You're gonna have to do better than that, Gallus85. Show me the money.
I see a cash shop in a sandbox being way more lucrative. Especially if people have to replace damaged assets and pay taxes for protection. I'm still waiting for ice-vortex's explanation about how the PVP sandbox makes more money than the PVE sandbox without these kind of monetization strategies... or is it more about people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions?
There are lots of ways around the limitations, most of which were used by hard core griefers in UO.
For example, you can't go into town to buy supplies or whatever because the guards will instakill you. Just have an alt or your buddy go and do it for you.
Anyhow, thanks for trying to find a way, but I haven't seen one yet that'll work. Some that limit griefing by a large margin are if pvp is consensual only, and if mobs that have been pulled from their normal location won't harm anyone that didn't cause aggro. Simply being in detection range isn't enough to cause them to attack if they aren't in their normal location. Also, if they have an area or other indiscriminate attack, have it not capable of harming anyone that hasn't built up some aggro. That stuff is to stop the death trains.)
Even with those steps, there will still eventually be griefers. There are always ways of abusing or hacking the game to screw with others. Of course, the trick is to make it limited, difficult, and stomped on like the jolly green giant squishing an aphid.
You're gonna have to do better than that, Gallus85. Show me the money.
I see a cash shop in a sandbox being way more lucrative. Especially if people have to replace damaged assets and pay taxes for protection. I'm still waiting for ice-vortex's explanation about how the PVP sandbox makes more money than the PVE sandbox without these kind of monetization strategies... or is it more about people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions?
I never said it would. I just said that a system where you have to buy something that gets destroyed will be labeled p2w and actually make less money.
You're gonna have to do better than that, Gallus85. Show me the money.
I see a cash shop in a sandbox being way more lucrative. Especially if people have to replace damaged assets and pay taxes for protection. I'm still waiting for ice-vortex's explanation about how the PVP sandbox makes more money than the PVE sandbox without these kind of monetization strategies... or is it more about people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions?
Lets break this down "replace damaged assets" this should not be a cash shop thing it should be a play thing, harvest the materials, make the tools, do the repair. Your seeing it as a cash shop thing reflects your focus on killing and destroying rather than creating and building.
Also "pay taxes for protection" this is sometimes called protection money, extracting money with menaces etc. In the real world it is generally a crime unless done as a gambling proposition by insurance companies. IMHO it should not be part of an on-line social game.
As to "people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions" I do not enjoy PvP conflicts, do not take part in them, and would not hang around to see them. I would leave the game and not come back, thus SOE would loose the money I would have paid. There are many like me, based on the polls at least twice as many as the PvP crowd.
Please remember I advocate for and expect PvP servers/shards for those that wish to indulge in that cesspool, I just expect there to be more PvE servers.
You're gonna have to do better than that, Gallus85. Show me the money.
I see a cash shop in a sandbox being way more lucrative. Especially if people have to replace damaged assets and pay taxes for protection. I'm still waiting for ice-vortex's explanation about how the PVP sandbox makes more money than the PVE sandbox without these kind of monetization strategies... or is it more about people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions?
The total profits on the cash shop are not exactly known, but based on NCsoft earnings people estimate that the cash shop alone is generating $50-70 million per year. This is not including box sales or any other revenue. Just the gem store. This means that on average the cash shop is making them about $2 per user per month.
So they're set to have made $180 in box sales and +$50 - 70 million in gem shop sales in the first year.
So Eve probably makes about $10 or $20 million or a year in subs than GW2 makes in gem store sales, but that's the 2012-2013 1 year worth of sales. However,
Projections for 2013-2014 are higher than that by about 100% due to recently entering the Chinese market a few months ago.
That good enough for you, or do you require more sources to blow those blinders off your head?
You're gonna have to do better than that, Gallus85. Show me the money.
I see a cash shop in a sandbox being way more lucrative. Especially if people have to replace damaged assets and pay taxes for protection. I'm still waiting for ice-vortex's explanation about how the PVP sandbox makes more money than the PVE sandbox without these kind of monetization strategies... or is it more about people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions?
Lets break this down "replace damaged assets" this should not be a cash shop thing it should be a play thing, harvest the materials, make the tools, do the repair. Your seeing it as a cash shop thing reflects your focus on killing and destroying rather than creating and building.
Also "pay taxes for protection" this is sometimes called protection money, extracting money with menaces etc. In the real world it is generally a crime unless done as a gambling proposition by insurance companies. IMHO it should not be part of an on-line social game.
As to "people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions" I do not enjoy PvP conflicts, do not take part in them, and would not hang around to see them. I would leave the game and not come back, thus SOE would loose the money I would have paid. There are many like me, based on the polls at least twice as many as the PvP crowd.
Please remember I advocate for and expect PvP servers/shards for those that wish to indulge in that cesspool, I just expect there to be more PvE servers.
I laughed when you called PVP a cess-pool lol. I hope you don't think less of me because I like to swim in the cess! lol
Remember that the cash shop will probably be used for all sorts of in game stuff, like building and repairing structures and other assets. Remember, they combat gold spammers by using the krono system or something similar. Basically it equates to legal gold buying, and the player can in turn spend that gold on anything in game.
So replacing damaged assets could easily be something people spend cash shop money on, even if it is through an indirect mean.
You're gonna have to do better than that, Gallus85. Show me the money.
I see a cash shop in a sandbox being way more lucrative. Especially if people have to replace damaged assets and pay taxes for protection. I'm still waiting for ice-vortex's explanation about how the PVP sandbox makes more money than the PVE sandbox without these kind of monetization strategies... or is it more about people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions?
You may think it would be more lucrative, but in the long run it wouldn't.
Why would someone pay in a cash shop to repair/replace assets or pay protection fees? People as a whole would look at that and most likely say "F-that!". That's basically creating a 'pay to win' scenario, something a LOT of players are against.
If you think about it, sure, some players will be fine with it. But those who are not will go elsewhere. Those are lost players, and lost players = lost revenue. And again, while there are those willing to spend cash on repairs and replacements, those numbers will be small compared to what the game could have in potential income. Those players willing to pay in a PvP game will start to dwindle because of the lack of players overall. The game would be left with a very niche population, growing smaller every day.
And you can use Eve as an example of how they won't leave in droves, but Eve is a different beast. Eve is akin to WoW = a rare fluke that managed to get in at the right time. A lot of Eve players refuse to look at a high fantasy game - its just not their cup of tea. A lot of PvPers refuse to even give Eve a try because its a game that is a lot more involved than what they are looking for. Most PvPers are looking for a UO style sandbox, where they can jump in and with little effort and planning start having fun. Anytime you read a list of PvPer desires for a game, you get the descriptions for Darkfall and MO. Eve is just too 'scary' for most Pvpers in that it requires a lot more effort than 'Find Player > Kill Player > Win'.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by Aceshighhhh These silly arguments claiming SOE shouldn't or wouldn't make a PvP-focused game because it won't "make enough money" is absolutely ridiculous.
If SOE wanted to make the most money, they wouldn't be developing a niche sandbox MMORPG. End of story.
I'm sorry I must of missed that quote from Smed or the devs.
Can you find where they said they're making a niche game?
Sandbox does not = niche. Minecraft and DayZ proved that you could get million's of player's attention with sandbox game play.
Or are you referring to someone at SOE specifically using that word, or something like it, when talking about EQN?
Not to mention gallus, we don't know what Smed considers sandbox. If they reskinned EQ1 and launched it like it was pre Luclin people would probably consider that almost sandbox compared to most of what we have today. Let's not foeget the "essence of the change" they were making according to the Smedley interview was upgraded AI to make the world feel alive. I really don't think we will see a helluva lot more innovation than that.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
Originally posted by Aceshighhhh These silly arguments claiming SOE shouldn't or wouldn't make a PvP-focused game because it won't "make enough money" is absolutely ridiculous.
If SOE wanted to make the most money, they wouldn't be developing a niche sandbox MMORPG. End of story.
I'm sorry I must of missed that quote from Smed or the devs.
Can you find where they said they're making a niche game?
Sandbox does not = niche. Minecraft and DayZ proved that you could get million's of player's attention with sandbox game play.
Or are you referring to someone at SOE specifically using that word, or something like it, when talking about EQN?
I can't believe you're referencing DayZ which is one of the most hardcore PVP games with full loot and permadeath. And a PVP sandbox MMO can't be successful?
Originally posted by Trudge34 Not to mention gallus, we don't know what Smed considers sandbox. If they reskinned EQ1 and launched it like it was pre Luclin people would probably consider that almost sandbox compared to most of what we have today. Let's not foeget the "essence of the change" they were making according to the Smedley interview was upgraded AI to make the world feel alive. I really don't think we will see a helluva lot more innovation than that.
I agree. Sandbox can mean many things. We don't know exactly what they meant by sandbox yet.
I'm "expecting":
A strong crafting system, player housing and city building.
A way for players to create content (items, quests, adventure campaigns, roleplaying events, etc)
A really cool combat system (Probably action based)
More advanced NPC AI (NPCs that are more interactive than what we had before)
Open world pvp (on our own servers)
A large open world that has some sort of dynamic event system.
I have a list of other things I'm "hoping for" but the things above are what I am expecting.
I can't believe you're referencing DayZ which is one of the most hardcore PVP games with full loot and permadeath. And a PVP sandbox MMO can't be successful?
The zombie/shooter crowd is far different from the MMORPG crowd. But you already knew that.
Originally posted by Aceshighhhh These silly arguments claiming SOE shouldn't or wouldn't make a PvP-focused game because it won't "make enough money" is absolutely ridiculous.
If SOE wanted to make the most money, they wouldn't be developing a niche sandbox MMORPG. End of story.
I'm sorry I must of missed that quote from Smed or the devs.
Can you find where they said they're making a niche game?
Sandbox does not = niche. Minecraft and DayZ proved that you could get million's of player's attention with sandbox game play.
Or are you referring to someone at SOE specifically using that word, or something like it, when talking about EQN?
I think you're having some trouble with your definitions here.
Niche: "A niche market is the subset of the market on which a specific product is focusing. The market niche defines the specific product features aimed at satisfying specific market needs"
Sandbox MMORPG's are a distinct segment of the market catered toward a particular group of people. And the fact is, sandbox MMO's don't make nearly as much money as other sectors of the market, such as the themepark/casual games. The games you listed are not MMORPG'S. If SOE TRULY wanted to make money, they would designing casual games alongside companies like Zynga. There is hardly any money to be had in sandbox mmo's compared to casual games. I've made this point many times but people refuse to listen.
Here are some facts for you:
EVE and CCP Games earned a total revenue of 66 million dollars in 2012.
Creating a casual/themepark MMORPG would go completely against SOE's philosophy, this would include casualizing designs. The facts are showing that SOE obviously isn't in it to roll out the most cash, so making silly arguments about certain design choices like open-pvp not making enough money are completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Aceshighhhh These silly arguments claiming SOE shouldn't or wouldn't make a PvP-focused game because it won't "make enough money" is absolutely ridiculous.
If SOE wanted to make the most money, they wouldn't be developing a niche sandbox MMORPG. End of story.
I'm sorry I must of missed that quote from Smed or the devs.
Can you find where they said they're making a niche game?
Sandbox does not = niche. Minecraft and DayZ proved that you could get million's of player's attention with sandbox game play.
Or are you referring to someone at SOE specifically using that word, or something like it, when talking about EQN?
I think you're having some trouble with your definitions here.
Niche: "A niche market is the subset of the market on which a specific product is focusing. The market niche defines the specific product features aimed at satisfying specific market needs"
Sandbox MMORPG's are a distinct segment of the market catered toward a particular group of people. And the fact is, sandbox MMO's don't make nearly as much money as other sectors of the market, such as the themepark/casual games. The games you listed are not MMORPG'S. If SOE TRULY wanted to make money, they would designing casual games alongside companies like Zynga. There is hardly any money to be had in sandbox mmo's compared to casual games. I've made this point many times but people refuse to listen.
Here are some facts for you:
EVE and CCP Games earned a total revenue of 66 million dollars in 2012.
Zynga earned a total revenue of 1.2 billion dollars in the same year.
Creating a casual/themepark MMORPG would go completely against SOE's philosophy, this would include casualizing designs. The facts are showing that SOE obviously isn't in it to roll out the most cash, so making silly arguments about certain design choices like open-pvp not making enough money are completely irrelevant.
The only person here that's confused is you and you'll understand why in a few days.
Niche in common use means a very* specific subset of the market. Call of duty is a shooter, but no one would say it's niche just because it's aimed targeting a specific genre audience (FPS players). That's just not how the word is used.
SOE's EQN is their prized flagship. They're making it to show the world that they can be revolutionary and bring in a large player base. Creating some sort of specific, forced pvp experience is not going to be happening. PVP is going to be a part of the EQN experience (If you want it), but it's not going to be forced on the PVE player base. It'll either be seperate from the PVE portion of the world (AKA GW2) or it will be seperated by servers.
Don't worry. I'll be back on 2 August to create a thread talking about my previous predictions and I'll match it up with what we learn from SOE live.
Also, I never said anything about casual or themepark. Don't know where you got that from lol.
Gallus85... you know about as much as the rest of us about EQN, which is pretty much nothing. All we have to go by are hints by Smedley, which suggest player conflict will be an important pillar of the game. (In other words, not something you can simply chop off on one server without breaking the design.)
I'm looking forward to seeing you talk your way out of what gets revealed on Aug. 2. What will be your reaction if ice-vortex and I are right?
Edit: If what you've been saying all along is true, you'll probably be worried about what it means for SOE's future but personally thrilled to have so much emphasis go into PVP.
Creating a casual/themepark MMORPG would go completely against SOE's philosophy, this would include casualizing designs. The facts are showing that SOE obviously isn't in it to roll out the most cash, so making silly arguments about certain design choices like open-pvp not making enough money are completely irrelevant.
Well, I hope you never enter science with that "logic".
You're comparing a company that basically has one game, running on subscriptions, which is built with the specific intent to alienate huge chunks of the playerbase, to a company that runs a bunch of F2P projects linked to social networks and running on various cash grabs. That's not even getting into the fact that there are different ways to run a company. There are so many variables in this that to even begin to draw conclusions about sandbox markets from this is just stupid.
Gallus85... you know about as much as the rest of us about EQN, which is pretty much nothing. All we have to go by are hints by Smedley, which suggest player conflict will be an important pillar of the game. (In other words, not something you can simply chop off on one server without breaking the design.)
I'm looking forward to seeing you talk your way out of what gets revealed on Aug. 2. What will be your reaction if ice-vortex and I are right?
Edit: If what you've been saying all along is true, you'll probably be worried about what it means for SOE's future but personally thrilled to have so much emphasis go into PVP.
I will end up being right in most/all of what I've been saying about EQN, and there's a reason why.
If* for some reason I am wrong about the PVP (If PVP is forced on to the population), I will gladly admit I was wrong, and my wife and I will be happily enjoying the game, because we are PVPers. (Especially her, I can't even get her to try out PVE-only games of any kind. She won't even play Skyrim because she can't "kill scrubs" in it)
I would not be worried about SOE's future in any scenario. They already print money from a truck load of other titles. EQN could bomb and only get 50k peek subscribers and they would still be fine economically as far as the company itself is concerned.
Creating a casual/themepark MMORPG would go completely against SOE's philosophy, this would include casualizing designs. The facts are showing that SOE obviously isn't in it to roll out the most cash, so making silly arguments about certain design choices like open-pvp not making enough money are completely irrelevant.
Well, I hope you never enter science with that "logic".
I personally would love the one server for all setup, versus the multiple fractured servers. It's just better on so many levels. You never have to worry about population decline or ending up on a dead server.
And, the world is always populated, even later on down the road when there's 10 expansions with tons of zones. Let's be honest, that's the biggest problem with expanding MMOs. The bigger they get, the more empty they become. Which, in turn, turns off new players, etc.
That's why I'd love to see everyone together. But, I know alot of people prefer the segregation of PvP/PvE. So, it depends if SOE wants to take a hard line stance about PvP as a central part of the world/game or not.
I guess ideally they could make 2 total servers to choose from. PvP or Non-PvP. It would really depend how they wanted to approach the game and where their direction truly lies.
One server is always going to be the best system to me, but they'd have to put alot of creativity and thought into it to make everyone happy. I guess we won't know what their design direction is with this game for another few weeks. I think the only way we'd realistically see a one world server is if they label this a PvP-centric game, which I'm doubting will happen.
Still, I just hate having the playerbase divided amongst dozens of servers. I've hated it since I started playing MMOs. I would imagine it'd be a heck of a lot easier to focus on one giant server when it comes to being able to put out lots of random little GM events and such, also.
I guess the real question should be, if SoE decides to make the PvP a central aspect of the game, and there are no pure PvE servers, how will it be implemented.
Side note: PvP fights need to be lasting, so that people can defend themselves better and whatnot. Griefing becomes much simpler when you can drop people in one or two attacks/rounds. I absolutely hate the PvP where it's like playing an FPS and the fight is over in 5-10 seconds. I would think slower paced combat would make alot of borderline people happier.
I personally would love the one server for all setup, versus the multiple fractured servers. It's just better on so many levels. You never have to worry about population decline or ending up on a dead server.
I agree that dead servers suck, but frankly that's not even going to be an issue.
EQN is F2P. Lets face it, it's going to be a free to play triple AAA game experience. SWTOR is more of the same, many of us hardcore MMORPG sandbox crafting forum rats did not appreciate SWTOR, but even it has millions of players as a free to player game.
If the servers had PVE, RP, PVP, PVPRP, and different servers for different locations (US E, US W, EU, Aussy, etc) it's still going to have thousand and thousands of players per sever.
More than enough to keep you happy.
And seriously, why would you even want to be on a server with a buncha PVE players? They don't want to pvp you. They don't want anything to do with it. Is that the kind of community you're looking for? One that pisses on a whole demographic?
This thread is a fail, PVE only is going to be an option. PVP servers are going to be an option. This thread needs to be burned.
if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill it might reduce griefers because we all know that they are just insecure and immature cowards who are just venting their stupidity if they have to take an equal risk when they decide to gank or grief somebody they wont even consider it... well if they are just assholes then its entirely different matter, if there is a ghost walk and a type of shrine area that you can get ressurected bah i dont know
but then again if they can perfectly do this "dark side" and "good side" thing and balance it, the griefers cant grief in "good side" towns or regions and vice versa, what do you consider griefing anyway? same player kills you 7 times in one minute? or 7 times in 1 hour? its all about the intervals the kills occur is it not? so if a player kills you and you have to ghost walk for 30secs to the nearby shrine to ressurect (safe zone?) and you leave it and you are killed again is this considered griefing? or just stupidity on your part for leaving the safe zone?
well my final opinion is that they will divide PvP to zones, pvp zones and pve zones
I completely agree with the OP in wanting a system like this implemented into MMO games. What has bothered me for years is that no developer seems willing to do it despite it being very technologically and conceptually feasible.
Comments
You're gonna have to do better than that, Gallus85. Show me the money.
I see a cash shop in a sandbox being way more lucrative. Especially if people have to replace damaged assets and pay taxes for protection. I'm still waiting for ice-vortex's explanation about how the PVP sandbox makes more money than the PVE sandbox without these kind of monetization strategies... or is it more about people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions?
Sounds pretty much like what Ultima Online did.
Sorry to say this, but it won't work.
There are lots of ways around the limitations, most of which were used by hard core griefers in UO.
For example, you can't go into town to buy supplies or whatever because the guards will instakill you. Just have an alt or your buddy go and do it for you.
Anyhow, thanks for trying to find a way, but I haven't seen one yet that'll work. Some that limit griefing by a large margin are if pvp is consensual only, and if mobs that have been pulled from their normal location won't harm anyone that didn't cause aggro. Simply being in detection range isn't enough to cause them to attack if they aren't in their normal location. Also, if they have an area or other indiscriminate attack, have it not capable of harming anyone that hasn't built up some aggro. That stuff is to stop the death trains.)
Even with those steps, there will still eventually be griefers. There are always ways of abusing or hacking the game to screw with others. Of course, the trick is to make it limited, difficult, and stomped on like the jolly green giant squishing an aphid.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
I never said it would. I just said that a system where you have to buy something that gets destroyed will be labeled p2w and actually make less money.
Lets break this down "replace damaged assets" this should not be a cash shop thing it should be a play thing, harvest the materials, make the tools, do the repair. Your seeing it as a cash shop thing reflects your focus on killing and destroying rather than creating and building.
Also "pay taxes for protection" this is sometimes called protection money, extracting money with menaces etc. In the real world it is generally a crime unless done as a gambling proposition by insurance companies. IMHO it should not be part of an on-line social game.
As to "people sticking around and enjoying PVP conflicts between expansions" I do not enjoy PvP conflicts, do not take part in them, and would not hang around to see them. I would leave the game and not come back, thus SOE would loose the money I would have paid. There are many like me, based on the polls at least twice as many as the PvP crowd.
Please remember I advocate for and expect PvP servers/shards for those that wish to indulge in that cesspool, I just expect there to be more PvE servers.
http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mmorpg/guild-wars-2-microtransactions-still-consistent-and-strong/
The total profits on the cash shop are not exactly known, but based on NCsoft earnings people estimate that the cash shop alone is generating $50-70 million per year. This is not including box sales or any other revenue. Just the gem store. This means that on average the cash shop is making them about $2 per user per month.
http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/earnings.aspx
So they're set to have made $180 in box sales and +$50 - 70 million in gem shop sales in the first year.
So Eve probably makes about $10 or $20 million or a year in subs than GW2 makes in gem store sales, but that's the 2012-2013 1 year worth of sales. However,
Projections for 2013-2014 are higher than that by about 100% due to recently entering the Chinese market a few months ago.
That good enough for you, or do you require more sources to blow those blinders off your head?
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I laughed when you called PVP a cess-pool lol. I hope you don't think less of me because I like to swim in the cess! lol
Remember that the cash shop will probably be used for all sorts of in game stuff, like building and repairing structures and other assets. Remember, they combat gold spammers by using the krono system or something similar. Basically it equates to legal gold buying, and the player can in turn spend that gold on anything in game.
So replacing damaged assets could easily be something people spend cash shop money on, even if it is through an indirect mean.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
You may think it would be more lucrative, but in the long run it wouldn't.
Why would someone pay in a cash shop to repair/replace assets or pay protection fees? People as a whole would look at that and most likely say "F-that!". That's basically creating a 'pay to win' scenario, something a LOT of players are against.
If you think about it, sure, some players will be fine with it. But those who are not will go elsewhere. Those are lost players, and lost players = lost revenue. And again, while there are those willing to spend cash on repairs and replacements, those numbers will be small compared to what the game could have in potential income. Those players willing to pay in a PvP game will start to dwindle because of the lack of players overall. The game would be left with a very niche population, growing smaller every day.
And you can use Eve as an example of how they won't leave in droves, but Eve is a different beast. Eve is akin to WoW = a rare fluke that managed to get in at the right time. A lot of Eve players refuse to look at a high fantasy game - its just not their cup of tea. A lot of PvPers refuse to even give Eve a try because its a game that is a lot more involved than what they are looking for. Most PvPers are looking for a UO style sandbox, where they can jump in and with little effort and planning start having fun. Anytime you read a list of PvPer desires for a game, you get the descriptions for Darkfall and MO. Eve is just too 'scary' for most Pvpers in that it requires a lot more effort than 'Find Player > Kill Player > Win'.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
If SOE wanted to make the most money, they wouldn't be developing a niche sandbox MMORPG. End of story.
I'm sorry I must of missed that quote from Smed or the devs.
Can you find where they said they're making a niche game?
Sandbox does not = niche. Minecraft and DayZ proved that you could get million's of player's attention with sandbox game play.
Or are you referring to someone at SOE specifically using that word, or something like it, when talking about EQN?
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
I can't believe you're referencing DayZ which is one of the most hardcore PVP games with full loot and permadeath. And a PVP sandbox MMO can't be successful?
I agree. Sandbox can mean many things. We don't know exactly what they meant by sandbox yet.
I'm "expecting":
A strong crafting system, player housing and city building.
A way for players to create content (items, quests, adventure campaigns, roleplaying events, etc)
A really cool combat system (Probably action based)
More advanced NPC AI (NPCs that are more interactive than what we had before)
Open world pvp (on our own servers)
A large open world that has some sort of dynamic event system.
I have a list of other things I'm "hoping for" but the things above are what I am expecting.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
The zombie/shooter crowd is far different from the MMORPG crowd. But you already knew that.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I think you're having some trouble with your definitions here.
Niche: "A niche market is the subset of the market on which a specific product is focusing. The market niche defines the specific product features aimed at satisfying specific market needs"
Sandbox MMORPG's are a distinct segment of the market catered toward a particular group of people. And the fact is, sandbox MMO's don't make nearly as much money as other sectors of the market, such as the themepark/casual games. The games you listed are not MMORPG'S. If SOE TRULY wanted to make money, they would designing casual games alongside companies like Zynga. There is hardly any money to be had in sandbox mmo's compared to casual games. I've made this point many times but people refuse to listen.
Here are some facts for you:
EVE and CCP Games earned a total revenue of 66 million dollars in 2012.
http://evenews24.com/2012/02/23/eve-online-66-million-dollars-in-2012-talks-new-business-models-ipo/
Zynga earned a total revenue of 1.2 billion dollars in the same year.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/5/3956032/zynga-2012-revenue-1-2b-up-12-percent
Creating a casual/themepark MMORPG would go completely against SOE's philosophy, this would include casualizing designs. The facts are showing that SOE obviously isn't in it to roll out the most cash, so making silly arguments about certain design choices like open-pvp not making enough money are completely irrelevant.
The only person here that's confused is you and you'll understand why in a few days.
Niche in common use means a very* specific subset of the market. Call of duty is a shooter, but no one would say it's niche just because it's aimed targeting a specific genre audience (FPS players). That's just not how the word is used.
SOE's EQN is their prized flagship. They're making it to show the world that they can be revolutionary and bring in a large player base. Creating some sort of specific, forced pvp experience is not going to be happening. PVP is going to be a part of the EQN experience (If you want it), but it's not going to be forced on the PVE player base. It'll either be seperate from the PVE portion of the world (AKA GW2) or it will be seperated by servers.
Don't worry. I'll be back on 2 August to create a thread talking about my previous predictions and I'll match it up with what we learn from SOE live.
Also, I never said anything about casual or themepark. Don't know where you got that from lol.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Gallus85... you know about as much as the rest of us about EQN, which is pretty much nothing. All we have to go by are hints by Smedley, which suggest player conflict will be an important pillar of the game. (In other words, not something you can simply chop off on one server without breaking the design.)
I'm looking forward to seeing you talk your way out of what gets revealed on Aug. 2. What will be your reaction if ice-vortex and I are right?
Edit: If what you've been saying all along is true, you'll probably be worried about what it means for SOE's future but personally thrilled to have so much emphasis go into PVP.Well, I hope you never enter science with that "logic".
You're comparing a company that basically has one game, running on subscriptions, which is built with the specific intent to alienate huge chunks of the playerbase, to a company that runs a bunch of F2P projects linked to social networks and running on various cash grabs. That's not even getting into the fact that there are different ways to run a company. There are so many variables in this that to even begin to draw conclusions about sandbox markets from this is just stupid.
I will end up being right in most/all of what I've been saying about EQN, and there's a reason why.
If* for some reason I am wrong about the PVP (If PVP is forced on to the population), I will gladly admit I was wrong, and my wife and I will be happily enjoying the game, because we are PVPers. (Especially her, I can't even get her to try out PVE-only games of any kind. She won't even play Skyrim because she can't "kill scrubs" in it)
I would not be worried about SOE's future in any scenario. They already print money from a truck load of other titles. EQN could bomb and only get 50k peek subscribers and they would still be fine economically as far as the company itself is concerned.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
LOL.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I personally would love the one server for all setup, versus the multiple fractured servers. It's just better on so many levels. You never have to worry about population decline or ending up on a dead server.
And, the world is always populated, even later on down the road when there's 10 expansions with tons of zones. Let's be honest, that's the biggest problem with expanding MMOs. The bigger they get, the more empty they become. Which, in turn, turns off new players, etc.
That's why I'd love to see everyone together. But, I know alot of people prefer the segregation of PvP/PvE. So, it depends if SOE wants to take a hard line stance about PvP as a central part of the world/game or not.
I guess ideally they could make 2 total servers to choose from. PvP or Non-PvP. It would really depend how they wanted to approach the game and where their direction truly lies.
One server is always going to be the best system to me, but they'd have to put alot of creativity and thought into it to make everyone happy. I guess we won't know what their design direction is with this game for another few weeks. I think the only way we'd realistically see a one world server is if they label this a PvP-centric game, which I'm doubting will happen.
Still, I just hate having the playerbase divided amongst dozens of servers. I've hated it since I started playing MMOs. I would imagine it'd be a heck of a lot easier to focus on one giant server when it comes to being able to put out lots of random little GM events and such, also.
I guess the real question should be, if SoE decides to make the PvP a central aspect of the game, and there are no pure PvE servers, how will it be implemented.
Side note: PvP fights need to be lasting, so that people can defend themselves better and whatnot. Griefing becomes much simpler when you can drop people in one or two attacks/rounds. I absolutely hate the PvP where it's like playing an FPS and the fight is over in 5-10 seconds. I would think slower paced combat would make alot of borderline people happier.
I agree that dead servers suck, but frankly that's not even going to be an issue.
EQN is F2P. Lets face it, it's going to be a free to play triple AAA game experience. SWTOR is more of the same, many of us hardcore MMORPG sandbox crafting forum rats did not appreciate SWTOR, but even it has millions of players as a free to player game.
If the servers had PVE, RP, PVP, PVPRP, and different servers for different locations (US E, US W, EU, Aussy, etc) it's still going to have thousand and thousands of players per sever.
More than enough to keep you happy.
And seriously, why would you even want to be on a server with a buncha PVE players? They don't want to pvp you. They don't want anything to do with it. Is that the kind of community you're looking for? One that pisses on a whole demographic?
This thread is a fail, PVE only is going to be an option. PVP servers are going to be an option. This thread needs to be burned.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill it might reduce griefers because we all know that they are just insecure and immature cowards who are just venting their stupidity if they have to take an equal risk when they decide to gank or grief somebody they wont even consider it... well if they are just assholes then its entirely different matter, if there is a ghost walk and a type of shrine area that you can get ressurected bah i dont know
but then again if they can perfectly do this "dark side" and "good side" thing and balance it, the griefers cant grief in "good side" towns or regions and vice versa, what do you consider griefing anyway? same player kills you 7 times in one minute? or 7 times in 1 hour? its all about the intervals the kills occur is it not? so if a player kills you and you have to ghost walk for 30secs to the nearby shrine to ressurect (safe zone?) and you leave it and you are killed again is this considered griefing? or just stupidity on your part for leaving the safe zone?
well my final opinion is that they will divide PvP to zones, pvp zones and pve zones