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.

1181921232430

Comments

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Banaghran
    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!

    :)

     




    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.

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon

    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.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    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.

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

     


    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

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

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    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

     Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

    If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

    While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

     

    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

  • KenzeKenze Posts: 1,214Member Uncommon

    sandboxers should be able to ignore themparkish aspects they dont like and play a game, if they chose to do so.... but themeparkers cant "make believe" themepark elements in to a game.

    Watch your thoughts; they become words.
    Watch your words; they become actions.
    Watch your actions; they become habits.
    Watch your habits; they become character.
    Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
    —Lao-Tze

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Supporters of worlds cry out for a world as the gaming industry do not provide them, supporters of instanced games disagree because a virtual world game will take away a new game to try for a month or two before becoming unhappy with the shallowness of it all.

    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 lizardbones
    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.

     

    You can have an account even without paying for the game. This is the same argument back from the rift forums, if rift would EVER have a million live subs, do you think Trion would have kept it a SECRET, just so that a few guys could argue over it on teh internetz? :)

    That was really my only problem with your post, even if i stupidly commented on the box price vs sub number thing.

    You may carry on bashing purist sandboxes. I made my point sufficiently clear a few pages back when you argued with yourself :)

    Flame on!

    :)

  • NaughtyPNaughtyP Edmonton, ABPosts: 793Member

    Dear World of Darkness,

    Please hurry.

    Thanks.

    Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.

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

    Dear World of Darkness,

    Please hurry.

    Thanks.

    Archeage

    Black Desert

    The Repopulation

    EQNext

    Greed Monger (though im starting to lean away from this one)

    And few others as well ;)

     

    Never seen so many sandboxes getting ready to explode on the market. We will see changes soon enough.

     

    My main problem with themepark junkies is they want their games easy and linear. Fine, ok. But they can play that way in a sandbox. A sandbox junkie can not play their way in a modern new age themepark. There is no way, because there is no depth or freedom.

    And its sad they are satisfied with suck low balling games its not even funny. Better to have and not use, than not to have and want it. MMO's have gone backwards, and many can not see this. Even see some hardcore themepark players in here wanting more now. Even themeparks from 4-6 years ago were three times the game that most new release themeparks are.

    Its not a matter of themepark vs sandbox, but a matter of poor game vs a real epic mmo. That is what most of us want. Well minus that one that thinkgs all games should be MOBA and lobby style LOL.

  • RilmanRilman IpswichPosts: 35Member

    I would like an MMO where you can walk for days and build a house or town in some remote part of the world if I want to.  I would like it to be a mixture of UO and SWG, with as much, if not more complexity to all aspects of the game. I'd also like there to be castles, moats and land control, battles with seige eqiupment and 1000's of players on screen without the server or my PC taking a dump. Also aim based combat with no tab targetting.

    If you can have that ready for next year that'd be great.

  • dotdotdashdotdotdash Llandrindod WellsPosts: 364Member

    YOU don't want games; YOU want worlds.

    I want games. I already live in a perfectly acceptable, functional and rewarding world as it is.

  • LobotomistLobotomist ZagrebPosts: 5,057Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    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

     Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

    If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

    While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

     

    Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

    Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

     

    Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

    Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

    For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

     

    image

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    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

     Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

    If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

    While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

     

    Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

    Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

     

    Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

    Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

    For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

     

    But then you get people complaining about the goblin killing grind they have to do to get the goblin leader quest and how unfair it is.

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

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ObiClownobi
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    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

     Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

    If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

    While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

     

    Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

    Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

     

    Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

    Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

    For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

     

    But then you get people complaining about the goblin killing grind they have to do to get the goblin leader quest and how unfair it is.

    Who cares? Atleast it is there and they have the chance to do it. Better than not having it at all. Thats the problem with new mmo's they want everything fast and easy. Thats why we are complaining. If you cant take a minute and go kill some goblins when you are leveling to earn a title, you should just be handed a title ;)

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Oxon Hill, MDPosts: 1,147Member Uncommon

    UO came out during a different time period.   It's subscriptions were decent for the time.  A big MMORPG was considered in the hundreds of thousands not millions.   We were also on dial up and a lot less people were actually online back then. 

    WoW was a perfect storm of pulling masses from it's developers popular games, being more polished and more casual.  It also had good marketing.  Blizzard to a degree is the Apple of game developers.  People buy their games because it's Blizzard and they have a loyal fan base.  Or did at least.  

    For me to find MMORPG's was essentially looking for a multiplayer Ultima 7 or multiplayer mod.  I found Ultima Online and have been hooked.  

    I am looking for a world.  It seems to me the whole point of MMORPG.  WoW was sucessful and we've had two semi failure AAA sandbox games and sandboxes have been dropped almost altogether.  Of course it ignores all of the failed WoW clones.   It's a waste that nobody is trying to make these games.  

    These days 99% of MMORPG's are soloable in every aspect outside of PVP/mini raids.  The reason being is it seems the easest thing to do is make a single player style game with other players and WoW quest hubs and change the skins and a couple of gimicks.   It's made most MMORPG's unsubscribeable and free to play mostly is annoying.  It's to the point that even EQ1 is considered sandboxy.  EQ1 is a sandbox. The world was very static, but it was a pure MMORPG.

    I want player housing, player shops, crafting areas.  A world designed to feel like a world not a leveling step stone.  Give me interdependance where other players need each other.   Bah it's all been said before.  Just want something different that's not total crap.  I'd support a sandbox that's done well but they are few and far between.  

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    Originally posted by Kyleran
     

    Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

    Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

     

    Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

    Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

    For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

     

    Suffer? Suffer?! What bullshit is this? No one suffers! Everything ends. It doesn't make it bad or worse.

    Also, generated quests kill the story element. You can't make them or mask them well enough to not feel like generated. I can't feel attached or interested in something like that. It is bound to feel like a grind after a short while once you figure how things work.

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

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    Originally posted by Kyleran
     

    Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

    Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

     

    Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

    Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

    For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

     

    Suffer? Suffer?! What bullshit is this? No one suffers! Everything ends. It doesn't make it bad or worse.

    Also, generated quests kill the story element. You can't make them or mask them well enough to not feel like generated. I can't feel attached or interested in something like that. It is bound to feel like a grind after a short while once you figure how things work.

    Arent you one of the themepark junkies? Most all themepark quests are generated lol. Everytime you restart or make a new character, its the exact same quest = boring.

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    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

     Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

    If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

    While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

     

    Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

    Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

     

    Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

    Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

    For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

     

    Er, who was talking about sandbox vs themepark?  I was talking about virtual worlds vs MMO "games" and a theme park game can certainly be a reasonable approximation of a virtual world, DAOC was one such title back in the day. (so much so many people argue it was a sandbox instead)

    Reading further, maybe you meant to reply to someone else's post?

     

    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

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

     

    Er, who was talking about sandbox vs themepark?  I was talking about virtual worlds vs MMO "games" and a theme park game can certainly be a reasonable approximation of a virtual world, DAOC was one such title back in the day. (so much so many people argue it was a sandbox instead)

    Reading further, maybe you meant to reply to someone else's post?

     

    Themeparks back in the day, sure! They were good, close to a sandbox almost. Today's themeparks........... seriously?

    Themeparks back in the day had larger worlds, more features, a meaning, and some freedom (not like a sandbox). They were decent games.

    Today? No, not even close.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Lobotomist
    Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements. Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missionsMissions that are created depending on your actions in the world.For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him. 

    The theme park vs sandbox thing is because this is MMORPG.com.

    That sounds like something that would work really well as a single player mechanic, but wouldn't scale well to many players. There would be player not only killed the goblins, but also the skeletons, ogres, trolls, deer, demons, dragons, ghosts, rabbits, bats, (you get where I'm going here, right?), etc. The system can't keep up with the players killing stuff. Even worse, players figure out how to manipulate the system so you get players helping the goblins over run the continent.

    The idea is cool, but getting it to work in a large scale multiplayer setting sounds a bit tricky (to me). Now...small scale games with personal servers...yeah, that would work. But then I think a lot of developers who released their games as MMORPG should have released them as single player/personal server games anyway.

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

  • KhayotixKhayotix Somewhere, FLPosts: 220Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Traugar
    Originally posted by jpnz

    As long as $$$ made in 'sandbox' is smaller than 'themeparks', sandbox will be a niche.

    I always ask topic makers this question; if you like 'sandbox' MMOs do you spend $$$ on sandbox MMOs?

    I would be more than happy to if there was one out there that had been made with a decent budget.  Eve isn't my thing, as I am not into being the ship.  I like having an avatar.  

    So which decent sized company is going to make a sandbox MMO when the $$$ just isn't there?

    It has to start somewhere.

     

    Can we see a company make a huge risky investment? Maybe.

    Will that company see a return? Probably not, when your best $$$ sandbox MMO is EVE with 300k-400k subs, it just doesn't make good business sense.

    Eve has 300-400k subs because it is a small niche sandbox people dont like being a space ship they need characters they relate to. If a Sandbox was made as well as Eve in a good Fantasy world, the subs would be well beyond that, and by the way 300-400k subs is good money. Just cuz it isnt WoW doesnt make it any less successful and financially in the black. Also. SOE(Decent sized Company) is making EQ Next which is a Sandbox game in fact boasted that it is going to be the largest sandbox game ever made.

    image
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Banaghran
    Originally posted by lizardbones 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.  
    You can have an account even without paying for the game. This is the same argument back from the rift forums, if rift would EVER have a million live subs, do you think Trion would have kept it a SECRET, just so that a few guys could argue over it on teh internetz? :)

    That was really my only problem with your post, even if i stupidly commented on the box price vs sub number thing.

    You may carry on bashing purist sandboxes. I made my point sufficiently clear a few pages back when you argued with yourself :)

    Flame on!

    :)




    Bah! Duped by verbiage! In any event, pick any two of the following games: Rift, SWToR, GW2, AoC, WarHammer, and you'll get a significantly bigger number of peak players than UO + SWG + Eve. The most popular games, judged by peak players are not sandboxes.

    What is your point, exactly?

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

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Saryhl
    Originally posted by jpnz Originally posted by Traugar Originally posted by jpnz As long as $$$ made in 'sandbox' is smaller than 'themeparks', sandbox will be a niche. I always ask topic makers this question; if you like 'sandbox' MMOs do you spend $$$ on sandbox MMOs?
    I would be more than happy to if there was one out there that had been made with a decent budget.  Eve isn't my thing, as I am not into being the ship.  I like having an avatar.  
    So which decent sized company is going to make a sandbox MMO when the $$$ just isn't there? It has to start somewhere.   Can we see a company make a huge risky investment? Maybe. Will that company see a return? Probably not, when your best $$$ sandbox MMO is EVE with 300k-400k subs, it just doesn't make good business sense.
    Eve has 300-400k subs because it is a small niche sandbox people dont like being a space ship they need characters they relate to. If a Sandbox was made as well as Eve in a good Fantasy world, the subs would be well beyond that, and by the way 300-400k subs is good money. Just cuz it isnt WoW doesnt make it any less successful and financially in the black. Also. SOE(Decent sized Company) is making EQ Next which is a Sandbox game in fact boasted that it is going to be the largest sandbox game ever made.


    There's always an excuse as to why sandboxes aren't more popular than they are right now. It's always, "If only..." with some set of perfect circumstances that would make sandbox games incredibly successful.

    In the meantime, theme parks have been half @ssing it since before SWG and raking in the money.

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

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

     


    Originally posted by Saryhl

    Originally posted by jpnz

    Originally posted by Traugar

    Originally posted by jpnz As long as $$$ made in 'sandbox' is smaller than 'themeparks', sandbox will be a niche. I always ask topic makers this question; if you like 'sandbox' MMOs do you spend $$$ on sandbox MMOs?
    I would be more than happy to if there was one out there that had been made with a decent budget.  Eve isn't my thing, as I am not into being the ship.  I like having an avatar.  
    So which decent sized company is going to make a sandbox MMO when the $$$ just isn't there? It has to start somewhere.   Can we see a company make a huge risky investment? Maybe. Will that company see a return? Probably not, when your best $$$ sandbox MMO is EVE with 300k-400k subs, it just doesn't make good business sense.
    Eve has 300-400k subs because it is a small niche sandbox people dont like being a space ship they need characters they relate to. If a Sandbox was made as well as Eve in a good Fantasy world, the subs would be well beyond that, and by the way 300-400k subs is good money. Just cuz it isnt WoW doesnt make it any less successful and financially in the black. Also. SOE(Decent sized Company) is making EQ Next which is a Sandbox game in fact boasted that it is going to be the largest sandbox game ever made.

    There's always an excuse as to why sandboxes aren't more popular than they are right now. It's always, "If only..." with some set of perfect circumstances that would make sandbox games incredibly successful.

    In the meantime, theme parks have been half @ssing it since before SWG and raking in the money.

     

    If not popular then why are 9 of them coming out soon? Some are AAA as well. Fact is themeparks have become worse and had their day. Now things will progress in a different direction. Bet you half of those will do better than the last 50 themeparks, because since Rift......... none have been worthy. So 1 out of 100 themeparks amount to anything, and this is your arguement for why themeparks are better and shouldnt change? Because im confused. I want a real mmo, an epic game with a massive world. Most you guys attacking sandboxes want the opposite.

Sign In or Register to comment.