphics and lower the load.if true then it opens up more room to give us better Ai.

    this would allow more NPC's to roam and an ECO system.What i am afraid of is it stil lwould mean LESS of.Examplke less objects,less effects/animations,less people per zone/server and more use of those VIRTUAL/instance servers we have seen,that i do not like.

    PhysX is also suppose to allow for destructive surfaces and realistic surfaces to happen without that huge resource draw.That means realistic leather/metal/effects.

    It all comes down to TIME spent on game development and SYSTEMS and IF they are willing to spend on licenses to attain use  of code liek the PhysX engine.

    Trends have shown us the devs are NOT willing to go that extra effort,they instead want to keep on churning out CHEAP linear questing with a hint of some SMALL really meaningless end game raiding or PVP.NEITHER are really important to a realsitic RPG atmosphere,so in reality developers are NOTG making very good Role Playing games.They are simply giving us what they have seen sells the best,so profit over quality.


    Samoan Diamond

  • Size-TwelveSize-Twelve Lansing, MIPosts: 494Member


    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    I think that its high time for game companies that want to make MMOs to understand one simple thing about MMO player :

    We dont want games - we want worlds.

     

    We have millions of games - Halo , Super Mario , Starcraft , Monkey Island , Baldurs Gate ... to note few genre stars.

    Now they want to take these games and add multiplayer aspect - and slap brand this MMORPG.

    This my friends is the themepark world. And the direction its moving ( we are seeing mmofps , mmo platformer , mmo sport , even mmo adventure - beside more traditional mmorpg approach )

     

    But this is not what we are here for ... not what we wanted...

    When I played games before the era of internet , this was not what I dreamed of - Super Mario with oter people playing.

    No.

    What I dreamed was Ultima Online

    This dream was shared in developer community that was young and not GREED oriented as today.

    And than it stopped. Because its easier to just make a game and add multiplayer element.

    And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.

    This. That much is obvious - will not fly anymore.

     

    We want worlds.

    You can call it sandbox. I call it Virtual world simulation games.

    Worlds that have its rules , its economy , its inhabitants , its dangers , its politics - and than we are put inside - and become part of them.

     

    Sadly only good and sucessful modern example of this is EVE online.

    The game that caters bit to much to agressive player.... but there is so much potential around.

     

    Will we ever see it ?
     

     


    This is not at all what I want. This may be what you want, but since you said "we", I felt the need to reply.


    Complex living "worlds" require lifelike time investments. This is something I cannot provide. If Ultima Online were released tomorrow, I would not play it.


    I think the number of players who can afford to play 40 hours a week are just a fraction of the playerbase, and for good reason. No thanks.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,496Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Size-Twelve

     


    Complex living "worlds" require lifelike time investments. This is something I cannot provide. If Ultima Online were released tomorrow, I would not play it.


    I think the number of players who can afford to play 40 hours a week are just a fraction of the playerbase, and for good reason. No thanks.

    My feeling exactly - as much as I loved UO I just don't have that much time. This is why themeparks shine, they can be played in small time periods with very defined goals, so a player feels they've accomplished something even if they play 30min a week. Guess what that same player would feel in a huge sandbox game.

    we are living in increasingly accelerated world, time is becoming more precious than ever, and that is the biggest obstacle to sandbox games - they cater to the players of last decade, we have moved on.

  • CecropiaCecropia The Great White North, ONPosts: 3,471Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Size-Twelve

     

    This is not at all what I want. This may be what you want, but since you said "we", I felt the need to reply.


    Complex living "worlds" require lifelike time investments. This is something I cannot provide. If Ultima Online were released tomorrow, I would not play it.


    I think the number of players who can afford to play 40 hours a week are just a fraction of the playerbase, and for good reason. No thanks.

    "Lifelike time investments"? What a load!

    I've been playing world style MMOs for many years and I've never put in that kind of time with any of them. I've always been competitive (sure it may take me a little longer to pull off) and I never felt like I was missing out on anything. The fact that you think you need to play these games like a full time job is laughable. Give me a break.

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • Size-TwelveSize-Twelve Lansing, MIPosts: 494Member


    Originally posted by Cecropia
    Originally posted by Size-Twelve   This is not at all what I want. This may be what you want, but since you said "we", I felt the need to reply. Complex living "worlds" require lifelike time investments. This is something I cannot provide. If Ultima Online were released tomorrow, I would not play it. I think the number of players who can afford to play 40 hours a week are just a fraction of the playerbase, and for good reason. No thanks.
    "Lifelike time investments"? What a load!

    I've been playing world style MMOs for many years and I've never put in that kind of time with any of them. I've always been competitive (sure it may take me a little longer to pull off) and I never felt like I was missing out on anything. The fact that you think you need to play these games like a full time job is laughable. Give me a break.



    I don't believe you. While the number of hours (40+) may vary, it's no secret that hardcore "word-style" games require huge time investments. To disagree with that, is just ignoring the mechanics behind the genre. I'm thinking of games like original EQ and EvE.

    The OP cited EvE as a good example of what he was after. When I played, Eve was punishing in the time investment required to accomplish anything. Again, no thanks.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Yes, because the only choice is wotlk and eve, nothing else, we have no other game, no other systems, no other choices.

     

    And you still see only the numbers you want.

    But the problem is not money in these arguments, the problem is that you and other arguers constrantly try to move this into the area of purist sandboxes just to try to push your point across and smash everyone with quaint gameplay they offer.

    Where in reality most of "us" would be happy (or atleast satisfied with, if not happy) with TBC.

    The difference is small, the devil lies in the detail, more specifically we are arguing McDonalds vs a cheap diner, the difference between having a steak or not, between having your food wrapped in boxes or served on plates.

    We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce.

    Flame on!

    :)



    No, because that's how it is. The minimum buy in for writing an MMORPG is ten million dollars and five years of labor. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG you plan on writing, that's the minimum buy in. Kurt Schilling blew forty five million dollars of his own money and got an iffy single player RPG and some art assets for an MMORPG. Dominus, formerly Dominus: Battle for Prime went through ten million dollars and got nothing. I would have to research it, but the Earthrise dev went through millions of dollars and developed a non-functional game...essentially nothing.

    When ten million dollars just gets you in the door, money is the single biggest road block to getting a game written. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have people desperately using KickStarter to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to write Tech Demos so they could get a company to actually write their games.

    When the biggest road block to getting a game written is money, you have to have something that says the game will make money. It's not relevant if that something is a fancy Italian Restaurant, or if it's a license to a chain of restaurants, or if it's a ponzi scheme.

    When the development costs drop to the point that an indie developer can write an MMORPG or even better, when newbie developers can experiment with MMORPG development in a time frame that isn't forever, we'll see some fast changes and more variety. Until then, developers are going to go with what works. They'll make little changes to differentiate themselves from other games, but mostly they're doing to stick to formulas that work.

    Of course, things could go in the opposite direction. Development costs remain the same, but the money being put into the games just keeps getting bigger. I've heard that TSO's development costs are in the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars. In that direction you're still going to get known formulas, you're just hopefully going to get more of them in the same game.

     

    How very nice of you to supply an example.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by Banaghran Yes, because the only choice is wotlk and eve, nothing else, we have no other game, no other systems, no other choices.   And you still see only the numbers you want. But the problem is not money in these arguments, the problem is that you and other arguers constrantly try to move this into the area of purist sandboxes just to try to push your point across and smash everyone with quaint gameplay they offer. Where in reality most of "us" would be happy (or atleast satisfied with, if not happy) with TBC. The difference is small, the devil lies in the detail, more specifically we are arguing McDonalds vs a cheap diner, the difference between having a steak or not, between having your food wrapped in boxes or served on plates. We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce. Flame on! :)
    No, because that's how it is. The minimum buy in for writing an MMORPG is ten million dollars and five years of labor. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG you plan on writing, that's the minimum buy in. Kurt Schilling blew forty five million dollars of his own money and got an iffy single player RPG and some art assets for an MMORPG. Dominus, formerly Dominus: Battle for Prime went through ten million dollars and got nothing. I would have to research it, but the Earthrise dev went through millions of dollars and developed a non-functional game...essentially nothing. When ten million dollars just gets you in the door, money is the single biggest road block to getting a game written. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have people desperately using KickStarter to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to write Tech Demos so they could get a company to actually write their games. When the biggest road block to getting a game written is money, you have to have something that says the game will make money. It's not relevant if that something is a fancy Italian Restaurant, or if it's a license to a chain of restaurants, or if it's a ponzi scheme. When the development costs drop to the point that an indie developer can write an MMORPG or even better, when newbie developers can experiment with MMORPG development in a time frame that isn't forever, we'll see some fast changes and more variety. Until then, developers are going to go with what works. They'll make little changes to differentiate themselves from other games, but mostly they're doing to stick to formulas that work. Of course, things could go in the opposite direction. Development costs remain the same, but the money being put into the games just keeps getting bigger. I've heard that TSO's development costs are in the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars. In that direction you're still going to get known formulas, you're just hopefully going to get more of them in the same game.  
    How very nice of you to supply an example.

    Flame on!

    :)




    If developers thought a sandbox game, with a well developed world would have enough of an audience to justify a ten to fifty million dollar expense, they'd write that game. Especially given that players of sandboxes or world centric games tend to play longer the the two or three months that you get out of theme park games.

    Even removing WoW from the picture, there's no particular reason to think a sandbox style game would be anymore successful than a theme park game, and a theme park game will pull in more players initially, generating more revenue.

    Until the cost drops, developers will not be able to justify the expense of writing a sandbox style game. Not in the U.S. anyway. You can write them in Hungary, and apparently in Asia, no problem. Just not for the U.S.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by Banaghran Yes, because the only choice is wotlk and eve, nothing else, we have no other game, no other systems, no other choices.   And you still see only the numbers you want. But the problem is not money in these arguments, the problem is that you and other arguers constrantly try to move this into the area of purist sandboxes just to try to push your point across and smash everyone with quaint gameplay they offer. Where in reality most of "us" would be happy (or atleast satisfied with, if not happy) with TBC. The difference is small, the devil lies in the detail, more specifically we are arguing McDonalds vs a cheap diner, the difference between having a steak or not, between having your food wrapped in boxes or served on plates. We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce. Flame on! :)
    No, because that's how it is. The minimum buy in for writing an MMORPG is ten million dollars and five years of labor. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG you plan on writing, that's the minimum buy in. Kurt Schilling blew forty five million dollars of his own money and got an iffy single player RPG and some art assets for an MMORPG. Dominus, formerly Dominus: Battle for Prime went through ten million dollars and got nothing. I would have to research it, but the Earthrise dev went through millions of dollars and developed a non-functional game...essentially nothing. When ten million dollars just gets you in the door, money is the single biggest road block to getting a game written. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have people desperately using KickStarter to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to write Tech Demos so they could get a company to actually write their games. When the biggest road block to getting a game written is money, you have to have something that says the game will make money. It's not relevant if that something is a fancy Italian Restaurant, or if it's a license to a chain of restaurants, or if it's a ponzi scheme. When the development costs drop to the point that an indie developer can write an MMORPG or even better, when newbie developers can experiment with MMORPG development in a time frame that isn't forever, we'll see some fast changes and more variety. Until then, developers are going to go with what works. They'll make little changes to differentiate themselves from other games, but mostly they're doing to stick to formulas that work. Of course, things could go in the opposite direction. Development costs remain the same, but the money being put into the games just keeps getting bigger. I've heard that TSO's development costs are in the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars. In that direction you're still going to get known formulas, you're just hopefully going to get more of them in the same game.  
    How very nice of you to supply an example.

     

    Flame on!

    :)



    If developers thought a sandbox game, with a well developed world would have enough of an audience to justify a ten to fifty million dollar expense, they'd write that game. Especially given that players of sandboxes or world centric games tend to play longer the the two or three months that you get out of theme park games.

    Even removing WoW from the picture, there's no particular reason to think a sandbox style game would be anymore successful than a theme park game, and a theme park game will pull in more players initially, generating more revenue.

    Until the cost drops, developers will not be able to justify the expense of writing a sandbox style game. Not in the U.S. anyway. You can write them in Hungary, and apparently in Asia, no problem. Just not for the U.S.

     

    I wonder what would compell you to elaborate TWICE on the feasibility of some new sandbox direction to mmorpg design as a reply to a post essentially saying "you are obsessing too much with sandboxes just to have something to argue about, lets talk about TBC and themepark features"...

    Hmm?

    Flame on!

    :)

    Edit: side note, back in 2009, when many people were upset with the heading of wow, someone calculated that around 8 million people play mmos which feature the things what were being changed or removed at that time as major features. While i imagine much has changed in 3 years, your statement that "Even removing wow from the picture...." is quite bold.

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by Banaghran Yes, because the only choice is wotlk and eve, nothing else, we have no other game, no other systems, no other choices.   And you still see only the numbers you want. But the problem is not money in these arguments, the problem is that you and other arguers constrantly try to move this into the area of purist sandboxes just to try to push your point across and smash everyone with quaint gameplay they offer. Where in reality most of "us" would be happy (or atleast satisfied with, if not happy) with TBC. The difference is small, the devil lies in the detail, more specifically we are arguing McDonalds vs a cheap diner, the difference between having a steak or not, between having your food wrapped in boxes or served on plates. We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce. Flame on! :)
    No, because that's how it is. The minimum buy in for writing an MMORPG is ten million dollars and five years of labor. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG you plan on writing, that's the minimum buy in. Kurt Schilling blew forty five million dollars of his own money and got an iffy single player RPG and some art assets for an MMORPG. Dominus, formerly Dominus: Battle for Prime went through ten million dollars and got nothing. I would have to research it, but the Earthrise dev went through millions of dollars and developed a non-functional game...essentially nothing. When ten million dollars just gets you in the door, money is the single biggest road block to getting a game written. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have people desperately using KickStarter to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to write Tech Demos so they could get a company to actually write their games. When the biggest road block to getting a game written is money, you have to have something that says the game will make money. It's not relevant if that something is a fancy Italian Restaurant, or if it's a license to a chain of restaurants, or if it's a ponzi scheme. When the development costs drop to the point that an indie developer can write an MMORPG or even better, when newbie developers can experiment with MMORPG development in a time frame that isn't forever, we'll see some fast changes and more variety. Until then, developers are going to go with what works. They'll make little changes to differentiate themselves from other games, but mostly they're doing to stick to formulas that work. Of course, things could go in the opposite direction. Development costs remain the same, but the money being put into the games just keeps getting bigger. I've heard that TSO's development costs are in the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars. In that direction you're still going to get known formulas, you're just hopefully going to get more of them in the same game.  
    How very nice of you to supply an example.

     

    Flame on!

    :)



    If developers thought a sandbox game, with a well developed world would have enough of an audience to justify a ten to fifty million dollar expense, they'd write that game.
     

    I don't think you understand how the market works, then. The devs don't make the decisions, the publishers do. Three of the most popular MMORPGs of all time (UO, SWG, Eve) were sandboxes, but because they were not THE most popular MMO of all time, publishers don't care. Publishers don't understand or care about MMOs. They are bred and trained to look at the most popular game (WoW) and copy it. If they looked at the second most popular game, Eve, they'd probably go "that seems hard, just copy WoW"

  • SuraknarSuraknar Montreal, QCPosts: 824Member
    Originally posted by erikk3189

    Basically, the OP is talking about a game like SWG (pre NGE).

    SWG was way ahead of it's time. They had things that you don't see anymore which is why they had such a hardcore following and people went mad when they changed the game.

    The amount of social options that game had was very large which made it so much fun. Sad to say, they took it off and no other game has come close to duplicating some of the things from back then.

    Yes that is exactly what the OP is talking about. And mind you SWG was not the first with such a gameplay. UO was the first and very much like SWG (both had same designers).

     

    I played WoW for some time, I do nto get when people say you can play 30 min a week...You canot progress with 30 min a week...even in a themepark.

    The argument that themeparks require less time per game session is flawed and simply not true. Unless any of you can show us how you could do Molten Core in vanilla in 30 minutes.

    Or not even Moletn Core, any of the vanilla Instances, heck lets not even talk about 60 Instances.. sunken temple...in 30 minytes? LOL...

    Not even Dead Mines you could not finish in 30 minutes...this is preposterous.

    When some of us say we want a gamethat we can play for a long time, it does not mean we want a game where we will have to play 8 hours a day to even get an inch of a sence of progression. This was how EQ was...a themepark nevertheless.

    In fact, you could play SWG for 30 minutes if that is all what you had, go around restock your vendors, or gather ressources from your hervesters. Anything else yes required more time like any other MMO, Themepark or sandbox.

    Yet, the larger point is, if you only can play 30 minutes a week...then why play an MMO? Play a single player game or one of the not reall MMO's out there, such as WoT...stick to that Sub-type of MMO.

    Your not obligated to play the Sandbox MMO, but that does not mean that they should not be made...for those that can and want to play them and those that have more than 30 minutes time per week to play them.

    Why should we all be obliged to play MMOS made for the people who only have 30 minutes a week to play a game in the first place, when there are many alternatives for you guys?

    This argument of time per session versus the justification of making a sandbox is irrelevant.

    What the OP and those that agree with the OP really want is an MMO that has meaning and can have long term fun,  even if I can play 2-4 hours a week, I can play that game for more than a year with my friends. And themeparks do not provide this without becoming like EQ which is even worse.

    Sandboxes are not focussed on progression, they are focussed on adventure which means many aspects/elements together. So the player gets to have much more flexibility and diversity of options, which provides fun for a much longer term than repeating the same thing over and over for 2 months to get to cap level and according tothe player's availability.

     

    - Duke Suraknar -
    Order of the Silver Star, OSS

    image
    ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by Banaghran Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by Banaghran Yes, because the only choice is wotlk and eve, nothing else, we have no other game, no other systems, no other choices.   And you still see only the numbers you want. But the problem is not money in these arguments, the problem is that you and other arguers constrantly try to move this into the area of purist sandboxes just to try to push your point across and smash everyone with quaint gameplay they offer. Where in reality most of "us" would be happy (or atleast satisfied with, if not happy) with TBC. The difference is small, the devil lies in the detail, more specifically we are arguing McDonalds vs a cheap diner, the difference between having a steak or not, between having your food wrapped in boxes or served on plates. We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce. Flame on! :)
    No, because that's how it is. The minimum buy in for writing an MMORPG is ten million dollars and five years of labor. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG you plan on writing, that's the minimum buy in. Kurt Schilling blew forty five million dollars of his own money and got an iffy single player RPG and some art assets for an MMORPG. Dominus, formerly Dominus: Battle for Prime went through ten million dollars and got nothing. I would have to research it, but the Earthrise dev went through millions of dollars and developed a non-functional game...essentially nothing. When ten million dollars just gets you in the door, money is the single biggest road block to getting a game written. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have people desperately using KickStarter to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to write Tech Demos so they could get a company to actually write their games. When the biggest road block to getting a game written is money, you have to have something that says the game will make money. It's not relevant if that something is a fancy Italian Restaurant, or if it's a license to a chain of restaurants, or if it's a ponzi scheme. When the development costs drop to the point that an indie developer can write an MMORPG or even better, when newbie developers can experiment with MMORPG development in a time frame that isn't forever, we'll see some fast changes and more variety. Until then, developers are going to go with what works. They'll make little changes to differentiate themselves from other games, but mostly they're doing to stick to formulas that work. Of course, things could go in the opposite direction. Development costs remain the same, but the money being put into the games just keeps getting bigger. I've heard that TSO's development costs are in the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars. In that direction you're still going to get known formulas, you're just hopefully going to get more of them in the same game.  
    How very nice of you to supply an example.   Flame on! :)
    If developers thought a sandbox game, with a well developed world would have enough of an audience to justify a ten to fifty million dollar expense, they'd write that game.  
    I don't think you understand how the market works, then. The devs don't make the decisions, the publishers do. Three of the most popular MMORPGs of all time (UO, SWG, Eve) were sandboxes, but because they were not THE most popular MMO of all time, publishers don't care. Publishers don't understand or care about MMOs. They are bred and trained to look at the most popular game (WoW) and copy it. If they looked at the second most popular game, Eve, they'd probably go "that seems hard, just copy WoW"


    Theme Park games sell more accounts than sandbox games. Rift sold more accounts than UO, SWG and Eve combined. SWToR sold more accounts that UO, SWG and Eve combined. Ditto for GW2, though GW2 has no subscription. Theme parks sell more games than sandboxes. This doesn't even take WoW into consideration.

    Unless some individual fronts the money it costs to develop a sandbox MMORPG, so that the publishers don't care about the revenue, the potential revenue of the game must be considered as relevant. Nobody wants to run a game at cost for twelve years on the chance that it might make money. This is what Eve did. It make zip for years until they finally broke even.

    Or, the development costs for the games need to drop to the point that an indie game developer can produce games without having to worry too much about what game publishers want.

    Money, as development costs or revenue generated is the stumbling block to sandbox games.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     Rift sold more accounts than UO, SWG and Eve combined. 

    Really? How come?

    Last thing that was announced was 1mil sold copies for rift, 600k peak subs after launch (for a month or two).

    Then we have swg 550 peak subs, UO 250k peak subs, Eve 600k subs.

    Everyone doctors the numbers a bit when he tries to make a point, but come on.

    What stock "information" will we hear next?

    That no "sandbox" ever broke 1m players?

    That the only mmorpg to ever have millions of subs is wow?

    Flame on!

    :)

     

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     Rift sold more accounts than UO, SWG and Eve combined. 

    Really? How come?

    Last thing that was announced was 1mil sold copies for rift, 600k peak subs after launch (for a month or two).

    Then we have swg 550 peak subs, UO 250k peak subs, Eve 600k subs.

    Everyone doctors the numbers a bit when he tries to make a point, but come on.

    What stock "information" will we hear next?

    That no sandbox ever broke 1m players?

    That the only mmorpg to ever have millions of subs is wow?

    Flame on!

    :)

    Wat?

    UO peaked at 250k, correct, but SWG actually peaked at 300k and Eve is holding at 350k. Forget doctoring. Are you trying to feed false information to win an argument? You're despicable...

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • MawneeMawnee Spring Hill, FLPosts: 197Member Uncommon
    I fully agree with the OP.
  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     

    I don't think you understand how the market works, then. The devs don't make the decisions, the publishers do. Three of the most popular MMORPGs of all time (UO, SWG, Eve) were sandboxes, but because they were not THE most popular MMO of all time, publishers don't care. Publishers don't understand or care about MMOs. They are bred and trained to look at the most popular game (WoW) and copy it. If they looked at the second most popular game, Eve, they'd probably go "that seems hard, just copy WoW"

    SWTOR probably still has more subs than Eve. And Runescape. And Aion. And GW2 is probably near the top still. What about Secret World? Where do they stand?

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • SuraknarSuraknar Montreal, QCPosts: 824Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by Banaghran

    Originally posted by lizardbones  

    Originally posted by Banaghran Yes, because the only choice is wotlk and eve, nothing else, we have no other game, no other systems, no other choices.   And you still see only the numbers you want. But the problem is not money in these arguments, the problem is that you and other arguers constrantly try to move this into the area of purist sandboxes just to try to push your point across and smash everyone with quaint gameplay they offer. Where in reality most of "us" would be happy (or atleast satisfied with, if not happy) with TBC. The difference is small, the devil lies in the detail, more specifically we are arguing McDonalds vs a cheap diner, the difference between having a steak or not, between having your food wrapped in boxes or served on plates. We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce. Flame on! :)
    No, because that's how it is. The minimum buy in for writing an MMORPG is ten million dollars and five years of labor. It doesn't matter what kind of MMORPG you plan on writing, that's the minimum buy in. Kurt Schilling blew forty five million dollars of his own money and got an iffy single player RPG and some art assets for an MMORPG. Dominus, formerly Dominus: Battle for Prime went through ten million dollars and got nothing. I would have to research it, but the Earthrise dev went through millions of dollars and developed a non-functional game...essentially nothing. When ten million dollars just gets you in the door, money is the single biggest road block to getting a game written. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have people desperately using KickStarter to get hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to write Tech Demos so they could get a company to actually write their games. When the biggest road block to getting a game written is money, you have to have something that says the game will make money. It's not relevant if that something is a fancy Italian Restaurant, or if it's a license to a chain of restaurants, or if it's a ponzi scheme. When the development costs drop to the point that an indie developer can write an MMORPG or even better, when newbie developers can experiment with MMORPG development in a time frame that isn't forever, we'll see some fast changes and more variety. Until then, developers are going to go with what works. They'll make little changes to differentiate themselves from other games, but mostly they're doing to stick to formulas that work. Of course, things could go in the opposite direction. Development costs remain the same, but the money being put into the games just keeps getting bigger. I've heard that TSO's development costs are in the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars. In that direction you're still going to get known formulas, you're just hopefully going to get more of them in the same game.  
    How very nice of you to supply an example.   Flame on! :)
    If developers thought a sandbox game, with a well developed world would have enough of an audience to justify a ten to fifty million dollar expense, they'd write that game.  
    I don't think you understand how the market works, then. The devs don't make the decisions, the publishers do. Three of the most popular MMORPGs of all time (UO, SWG, Eve) were sandboxes, but because they were not THE most popular MMO of all time, publishers don't care. Publishers don't understand or care about MMOs. They are bred and trained to look at the most popular game (WoW) and copy it. If they looked at the second most popular game, Eve, they'd probably go "that seems hard, just copy WoW"

    Theme Park games sell more accounts than sandbox games. Rift sold more accounts than UO, SWG and Eve combined. SWToR sold more accounts that UO, SWG and Eve combined. Ditto for GW2, though GW2 has no subscription. Theme parks sell more games than sandboxes. This doesn't even take WoW into consideration.

    Unless some individual fronts the money it costs to develop a sandbox MMORPG, so that the publishers don't care about the revenue, the potential revenue of the game must be considered as relevant. Nobody wants to run a game at cost for twelve years on the chance that it might make money. This is what Eve did. It make zip for years until they finally broke even.

    Or, the development costs for the games need to drop to the point that an indie game developer can produce games without having to worry too much about what game publishers want.

    Money, as development costs or revenue generated is the stumbling block to sandbox games.

     

    This is a false assumption now days.

    UO launched 15 years ago....we connected to it with Dial Up modems, High Speed connections did not even exist back then. The Internet itself had a fraction of the population it has today. MMO's were really for the Creme de la Creme of gamers...

     

    From a Report in: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Internet-broadband-and-cell-phone-statistics/Report.aspx

    1995 15% of US population has access to the Internet

    1997 (when UO came out) 25% of US population has access to the Internet.

    2004 (when WoW released) 63% of US population has access to the Internet

    2010 73% of the US population has access to the internet

    And this is only in the US...

    Some world Wide Statistics: http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm

    In 1997 there were 70 Million Internet Users

    In 2004 there were 817 Million Users

    in 2012 there are 2.4 Billion Internet Users.

    So assuming that Sandboxes get less people by basing yourself in a number from 15 years ago and comparing it to today's numbers where the interenet is a whole different reality is a flawed conclusion.

     

    - Duke Suraknar -
    Order of the Silver Star, OSS

    image
    ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard

Sign In or Register to comment.