And naturally these sort of players believe with a breathtaking degree to certainty that MMOs cannot be anything other than flash in the pan affairs - and that designers cannot create persistently engaging worlds, or reconcile themepark and sandbox successfully.They are as 'fast food' in their thinking as their gaming.
Oh, you are confused. It is not that we believe it is impossible for designers to create persistently engaging worlds, it is that we do not care.
Given enough money, anything is possible. But i am skeptical if it is probable. Look at the really successful online games. How many depends on a online shared virtual world? If you use xfire to compare games, PS2 is the highest at #16 .. and it has limited interaction .. no difference than a huge instanced pvp map. The sandbox poster child, Eve, is at #25.
Steam gives similar results. Game centric products heavily outweigh the World centric products in terms of players.
It's not surprising that developers go with a Game centric approach given how popular it is and how well it seems to work in general. That doesn't mean there isn't a market and it doesn't mean a developer couldn't make money with a World centric approach. It just means the deck is stacked in favor of a game approach.
I think there are two negatives that prevent world centric online games to become popular. First, for it to be good, it needs a huge amount of investment. It is cost prohibitive to test all the interacting systems properly. Even WOW, which has a tremendous amount of polish, and quite limited world interaction, still have bugs, and Blizz is certainly not short on budget.
Secondly, there are other very compeling, much more focus gaming experiences. If an open world sandbox is not that big of an improvement, over non-open world experiences, and if it won't attract significant more paying players, why should a dev bothers with it?
Now there is always a niche that will want sandbox or nothing (and any other type of gaming preferences), but that is usually not a reason to start $10+M investments. And unfortunately, unlike something like graphical adventures, it is much more difficult to have small indie efforts to do this.
You are correct that no one would risk their millions on an unproven concept like Worlds. Especially when a complete game will require years to develop correctly.
But that is if you are thinking of an fully complete MMORPG as Worlds.
If we take a step back and look at Minecraft, where its an Unique concept, with graphics that isn't Photo Realism, yet it captured Millions of Player's attention.
I think that should be the route that developers even Indie developers should take, to develope this indea into an popular idea and polish it where worlds can be used in future MMO.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
You are correct that no one would risk their millions on an unproven concept like Worlds. Especially when a complete game will require years to develop correctly.
But that is if you are thinking of an fully complete MMORPG as Worlds.
If we take a step back and look at Minecraft, where its an Unique concept, with graphics that isn't Photo Realism, yet it captured Millions of Player's attention.
I think that should be the route that developers even Indie developers should take, to develope this indea into an popular idea and polish it where worlds can be used in future MMO.
I think something like another Minecraft is certainly possible. But i highly doubt a properly made online fantasy open world game can be done as an indie effort. The requirement of art assets, and combat mechanics programming is just too high. I remember there was a indie mmo called LOVE .. and that also have to resort to very simple graphics .. which obviously is not enough for a fantasy world.
What devs "should" do is obviously our preference and even wishful thinking.
I don't see why devs really needs to be gung-ho on the virtual world idea. There are plenty of non-virtual world gameplay style that is much easier to do .. and have space for innovation.
Recently success like WOT shows that you don't even need a world (sandbox or not) to be successful. That is another direction devs "should" pay attention to. Or you can look at PS2 .. where you do have a large world, but simplified interactions to only FPS pvp (and some communications).
1) I don't like Eve, UO .. and sandbox MMOs. I like WOW, DCUO, and many other MMOs enough.
Fair enough, but earlier in the thread you seemed to indicate you wanted MMOs to become lobby games like LOL, which are not MMOs.
2) I am not the only one who said i want a game, instead of a world in this thread. Go back and read it all.
I read the entire thread before making my post and I realize you aren't the only one that would prefer a game to a world. What drew me to respond to you was the fact that you have made the least constructive posts in the thread and have spent your time doing nothing except bashing sandbox games.I understand not liking them, but derailing a thread like this is poor forum ettiquette.
3) Whether i hate sandbox or not ... is independent whether it will fail. The market decides that. You can keep you head in the sand. I like lock room mystery too .. and i am not under the illusion that it will become popular again. I don't like twilight, but i am under no illusion that it will die off. My preference is pretty much independent of what is going to happen in the market. May be you should be less emotional and see actually what is happening.
I don't see how they will fail. I'm also not under the illusion that sandbox games are WoW-killers or will completely replace theme-park MMOs. The point is that there is a market for both as has been clearly demonstrated in the past. Let's also not ignore the rather large number of sandbox games on the horizon, which includes some AAA titles. Though, I suppose we will have to wait and see how well they do. You aren't posting because you think they will fail, you are posting because you WANT them to fail.
4) If you can't deal with opinions you don't like, it is your problem. Not mine. I am more than happy to discuss the preference of game over world here .. which is very much on topic.
I can deal with opinions when they is some way contribute to the conversation. What you have done is completely derailed a thread because you have some kind of vendetta against a particular type of game, sandboxes. Going on and on about how sandbox games will fail is not in any way on-topic. The was about worlds vs. games, not sandbox vs. themepark or whether sandboxes can/will be successful in the market.
1) I don't like Eve, UO .. and sandbox MMOs. I like WOW, DCUO, and many other MMOs enough.
Fair enough, but earlier in the thread you seemed to indicate you wanted MMOs to become lobby games like LOL, which are not MMOs.
You misread me. My position is:
1) I like some MMOs (as stated). I also like non-MMO like D3, WOT, PS2 (i don't like and i don't play LOL). And i think some non-MMO game play style is very close to MMO .. and i make little distinction in my gaming choice.
2) I don "want" anything. I am merely state my preference. I don't care if all MMOs become non-MMO .. and vice versa. But at the same time, i do have an assessment (not desire .. assessment) of where the market is going to go, and that is NOT in the direction of sandbox virtual world MMOs.
2) I am not the only one who said i want a game, instead of a world in this thread. Go back and read it all.
I read the entire thread before making my post and I realize you aren't the only one that would prefer a game to a world. What drew me to respond to you was the fact that you have made the least constructive posts in the thread and have spent your time doing nothing except bashing sandbox games.I understand not liking them, but derailing a thread like this is poor forum ettiquette.
"Constructive" is in teh eye of the beholder. This thread is a discussion of game vs world. It just happens i sit on the opposite side of you. I think it is highly non constructive to rehash all the rant of a lack of sandbox games, will you stop doing that? I think not.
3) Whether i hate sandbox or not ... is independent whether it will fail. The market decides that. You can keep you head in the sand. I like lock room mystery too .. and i am not under the illusion that it will become popular again. I don't like twilight, but i am under no illusion that it will die off. My preference is pretty much independent of what is going to happen in the market. May be you should be less emotional and see actually what is happening.
I don't see how they will fail. I'm also not under the illusion that sandbox games are WoW-killers or will completely replace theme-park MMOs. The point is that there is a market for both as has been clearly demonstrated in the past. Let's also not ignore the rather large number of sandbox games on the horizon, which includes some AAA titles. Though, I suppose we will have to wait and see how well they do. You aren't posting because you think they will fail, you are posting because you WANT them to fail.
My point (3) is not saying sandbox will fail .. is that whether "i hate it" has nothing to do with its chance of success. I hope you can follow that argument. Surely there are sandbox on the horizon, and there is Eve.
On the other hand, there is also data showing no sandbox has achieve level of success of online "games". Do you disagree with that statement?
4) If you can't deal with opinions you don't like, it is your problem. Not mine. I am more than happy to discuss the preference of game over world here .. which is very much on topic.
I can deal with opinions when they is some way contribute to the conversation. What you have done is completely derailed a thread because you have some kind of vendetta against a particular type of game, sandboxes. Going on and on about how sandbox games will fail is not in any way on-topic. The was about worlds vs. games, not sandbox vs. themepark or whether sandboxes can/will be successful in the market.
Now you are guessing my purpose.
Actually i don't think you can deal with opinions .. snice the way you deal with them is to classify them as "vendetta" and "non-constructive".
If that is your approach, you can feel free to ignore me.
Plus, sandbox is a kind of world game .. it is fair to discuss it (and its chance of success) in a topic about game vs world.
1) I don't like Eve, UO .. and sandbox MMOs. I like WOW, DCUO, and many other MMOs enough.
Fair enough, but earlier in the thread you seemed to indicate you wanted MMOs to become lobby games like LOL, which are not MMOs.
You misread me. My position is:
1) I like some MMOs (as stated). I also like non-MMO like D3, WOT, PS2 (i don't like and i don't play LOL). And i think some non-MMO game play style is very close to MMO .. and i make little distinction in my gaming choice.
2) I don "want" anything. I am merely state my preference. I don't care if all MMOs become non-MMO .. and vice versa. But at the same time, i do have an assessment (not desire .. assessment) of where the market is going to go, and that is NOT in the direction of sandbox virtual world MMOs.
I see. That's fine then. I disagree about your assessment of the market, but that is a discussion for another thread.
2) I am not the only one who said i want a game, instead of a world in this thread. Go back and read it all.
I read the entire thread before making my post and I realize you aren't the only one that would prefer a game to a world. What drew me to respond to you was the fact that you have made the least constructive posts in the thread and have spent your time doing nothing except bashing sandbox games.I understand not liking them, but derailing a thread like this is poor forum ettiquette.
"Constructive" is in teh eye of the beholder. This thread is a discussion of game vs world. It just happens i sit on the opposite side of you. I think it is highly non constructive to rehash all the rant of a lack of sandbox games, will you stop doing that? I think not.
Opposite side? I like games and worlds. I don't see how I'm on the complete opposite side. I don't see why I can't like both. There is a lack of sandbox games, but I agree it is better not to discuss it since it is off-topic.
3) Whether i hate sandbox or not ... is independent whether it will fail. The market decides that. You can keep you head in the sand. I like lock room mystery too .. and i am not under the illusion that it will become popular again. I don't like twilight, but i am under no illusion that it will die off. My preference is pretty much independent of what is going to happen in the market. May be you should be less emotional and see actually what is happening.
I don't see how they will fail. I'm also not under the illusion that sandbox games are WoW-killers or will completely replace theme-park MMOs. The point is that there is a market for both as has been clearly demonstrated in the past. Let's also not ignore the rather large number of sandbox games on the horizon, which includes some AAA titles. Though, I suppose we will have to wait and see how well they do. You aren't posting because you think they will fail, you are posting because you WANT them to fail.
My point (3) is not saying sandbox will fail .. is that whether "i hate it" has nothing to do with its chance of success. I hope you can follow that argument. Surely there are sandbox on the horizon, and there is Eve.
On the other hand, there is also data showing no sandbox has achieve level of success of online "games". Do you disagree with that statement?
I completely agree. You know how many copies of Counter-Strike have been sold? Not to mention the f2p versions released overseas. Most gamers like normal games and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see the point you are trying to get at? Not everyone plays mmos. Even games like LoL are small compared to social games like Farmville and mobile games like Angry Birds. Though I guess those particular ones aren't as popular anymore.
4) If you can't deal with opinions you don't like, it is your problem. Not mine. I am more than happy to discuss the preference of game over world here .. which is very much on topic.
I can deal with opinions when they is some way contribute to the conversation. What you have done is completely derailed a thread because you have some kind of vendetta against a particular type of game, sandboxes. Going on and on about how sandbox games will fail is not in any way on-topic. The was about worlds vs. games, not sandbox vs. themepark or whether sandboxes can/will be successful in the market.
Now you are guessing my purpose.
Actually i don't think you can deal with opinions .. snice the way you deal with them is to classify them as "vendetta" and "non-constructive".
If that is your approach, you can feel free to ignore me.
Plus, sandbox is a kind of world game .. it is fair to discuss it (and its chance of success) in a topic about game vs world.
I can deal with opinions fine. There was nothing constructive going on.
Hard to ignore you when you are making half the posts in a thread.
But this is still not just about sandboxes. There are other ways to do world games and you are just turning this into the internets ten trillionth sandbox vs. themepark debate. There is a sticky for that discussion so take it there.
Well said. Ultimately the creators of new MMOs are going to be like Hollywood for a while: churn out the same versions of the same thing we've seen a million times before...because that sells. Until one world comes along, takes some risks and builds an imaginative new experience for gamers that changes the tide and starts its own trend. WOW did it. We're just waiting for another world to rival it's dominance.
I completely agree. You know how many copies of Counter-Strike have been sold? Not to mention the f2p versions released overseas. Most gamers like normal games and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see the point you are trying to get at? Not everyone plays mmos. Even games like LoL are small compared to social games like Farmville and mobile games like Angry Birds. Though I guess those particular ones aren't as popular anymore.
But the point is that a online world game (not a sandbox .. a world game .. since you seem to want to make the distinction) that allows thousands of interacting players cost a lot to make. Farmville and Angry Birds are cheap to make.
The better comparison is COD, or HALO. If you go by xfire numbers, LOL has more online players than even COD. So LOL is not that small.
The point is world games are complicated, and expensive to do well. And that is why i don't think the benefit-cost ratio is in its favor, and i don't predict it will be a trend in the industry.
But this is still not just about sandboxes. There are other ways to do world games and you are just turning this into the internets ten trillionth sandbox vs. themepark debate. There is a sticky for that discussion so take it there.
Actually i was talking about online world games ... so it is fine to not focus on sandbox. At the same time, i hold the position that the primary puprose of a game (for me) is to entertain, and having a world is not always necessarily, and sometimes too much of a reaslitic world simulation (like require the user to wait or walk a lot) is detrimental to fun.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Lucioon
You are correct that no one would risk their millions on an unproven concept like Worlds. Especially when a complete game will require years to develop correctly. But that is if you are thinking of an fully complete MMORPG as Worlds. If we take a step back and look at Minecraft, where its an Unique concept, with graphics that isn't Photo Realism, yet it captured Millions of Player's attention. I think that should be the route that developers even Indie developers should take, to develope this indea into an popular idea and polish it where worlds can be used in future MMO.I think something like another Minecraft is certainly possible. But i highly doubt a properly made online fantasy open world game can be done as an indie effort. The requirement of art assets, and combat mechanics programming is just too high. I remember there was a indie mmo called LOVE .. and that also have to resort to very simple graphics .. which obviously is not enough for a fantasy world.
What devs "should" do is obviously our preference and even wishful thinking.
I don't see why devs really needs to be gung-ho on the virtual world idea. There are plenty of non-virtual world gameplay style that is much easier to do .. and have space for innovation.
Recently success like WOT shows that you don't even need a world (sandbox or not) to be successful. That is another direction devs "should" pay attention to. Or you can look at PS2 .. where you do have a large world, but simplified interactions to only FPS pvp (and some communications).
I play Minecraft almost every day on a mcMMO server and I run my own server. I have enjoyed playing Minecraft for many months, mostly because of the interactivity with the world. However, I think Minecraft is one of the worst examples of what developers should do with MMORPG in terms of game mechanics. It boils down to, if other players can ruin your experience, other players will ruin your experience, whether they mean to or not. Worlds full of holes that are nearly impossible to even run across, much less play on and gauntlets of players with more resources that you have to run through just to get someplace where you can even hide, much less build are common. It's ridiculous.
However, one thing I think developers should take from Minecraft is private servers. Many MMORPG would work fine if the developer wrote a server for the game capable of running on a single machine like the Minecraft servers. There are people who have done this with emulators...but I think it would work better if the developers themselves did it. Of course, is it even an MMORPG if millions of people are playing a game, but they are spread out over thousands of servers? I don't know. It would make world centric games more viable though, even if it didn't make world centric MMORPG more common. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by DarthRichardson Well said. Ultimately the creators of new MMOs are going to be like Hollywood for a while: churn out the same versions of the same thing we've seen a million times before...because that sells. Until one world comes along, takes some risks and builds an imaginative new experience for gamers that changes the tide and starts its own trend. WOW did it. We're just waiting for another world to rival it's dominance.
I don't doubt this business model. But i highly doubt the new trend is going to be virtual world games. They have been tried before.
In fact, the trend has already changed .. WOW was a world game .. and now more a lobby co-op dungeon and arena pvp game. Isn't that responding to players' preference?
Isn't it possible that the experience is going to be even more fusion between SP games and MMOs?
Look at Dishonored .. it is highly successful because of its new setting, and fuse elements of steam punk & stealth. May be MMO has a revival ilke that? Fuse a new setting, with more assessible online game featuers like friend list, and cross server functionalities.
However, one thing I think developers should take from Minecraft is private servers. Many MMORPG would work fine if the developer wrote a server for the game capable of running on a single machine like the Minecraft servers. There are people who have done this with emulators...but I think it would work better if the developers themselves did it. Of course, is it even an MMORPG if millions of people are playing a game, but they are spread out over thousands of servers? I don't know. It would make world centric games more viable though, even if it didn't make world centric MMORPG more common. :-)
This is not a new idea ... NWN has that .. you essentially run your own little dungeon server. But it is not a MMO (which frankly i don't care a lot about the MMO-ness of a game .. but some do).
The biggest issue, however, if progression is important for the game, is that cheating would be uncontrollable. Either you have to disallow characters moving from one server to another (which will be bad because everyone want their toons to have some permanencies) or you have to live with whatever toon another player brings to your server, whether he earns the power or not.
Well said OP. I play games to escape the world I live in. If I want to "game" i would play a shooter or an rts. But when I play an mmo or rpg I wanna get sucked in and forget about the world we are really in. When I play an mmo or rpg that does it right the world around me falls away and my chars mind is replaced by my mind, I use my imagination to place myself in that world. Many modern day mmos this really isnt possible by making it a linear quest hub chase. The last game where I truly got lost in its wonder was Vangaurd.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
Putting my personal preference aside I don't think "worlds" will be all that come out for MMOs now but we know a few that are coming. We'll have to see how they do as opposed to how closed-in themeparks are doing now.
I do not doubt there are more MMO players than MMORPG players so games will continue to get more simplified in an effort to be as "user friendly" as possible.
Lead by an example if you really want to speak for 'us'.
Start by stop buying and supporting games like GW2. When you cna do that i will take you more seriously.
I will totally change my game buying habbits right now ! Because I really care that you personally take me seriously.
So why even bother to make OP then? because if continue to support games like GW2 and then make an OP about wanting a world and ask 'if we will ever get it'. What is the point? just to raise the stink?
No one takes an alcoholic seriously when he gives advice to others on stop drinking because it is bad for their health. You need to stop drinking first and then you can speak on behalf of others. Simple logic.
So yeah sorry bud but you do need to change your gaming habits to give credibility to your OP. All i see is double standards especially when you write stuff like this...
And we have what we have today. Shallow abominations. Most laughable of which would be MMOs that came 2012. Basically Single player games with other people running around.
Sounds more like a politician talk to me.
Lets consider the crazy possibility that person can enjoy several different types of games.
GW2 is high quality game with very dedicated team behind it. Its fun CASUAL game. But should not be considered real MMO - world. As nothing made 2012 should.
And I think its also very important game for MMO history - because it put the nail in the coffin of subscription fees for themepark games.
I think everyone should buy it , and thus demonstrate that we dont want to pay subscription for shallow themepark games anymore.
You're correct, you are just talking crazy here, its all about the MMORPG and preferably those that emulate virutual worlds vs lobbies.
And there's a poster or two on these forums who are currently playing GW2 and claim to be eagerly awaiting DF:UW and I just find that hard to fathom.
They are like two opposite philosophies. Oh well, some folks can listen to Country Music and Rap on the same CD, (not I) so why not? (edit: wait, that would be like listening to Bad and Worse, so not that surprising after all)
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
But I will agree with you that words alone are not enough and some action is in order, for now my action is to close my wallet on every new Themepark.
How is that working out so far?
Pretty good actually. So good that the industry is switching to F2P mode.
A bit more and maybe the Investors will start demanding World MMO's because there is no money to be made in Themeparks.
Since it has come down to this level where a Design of an MMo is decided by a Customer tendency Chart, well guess what, the chart is reflecting our tendency, and so we are in a position to change it.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
But I will agree with you that words alone are not enough and some action is in order, for now my action is to close my wallet on every new Themepark.
How is that working out so far?
Pretty good actually. So good that the industry is switching to F2P mode.
A bit more and maybe the Investors will start demanding World MMO's because there is no money to be made in Themeparks.
Since it has come down to this level where a Design of an MMo is decided by a Customer tendency Chart, well guess what, the chart is reflecting our tendency, and so we are in a position to change it.
I think due to market forces, compteition and the glut of F2P short-life themeparks on the market at the moment, an immersive world platform which caters for a wide range of players and charges subs is innevitable.
There are too many companies chasing the same pool of customers usng the same short-lived themepark models.
Something has to give - and it seems to me that it is less likely that games companies walk away from the genre entirely or become so ultra-specialised they further narrow their customer base.
You get more fish with a wider net - even if you have to initially invest in a bigger boat...
I think due to market forces, compteition and the glut of F2P short-life themeparks on the market at the moment, an immersive world platform which caters for a wide range of players and charges subs is innevitable.
There are too many companies chasing the same pool of customers usng the same short-lived themepark models.
Something has to give - and it seems to me that it is less likely that games companies walk away from the genre entirely or become so ultra-specialised they further narrow their customer base.
You get more fish with a wider net - even if you have to initially invest in a bigger boat...
Most 'sandbox vs themeparks' debate comes down to this single fact.
Themeparks makes more $$$ as a whole than Sandbox.
Someone always brings up this mythical 'large sandbox playerbase that'll pay to play' which there is no proof of for the past 7 years.
Why would any company throw millions at something that has no factual basis to exists?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I think due to market forces, compteition and the glut of F2P short-life themeparks on the market at the moment, an immersive world platform which caters for a wide range of players and charges subs is innevitable.There are too many companies chasing the same pool of customers usng the same short-lived themepark models.Something has to give - and it seems to me that it is less likely that games companies walk away from the genre entirely or become so ultra-specialised they further narrow their customer base.You get more fish with a wider net - even if you have to initially invest in a bigger boat...
Most 'sandbox vs themeparks' debate comes down to this single fact.
Themeparks makes more $$$ as a whole than Sandbox.
Someone always brings up this mythical 'large sandbox playerbase that'll pay to play' which there is no proof of for the past 7 years.
Why would any company throw millions at something that has no factual basis to exists?
There are some sandbox games getting made. They aren't getting made in the usual way though. Either the games are being funded in Asia and will make the bulk of their money in Asia, they are crowdfunded through Kickstarter, or they are really, really small.
This doesn't go against the idea that there's no historical reason for a Western developer go go all out with a sandbox. Every sandbox made and released in the West has been outperformed financially by at least one theme park, probably more than one. However, this does allow for the opportunity for people to at least try out some sandbox games that may be a step up from Mortal Online and possibly even Darkfall or Eve. They have to get made and released before we'll really know anything substantial though.
** edit ** EQNext falls outside of the funded in Asia, crowd funded or tiny categories. I don't know what EQNext is going to be though. The word 'sandbox' got thrown out there, but we need some details on what mechanics they are including under 'sandbox'. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see the debates in the forums.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
While MMORPG fans discuss things like sandbox and theme park, the overall MMORPG market loses ground every passing day against games which offer instant on line fun.
Diablo 3 is a stripped down loot game and despite its start is catching to gain steam. As do games like LOL and DOTA 2...
Those who want a world want a MMO to emulate a real world. Those who want themparks just want to emulate Disneyland. The first is a lot harder to do well.
To me what has been pushed aside is the socialization/grouping aspect of MMORPG's in general. The proper acronym should be MSORPG - Massively Soloable Online Role Playing Game. I am hard pressed to find a recent MMORPG that can't be leveled to cap with pretty much no interaction outside of the NPCs built into the game.
The current make up of the genre contributes to the complaint of " I capped my character in 3 weeks, there is nothing left to do" when in actuality interaction was ignored as well as content. I would love to see an MMO built with a cap of 80-100 where everything after level 20 involving the PvE nature of that game has to be completed in group. That would also open the way for more distinctive questlines, the devs would know that X number of players at minimum would always be working these quests or areas.
Games also seem to include a variety of gameplay yet implementation of content that doesn't follow the main flow is never fully thought out and can be detrimental to the value of the game. Every game seems to include commerce - generally crafting and Auction houses - but its all too sanitized. When a giant ogre drops chest armor that magically fits a dwarf, the devs just missed the opportunity to make commerce viable.
A blacksmith could reshape that armor to fit the dwarf and keep the extra metal as a fee or part of a fee to make and sell gloves for example. Selling the item should be open and transparent. If Bob the blacksmith sells for less than Joe the blacksmith, why not buy from Bob? If Bob loses money on the item vs cost , it is on him to figure out, not the market itself.
Lots of people think well I dont have time for that or I don't want to do that. Fine , but there are those who do and there is nothing wrong with being the guy who outfitted the dragonslayer if that is the world experience they want.
There is a whole side of content in games that just feels like an afterthought because, frankly , it is. The world stops being a world if only killing the sinister endboss is the only fleshed out path.
I think due to market forces, compteition and the glut of F2P short-life themeparks on the market at the moment, an immersive world platform which caters for a wide range of players and charges subs is innevitable.
There are too many companies chasing the same pool of customers usng the same short-lived themepark models.
Something has to give - and it seems to me that it is less likely that games companies walk away from the genre entirely or become so ultra-specialised they further narrow their customer base.
You get more fish with a wider net - even if you have to initially invest in a bigger boat...
Most 'sandbox vs themeparks' debate comes down to this single fact.
Themeparks makes more $$$ as a whole than Sandbox.
Someone always brings up this mythical 'large sandbox playerbase that'll pay to play' which there is no proof of for the past 7 years.
Why would any company throw millions at something that has no factual basis to exists?
This statement is bogus. How can you compare the two when you only have a handful of sandboxes out there. Besides UO, EVE, and SWG you realy dont have much of a sandbox pool to compare the two. Sure you have some smaller sandbox games, but they went into pvp main stream and neglected the other aspects of a sandbox making them not true sandboxes (mortal, df, etc).
With a dozen or so new sandboxes coming up, you will see a switch. People are sick and tired of the quarter arcade themepark games. And they throw millions of dollars away every time they release one btw. SWTOR threw away 200+ million alone
You can only do the same thing over and over and forced down a path so many times even before the most hardcore themepark junkie gets bored. Why many here claim to love their "games" switch to a new one so fast. MMORPG were meant to have longjevity, not be changed up every month.
I don't think it's bogus at all. The evidence is not rock solid but it's not non-existant. There's actually a couple dozen sandboxes out right now (check out Larsa's thread). And then there is of course the fact that the first big game in the genre (UO) was a sandbox which was beat by EQ.
So here are the facts so far: 1. Sandbox games have never climbed above a population of 357,000 . While themeparks would give there eye teeth for this in a stable game, most themeparks at one time or another has had significantly more. (IMO it makes more sense for a publisher to start higher and drop to that number than start lower and hope to rise to that number)
2. The genre was started by sandbox and when given a themepark choice more people chose that one (EQ beat all the early sandboxes)
3. There are a couple dozen sandbox out right now and Eve has the highest population. Not going to state why (IMO opinion people will just make an excuse as to why they are not doing well, some are legit, some not but it's happened every time and I expect people will continue that).
There are several coming out in the future. We will find out whether sandbox really is more popular however I do expect that many/all of them will not do well and people will continue to come up with excuses. We will see in the next couple years.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Onomas Originally posted by jpnzOriginally posted by Caliburn101
I think due to market forces, compteition and the glut of F2P short-life themeparks on the market at the moment, an immersive world platform which caters for a wide range of players and charges subs is innevitable.There are too many companies chasing the same pool of customers usng the same short-lived themepark models.Something has to give - and it seems to me that it is less likely that games companies walk away from the genre entirely or become so ultra-specialised they further narrow their customer base.You get more fish with a wider net - even if you have to initially invest in a bigger boat... Most 'sandbox vs themeparks' debate comes down to this single fact.Themeparks makes more $$$ as a whole than Sandbox.Someone always brings up this mythical 'large sandbox playerbase that'll pay to play' which there is no proof of for the past 7 years.Why would any company throw millions at something that has no factual basis to exists?This statement is bogus. How can you compare the two when you only have a handful of sandboxes out there. Besides UO, EVE, and SWG you realy dont have much of a sandbox pool to compare the two. Sure you have some smaller sandbox games, but they went into pvp main stream and neglected the other aspects of a sandbox making them not true sandboxes (mortal, df, etc).
With a dozen or so new sandboxes coming up, you will see a switch. People are sick and tired of the quarter arcade themepark games. And they throw millions of dollars away every time they release one btw. SWTOR threw away 200+ million alone
You can only do the same thing over and over and forced down a path so many times even before the most hardcore themepark junkie gets bored. Why many here claim to love their "games" switch to a new one so fast. MMORPG were meant to have longjevity, not be changed up every month.
The statement is valid. Every sandbox has been outperformed by one or more theme park games that released around the time of the sandbox game. Eve has been outperformed by a few games because it took so long to get going. There is no financial reason based on the history of sandbox games to invest in that style of game.
That doesn't mean there's no reason at all though. One of the reasons is that developers are running out of ideas for theme park style games. Another reason is that theme park games don't retain players as well as developers would like. They have to try something different.
I don't think you're going to see a sandbox renaissance though. Probably what you'll see is games being primarily theme parks with some sandbox features. Why? I'm so glad you asked. Because theme parks excel at bringing players in. It's easy to get into a theme park game. The sandbox features will be there to keep the players in the game after they've exhausted the theme park content. This may or may not result in games where the worlds feel more alive though. Does WoW's world feel more alive because players can have farms? What about Rift's world having the addition of large scale three way PvP and instanced dimensions where players get to build whatever they want? The worlds aren't appreciably different, even with the addition of 'sandbox' features, but they'll probably retain more players. The features that retain the most players will get used in the next generation of games.
We might see the opposite happen too, where MMORPGs merge into MOBAs or CoD style games. Heck, there's so much money being pumped into the video game industry that we might see all of the above happen, all at once.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar ...And then there is of course the fact that the first big game in the genre (UO) was a sandbox which was beat by EQ..
This suggests EQ was a themepark in 1999. ROFL. Themeparks tell you where to go; they have quest hubs which shower you with xp and riches for doing mundane tasks.
EQ in 1999 had nothing in common with themeparks.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Comments
You are correct that no one would risk their millions on an unproven concept like Worlds. Especially when a complete game will require years to develop correctly.
But that is if you are thinking of an fully complete MMORPG as Worlds.
If we take a step back and look at Minecraft, where its an Unique concept, with graphics that isn't Photo Realism, yet it captured Millions of Player's attention.
I think that should be the route that developers even Indie developers should take, to develope this indea into an popular idea and polish it where worlds can be used in future MMO.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
I think something like another Minecraft is certainly possible. But i highly doubt a properly made online fantasy open world game can be done as an indie effort. The requirement of art assets, and combat mechanics programming is just too high. I remember there was a indie mmo called LOVE .. and that also have to resort to very simple graphics .. which obviously is not enough for a fantasy world.
What devs "should" do is obviously our preference and even wishful thinking.
I don't see why devs really needs to be gung-ho on the virtual world idea. There are plenty of non-virtual world gameplay style that is much easier to do .. and have space for innovation.
Recently success like WOT shows that you don't even need a world (sandbox or not) to be successful. That is another direction devs "should" pay attention to. Or you can look at PS2 .. where you do have a large world, but simplified interactions to only FPS pvp (and some communications).
business plan company
I think something like another Minecraft is certainly possible. But i highly doubt a properly made online fantasy open world game can be done as an indie effort. The requirement of art assets, and combat mechanics programming is just too high. I remember there was a indie mmo called LOVE .. and that also have to resort to very simple graphics .. which obviously is not enough for a fantasy world.
What devs "should" do is obviously our preference and even wishful thinking.
I don't see why devs really needs to be gung-ho on the virtual world idea. There are plenty of non-virtual world gameplay style that is much easier to do .. and have space for innovation.
Recently success like WOT shows that you don't even need a world (sandbox or not) to be successful. That is another direction devs "should" pay attention to. Or you can look at PS2 .. where you do have a large world, but simplified interactions to only FPS pvp (and some communications).
I play Minecraft almost every day on a mcMMO server and I run my own server. I have enjoyed playing Minecraft for many months, mostly because of the interactivity with the world. However, I think Minecraft is one of the worst examples of what developers should do with MMORPG in terms of game mechanics. It boils down to, if other players can ruin your experience, other players will ruin your experience, whether they mean to or not. Worlds full of holes that are nearly impossible to even run across, much less play on and gauntlets of players with more resources that you have to run through just to get someplace where you can even hide, much less build are common. It's ridiculous.
However, one thing I think developers should take from Minecraft is private servers. Many MMORPG would work fine if the developer wrote a server for the game capable of running on a single machine like the Minecraft servers. There are people who have done this with emulators...but I think it would work better if the developers themselves did it. Of course, is it even an MMORPG if millions of people are playing a game, but they are spread out over thousands of servers? I don't know. It would make world centric games more viable though, even if it didn't make world centric MMORPG more common. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't doubt this business model. But i highly doubt the new trend is going to be virtual world games. They have been tried before.
In fact, the trend has already changed .. WOW was a world game .. and now more a lobby co-op dungeon and arena pvp game. Isn't that responding to players' preference?
Isn't it possible that the experience is going to be even more fusion between SP games and MMOs?
Look at Dishonored .. it is highly successful because of its new setting, and fuse elements of steam punk & stealth. May be MMO has a revival ilke that? Fuse a new setting, with more assessible online game featuers like friend list, and cross server functionalities.
This is not a new idea ... NWN has that .. you essentially run your own little dungeon server. But it is not a MMO (which frankly i don't care a lot about the MMO-ness of a game .. but some do).
The biggest issue, however, if progression is important for the game, is that cheating would be uncontrollable. Either you have to disallow characters moving from one server to another (which will be bad because everyone want their toons to have some permanencies) or you have to live with whatever toon another player brings to your server, whether he earns the power or not.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
I do not doubt there are more MMO players than MMORPG players so games will continue to get more simplified in an effort to be as "user friendly" as possible.
You're correct, you are just talking crazy here, its all about the MMORPG and preferably those that emulate virutual worlds vs lobbies.
And there's a poster or two on these forums who are currently playing GW2 and claim to be eagerly awaiting DF:UW and I just find that hard to fathom.
They are like two opposite philosophies. Oh well, some folks can listen to Country Music and Rap on the same CD, (not I) so why not? (edit: wait, that would be like listening to Bad and Worse, so not that surprising after all)
"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
Pretty good actually. So good that the industry is switching to F2P mode.
A bit more and maybe the Investors will start demanding World MMO's because there is no money to be made in Themeparks.
Since it has come down to this level where a Design of an MMo is decided by a Customer tendency Chart, well guess what, the chart is reflecting our tendency, and so we are in a position to change it.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
I think due to market forces, compteition and the glut of F2P short-life themeparks on the market at the moment, an immersive world platform which caters for a wide range of players and charges subs is innevitable.
There are too many companies chasing the same pool of customers usng the same short-lived themepark models.
Something has to give - and it seems to me that it is less likely that games companies walk away from the genre entirely or become so ultra-specialised they further narrow their customer base.
You get more fish with a wider net - even if you have to initially invest in a bigger boat...
Most 'sandbox vs themeparks' debate comes down to this single fact.
Themeparks makes more $$$ as a whole than Sandbox.
Someone always brings up this mythical 'large sandbox playerbase that'll pay to play' which there is no proof of for the past 7 years.
Why would any company throw millions at something that has no factual basis to exists?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
There are some sandbox games getting made. They aren't getting made in the usual way though. Either the games are being funded in Asia and will make the bulk of their money in Asia, they are crowdfunded through Kickstarter, or they are really, really small.
This doesn't go against the idea that there's no historical reason for a Western developer go go all out with a sandbox. Every sandbox made and released in the West has been outperformed financially by at least one theme park, probably more than one. However, this does allow for the opportunity for people to at least try out some sandbox games that may be a step up from Mortal Online and possibly even Darkfall or Eve. They have to get made and released before we'll really know anything substantial though.
** edit **
EQNext falls outside of the funded in Asia, crowd funded or tiny categories. I don't know what EQNext is going to be though. The word 'sandbox' got thrown out there, but we need some details on what mechanics they are including under 'sandbox'. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see the debates in the forums.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
While MMORPG fans discuss things like sandbox and theme park, the overall MMORPG market loses ground every passing day against games which offer instant on line fun.
Diablo 3 is a stripped down loot game and despite its start is catching to gain steam. As do games like LOL and DOTA 2...
Those who want a world want a MMO to emulate a real world. Those who want themparks just want to emulate Disneyland. The first is a lot harder to do well.
To me what has been pushed aside is the socialization/grouping aspect of MMORPG's in general. The proper acronym should be MSORPG - Massively Soloable Online Role Playing Game. I am hard pressed to find a recent MMORPG that can't be leveled to cap with pretty much no interaction outside of the NPCs built into the game.
The current make up of the genre contributes to the complaint of " I capped my character in 3 weeks, there is nothing left to do" when in actuality interaction was ignored as well as content. I would love to see an MMO built with a cap of 80-100 where everything after level 20 involving the PvE nature of that game has to be completed in group. That would also open the way for more distinctive questlines, the devs would know that X number of players at minimum would always be working these quests or areas.
Games also seem to include a variety of gameplay yet implementation of content that doesn't follow the main flow is never fully thought out and can be detrimental to the value of the game. Every game seems to include commerce - generally crafting and Auction houses - but its all too sanitized. When a giant ogre drops chest armor that magically fits a dwarf, the devs just missed the opportunity to make commerce viable.
A blacksmith could reshape that armor to fit the dwarf and keep the extra metal as a fee or part of a fee to make and sell gloves for example. Selling the item should be open and transparent. If Bob the blacksmith sells for less than Joe the blacksmith, why not buy from Bob? If Bob loses money on the item vs cost , it is on him to figure out, not the market itself.
Lots of people think well I dont have time for that or I don't want to do that. Fine , but there are those who do and there is nothing wrong with being the guy who outfitted the dragonslayer if that is the world experience they want.
There is a whole side of content in games that just feels like an afterthought because, frankly , it is. The world stops being a world if only killing the sinister endboss is the only fleshed out path.
This statement is bogus. How can you compare the two when you only have a handful of sandboxes out there. Besides UO, EVE, and SWG you realy dont have much of a sandbox pool to compare the two. Sure you have some smaller sandbox games, but they went into pvp main stream and neglected the other aspects of a sandbox making them not true sandboxes (mortal, df, etc).
With a dozen or so new sandboxes coming up, you will see a switch. People are sick and tired of the quarter arcade themepark games. And they throw millions of dollars away every time they release one btw. SWTOR threw away 200+ million alone
You can only do the same thing over and over and forced down a path so many times even before the most hardcore themepark junkie gets bored. Why many here claim to love their "games" switch to a new one so fast. MMORPG were meant to have longjevity, not be changed up every month.
I don't think it's bogus at all. The evidence is not rock solid but it's not non-existant. There's actually a couple dozen sandboxes out right now (check out Larsa's thread). And then there is of course the fact that the first big game in the genre (UO) was a sandbox which was beat by EQ.
So here are the facts so far: 1. Sandbox games have never climbed above a population of 357,000 . While themeparks would give there eye teeth for this in a stable game, most themeparks at one time or another has had significantly more. (IMO it makes more sense for a publisher to start higher and drop to that number than start lower and hope to rise to that number)
2. The genre was started by sandbox and when given a themepark choice more people chose that one (EQ beat all the early sandboxes)
3. There are a couple dozen sandbox out right now and Eve has the highest population. Not going to state why (IMO opinion people will just make an excuse as to why they are not doing well, some are legit, some not but it's happened every time and I expect people will continue that).
There are several coming out in the future. We will find out whether sandbox really is more popular however I do expect that many/all of them will not do well and people will continue to come up with excuses. We will see in the next couple years.
Most 'sandbox vs themeparks' debate comes down to this single fact. Themeparks makes more $$$ as a whole than Sandbox. Someone always brings up this mythical 'large sandbox playerbase that'll pay to play' which there is no proof of for the past 7 years. Why would any company throw millions at something that has no factual basis to exists?
This statement is bogus. How can you compare the two when you only have a handful of sandboxes out there. Besides UO, EVE, and SWG you realy dont have much of a sandbox pool to compare the two. Sure you have some smaller sandbox games, but they went into pvp main stream and neglected the other aspects of a sandbox making them not true sandboxes (mortal, df, etc).
With a dozen or so new sandboxes coming up, you will see a switch. People are sick and tired of the quarter arcade themepark games. And they throw millions of dollars away every time they release one btw. SWTOR threw away 200+ million alone
You can only do the same thing over and over and forced down a path so many times even before the most hardcore themepark junkie gets bored. Why many here claim to love their "games" switch to a new one so fast. MMORPG were meant to have longjevity, not be changed up every month.
The statement is valid. Every sandbox has been outperformed by one or more theme park games that released around the time of the sandbox game. Eve has been outperformed by a few games because it took so long to get going. There is no financial reason based on the history of sandbox games to invest in that style of game.
That doesn't mean there's no reason at all though. One of the reasons is that developers are running out of ideas for theme park style games. Another reason is that theme park games don't retain players as well as developers would like. They have to try something different.
I don't think you're going to see a sandbox renaissance though. Probably what you'll see is games being primarily theme parks with some sandbox features. Why? I'm so glad you asked. Because theme parks excel at bringing players in. It's easy to get into a theme park game. The sandbox features will be there to keep the players in the game after they've exhausted the theme park content. This may or may not result in games where the worlds feel more alive though. Does WoW's world feel more alive because players can have farms? What about Rift's world having the addition of large scale three way PvP and instanced dimensions where players get to build whatever they want? The worlds aren't appreciably different, even with the addition of 'sandbox' features, but they'll probably retain more players. The features that retain the most players will get used in the next generation of games.
We might see the opposite happen too, where MMORPGs merge into MOBAs or CoD style games. Heck, there's so much money being pumped into the video game industry that we might see all of the above happen, all at once.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When it comes to mmorpgs, i prefer a world over a game.
This suggests EQ was a themepark in 1999. ROFL. Themeparks tell you where to go; they have quest hubs which shower you with xp and riches for doing mundane tasks.
EQ in 1999 had nothing in common with themeparks.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit