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.

1171820222330

Comments

  • SuraknarSuraknar Montreal, QCPosts: 824Member

    Comparativelly with some stat from http://mmodata.blogspot.ca/

    UO had 100k Subs in the first 6 months. This represents 0.14% of the Internet Population at the time.

    WoW had 500k Subs in the first 6 months. This represents 0.06% of the internet Population at the time.

    Ultima Online was much more popular and successfull than WoW when it launched.

    So just looking atthe totals and say oh they have more..without taking under consideration that there were much less gamers online at the time of Ultima and much more gamers online atthe time of WoW, and the deriving at the conclusion that Sandboxes are less popular than Themeparks is erroneous.

    UO not only puts to shame in this comparison WoW but all the games that came out since WoW.

    - Duke Suraknar -
    Order of the Silver Star, OSS

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

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

     

    Do you know how many times i have tried to explain this to people.

    200-500k subs back then with inflation blows most all the newer mmo's out of the water ;)

    You can not compare a 2013 car to a 1930 car, just not realistic.

     

  • SuraknarSuraknar Montreal, QCPosts: 824Member
    Originally posted by Onomas
    Originally posted by Suraknar
    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.

     

    Do you know how many times i have tried to explain this to people.

    200-500k subs back then with inflation blows most all the newer mmo's out of the water ;)

    You can not compare a 2013 car to a 1930 car, just not realistic.

     

    Very true. Indeed it does!

    - Duke Suraknar -
    Order of the Silver Star, OSS

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

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon

         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..

  • corpusccorpusc Chattanooga, TNPosts: 1,330Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     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

    The End
    ---------------------------
    i don't expect to like Darkfall, altho i may like it MORE than other MMOs. i know it is gonna have a very frustrating level of grind to it, even if its significantly less than most. waiting for a pure FAST action virtual world. dice rolling & character levels (even "skills") IN COMBAT should have never carried over from pencil & paper to a computer that can reasonably model 3D spaces and objects

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,757Member Uncommon

    “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.

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    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...

    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!

    :)

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon

    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 

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,549Member Uncommon
    If I lived in an mmo I would be like glitchen in on the pot going this sucks.
  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    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...

    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.)

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

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

    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

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by corpusc
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     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

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    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 :-)

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    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.

    Flame on!

    :)

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by corpusc
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     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 :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • ThornrageThornrage Eastern North CarolinaPosts: 592Member Uncommon
    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.

    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

  • AvisonAvison Orlando, FLPosts: 350Member

    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.

    image
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by ObiClownobi
    Originally posted by Quirhid 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...
    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.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,506Member Uncommon

    This is one of those things where many will shout "Yes we want worlds!!!!" .... But once the developer gives them a world they say "this is BORING".

    Sometimes masses don't really know what they want, they just think they do.

    masses want easy, shallow games, that's what sells, games that require no long time commitment and are accessible to the lowest common denominator. A vast minority wants a complex deep world simulation.

    Now consider that a quality MMORPG will cost at least $40 mil... Yeah good luck on getting that virtual world that only 30,000 players would actually play in.

    The dev studios capable of making quality MMORPGs are not going to blow tens of millions $s on something that few will play. On the flip side small indie devs can't deliver the quality nor infrastructure to support an evolving online world so the gamers who want to play this type of game would complain due to inferior quality and service.

    Its a pickle.

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,980Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Avison

    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.

     

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "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

  • LobotomistLobotomist ZagrebPosts: 5,050Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Avison

    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.

    Thank you very much.

    image

  • LobotomistLobotomist ZagrebPosts: 5,050Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Avison

    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

     

    image

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Avison 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.

    <snip> 




    He is named Lobotomist, not HappyFluffyBunnyConversationalist.

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

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    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.

    Does Guild wars even have a sub fee?

    Flame on!

    :)

     

  • WhitebeardsWhitebeards TokyoPosts: 778Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Avison

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.