Who cares who has more subs.. really... This is just an unfounded argument that more = better.. That just isn't the case.. McDonald's sells more then any Restaurant, but hat doesn't make them the best burgers on the planet.. Facebook games technically have more accounts then even WoW by far, but that doesn't mean they are better games to play.. As my grandfather used to say so many years ago, "Sinple things that entertain the simple mind".. There is alot of truth in that if you think about it.. This might explain why more people play checkers instead of chess.. Or why more people play "go fish" instead of bridge..
You either accept it or you can whine about it in the forums. Either way its not my problem. The genre is not going to die when you stop playing.
either you accept other peoples gaming tastes/desires or you can continue whining about it obsessively in the forums.
apparently its a BIGtime problem for you, or you wouldn't be so obsessively addressing the subject, when (in reality) it was completely optional for you to add your 2 cents.
3500 posts and climbing.
relax man.
the forum is not going to die when you stop posting
“We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce.”
Indeed our casual players could just have the hors d'œuvre
The money and time of development argument lizardbones made is why we increasingly see MMO’s which are little more than solo games with a themepark lobby. So we face one of two futures, is that players want, MMO’s becoming nothing more than a themepark lobby game?
We are already well down that course now and it will not stop here, MMO’s will become more thempark and more lobby style in the years to come.
Or do you want a future where a more open world approach is followed. As others have mentioned, we are not sandbox purists, that is the box you seem to want to put this argument in. I vote for choice, for both styles of gameplay.
Erikk3189, the reason you have not seen a MMO with the social options of SWG is that gaming companies decided that was not a priority. Graphics and solo playability became the priorities and everything else was thrown to the wind. Gaming companies do like us to socialise but in an in house system like Origin, or hooked up with a social media site. The reason for this is that out of game social connections generate more customers for the MMO. In game social functions do not create more customers, they are already playing. Marketing is happy and these days that’s all that matters. Community managers might have voiced their concern had that job not been downgraded to menial work in a MMO.
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...
Brain fart, i obviously got lost in the shapes and colors of the mmodata graphs (eve with that many subs did appear suspicious), sorry. If i wanted to decieve you, i would not have used numbers that you can doublecheck, as you have done.
Do the correct numbers change anything?
I will take it as compliment, being called despicable by someone who sells his personal opinion as the objective truth on the regular basis.
You get my vote as ambassador for the "we want a world" genre.. Maybe one day soon a dev house will stay clear of the gravey train of WoW clone games, and created something more.. I do believe GW2 was a step in the right direction, but not big enough.. Maybe this EQNext that Sony is talking about will do the trick, but then maybe not.. LOL
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...
Eve is holding at 450k if you include the seperate Chinese serve they run (I think Chinese GVT prevents China accounts being integrated into the main server.)
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Brain fart, i obviously got lost in the shapes and colors of the mmodata graphs (eve with that many subs did appear suspicious), sorry. If i wanted to decieve you, i would not have used numbers that you can doublecheck, as you have done.
Do the correct numbers change anything?
I will take it as compliment, being called despicable by someone who sells his personal opinion as the objective truth on the regular basis.
Flame on!
If you do the match those three numbers do not exceed 1 million. So yes, I think it changes the message.
I would never claim my view as being "the truth" only it is often the more objective one. I may come out like that only because the posters here have a lot of bullshit to answer for, and I love poking holes at people's bullshit arguments. You can call me out too, I'm not above it all.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You either accept it or you can whine about it in the forums. Either way its not my problem. The genre is not going to die when you stop playing.
either you accept other peoples gaming tastes/desires or you can continue whining about it obsessively in the forums.
apparently its a BIGtime problem for you, or you wouldn't be so obsessively addressing the subject, when (in reality) it was completely optional for you to add your 2 cents.
3500 posts and climbing.
relax man.
the forum is not going to die when you stop posting
What can I say, I'm only trying to do good in the world. "If you can do good in the world you have a responsibility to do it." Now was that someone smart and famous or was that from a spiderman movie... Yup.. I think spiderman.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Brain fart, i obviously got lost in the shapes and colors of the mmodata graphs (eve with that many subs did appear suspicious), sorry. If i wanted to decieve you, i would not have used numbers that you can doublecheck, as you have done.
Do the correct numbers change anything?
I will take it as compliment, being called despicable by someone who sells his personal opinion as the objective truth on the regular basis.
Flame on!
If you do the match those three numbers do not exceed 1 million. So yes, I think it changes the message.
I would never claim my view as being "the truth" only it is often the more objective one. I may come out like that only because the posters here have a lot of bullshit to answer for, and I love poking holes at people's bullshit arguments. You can call me out too, I'm not above it all.
It hits 1 million with the correct EVE number :-)
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Brain fart, i obviously got lost in the shapes and colors of the mmodata graphs (eve with that many subs did appear suspicious), sorry. If i wanted to decieve you, i would not have used numbers that you can doublecheck, as you have done.
Do the correct numbers change anything?
I will take it as compliment, being called despicable by someone who sells his personal opinion as the objective truth on the regular basis.
Flame on!
If you do the match those three numbers do not exceed 1 million. So yes, I think it changes the message.
I would never claim my view as being "the truth" only it is often the more objective one. I may come out like that only because the posters here have a lot of bullshit to answer for, and I love poking holes at people's bullshit arguments. You can call me out too, I'm not above it all.
Does it? ~900k sub is more than 600k subs, if 600k subs gives you 1m boxes, how many boxes gives you 900k subs, over several months, not just 1 or 2, since we have to take into account that every box is worth ~3 months of subs ouside sales?
MeatloafMcCoy was ambiguous, rememeber "Rift sold more accounts than UO, SWG and Eve combined."
Even if that means pirated sold accounts rift is not better than those games combined
As for truth its more of a stance thing, do you think it is more objective because you agree with it , or because you have considered more possibilities? Im not saying you are the only one at fault (nor that you even are), my comment was just a jab, just that it is the reality of arguing around and about the status quo.
You either accept it or you can whine about it in the forums. Either way its not my problem. The genre is not going to die when you stop playing.
either you accept other peoples gaming tastes/desires or you can continue whining about it obsessively in the forums.
apparently its a BIGtime problem for you, or you wouldn't be so obsessively addressing the subject, when (in reality) it was completely optional for you to add your 2 cents.
3500 posts and climbing.
relax man.
the forum is not going to die when you stop posting
What can I say, I'm only trying to do good in the world. "If you can do good in the world you have a responsibility to do it." Now was that someone smart and famous or was that from a spiderman movie... Yup.. I think spiderman.
They also say the road to hell is paved with good intentions
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.
Agreed.
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.
I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.
Originally posted by ObiClownobi Originally posted by QuirhidOriginally posted by BanaghranOriginally 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...Eve is holding at 450k if you include the seperate Chinese serve they run (I think Chinese GVT prevents China accounts being integrated into the main server.)
We don't know what Rift sold after it released 'around the world'. However, if we assume that Rift sold a million and Eve is holding at four hundred fifty thousand, that puts the total UO + SWG + Eve peak players at (450 + 300 + 278 = 1,028) a bit over a million people. That is just ahead of Rift's peak of a million. Then we have SWToR and Guild Wars, both of which had peak users around two million.
Again, not saying that UO, SWG and Eve aren't popular. They are. They aren't really the most popular MMORPG though. Remember, we're not even talking about WoW. Take WoW out of the argument entirely and it doesn't change anything.
You can interpret the information any way you want, but the one thing that is true is that there are fewer people buying and playing sandbox style games. Even when sandbox games are on the leading edge they lose out to theme park games. UO and SWG were both on the leading edge when they released. They both lost out to games that went with a more theme park style of play.
That's why there aren't more of them right now. They make less money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.
I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.
Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.
Here's the short of it. Some of us want virtual worlds, no idea how many of us there are or if we make a large enough niche for a developer to really profit on creating games for us.
One thing that is clear is the majority of gamers are not MMORPG purists, so they have more interest in a quick in and out experiences, in fact, I dare say they likely aren't even particularly unhappy that MMORPG's today only offer a couple of months of gameplay before running dry, plays just like all the other titles they enjoy. (probably offers more than some Single player games in fact)
If game companies can make enough profit from this this model to recover their costs and a decent profit to keep the title going for years after, then we'll not likely see much change in the genre anytime soon.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.
I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.
I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.
I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.
Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.
I bail on the conversation because i was banned so many times on this forums. I just can not risk getting into debate. Also I think that the point was made and the number of posts in this topics do resonate with general feeling of the community
Originally posted by Kyleran Originally posted by AvisonI've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me. I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.
Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.
<snip>
He is named Lobotomist, not HappyFluffyBunnyConversationalist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We don't know what Rift sold after it released 'around the world'. However, if we assume that Rift sold a million and Eve is holding at four hundred fifty thousand, that puts the total UO + SWG + Eve peak players at (450 + 300 + 278 = 1,028) a bit over a million people. That is just ahead of Rift's peak of a million. Then we have SWToR and Guild Wars, both of which had peak users around two million.
I should probably not reply to this given my recent record, but 1m boxes sold =/= 1m subs, rift never had a million subs, the highest number we have is 600k right after launch, dropping quite fast to the 300k area. So you would have to elaborate a bit further to prove that 1m or even 2m boxes, that amount at best to 4 months of subs are better, except for the obvious possibility of making a crap game intentionally just to cash up on the hype and box sales.
I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.
I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.
Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.
Couldn't agree more. Also i would like to mention that anyone who supports GW2 and then make topics like these has zero credibility.
Originally posted by Banaghran Originally posted by lizardbonesWe don't know what Rift sold after it released 'around the world'. However, if we assume that Rift sold a million and Eve is holding at four hundred fifty thousand, that puts the total UO + SWG + Eve peak players at (450 + 300 + 278 = 1,028) a bit over a million people. That is just ahead of Rift's peak of a million. Then we have SWToR and Guild Wars, both of which had peak users around two million.
I should probably not reply to this given my recent record, but 1m boxes sold =/= 1m subs, rift never had a million subs, the highest number we have is 600k right after launch, dropping quite fast to the 300k area. So you would have to elaborate a bit further to prove that 1m or even 2m boxes, that amount at best to 4 months of subs are better, except for the obvious possibility of making a crap game intentionally just to cash up on the hype and box sales.
That's just one game. Conan and Warhammer both got around the million player mark. SWToR got near the two million player mark and GW2 started with something like two million players.
Taking WoW out of the picture, theme park games attract more players, which means they are more popular.
That they make more money can't be proven without looking at the financial sheets of the companies involved, but companies keep pumping money into theme park style games and I can guarantee you that those publishers do not care one little bit about whether a game is a theme park or a sandbox. They just want a return on their investment. They have a reason to believe that the overall return on investment for theme park style games is better than sandbox style games. Doesn't really matter what I think, they believe it and they have a lot more information than I or anyone in this forum has access to.
I don't think there's going to be some dramatic market shift towards sandbox games. That would involve millions of people suddenly changing the games they want to play. I think there will be a change in what it costs to develop MMORPG though. The tools will get better and as more companies get involved in making them, a set of best practices for the technology will emerge. When it gets affordable for indie developers and feasible for independent developers, there will be more changes happening in the market. More sandboxes will get made because more everything will get made.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If SWG was released today with the graphics and story line of TOR, but the opwn world, crafting, housing, social aspects, and space combat of SWG.................. Well i dont think any game would stand up to it to be honest.
But to compare a game with 300k subs (SWG had over a million accounts also btw) in a time were only 25% of people were online and 10% played MMO's, to a game with 600k-1mil subs with 80% of people online and 50%+ playing mmo's just doesnt add up. Its a stupid comparison. Its like saying you can count higher than a caveman.
Originally posted by Onomas If SWG was released today with the graphics and story line of TOR, but the opwn world, crafting, housing, social aspects, and space combat of SWG.................. Well i dont think any game would stand up to it to be honest.But to compare a game with 300k subs (SWG had over a million accounts also btw) in a time were only 25% of people were online and 10% played MMO's, to a game with 600k-1mil subs with 80% of people online and 50%+ playing mmo's just doesnt add up. Its a stupid comparison. Its like saying you can count higher than a caveman.
SWG didn't sell a million copies of the game until 2005, two years after the game released. SWToR, Rift, Age of Conan, Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 all had nine hundred thousand to nearly two million accounts within a month of release day.
In 2003, Everquest had four hundred and fifty thousand people playing. SWG peaked at three hundred thousand people playing sometime after 2003. Even compared to a gaming contemporary SWG didn't do that well. It was newer, had better technology and had a better known IP and still did not perform as well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Onomas If SWG was released today with the graphics and story line of TOR, but the opwn world, crafting, housing, social aspects, and space combat of SWG.................. Well i dont think any game would stand up to it to be honest.
But to compare a game with 300k subs (SWG had over a million accounts also btw) in a time were only 25% of people were online and 10% played MMO's, to a game with 600k-1mil subs with 80% of people online and 50%+ playing mmo's just doesnt add up. Its a stupid comparison. Its like saying you can count higher than a caveman.
SWG didn't sell a million copies of the game until 2005, two years after the game released. SWToR, Rift, Age of Conan, Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 all had nine hundred thousand to nearly two million accounts within a month of release day.
In 2003, Everquest had four hundred and fifty thousand people playing. SWG peaked at three hundred thousand people playing sometime after 2003. Even compared to a gaming contemporary SWG didn't do that well. It was newer, had better technology and had a better known IP and still did not perform as well.
But I think you fail to see what Onoma's point here.
There is a Relationship, between The available Player Mas and the Number of Subs that gives important information in order to form a conclusion on the Popularity. The actual numbers cannot be compared directly to make a conclusion, it would be falacious.
If 3 people ou of a total of 5 like a certin thing, this thing is more popular than if 20 people like something out of 50, Yet you are looking only at the 3 versus the 20, and ignoring that there were only 5 in one instance and 50 in the other.
In other words, all these MMO's we are making conclusions about did not launch at the same time.
If indeed SWTor was like SWG as Onomas is describing and launching at the same time as the one you speak of, Rift etc, it would by far be more popular.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Comments
Who cares who has more subs.. really... This is just an unfounded argument that more = better.. That just isn't the case.. McDonald's sells more then any Restaurant, but hat doesn't make them the best burgers on the planet.. Facebook games technically have more accounts then even WoW by far, but that doesn't mean they are better games to play.. As my grandfather used to say so many years ago, "Sinple things that entertain the simple mind".. There is alot of truth in that if you think about it.. This might explain why more people play checkers instead of chess.. Or why more people play "go fish" instead of bridge..
Anyways..
either you accept other peoples gaming tastes/desires or you can continue whining about it obsessively in the forums.
apparently its a BIGtime problem for you, or you wouldn't be so obsessively addressing the subject, when (in reality) it was completely optional for you to add your 2 cents.
3500 posts and climbing.
relax man.
the forum is not going to die when you stop posting
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
“We are not suggesting a fancy italian restaurant with meals you cannot pronounce.”
Indeed our casual players could just have the hors d'œuvre
The money and time of development argument lizardbones made is why we increasingly see MMO’s which are little more than solo games with a themepark lobby. So we face one of two futures, is that players want, MMO’s becoming nothing more than a themepark lobby game?
We are already well down that course now and it will not stop here, MMO’s will become more thempark and more lobby style in the years to come.
Or do you want a future where a more open world approach is followed. As others have mentioned, we are not sandbox purists, that is the box you seem to want to put this argument in. I vote for choice, for both styles of gameplay.
Erikk3189, the reason you have not seen a MMO with the social options of SWG is that gaming companies decided that was not a priority. Graphics and solo playability became the priorities and everything else was thrown to the wind. Gaming companies do like us to socialise but in an in house system like Origin, or hooked up with a social media site. The reason for this is that out of game social connections generate more customers for the MMO. In game social functions do not create more customers, they are already playing. Marketing is happy and these days that’s all that matters. Community managers might have voiced their concern had that job not been downgraded to menial work in a MMO.
Brain fart, i obviously got lost in the shapes and colors of the mmodata graphs (eve with that many subs did appear suspicious), sorry. If i wanted to decieve you, i would not have used numbers that you can doublecheck, as you have done.
Do the correct numbers change anything?
I will take it as compliment, being called despicable by someone who sells his personal opinion as the objective truth on the regular basis.
Flame on!
Well said Scot
You get my vote as ambassador for the "we want a world" genre.. Maybe one day soon a dev house will stay clear of the gravey train of WoW clone games, and created something more.. I do believe GW2 was a step in the right direction, but not big enough.. Maybe this EQNext that Sony is talking about will do the trick, but then maybe not.. LOL
Eve is holding at 450k if you include the seperate Chinese serve they run (I think Chinese GVT prevents China accounts being integrated into the main server.)
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
If you do the match those three numbers do not exceed 1 million. So yes, I think it changes the message.
I would never claim my view as being "the truth" only it is often the more objective one. I may come out like that only because the posters here have a lot of bullshit to answer for, and I love poking holes at people's bullshit arguments. You can call me out too, I'm not above it all.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
What can I say, I'm only trying to do good in the world. "If you can do good in the world you have a responsibility to do it." Now was that someone smart and famous or was that from a spiderman movie... Yup.. I think spiderman.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It hits 1 million with the correct EVE number :-)
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
Does it? ~900k sub is more than 600k subs, if 600k subs gives you 1m boxes, how many boxes gives you 900k subs, over several months, not just 1 or 2, since we have to take into account that every box is worth ~3 months of subs ouside sales?
MeatloafMcCoy was ambiguous, rememeber "Rift sold more accounts than UO, SWG and Eve combined."
Even if that means pirated sold accounts rift is not better than those games combined
As for truth its more of a stance thing, do you think it is more objective because you agree with it , or because you have considered more possibilities? Im not saying you are the only one at fault (nor that you even are), my comment was just a jab, just that it is the reality of arguing around and about the status quo.
Flame on!
They also say the road to hell is paved with good intentions
Flame on!
Agreed.
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.
I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.
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...
Eve is holding at 450k if you include the seperate Chinese serve they run (I think Chinese GVT prevents China accounts being integrated into the main server.)
We don't know what Rift sold after it released 'around the world'. However, if we assume that Rift sold a million and Eve is holding at four hundred fifty thousand, that puts the total UO + SWG + Eve peak players at (450 + 300 + 278 = 1,028) a bit over a million people. That is just ahead of Rift's peak of a million. Then we have SWToR and Guild Wars, both of which had peak users around two million.
Again, not saying that UO, SWG and Eve aren't popular. They are. They aren't really the most popular MMORPG though. Remember, we're not even talking about WoW. Take WoW out of the argument entirely and it doesn't change anything.
You can interpret the information any way you want, but the one thing that is true is that there are fewer people buying and playing sandbox style games. Even when sandbox games are on the leading edge they lose out to theme park games. UO and SWG were both on the leading edge when they released. They both lost out to games that went with a more theme park style of play.
That's why there aren't more of them right now. They make less money.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.
Here's the short of it. Some of us want virtual worlds, no idea how many of us there are or if we make a large enough niche for a developer to really profit on creating games for us.
One thing that is clear is the majority of gamers are not MMORPG purists, so they have more interest in a quick in and out experiences, in fact, I dare say they likely aren't even particularly unhappy that MMORPG's today only offer a couple of months of gameplay before running dry, plays just like all the other titles they enjoy. (probably offers more than some Single player games in fact)
If game companies can make enough profit from this this model to recover their costs and a decent profit to keep the title going for years after, then we'll not likely see much change in the genre anytime soon.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Thank you very much.
<snip>
He is named Lobotomist, not HappyFluffyBunnyConversationalist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I should probably not reply to this given my recent record, but 1m boxes sold =/= 1m subs, rift never had a million subs, the highest number we have is 600k right after launch, dropping quite fast to the 300k area. So you would have to elaborate a bit further to prove that 1m or even 2m boxes, that amount at best to 4 months of subs are better, except for the obvious possibility of making a crap game intentionally just to cash up on the hype and box sales.
Does Guild wars even have a sub fee?
Flame on!
Couldn't agree more. Also i would like to mention that anyone who supports GW2 and then make topics like these has zero credibility.
Does Guild wars even have a sub fee?
Flame on!
What is your recent record?
Anyway, their peak users had to be at least a million. They had a million accounts as of the pre-order period just before launch. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108017-Rift-Tops-the-One-Million-Account-Mark. They could have had five people playing one month later, but they sold at least a million boxes before they went global.
That's just one game. Conan and Warhammer both got around the million player mark. SWToR got near the two million player mark and GW2 started with something like two million players.
Taking WoW out of the picture, theme park games attract more players, which means they are more popular.
That they make more money can't be proven without looking at the financial sheets of the companies involved, but companies keep pumping money into theme park style games and I can guarantee you that those publishers do not care one little bit about whether a game is a theme park or a sandbox. They just want a return on their investment. They have a reason to believe that the overall return on investment for theme park style games is better than sandbox style games. Doesn't really matter what I think, they believe it and they have a lot more information than I or anyone in this forum has access to.
I don't think there's going to be some dramatic market shift towards sandbox games. That would involve millions of people suddenly changing the games they want to play. I think there will be a change in what it costs to develop MMORPG though. The tools will get better and as more companies get involved in making them, a set of best practices for the technology will emerge. When it gets affordable for indie developers and feasible for independent developers, there will be more changes happening in the market. More sandboxes will get made because more everything will get made.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If SWG was released today with the graphics and story line of TOR, but the opwn world, crafting, housing, social aspects, and space combat of SWG.................. Well i dont think any game would stand up to it to be honest.
But to compare a game with 300k subs (SWG had over a million accounts also btw) in a time were only 25% of people were online and 10% played MMO's, to a game with 600k-1mil subs with 80% of people online and 50%+ playing mmo's just doesnt add up. Its a stupid comparison. Its like saying you can count higher than a caveman.
SWG didn't sell a million copies of the game until 2005, two years after the game released. SWToR, Rift, Age of Conan, Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 all had nine hundred thousand to nearly two million accounts within a month of release day.
In 2003, Everquest had four hundred and fifty thousand people playing. SWG peaked at three hundred thousand people playing sometime after 2003. Even compared to a gaming contemporary SWG didn't do that well. It was newer, had better technology and had a better known IP and still did not perform as well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But I think you fail to see what Onoma's point here.
There is a Relationship, between The available Player Mas and the Number of Subs that gives important information in order to form a conclusion on the Popularity. The actual numbers cannot be compared directly to make a conclusion, it would be falacious.
If 3 people ou of a total of 5 like a certin thing, this thing is more popular than if 20 people like something out of 50, Yet you are looking only at the 3 versus the 20, and ignoring that there were only 5 in one instance and 50 in the other.
In other words, all these MMO's we are making conclusions about did not launch at the same time.
If indeed SWTor was like SWG as Onomas is describing and launching at the same time as the one you speak of, Rift etc, it would by far be more popular.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard