Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Triple-A sandbox with open-world, non-consensual PVP: If you build it, they will come. And stay.

2456715

Comments

  • ElderRatElderRat Syracuse, NYPosts: 899Member
    Originally posted by Gurpslord
    Originally posted by LacedOpium

    It is interesting that you would consider it a "win" when mentioning that in that player poll 50% of the player base voted that they would not play if it is "non-consensual."  By this logic, I can tell with a certainty that a business man you are not.  Nor are you a business owner or entrepreneur with an eye toward attaining maximum profit for services rendered.  Because if you were, you would realize the error of your ways.

    By the same token, I noticed you failed to mention the other poll on the boards that gave gamers the opportunity to vote on the game style preferred and in that poll an overwhelming majority of 40% of the voters voted that they would absolutely not play if the game was non-consensual with the remaining 60% scattered over a variety of PvP options of which only 10% represented that group wishing all out open world non-consensual PvP. 

    While there is no doubt that the desires of that 10% are loud and boisterous, and they always seem to be on almost every game in development, the reality is that developers and investment funds are in the business to maximize profit.  It will be a cold day in hell when a business conglomerate like SOE forgoes revenues to the tune of a 50% cut, particular on such a large AAA multi-million dollar scale, just to benefit a niche group totaling 10% of potential revenue. 

    I know this makes for great drama and anticipation for the PvP crowd, but you'd do well to temper your expectations.  You heard it here first ...

    It will be open world "CONSENSUAL" PvP.

    You can take that to the bank.

    This is very likely the case here.  The game will have open world pvp -IF- you're flagged for it.  Obviously I'm only guessing but if open world PVP were the big money maker then frankly we'd have it already.  It's proven itself to be quite the opposite in most MMOs.  Arena style tends to be the kind of PVP the majority wants to play, it's a low risk vs reward scenario.  You ask a gamer to risk it all or a lot at the drop of a hat for potentially little or no reward, they'll avoid it.

    You big bad mega PVP'rs call this casual, companies call that the majority, and the majority has more money than the minority.  So what they're going to do (most likely) Is build a game that caters to that majority, and sprinkle in a few tidbits of what they suspect the pvp minority wants.  In this case, "open world pvp...as long as your flagged for it."  Or perhaps zones that auto flag you or something, but they won't force people thru those zones, so it may as well be flagging.

    Definitely don't get your hopes up that this game is going to be the PVP hardcore thing a lot of people are trying to make it out to be based on Smed (who by the way is a notorious mouth piece who will say and do whatever to hype it up, collect a paycheck and giggle at your expense.)

    I honestly suspect this title will be good, a little less theme park than most but some giant open world sand box it will not be.

    you are most likely right. Sad, and a reason i will not lose money on this game. More interested in World of darkness if it ever comes, anyways. EQnext will be more of what is already out there, and that is why I am playing single player games now.

    Currently bored with MMO's.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MMO-Maniac

    If they do server specific rule sets, PvE on some server, FFA PvP on others, it might work.

     

    I myself do like a decent open world PvP rule set, but I only ever really enjoyed Shadowbane in that aspect.

     

    But as some have mentioned, being a FFA PvP game is a mighty niche market.

     

    I don't think SOE will go the full FFA PvP route.

    This just will not work, nor can happen in a sandbox world. You would be making two completely different games.

     

    Why wouldnt they go this route? FFA does not mean gankfest.

     

    Harshly punish murder, reward killing for a purpose. The player needs the choice.  

     

    Sure your free to be an asshat, but I'm free to bounty your ass (i would just kill you) and put you in jail for 5 hours, and black list you. RISK, REWARD. 

  • RusqueRusque Las Vegas, NVPosts: 2,229Member Uncommon

    If ALL servers have to be pvp, then going the Age of Wushu route is smart. It penalizes people for ganking and I have no problem if there are punishments for certain types of pvp as well as bounties.

    But I don't see why we can't have the best of both worlds. PvP servers for those who want pvp all the time, and PvE servers for those of us who don't care for open world pvp and prefer to have it available in battleground form.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member

    Ugh. People, the "50% said they would still play" was a comment about the EXISTING fanbase, which I argue SOE doesn't really need anyway. The argument is that they can rake in fabulous riches from new markets, but that the EXISTING fanbase is not totally against the idea either.

     

     

  • WheskyWhesky StockholmPosts: 125Member
    Originally posted by ElderRat
     

    you are most likely right. Sad, and a reason i will not lose money on this game. More interested in World of darkness if it ever comes, anyways. EQnext will be more of what is already out there, and that is why I am playing single player games now.

     

    Just because this game, might or wont have FFA pvp doesn't mean it will be "more of the same" .

    I am pretty sure SOE are interested in creating something "new", probably a blend of innovation and things that the devs and other popular features like. But they've already said they dont want to make just "another mmo".

    SWG, Eve, Planetside 2, EQN, Star Citizen

  • KnyttaKnytta Corning, NYPosts: 349Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood People are ready for change.


    So yeah. If SOE builds it, they will come. And they'll stay.

    No they will not. Smedley personally likes these kinds of games but they would never publish one, they are not that stupid.

    Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.

    He who can describe the flame does not burn.

    Petrarch


  • GurpslordGurpslord Hutchinson, MNPosts: 350Member
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Ugh. People, the "50% said they would still play" was a comment about the EXISTING fanbase, which I argue SOE doesn't really need anyway. The argument is that they can rake in fabulous riches from new markets, but that the EXISTING fanbase is not totally against the idea either.

     

     

    As was previously mentioned, a poll that comprised 50% of 300 people does not a game creating strategy make.  You keep mentioning this poll as if it were gospel proof of this happening, you're putting your expectations way way up, I suggest you temper it lest you be dissapointed.

    This goes for every game out there, unless you have HARD PROOF of something about a game, it's all vapor and you should take it all with a grain of salt.  Especially where Smed is concerned.

  • GurpslordGurpslord Hutchinson, MNPosts: 350Member
    Originally posted by Whesky
    Originally posted by ElderRat
     

    you are most likely right. Sad, and a reason i will not lose money on this game. More interested in World of darkness if it ever comes, anyways. EQnext will be more of what is already out there, and that is why I am playing single player games now.

     

    Just because this game, might or wont have FFA pvp doesn't mean it will be "more of the same" .

    I am pretty sure SOE are interested in creating something "new", probably a blend of innovation and things that the devs and other popular features like. But they've already said they dont want to make just "another mmo".

    Nobody sets out to make just another mmo, it's just what ends up happening.  Like I said, temper your expectations, stick with the facts and you won't have your head in the clouds expecting gods gift to gamers when it turns out to be just another game.

  • TelondarielTelondariel Ottawa, ONPosts: 1,001Member
    Originally posted by akahdrin
    They'd be killing their own francise if it was like this.  They'll have servers with it, but not all of them.  Probably not even half of them.  Maybe they'll do a Rallos, Tallon, and Sullon...I wouldn't see it going much more than that.  PVP is over rated and if the game isn't 100% for PVP, it's never works right and that aspect of the game feels hollow.  Sure there are a few kids that run around with a hard on, but in general it's bad.

    I think all they have to do is look towards Nagafen server on EQ2 to see how much of an utter failure their PvP vision has been for years.  The server is a ghost town.  They neglected and all but abandoned the community, leaving a mess that only a smattering of people stubbornly cling to.

     

    If implemented, if its not kept to a server or two and made widespread, I will definitely give EQN a pass.

     

    Then again, I am not even close to listening to hype and broken bits of misinterpreted information.  I'm waiting until the Aug. 2nd reveal and for when we get actual in-game feedback from the fans.  There's waaaay too much ridiculous speculation brewing due to Smed's Hype Train, and too many people getting suckered into believing it.

    image
  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Posts: 1,009Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Telondariel
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I think everyone is missing the point of the PVE vs PVP argument. The point is, SOE is a business and will do whatever it can to make maximum profit. This includes implementing changes that go against the mainstream paradigm even at the risk of alienating their existing fanbase. Because if they build something truly amazing, innovative and sustainable, new players will come in droves and they will stay.


    Why take the risk? Smedley explained that the devs put tonnes of money into developing expansions that players burn through at an alarming rate. And when they're done with that content, they move on to the other 1000 clone games on the market, never quite finding the one that's "just right". They don't come back until SOE spends another chunk of their fortune developing more content. Clearly, there is a goldmine to be had in a game where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.

    Some people on the forum are saying SOE won't go this route because "EverQuest has never been about PVP" and they will lose a big chunk of the existing fanbase. SOE just doesn't care because there is a way bigger return on investment in making something different from the games they made in the past. And judging by the impressions of editors from MMORPG.COM and TenTonHammer, this game is likely a triple-A blockbuster that will retain fans for a long time.

    One final point...  although some people claim the fanbase is categorically against this change, I disagree. ice-vortex did a poll where about half of the 300+ respondents said they would still play even if this game is open-world, non-consensual PVP. Holy cow! People are ready for change.

    So yeah. If SOE builds it, they will come. And they'll stay.

    I highlighted some of your post for emphasis.

     

    Be careful about hanging onto anything Smedley says.  He likes to troll Twitter to see how the public reacts.  Additionally, he is all about spin and hype, just like his buddy Dave.  Only, Dave has found himself in the position of countering Smed's outlandish comments for damage control (eg. the "we love permadeath" comment).  Maybe you are new to how Smed runs things, and how he manages PR, but he's a loose cannon in some regards and more interested in his ego than the actual playerbase.

     

    Trying to forecast what SOE will do, what they like, and what they are against is futile.  You aren't SOE.  Making statements on their part is wishful thinking at best, and presumptuous at most.

     

    FInal note:  The poll.  So, 150 people said they'd like open-world PvP, eh?  That's a pretty insignificant sample, and in no way indicates people are ready for anything.

     

    I think you mean well, but your hype is not allowing you to see anything aside from generous interpretations of questionable info and meager data. 

    Why is everyone ripping into Smed?

    All he did was respond "I agree wholeheartedly," to a tweet by a fan stating, "A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward."  

    I see nothing wrong with that response.  All he is doing is agreeing to open world PvP but there is nothing there stating that it would be "non-consensual."

    I fully expect it, and I am excited, that the option to open world PvP will be available to those who want to partake in it.  However, there will always be the ability for a player to opt out of PvP if one chooses to do so.

    People just need to relax. 

  • noncleynoncley LondonPosts: 648Member Uncommon

    Stop scare-mongering the poor carebears.

    SOE has NEVER made a MMORPG with a strong PVP element that did not have a system where PVE players could not opt out.

  • GurpslordGurpslord Hutchinson, MNPosts: 350Member
    Originally posted by LacedOpium
    Originally posted by Telondariel
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I think everyone is missing the point of the PVE vs PVP argument. The point is, SOE is a business and will do whatever it can to make maximum profit. This includes implementing changes that go against the mainstream paradigm even at the risk of alienating their existing fanbase. Because if they build something truly amazing, innovative and sustainable, new players will come in droves and they will stay.


    Why take the risk? Smedley explained that the devs put tonnes of money into developing expansions that players burn through at an alarming rate. And when they're done with that content, they move on to the other 1000 clone games on the market, never quite finding the one that's "just right". They don't come back until SOE spends another chunk of their fortune developing more content. Clearly, there is a goldmine to be had in a game where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.

    Some people on the forum are saying SOE won't go this route because "EverQuest has never been about PVP" and they will lose a big chunk of the existing fanbase. SOE just doesn't care because there is a way bigger return on investment in making something different from the games they made in the past. And judging by the impressions of editors from MMORPG.COM and TenTonHammer, this game is likely a triple-A blockbuster that will retain fans for a long time.

    One final point...  although some people claim the fanbase is categorically against this change, I disagree. ice-vortex did a poll where about half of the 300+ respondents said they would still play even if this game is open-world, non-consensual PVP. Holy cow! People are ready for change.

    So yeah. If SOE builds it, they will come. And they'll stay.

    I highlighted some of your post for emphasis.

     

    Be careful about hanging onto anything Smedley says.  He likes to troll Twitter to see how the public reacts.  Additionally, he is all about spin and hype, just like his buddy Dave.  Only, Dave has found himself in the position of countering Smed's outlandish comments for damage control (eg. the "we love permadeath" comment).  Maybe you are new to how Smed runs things, and how he manages PR, but he's a loose cannon in some regards and more interested in his ego than the actual playerbase.

     

    Trying to forecast what SOE will do, what they like, and what they are against is futile.  You aren't SOE.  Making statements on their part is wishful thinking at best, and presumptuous at most.

     

    FInal note:  The poll.  So, 150 people said they'd like open-world PvP, eh?  That's a pretty insignificant sample, and in no way indicates people are ready for anything.

     

    I think you mean well, but your hype is not allowing you to see anything aside from generous interpretations of questionable info and meager data. 

    Why is everyone ripping into Smed?

    All he did was respond "I agree wholeheartedly," to a tweet by a fan stating, "A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward."  

    I see nothing wrong with that response.  All he is doing is agreeing to open world PvP but there is nothing there stating that it would be "non-consensual."

    I fully expect it, and I am excited, that the option to open world PvP will be available to those who want to partake in it.  However, there will always be the ability for a player to opt out of PvP if one chooses to do so.

    People just need to relax. 

    Well, we rip into Smed because he's a master at what he does, spin and hype and at this point veteran gamers who've gone thru his tilt-a-whirl of vocal chicanry are frankly used to distrusting every single word that comes out of his mouth.

    HOWEVER

    You are right that he didn't ever in any aspect of any reality claim that the game was going to do one thing or another from that response, he just stated that he as a person agreed.  He didn't say EQ Next agreed and was going to go that route, unfortunately that's not how people read it, they say OMG SMED SAID!!!!  So here we are.

  • MaelwyddMaelwydd CrawleyPosts: 1,123Member
    Originally posted by bcbully

     

    This just will not work, nor can happen in a sandbox world. You would be making two completely different games.

     

    Why wouldnt they go this route? FFA does not mean gankfest.

     

    Harshly punish murder, reward killing for a purpose. The player needs the choice.  

     

    Sure your free to be an asshat, but I'm free to bounty your ass (i would just kill you) and put you in jail for 5 hours, and black list you. RISK, REWARD. 

    Going back a number of years I remember a few discussions here about the whole risk/reward idea. I put forward the idea that prison time for crime is a good idea. I even wrote several lengthy pieces about the system I would love to see involving me as a player having the tools, should I choose, to build a jail, choose which laws to enforce and building support mechanics using the tools to protect my lands. So I could tick the box that says killing another person was a crime, I could assign a penalty of 10 hours per murder and I could build a jail and guard towers and hire local guards to protect my land. The risk was killing another player meant 10 hours real time sitting in a jail if you got caught.

    I didn't get a single post in support.

    Times may have changed but the main problem I see with FFA PvP games is that, the very vocal types want the freedom to kill other players but are not willing to put up with a risk reward system that isn't heavily in their favour.

    I would love it if games with FFA PvP had serious risk/reward systems but to be honest, I have a long standing opinion of the vocal advocates of FFA PvP are too selfish to really accept any kind of balance. They want a field full of sheep but run away when you try and introduce some sheep dogs and a shepherd. 

  • KuanshuKuanshu Des Moines, IAPosts: 272Member
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I think everyone is missing the point of the PVE vs PVP argument. The point is, SOE is a business and will do whatever it can to make maximum profit. This includes implementing changes that go against the mainstream paradigm even at the risk of alienating their existing fanbase. Because if they build something truly amazing, innovative and sustainable, new players will come in droves and they will stay.


    Why take the risk? Smedley explained that the devs put tonnes of money into developing expansions that players burn through at an alarming rate. And when they're done with that content, they move on to the other 1000 clone games on the market, never quite finding the one that's "just right". They don't come back until SOE spends another chunk of their fortune developing more content. Clearly, there is a goldmine to be had in a game where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.

    Some people on the forum are saying SOE won't go this route because "EverQuest has never been about PVP" and they will lose a big chunk of the existing fanbase. SOE just doesn't care because there is a way bigger return on investment in making something different from the games they made in the past. And judging by the impressions of editors from MMORPG.COM and TenTonHammer, this game is likely a triple-A blockbuster that will retain fans for a long time.

    One final point...  although some people claim the fanbase is categorically against this change, I disagree. ice-vortex did a poll where about half of the 300+ respondents said they would still play even if this game is open-world, non-consensual PVP. Holy cow! People are ready for change.

    So yeah. If SOE builds it, they will come. And they'll stay.

    I find it amusing when I view a post that states if it is open world non consensual PvP they won't play the game....haha riiight!

    Oh wait they want easy mode where you can go out and kill without recourse; senseless, mindless MOBs with highly predictible AI...been there, done that, done with that!

    There are plenty of MMORPGs to choose from these days...SOE is a big company and they can afford to make this game however they like and not just to cater to carebears

    Simply said im lookin for a real challenge, not a mindless timesink

     

     

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by Gurpslord
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Ugh. People, the "50% said they would still play" was a comment about the EXISTING fanbase, which I argue SOE doesn't really need anyway. The argument is that they can rake in fabulous riches from new markets, but that the EXISTING fanbase is not totally against the idea either.

     

     

    As was previously mentioned, a poll that comprised 50% of 300 people does not a game creating strategy make.  You keep mentioning this poll as if it were gospel proof of this happening, you're putting your expectations way way up, I suggest you temper it lest you be dissapointed.

    This goes for every game out there, unless you have HARD PROOF of something about a game, it's all vapor and you should take it all with a grain of salt.  Especially where Smed is concerned.

    Are you trolling me or do you just not understand what I'm saying?

     

  • GurpslordGurpslord Hutchinson, MNPosts: 350Member
    Originally posted by Kuanshu
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I think everyone is missing the point of the PVE vs PVP argument. The point is, SOE is a business and will do whatever it can to make maximum profit. This includes implementing changes that go against the mainstream paradigm even at the risk of alienating their existing fanbase. Because if they build something truly amazing, innovative and sustainable, new players will come in droves and they will stay.


    Why take the risk? Smedley explained that the devs put tonnes of money into developing expansions that players burn through at an alarming rate. And when they're done with that content, they move on to the other 1000 clone games on the market, never quite finding the one that's "just right". They don't come back until SOE spends another chunk of their fortune developing more content. Clearly, there is a goldmine to be had in a game where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.

    Some people on the forum are saying SOE won't go this route because "EverQuest has never been about PVP" and they will lose a big chunk of the existing fanbase. SOE just doesn't care because there is a way bigger return on investment in making something different from the games they made in the past. And judging by the impressions of editors from MMORPG.COM and TenTonHammer, this game is likely a triple-A blockbuster that will retain fans for a long time.

    One final point...  although some people claim the fanbase is categorically against this change, I disagree. ice-vortex did a poll where about half of the 300+ respondents said they would still play even if this game is open-world, non-consensual PVP. Holy cow! People are ready for change.

    So yeah. If SOE builds it, they will come. And they'll stay.

    I find it amusing when I view a post that states if it is open world non consensual PvP they won't play the game....haha riiight!

    Oh wait they want easy mode where you can go out and kill without recourse; senseless, mindless MOBs with highly predictible AI...been there, done that, done with that!

    There are plenty of MMORPGs to choose from these days...SOE is a big company and they can afford to make this game however they like and not just to cater to carebears

    Simply said im lookin for a real challenge, not a mindless timesink

     

     

    Look for it all you want, EXPECTING it to be this title, in particular at this point and based off of a few tweets is just foolish.  I'm not saying the game won't be this way, I'm simply saying odds aren't with it being so and there's no confirmation or anything saying otherwise.  Temper your expectations.

  • gylnnegylnne South Hutchinson, KSPosts: 320Member
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    Nice premise but it is entirely false for one reason.  Non-consensual PvP is perhaps the smallest niche market in the MMO genre and is highly doubtful SOE would commit to this style of game with such a limited return on investment.

     

     

    Agree.

    LOL why anyone with any knowledge of the MMO playing field and it's history would believe people would stay for non-consensual pvp is beyond me.

     

     

     

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Maelwydd
    Originally posted by bcbully

     

    This just will not work, nor can happen in a sandbox world. You would be making two completely different games.

     

    Why wouldnt they go this route? FFA does not mean gankfest.

     

    Harshly punish murder, reward killing for a purpose. The player needs the choice.  

     

    Sure your free to be an asshat, but I'm free to bounty your ass (i would just kill you) and put you in jail for 5 hours, and black list you. RISK, REWARD. 

    Going back a number of years I remember a few discussions here about the whole risk/reward idea. I put forward the idea that prison time for crime is a good idea. I even wrote several lengthy pieces about the system I would love to see involving me as a player having the tools, should I choose, to build a jail, choose which laws to enforce and building support mechanics using the tools to protect my lands. So I could tick the box that says killing another person was a crime, I could assign a penalty of 10 hours per murder and I could build a jail and guard towers and hire local guards to protect my land. The risk was killing another player meant 10 hours real time sitting in a jail if you got caught.

    I didn't get a single post in support.

    Times may have changed but the main problem I see with FFA PvP games is that, the very vocal types want the freedom to kill other players but are not willing to put up with a risk reward system that isn't heavily in their favour.

    I would love it if games with FFA PvP had serious risk/reward systems but to be honest, I have a long standing opinion of the vocal advocates of FFA PvP are too selfish to really accept any kind of balance. They want a field full of sheep but run away when you try and introduce some sheep dogs and a shepherd. 

    Well Snail games stole your idea, kinda. You can't build jails, but you can bounty, and when caught by player constables (or if he kills enough constables the bounty will go away until the next day) that person is sent to jail for a time depending on the amount of the bounty, up to 5 hours where that person must remain logged in. This is why you hear nothing about ganking in Wushu, a FFA pvp game.

     

    5 hours in jail will F up your day. I'm not saying clone this system, but ffs if the developer puts thought into their on original system it will work.

  • DocBrodyDocBrody EldridgePosts: 1,820Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    They won't stay, nor will anyone join those type of games. 

    PVP players are a niche, and non-consensual PVP is an even smaller niche.

    While I agree that Darkfall wasn't a success, I would say its failing were more due to management, quality and design choices than to the type of game they wanted to make.

     

     stop bringing up Darkfall.

    cheap low budget titles don´t count.

    Bring up one major developer big budget sandbox like EQN with non consensual PvP, then we´ll talk again.

    I can already taste the sweet sweet tears of the PvE-only players, when the game hits 10 million players.

    "I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced."

  • TelondarielTelondariel Ottawa, ONPosts: 1,001Member
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Ugh. People, the "50% said they would still play" was a comment about the EXISTING fanbase, which I argue SOE doesn't really need anyway. The argument is that they can rake in fabulous riches from new markets, but that the EXISTING fanbase is not totally against the idea either.

     

     

    What a foolish statement.  I think you should stay far, far away from the business world.

     

    SOE has a terrible marketing plan for EQ.  They've received criticism for years on their utter inability of getting their product known by anyone other than the existing fanbase.  People know Blizzard's products.  How many people, when you've mentioned EverQuest, said, "Oh yeah!  I've heard a lot about that!" ?  Hmm, maybe almost no one?

     

    The only thing SOE has going for it right now, for EQN, is word of mouth from the existing fanbase.  SOE limits their information outlets to Twitter and Facebook, and the official game sites themselves.  All of which aren't capturing a new audience.  Now, sites like this give the occasional expose, but interviews are very weak as a source of marketing, let alone capturing more customers.

     

    So, saying that SOE doesn't really need the existing fanbase is ludicrous and tantamount to MMO suicide.

    image
  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Posts: 1,009Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gurpslord
    Originally posted by LacedOpium
    Originally posted by Telondariel
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I think everyone is missing the point of the PVE vs PVP argument. The point is, SOE is a business and will do whatever it can to make maximum profit. This includes implementing changes that go against the mainstream paradigm even at the risk of alienating their existing fanbase. Because if they build something truly amazing, innovative and sustainable, new players will come in droves and they will stay.


    Why take the risk? Smedley explained that the devs put tonnes of money into developing expansions that players burn through at an alarming rate. And when they're done with that content, they move on to the other 1000 clone games on the market, never quite finding the one that's "just right". They don't come back until SOE spends another chunk of their fortune developing more content. Clearly, there is a goldmine to be had in a game where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.

    Some people on the forum are saying SOE won't go this route because "EverQuest has never been about PVP" and they will lose a big chunk of the existing fanbase. SOE just doesn't care because there is a way bigger return on investment in making something different from the games they made in the past. And judging by the impressions of editors from MMORPG.COM and TenTonHammer, this game is likely a triple-A blockbuster that will retain fans for a long time.

    One final point...  although some people claim the fanbase is categorically against this change, I disagree. ice-vortex did a poll where about half of the 300+ respondents said they would still play even if this game is open-world, non-consensual PVP. Holy cow! People are ready for change.

    So yeah. If SOE builds it, they will come. And they'll stay.

    I highlighted some of your post for emphasis.

     

    Be careful about hanging onto anything Smedley says.  He likes to troll Twitter to see how the public reacts.  Additionally, he is all about spin and hype, just like his buddy Dave.  Only, Dave has found himself in the position of countering Smed's outlandish comments for damage control (eg. the "we love permadeath" comment).  Maybe you are new to how Smed runs things, and how he manages PR, but he's a loose cannon in some regards and more interested in his ego than the actual playerbase.

     

    Trying to forecast what SOE will do, what they like, and what they are against is futile.  You aren't SOE.  Making statements on their part is wishful thinking at best, and presumptuous at most.

     

    FInal note:  The poll.  So, 150 people said they'd like open-world PvP, eh?  That's a pretty insignificant sample, and in no way indicates people are ready for anything.

     

    I think you mean well, but your hype is not allowing you to see anything aside from generous interpretations of questionable info and meager data. 

    Why is everyone ripping into Smed?

    All he did was respond "I agree wholeheartedly," to a tweet by a fan stating, "A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward."  

    I see nothing wrong with that response.  All he is doing is agreeing to open world PvP but there is nothing there stating that it would be "non-consensual."

    I fully expect it, and I am excited, that the option to open world PvP will be available to those who want to partake in it.  However, there will always be the ability for a player to opt out of PvP if one chooses to do so.

    People just need to relax. 

    Well, we rip into Smed because he's a master at what he does, spin and hype and at this point veteran gamers who've gone thru his tilt-a-whirl of vocal chicanry are frankly used to distrusting every single word that comes out of his mouth.

    HOWEVER

    You are right that he didn't ever in any aspect of any reality claim that the game was going to do one thing or another from that response, he just stated that he as a person agreed.  He didn't say EQ Next agreed and was going to go that route, unfortunately that's not how people read it, they say OMG SMED SAID!!!!  So here we are.

    I am perfectly aware of how Smed and his team operate.  They play the good cop bad cop routine in order to generate hype, with Smed fulfilling the bad cop role.  He says one thing, it is controversial in nature causing it to spread like wild fire because everyone is up in arms, and then the good cop intervenes and makes everyone relax and feel better.  The result is a greater awareness, following, and eventual buildup for the game.  Its genius if you ask me.  I understand some of us can't take the rise in blood pressure but we just need to breathe and relax.  SOE is in this to maximize profit.  That is all the proof anyone needs to know that it will not be non-consensual PvP.

  • GurpslordGurpslord Hutchinson, MNPosts: 350Member
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by Gurpslord
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Ugh. People, the "50% said they would still play" was a comment about the EXISTING fanbase, which I argue SOE doesn't really need anyway. The argument is that they can rake in fabulous riches from new markets, but that the EXISTING fanbase is not totally against the idea either.

     

     

    As was previously mentioned, a poll that comprised 50% of 300 people does not a game creating strategy make.  You keep mentioning this poll as if it were gospel proof of this happening, you're putting your expectations way way up, I suggest you temper it lest you be dissapointed.

    This goes for every game out there, unless you have HARD PROOF of something about a game, it's all vapor and you should take it all with a grain of salt.  Especially where Smed is concerned.

    Are you trolling me or do you just not understand what I'm saying?

     

    I'm not trolling you and maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say.  I think I do, however.  If you'll take a moment to look at SOE history, about every game they've spun out.  SOE is not a company that does new and innovative and they're not typically the company shooting for a niche crowd either.

    Now my interpretation is just as much speculation as anyone elses.  Do I think fabulous riches are to be made by catering to the ultra niche crowd of hardcore PVP, no.  Then again I'm not a developer, I don't get paid to or have any interest in trying to dig out the data that says one way or the other.

    I can only go with what their history as a company tells me thus far, that's not to say it can't change.  As for building up an argument over a few tweets from Smedley, that's just folly. 

    Ultimately, if what you're trying to say is that there's a vast and untapped market of hardcore pvp gamers than I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you.  I do believe that there definitely are gamers who want that, but I don't agree for an instant that there's enough of them for a company like SOE to try to target.  Smaller company, smaller franchise maybe, but not SOE, and not EQ.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DocBrody
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    They won't stay, nor will anyone join those type of games. 

    PVP players are a niche, and non-consensual PVP is an even smaller niche.

    While I agree that Darkfall wasn't a success, I would say its failing were more due to management, quality and design choices than to the type of game they wanted to make.

     

     stop bringing up Darkfall.

    cheap low budget titles don´t count.

    Bring up one major developer big budget sandbox like EQN with non consensual PvP, then we´ll talk again.

    I can already taste the sweet sweet tears of the PvE-only players, when the game hits 10 million players.

    "I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced."

    This is one of the reasons I have not played DF, I know proper punishment/reward systems are not in place. If they were there would be no need for safe zones. 

     

    Developers need to go further that just saying "FFA!"

  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    One final point...  although some people claim the fanbase is categorically against this change, I disagree. ice-vortex did a poll where about half of the 300+ respondents said they would still play even if this game is open-world, non-consensual PVP. Holy cow! People are ready for change.
     

    150 people on a forum known for idolising commercial failures like DFUW. Yeah seems like good statistics.

    More like 'if you build it, it will fail'. Which is what it will do if you impose unwanted PvP on the masses.

  • GurpslordGurpslord Hutchinson, MNPosts: 350Member
    Originally posted by DocBrody
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    They won't stay, nor will anyone join those type of games. 

    PVP players are a niche, and non-consensual PVP is an even smaller niche.

    While I agree that Darkfall wasn't a success, I would say its failing were more due to management, quality and design choices than to the type of game they wanted to make.

     

     stop bringing up Darkfall.

    cheap low budget titles don´t count.

    Bring up one major developer big budget sandbox like EQN with non consensual PvP, then we´ll talk again.

    I can already taste the sweet sweet tears of the PvE-only players, when the game hits 10 million players.

    "I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced."

    I admire your optimism.

Sign In or Register to comment.