Originally posted by Banaghran Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by BanaghranOriginally posted by lizardbones You're assuming that everyone operates the same way you do. If that were true, then everyone would at some point find a game that they play for years, because that's what they want to do...play the same game for a very long time. Since that doesn't happen, it makes sense to think that there are people who do not want to play the same game for years, even if it's a good game. Some people don't even want to play the same game for months, much less years.
"I like the game soo much that i want to play it as lttle as possible" is a bit outlandish even for these discussions, dont you think?Flame on!Of course people who are having fun in a game will continue to play that game. Dur*. That ignores the idea that some people just don't feel like playing games for a long period of time. They prefer seeing something unknown, shiny and new to something known, well worn and comfortable.Would that not mean that those people would maybe play a mmorpg that constantly and completely changes for years?
Within the original argument?
Flame on!
An MMORPG isn't going to go from being an RPG to being a shooter or anything else. It's going to be a small variation on what it already is. So yeah, players would stick with a game that offered a wide variation of game mechanics, especially if they were done well, but we've yet to see such a thing. It's not even that common for a developer to offer a wide variation in the types of games they develop, much less a wide variation of game play in a single game.
The best example I can think of is Rift, who added three faction PvP to a two faction game. They are also going to add, or have added instanced player housing where players can modify the environment to suite their tastes on a large scale. This is certainly helping Rift maintain their player base, but it doesn't seem to be gaining them too many new players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbonesHas it occurred to you that a player base only interested in playing games for years would not result in a lot of new games getting made? What's the point in creating a new game, if the players don't want to play new games?
That someone likes to play a game for a long time does not mean, that he will never play another game, or that he might not be swayed if a new game looks sufficiently appealing.There are currently 2 billion people on the internet, if there is something positive to learn from wow and social gaming, its that the audience is there, even if they dont know it yet.But ofcourse if we target just one highly specific part of the audience, that is the only thing we will get.Flame on!
Good points.
Now that I think about it; I can't even tell you how many other games, both MMO and not, that I played alongside EVE during my 6 years with that gem. I love having an "MMO home" and a bunch of other "cheap thrills games" to satisfy my appetite.
I suppose I should have asked why a developer would try to create another Eve (long term game with a more in depth world), when it would be easier and more profitable to create a bunch of "cheap thrills games" for Eve players.
** edit ** I can think of some reasons why, I just wonder if other people actually think of real reasons why, or if they just assume it's a good idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
IMHO, the genre has evolved, gaming generations have merged. MMORPG's at one time were small community's "niche" for the lack of a better term. Now the genre has gone main stream and like anything else popular profit is seen and sought out as the objective, not all but most follow this buisiness model.
The "themepark" is easier to develop then a "world" get in and get out, make our cake. You constantly here terms like "vanilla wow" or "Pre CU" there are reasons the DEVs changed these popular game models, to attrack more cash paying customers. It is no longer about the game.
Gaming generations merging. I remember early in my gaming life going from a FPS to my first MMO, SWG (pre cu) and saying to myself wtf this is so slow no instant gradification I have to work for it? it was a building process that at the time I didn't want to do. I wanted to log in play and win. I guess some where along the line I "got it" because now MMO's is all I play. With the merging of platforms I notice the newer MMO's are being designed to quickly reward players "everyones a winner" kinda thing, not good for the genre. The line has been blurred.
Originally posted by lizardbonesHas it occurred to you that a player base only interested in playing games for years would not result in a lot of new games getting made? What's the point in creating a new game, if the players don't want to play new games?
That someone likes to play a game for a long time does not mean, that he will never play another game, or that he might not be swayed if a new game looks sufficiently appealing.There are currently 2 billion people on the internet, if there is something positive to learn from wow and social gaming, its that the audience is there, even if they dont know it yet.But ofcourse if we target just one highly specific part of the audience, that is the only thing we will get.Flame on!
Good points.
Now that I think about it; I can't even tell you how many other games, both MMO and not, that I played alongside EVE during my 6 years with that gem. I love having an "MMO home" and a bunch of other "cheap thrills games" to satisfy my appetite.
I suppose I should have asked why a developer would try to create another Eve (long term game with a more in depth world), when it would be easier and more profitable to create a bunch of "cheap thrills games" for Eve players.
** edit ** I can think of some reasons why, I just wonder if other people actually think of real reasons why, or if they just assume it's a good idea.
Making more games is not easier, certainly if you are trying to make something distinct everytime.
I don't like legacy games. Their mechanics are old, the games themselves are old... even with a facelift and modernization of code, CCP themselves said they have found some of the legacy mechanics weighing the game down. But they can't just change it, because the amount of butthurt would be unbearable.
New game, new ideas, new chance to make a new game for today's market. Variety is good.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by BanaghranThat someone likes to play a game for a long time does not mean, that he will never play another game, or that he might not be swayed if a new game looks sufficiently appealing.There are currently 2 billion people on the internet, if there is something positive to learn from wow and social gaming, its that the audience is there, even if they dont know it yet.But ofcourse if we target just one highly specific part of the audience, that is the only thing we will get.Flame on!
Good points.
Now that I think about it; I can't even tell you how many other games, both MMO and not, that I played alongside EVE during my 6 years with that gem. I love having an "MMO home" and a bunch of other "cheap thrills games" to satisfy my appetite.
I suppose I should have asked why a developer would try to create another Eve (long term game with a more in depth world), when it would be easier and more profitable to create a bunch of "cheap thrills games" for Eve players.
** edit ** I can think of some reasons why, I just wonder if other people actually think of real reasons why, or if they just assume it's a good idea.
Personally, I believe it would be more profitable for the studios if they followed in CCP's footsteps delivering quality long-term games that maintain healthy numbers for many, many years, and grow slowly over time.
Short-term MMO is an oxymoron, and it's a big player in the concoction that has lead us to the dangerous level of stagnation that this genre has reached.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think there is enough variety at this point. I still don't understand the idea of spending years making a game designed to be completed in less than a month. Creating a "world" instead of a game with a preformed backdrop is a good start and from there you can add things later.
Take your typical themepark "game". There usually isn't places to add anything post launch because there either isn't room or just seems out if place. You have to create whole new zones to progress the game. In a "world" you could better implement content over time.
Personally, I believe it would be more profitable for the studios if they followed in CCP's footsteps delivering quality long-term games that maintain healthy numbers for many, many years, and grow slowly over time.
Short-term MMO is an oxymoron, and it's a big player in the concoction that has lead us to the dangerous level of stagnation that this genre has reached.
Its their first game still. The industry is full of one-hit-wonders. Maybe they were lucky.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Personally, I believe it would be more profitable for the studios if they followed in CCP's footsteps delivering quality long-term games that maintain healthy numbers for many, many years, and grow slowly over time.
Short-term MMO is an oxymoron, and it's a big player in the concoction that has lead us to the dangerous level of stagnation that this genre has reached.
Its their first game still. The industry is full of one-hit-wonders. Maybe they were lucky.
No.
CCP had vision, foresight, and passion. That is why they have achieved so much success. Luck had nothing to do with it.
BTW, their first game was a board game called "Hættuspil", which was published to help fund the development of EVE.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally posted by Cecropia Originally posted by QuirhidOriginally posted by CecropiaOriginally posted by lizardbones
Personally, I believe it would be more profitable for the studios if they followed in CCP's footsteps delivering quality long-term games that maintain healthy numbers for many, many years, and grow slowly over time.Short-term MMO is an oxymoron, and it's a big player in the concoction that has lead us to the dangerous level of stagnation that this genre has reached. Its their first game still. The industry is full of one-hit-wonders. Maybe they were lucky.No.
CCP had vision, foresight, and passion. That is why they have achieved so much success. Luck had nothing to do with it.
BTW, their first game was a board game called "Hættuspil", which was published to help fund the development of EVE.
From the perspective of a venture capitalist (the people who would fund further games), CCP hasn't proven themselves as a developer. They haven't followed up their success with Eve yet. That article is written by a venture capitalist, outlining what they look for in a developer when deciding to give them money or not. VCs don't care about what kind of games developers write at all. It's all about whether a developer has proven themselves as a developer or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You're assuming that everyone operates the same way you do. If that were true, then everyone would at some point find a game that they play for years, because that's what they want to do...play the same game for a very long time. Since that doesn't happen, it makes sense to think that there are people who do not want to play the same game for years, even if it's a good game.
Some people don't even want to play the same game for months, much less years.
"I like the game soo much that i want to play it as lttle as possible" is a bit outlandish even for these discussions, dont you think?
Flame on!
Some people do like to limit themselves so when they do indulge it feels like a treat. I'm sure if kids could they'd eat ice cream at every meal. Luckily they have parents to limit their instincts and teach them the value of rationing and rewarding themselves. Because of this I usually treat myself to a reward at least twice a month, whether that be a new console games, new mmorpg or a bowl of Honeycomb late at night...well maybe I have a bowl more than twice a month, but who's countin!
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
From the perspective of a venture capitalist (the people who would fund further games), CCP hasn't proven themselves as a developer. They haven't followed up their success with Eve yet. That article is written by a venture capitalist, outlining what they look for in a developer when deciding to give them money or not. VCs don't care about what kind of games developers write at all. It's all about whether a developer has proven themselves as a developer or not.
LOL.
"CCP hasn't proven themselves as a developer". You actually just typed that. Thanks for the link, nonetheless.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Now if you want to talk real reasons people leave or stop playing, like boredom, nothing to look forward, lack of excitement, im all game. It is easy to say, "people leave because they leave, lets not put any effort in , they will leave anyways".
And what is so new about boredom? All entertainment became boring after a while.
Had it occur to you that a game can be fun for 3 month, then boring? And that is perfectly fine and nothing wrong with that. The whole notion that games needed to be played for year, or otherwise they are not good, or fun ... is just wrong.
Personally, I believe it would be more profitable for the studios if they followed in CCP's footsteps delivering quality long-term games that maintain healthy numbers for many, many years, and grow slowly over time.
Short-term MMO is an oxymoron, and it's a big player in the concoction that has lead us to the dangerous level of stagnation that this genre has reached.
Its their first game still. The industry is full of one-hit-wonders. Maybe they were lucky.
No.
CCP had vision, foresight, and passion. That is why they have achieved so much success. Luck had nothing to do with it.
BTW, their first game was a board game called "Hættuspil", which was published to help fund the development of EVE.
LOL .. "so much success"? All they have is a 9 year old game that does not even cracked 400k players.
Blizzard is 10x that "so much success" .. heck .. even EA is a lot more successful.
Now if you want to talk real reasons people leave or stop playing, like boredom, nothing to look forward, lack of excitement, im all game. It is easy to say, "people leave because they leave, lets not put any effort in , they will leave anyways".
And what is so new about boredom? All entertainment became boring after a while.
Had it occur to you that a game can be fun for 3 month, then boring? And that is perfectly fine and nothing wrong with that. The whole notion that games needed to be played for year, or otherwise they are not good, or fun ... is just wrong.
I don't think short term games are profitable on the game maker's end.
I know if they shut down Mabinogi in the US (they shut it down in Europe) I would be raving upset. I've got a lot of money up and invested in that game and own a lot of pets. The game has no level cap; skill-up based. I think of it as my home away from home. Wish there were more games that would follow their example. I hated playing other games and having nothing to show for my money spent. Wow, big deal I reached level 70 and got in a good guild *sarcasm*. Woop-te-do. And spent like what to get that? If i'm going to invest in a game it better last!
I don't think short term games are profitable on the game maker's end.
That depends on box sales, and the original investment. That statement is obviously not true for MANY games. In fact, almost all successful single player gamare are counter examples.
And do you think COD BO2 cost more or less to make than your average MMOs?
Now if you want to talk real reasons people leave or stop playing, like boredom, nothing to look forward, lack of excitement, im all game. It is easy to say, "people leave because they leave, lets not put any effort in , they will leave anyways".
And what is so new about boredom? All entertainment became boring after a while.
Had it occur to you that a game can be fun for 3 month, then boring? And that is perfectly fine and nothing wrong with that. The whole notion that games needed to be played for year, or otherwise they are not good, or fun ... is just wrong.
I doubt i ever put it that way, the question is not if they need to be played, but if they could be played by anyone who is not a complete fanboy and enthusiast for a year.
And if devs should shrug off the possibility of the game having longevity or not.
In other words if they should or should not be trying, because imo they arent, and you are saying that it is good, which i disagree with.
I suppose I should have asked why a developer would try to create another Eve (long term game with a more in depth world), when it would be easier and more profitable to create a bunch of "cheap thrills games" for Eve players.
** edit ** I can think of some reasons why, I just wonder if other people actually think of real reasons why, or if they just assume it's a good idea.
I doubt anyone here has not read his "Disgruntled consumerists handbook"
And you are still asking the wrong questions, imo, why does it have to be eve, why not vanilla wow, tbc, lineage 2, a bugfree version of runescape (ha ha ha) for the hardcore types.
So far what we mostly have are story driven single player mmorpgs or the wotlk balance skill wash and endgame grind.
Originally posted by lizardboneshttp://gamasutra.com/view/feature/182962/what_do_investors_look_for_in_a_.php From the perspective of a venture capitalist (the people who would fund further games), CCP hasn't proven themselves as a developer. They haven't followed up their success with Eve yet. That article is written by a venture capitalist, outlining what they look for in a developer when deciding to give them money or not. VCs don't care about what kind of games developers write at all. It's all about whether a developer has proven themselves as a developer or not.
LOL.
"CCP hasn't proven themselves as a developer". You actually just typed that. Thanks for the link, nonetheless.
To a venture capitalist they are unproven as a developer. They have one game that took twelve years to start being successful, and they are struggling to follow it up with anything. The point is that people keep saying developers are unimaginative, or that venture capitalists keep telling people to make WoW, neither of which is true.
They aren't looking for specific types of games, they are looking for developers who fit the profile of a successful developer. CCP doesn't fit the profile that a venture capitalist would want to see. It's the reason that WoD isn't fully funded and why development slowed on Dust 514.
** edit ** I'm not bagging on CCP. But the point is to look at this from the perspective of somebody else. In this case, it's from the perspective of a venture capitalist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Banaghran Originally posted by lizardbones I suppose I should have asked why a developer would try to create another Eve (long term game with a more in depth world), when it would be easier and more profitable to create a bunch of "cheap thrills games" for Eve players. ** edit ** I can think of some reasons why, I just wonder if other people actually think of real reasons why, or if they just assume it's a good idea.
I doubt anyone here has not read his "Disgruntled consumerists handbook"
And you are still asking the wrong questions, imo, why does it have to be eve, why not vanilla wow, tbc, lineage 2, a bugfree version of runescape (ha ha ha) for the hardcore types.
So far what we mostly have are story driven single player mmorpgs or the wotlk balance skill wash and endgame grind.
But i havent played GW2 yet
Flame on!
It doesn't have to be Eve. It could be any of those games. During the three and a half years I spent playing WoW, I would not have bothered looking for another MMORPG. Any developer writing a game expecting to get a piece of that audience, of which I was a part, was wasting their time.
The point of writing a game that lasts years is to capture players for years. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is thinking that a developer would capture many players from games where people are already playing for years. Those people want to play a game long term, so they're not going to leave the game they're playing. It makes more sense to write a bunch of short term games that might appeal to those players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I dont think a game has to be an eve-like sandbox to be a world rather than a game. but i admit it helps. (eve player since 07)
FFXI and Eq1 also had the world > game vibe for me. L2 as well. I think a lot of the problem with this topic is that people are trying to quantify something that cannot be expressed in numbers or short sentences.
it's a feel.
any game that delivers this feel has a damn good chance of getting my money. that's all i can really say.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Originally posted by lizardbones I suppose I should have asked why a developer would try to create another Eve (long term game with a more in depth world), when it would be easier and more profitable to create a bunch of "cheap thrills games" for Eve players. ** edit ** I can think of some reasons why, I just wonder if other people actually think of real reasons why, or if they just assume it's a good idea.
I doubt anyone here has not read his "Disgruntled consumerists handbook"
And you are still asking the wrong questions, imo, why does it have to be eve, why not vanilla wow, tbc, lineage 2, a bugfree version of runescape (ha ha ha) for the hardcore types.
So far what we mostly have are story driven single player mmorpgs or the wotlk balance skill wash and endgame grind.
But i havent played GW2 yet
Flame on!
It doesn't have to be Eve. It could be any of those games. During the three and a half years I spent playing WoW, I would not have bothered looking for another MMORPG. Any developer writing a game expecting to get a piece of that audience, of which I was a part, was wasting their time.
The point of writing a game that lasts years is to capture players for years. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is thinking that a developer would capture many players from games where people are already playing for years. Those people want to play a game long term, so they're not going to leave the game they're playing. It makes more sense to write a bunch of short term games that might appeal to those players.
Now if you want to talk real reasons people leave or stop playing, like boredom, nothing to look forward, lack of excitement, im all game. It is easy to say, "people leave because they leave, lets not put any effort in , they will leave anyways".
And what is so new about boredom? All entertainment became boring after a while.
Had it occur to you that a game can be fun for 3 month, then boring? And that is perfectly fine and nothing wrong with that. The whole notion that games needed to be played for year, or otherwise they are not good, or fun ... is just wrong.
I doubt i ever put it that way, the question is not if they need to be played, but if they could be played by anyone who is not a complete fanboy and enthusiast for a year.
And if devs should shrug off the possibility of the game having longevity or not.
In other words if they should or should not be trying, because imo they arent, and you are saying that it is good, which i disagree with.
Flame on!
You sound like devs are not doing anything else. Well, if they are not trying for longevity, but put the effort into making combat fun, or a thousand other things, that is fine with me.
The notion that MMO needs to have longevity is old. So if a devs make a super fun MMO that will last for 3 month, you will not play just because it does not take a year to reach level cap? That .. IMHO .. is narrow minded-ness.
BTW, don't be confused .. i don't hate long games. If a game is naturally fun (like WOW .. before the fun-ness wear off .. that took 3-4 years for me), i will play it for long. But it is not a requirement. I like fun games .. BOTH long and short. But being long is not required, and it has to be fun .. not long for the sake for "longevity". If you have to play for weeks before a little xp needle moves, and there is no new ability, it is not fun for me.
You sound like devs are not doing anything else. Well, if they are not trying for longevity, but put the effort into making combat fun, or a thousand other things, that is fine with me.
The notion that MMO needs to have longevity is old. So if a devs make a super fun MMO that will last for 3 month, you will not play just because it does not take a year to reach level cap? That .. IMHO .. is narrow minded-ness.
BTW, don't be confused .. i don't hate long games. If a game is naturally fun (like WOW .. before the fun-ness wear off .. that took 3-4 years for me), i will play it for long. But it is not a requirement. I like fun games .. BOTH long and short. But being long is not required, and it has to be fun .. not long for the sake for "longevity". If you have to play for weeks before a little xp needle moves, and there is no new ability, it is not fun for me.
Well, i could successfully challenge the "effort into making combat fun" by mentioning a pure combat mmo dev brainchild, d3, should i go there?
I have never mentioned that i will not play any 3 month mmo, i did play many of them, what i am saying that at the end of the 3 months i will be slightly less happy, maybe quit, the devs will be loosing a customer, and i will be having more material to argue here about. Where do you see the silver lining in that? That the game cost 20% less to produce? Because, lets be realistic, longevity is not some kind of concrete thing, it is simply a sum of factors that make (not force, keep in mind) people play the game, they are not graphical and sound resources, server infrastructure or marketing materails and campaign that constitute the bulk of the cost of a game. This is not the 90's.
As for the BTW, its a subjective and tricky thing, let us use D3 again, do you feel happier just for getting rares left and right, while knowing that 99% if them is useless, or do you think you would maybe more enjoy getting a rare every hour, that is actually useful?
Comments
Of course people who are having fun in a game will continue to play that game. Dur*. That ignores the idea that some people just don't feel like playing games for a long period of time. They prefer seeing something unknown, shiny and new to something known, well worn and comfortable.
Would that not mean that those people would maybe play a mmorpg that constantly and completely changes for years?
Within the original argument?
Flame on!
An MMORPG isn't going to go from being an RPG to being a shooter or anything else. It's going to be a small variation on what it already is. So yeah, players would stick with a game that offered a wide variation of game mechanics, especially if they were done well, but we've yet to see such a thing. It's not even that common for a developer to offer a wide variation in the types of games they develop, much less a wide variation of game play in a single game.
The best example I can think of is Rift, who added three faction PvP to a two faction game. They are also going to add, or have added instanced player housing where players can modify the environment to suite their tastes on a large scale. This is certainly helping Rift maintain their player base, but it doesn't seem to be gaining them too many new players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I suppose I should have asked why a developer would try to create another Eve (long term game with a more in depth world), when it would be easier and more profitable to create a bunch of "cheap thrills games" for Eve players.
** edit **
I can think of some reasons why, I just wonder if other people actually think of real reasons why, or if they just assume it's a good idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
IMHO, the genre has evolved, gaming generations have merged. MMORPG's at one time were small community's "niche" for the lack of a better term. Now the genre has gone main stream and like anything else popular profit is seen and sought out as the objective, not all but most follow this buisiness model.
The "themepark" is easier to develop then a "world" get in and get out, make our cake. You constantly here terms like "vanilla wow" or "Pre CU" there are reasons the DEVs changed these popular game models, to attrack more cash paying customers. It is no longer about the game.
Gaming generations merging. I remember early in my gaming life going from a FPS to my first MMO, SWG (pre cu) and saying to myself wtf this is so slow no instant gradification I have to work for it? it was a building process that at the time I didn't want to do. I wanted to log in play and win. I guess some where along the line I "got it" because now MMO's is all I play. With the merging of platforms I notice the newer MMO's are being designed to quickly reward players "everyones a winner" kinda thing, not good for the genre. The line has been blurred.
/shrug
edit to fix a mistake
Been bangn' since pong
Making more games is not easier, certainly if you are trying to make something distinct everytime.
I don't like legacy games. Their mechanics are old, the games themselves are old... even with a facelift and modernization of code, CCP themselves said they have found some of the legacy mechanics weighing the game down. But they can't just change it, because the amount of butthurt would be unbearable.
New game, new ideas, new chance to make a new game for today's market. Variety is good.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Personally, I believe it would be more profitable for the studios if they followed in CCP's footsteps delivering quality long-term games that maintain healthy numbers for many, many years, and grow slowly over time.
Short-term MMO is an oxymoron, and it's a big player in the concoction that has lead us to the dangerous level of stagnation that this genre has reached.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Take your typical themepark "game". There usually isn't places to add anything post launch because there either isn't room or just seems out if place. You have to create whole new zones to progress the game. In a "world" you could better implement content over time.
Its their first game still. The industry is full of one-hit-wonders. Maybe they were lucky.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No.
CCP had vision, foresight, and passion. That is why they have achieved so much success. Luck had nothing to do with it.
BTW, their first game was a board game called "Hættuspil", which was published to help fund the development of EVE.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Its their first game still. The industry is full of one-hit-wonders. Maybe they were lucky.
No.
CCP had vision, foresight, and passion. That is why they have achieved so much success. Luck had nothing to do with it.
BTW, their first game was a board game called "Hættuspil", which was published to help fund the development of EVE.
http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/182962/what_do_investors_look_for_in_a_.php
From the perspective of a venture capitalist (the people who would fund further games), CCP hasn't proven themselves as a developer. They haven't followed up their success with Eve yet. That article is written by a venture capitalist, outlining what they look for in a developer when deciding to give them money or not. VCs don't care about what kind of games developers write at all. It's all about whether a developer has proven themselves as a developer or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Some people do like to limit themselves so when they do indulge it feels like a treat. I'm sure if kids could they'd eat ice cream at every meal. Luckily they have parents to limit their instincts and teach them the value of rationing and rewarding themselves. Because of this I usually treat myself to a reward at least twice a month, whether that be a new console games, new mmorpg or a bowl of Honeycomb late at night...well maybe I have a bowl more than twice a month, but who's countin!
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
LOL.
"CCP hasn't proven themselves as a developer". You actually just typed that. Thanks for the link, nonetheless.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
And what is so new about boredom? All entertainment became boring after a while.
Had it occur to you that a game can be fun for 3 month, then boring? And that is perfectly fine and nothing wrong with that. The whole notion that games needed to be played for year, or otherwise they are not good, or fun ... is just wrong.
LOL .. "so much success"? All they have is a 9 year old game that does not even cracked 400k players.
Blizzard is 10x that "so much success" .. heck .. even EA is a lot more successful.
I don't think short term games are profitable on the game maker's end.
I know if they shut down Mabinogi in the US (they shut it down in Europe) I would be raving upset. I've got a lot of money up and invested in that game and own a lot of pets. The game has no level cap; skill-up based. I think of it as my home away from home. Wish there were more games that would follow their example. I hated playing other games and having nothing to show for my money spent. Wow, big deal I reached level 70 and got in a good guild *sarcasm*. Woop-te-do. And spent like what to get that? If i'm going to invest in a game it better last!
That depends on box sales, and the original investment. That statement is obviously not true for MANY games. In fact, almost all successful single player gamare are counter examples.
And do you think COD BO2 cost more or less to make than your average MMOs?
Mabinogi has one crucial problem with it: Nexon. End of story.
As far as worlds go, I'd say that the first EverQuest felt like one. There's a reason they called it Evercrack.
GS
I doubt i ever put it that way, the question is not if they need to be played, but if they could be played by anyone who is not a complete fanboy and enthusiast for a year.
And if devs should shrug off the possibility of the game having longevity or not.
In other words if they should or should not be trying, because imo they arent, and you are saying that it is good, which i disagree with.
Flame on!
I doubt anyone here has not read his "Disgruntled consumerists handbook"
And you are still asking the wrong questions, imo, why does it have to be eve, why not vanilla wow, tbc, lineage 2, a bugfree version of runescape (ha ha ha) for the hardcore types.
So far what we mostly have are story driven single player mmorpgs or the wotlk balance skill wash and endgame grind.
But i havent played GW2 yet
Flame on!
To a venture capitalist they are unproven as a developer. They have one game that took twelve years to start being successful, and they are struggling to follow it up with anything. The point is that people keep saying developers are unimaginative, or that venture capitalists keep telling people to make WoW, neither of which is true.
They aren't looking for specific types of games, they are looking for developers who fit the profile of a successful developer. CCP doesn't fit the profile that a venture capitalist would want to see. It's the reason that WoD isn't fully funded and why development slowed on Dust 514.
** edit **
I'm not bagging on CCP. But the point is to look at this from the perspective of somebody else. In this case, it's from the perspective of a venture capitalist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And you are still asking the wrong questions, imo, why does it have to be eve, why not vanilla wow, tbc, lineage 2, a bugfree version of runescape (ha ha ha) for the hardcore types.
So far what we mostly have are story driven single player mmorpgs or the wotlk balance skill wash and endgame grind.
But i havent played GW2 yet
Flame on!
It doesn't have to be Eve. It could be any of those games. During the three and a half years I spent playing WoW, I would not have bothered looking for another MMORPG. Any developer writing a game expecting to get a piece of that audience, of which I was a part, was wasting their time.
The point of writing a game that lasts years is to capture players for years. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is thinking that a developer would capture many players from games where people are already playing for years. Those people want to play a game long term, so they're not going to leave the game they're playing. It makes more sense to write a bunch of short term games that might appeal to those players.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I dont think a game has to be an eve-like sandbox to be a world rather than a game. but i admit it helps. (eve player since 07)
FFXI and Eq1 also had the world > game vibe for me. L2 as well. I think a lot of the problem with this topic is that people are trying to quantify something that cannot be expressed in numbers or short sentences.
it's a feel.
any game that delivers this feel has a damn good chance of getting my money. that's all i can really say.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5442413#5442413
The audience is not a scarce resource.
Flame on!
You sound like devs are not doing anything else. Well, if they are not trying for longevity, but put the effort into making combat fun, or a thousand other things, that is fine with me.
The notion that MMO needs to have longevity is old. So if a devs make a super fun MMO that will last for 3 month, you will not play just because it does not take a year to reach level cap? That .. IMHO .. is narrow minded-ness.
BTW, don't be confused .. i don't hate long games. If a game is naturally fun (like WOW .. before the fun-ness wear off .. that took 3-4 years for me), i will play it for long. But it is not a requirement. I like fun games .. BOTH long and short. But being long is not required, and it has to be fun .. not long for the sake for "longevity". If you have to play for weeks before a little xp needle moves, and there is no new ability, it is not fun for me.
Well, i could successfully challenge the "effort into making combat fun" by mentioning a pure combat mmo dev brainchild, d3, should i go there?
I have never mentioned that i will not play any 3 month mmo, i did play many of them, what i am saying that at the end of the 3 months i will be slightly less happy, maybe quit, the devs will be loosing a customer, and i will be having more material to argue here about. Where do you see the silver lining in that? That the game cost 20% less to produce? Because, lets be realistic, longevity is not some kind of concrete thing, it is simply a sum of factors that make (not force, keep in mind) people play the game, they are not graphical and sound resources, server infrastructure or marketing materails and campaign that constitute the bulk of the cost of a game. This is not the 90's.
As for the BTW, its a subjective and tricky thing, let us use D3 again, do you feel happier just for getting rares left and right, while knowing that 99% if them is useless, or do you think you would maybe more enjoy getting a rare every hour, that is actually useful?
Flame on!