No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
Plenty of data available. 20 million and growing for star citizen. Data doesn't get any better than that.
What data do you think Bioware used to make their space game?
Which data would you want as a developer? As a gamer what data do you want devs to use?
Are you seriously asking that or are you deliberately obtuse?
Both.
I can use other examples that make my point.
But if you want to answer, Id like to hear it. But you must provide data to back it up.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You can't do that if you're dead, of course. Besides, people's tastes change all the time, people stop doing things all the time and never come back to it. People run out of time to play games that take up too much time, which is exactly the kind of games that we're talking about here. The number of people who started playing in 1999 and are still playing the same kind of games today are going to be very low, people grow up, people get lives, people have families and jobs, they just don't have time to stare at a computer screen for 18 hours a day.
Yeah all I'm hearing are more and more assumptions. Some of those people may changed their preferences, sure. But everybody I know who grew up playing UO, Shadowbane, etc, still hold those same views about what makes a game good. I'm sure there are those who have changed their views, just as I'm sure there are people who have grown sick of themeparks and would very much enjoy a sandbox if somebody were to make one.
All you have to do is ask around here and you'll find tons and tons of people who started playing UO and EQ and now, would never, ever go back to that kind of game again. I'm one of them.
If there were enough people who wanted those kinds of games, they'd be making those kinds of games. They're not. I predict that those games that people think are going to be great will hit the market, people will turn on them immediately and they'll fade away. That's the cycle around here, nobody is ever happy with what actually comes out, just with their fantasy of what might come out someday.
Let me know when those games are actually on the market and are stable and successful. I don't think that day will ever come.
That's the cycle here because we're being fed shallow clones. But again, I'll ask... what facts are you talking about? You said they can't compete with mainstream MMOs. What makes you say that? Very few have been tried, and basically none have been done well. Your "facts" seem to have turned into your personal opinion that the games that are on the horizon will fail.
They aren't being tried because the MMO market research shows that they will not perform as well as what's currently being put out. You assume that you have to have millions poured into an MMO and have it out in the wild before you'll admit that they don't do well, in fact, you're even critical of games that have come out and failed. However, we see this cycle around here where people of a particular mindset will declare Game X to be the turning point, the game that will prove that their particular gaming interests are better than everyone else's, but the second that game comes out and fails to garner the audience they had hoped, they declare it a failure, not that good anyhow, and point to a new game on the horizon that will be "The One"! This goes on over and over and over and over. There is never the admission that the claim was wrong, only that they picked the wrong game and they have complete and utter faith that their particular playstyle will eventually win!
There will always be games on the horizon. You'd probably move along due to lack of interest if there weren't.
True, but the cycle is always the same. Some people look at something on the horizon, declare that it will be the best game ever, it comes out, they decide it sucks, scream and cry about how bad it is and identify a new game on the horizon to be the best game ever.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I wonder, is the defeatist cycle ("everything sucks, all the good games are gone, woe is me" lather, rinse, repeat.) any better?
Same thing; just waiting for new games to come out so they, too, can declare it sucks.
No, people just need to deal with reality. If all the games in the MMO genre suck, don't play them. Find something else to do. Go get another hobby. Unfortunately, far too many people are so fanatically fixated on MMOs as the one and only thing they want to do, especially when they fall outside of the mainstream audience, that all they do is sit around and whine when they can't find that shining example of the perfect MMO.
I absolutely don't agree. The player marketplace is not the same today as it was back then. People need to stop pretending that it is. As soon as MMOs went mainstream, the old-school players were completely dwarfed by the incoming mainstream playerbase. There just aren't enough old-school players to make that kind of game financially viable anymore.
The genie is out of the bottle, it's never going to go back in, no matter how many people wish it would happen.
Yet, new MMOs that cater to the same old crap with big budgets (like SW:TOR) just fail to meet expectation?
70% of all new businesses, regardless of genre or medium, fail in their first year. It's the way things go.
No one is asking for a block buster or a WoW kind of success.
There IS a market for "old school" people but it's not a 50 million potential players. When was the last time you've seen an MMO that manage to retain more than 500,000 monthly players besides WoW and Asian MMOs? And now we see this FTP crappy trend.
F2P isn't a crappy trend, it's the way of the future and it makes more for the companies than P2P does, like it or not. The market for a successful niche game, especially one with AAA money behind it, has to be huge. That's just the way it works. You'd need to find hundreds of thousands of people who were willing to pay on a consistent basis for years on end to make such a game successful and make back it's money for the developers and their investors. That would show up in market research. It hasn't.
Again, doing the same Quest Grind, Boring Itemization, Instanced game experience which was repeated to death will guarantee failure. (See all major MMO releases the last 6 years). I guarantee you a niche game (which doesn't play like the current MMORPGs) but brings back the World Simulation experience and the kind of adventure where having players around mean something besides just running around for no apparent reason... that kind of game will have an audience.
You have no way of making that guarantee. If you feel so strongly about it, get financial backers together, hire a staff and make the game yourself, with your own time and money on the line. I see lots of people "guaranteeing" success, but none willing to put their own time and money on the line for it. Get 500K people who will throw in a year's-worth of subscription behind a promising Kickstarter and I'll say you have proven your point. Until then, you simply haven't.
Just wishing something was true doesn't make it true.
Indeed. GTA V has content for less than 50 hours. Is it a bad game?
Clearly not since it's making sales records and has already passed a billion dollars in sales. It was making more than $800 a minute it's first day of release. That's not a bad game by any means.
I absolutely don't agree. The player marketplace is not the same today as it was back then. People need to stop pretending that it is. As soon as MMOs went mainstream, the old-school players were completely dwarfed by the incoming mainstream playerbase. There just aren't enough old-school players to make that kind of game financially viable anymore.
The genie is out of the bottle, it's never going to go back in, no matter how many people wish it would happen.
Yet, new MMOs that cater to the same old crap with big budgets (like SW:TOR) just fail to meet expectation?
70% of all new businesses, regardless of genre or medium, fail in their first year. It's the way things go.
No one is asking for a block buster or a WoW kind of success.
There IS a market for "old school" people but it's not a 50 million potential players. When was the last time you've seen an MMO that manage to retain more than 500,000 monthly players besides WoW and Asian MMOs? And now we see this FTP crappy trend.
F2P isn't a crappy trend, it's the way of the future and it makes more for the companies than P2P does, like it or not. The market for a successful niche game, especially one with AAA money behind it, has to be huge. That's just the way it works. You'd need to find hundreds of thousands of people who were willing to pay on a consistent basis for years on end to make such a game successful and make back it's money for the developers and their investors. That would show up in market research. It hasn't.
Again, doing the same Quest Grind, Boring Itemization, Instanced game experience which was repeated to death will guarantee failure. (See all major MMO releases the last 6 years). I guarantee you a niche game (which doesn't play like the current MMORPGs) but brings back the World Simulation experience and the kind of adventure where having players around mean something besides just running around for no apparent reason... that kind of game will have an audience.
You have no way of making that guarantee. If you feel so strongly about it, get financial backers together, hire a staff and make the game yourself, with your own time and money on the line. I see lots of people "guaranteeing" success, but none willing to put their own time and money on the line for it. Get 500K people who will throw in a year's-worth of subscription behind a promising Kickstarter and I'll say you have proven your point. Until then, you simply haven't.
Just wishing something was true doesn't make it true.
So in other words, there will be no more AAA mmo titles because even those with all the data and money and popular IP's, with televised ads, still cant turn a profit.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
And I'm sick of people (you) acting like all opinions and tastes are equal. They aren't. There is such a thing as objective quality, it's just not easy to measure. But let me put it this way: The average sandbox player has more knowledge of themeparks than the average themepark player has of sandboxes. Most of us prefer sandboxes and "oldschool style" games because we've played BOTH and and have been disappointed by themeparks over and over. I highly doubt the 10+ million WoW players can say the same. This whole "it's my preference and you can't criticize it or analyze it in any way!" stance is such garbage.
Also I'm sick of people acting like greed has nothing to do with developers' decisions on what kind of game to make. You say that you don't like people implying that developers are greedy... are you saying they're not? This is just so typical you: criticize somebody's position without having the ability to argue against it.
How do you know your opinion is better than mine?
I don't know that, and I also don't think I said it. Though judging by some of the things you've said, I think it's a pretty safe assumption.
But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion.
You can't do that if you're dead, of course. Besides, people's tastes change all the time, people stop doing things all the time and never come back to it. People run out of time to play games that take up too much time, which is exactly the kind of games that we're talking about here. The number of people who started playing in 1999 and are still playing the same kind of games today are going to be very low, people grow up, people get lives, people have families and jobs, they just don't have time to stare at a computer screen for 18 hours a day.
Yeah all I'm hearing are more and more assumptions. Some of those people may changed their preferences, sure. But everybody I know who grew up playing UO, Shadowbane, etc, still hold those same views about what makes a game good. I'm sure there are those who have changed their views, just as I'm sure there are people who have grown sick of themeparks and would very much enjoy a sandbox if somebody were to make one.
All you have to do is ask around here and you'll find tons and tons of people who started playing UO and EQ and now, would never, ever go back to that kind of game again. I'm one of them.
Thanks for the anecdote? I already specifically said that I'm sure some people played those games and quit, just like some people started out playing WoW and would play a sandbox if they had the chance. You're the one making the assumption that the people who used to play sandboxes aren't around anymore. Dance around it all you want.
If there were enough people who wanted those kinds of games, they'd be making those kinds of games. They're not. I predict that those games that people think are going to be great will hit the market, people will turn on them immediately and they'll fade away. That's the cycle around here, nobody is ever happy with what actually comes out, just with their fantasy of what might come out someday.
Let me know when those games are actually on the market and are stable and successful. I don't think that day will ever come.
That's the cycle here because we're being fed shallow clones. But again, I'll ask... what facts are you talking about? You said they can't compete with mainstream MMOs. What makes you say that? Very few have been tried, and basically none have been done well. Your "facts" seem to have turned into your personal opinion that the games that are on the horizon will fail.
They aren't being tried because the MMO market research shows that they will not perform as well as what's currently being put out. You assume that you have to have millions poured into an MMO and have it out in the wild before you'll admit that they don't do well, in fact, you're even critical of games that have come out and failed. However, we see this cycle around here where people of a particular mindset will declare Game X to be the turning point, the game that will prove that their particular gaming interests are better than everyone else's, but the second that game comes out and fails to garner the audience they had hoped, they declare it a failure, not that good anyhow, and point to a new game on the horizon that will be "The One"! This goes on over and over and over and over. There is never the admission that the claim was wrong, only that they picked the wrong game and they have complete and utter faith that their particular playstyle will eventually win!
It just never does.
THESE AREN'T FACTS. You said the fact is that they can't compete with mainstream MMOs. I'll ask AGAIN, what makes you think that? All you're doing is saying "They won't be made because they can't compete with mainstream MMOs and I know this because they aren't being made." It's a circular argument.
What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"? The only one that I personally was really excited for was DFUW. And I do like that game, but it's not a sandbox unfortunately. So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one? Because what I see is a lot of games that promise one thing, and turn out to be another. That's not our fault. That's not us wobbling on our preferences or opinions, that's us being scammed by developers who claim to be making a game "for everyone."
Indeed. GTA V has content for less than 50 hours. Is it a bad game?
Clearly not since it's making sales records and has already passed a billion dollars in sales. It was making more than $800 a minute it's first day of release. That's not a bad game by any means.
LOL are you serious? Lots of money = good product? Is this a joke?
GTA V may be a good game (I haven't played it, nor do I intend to), but the fact that it has sold so many copies does NOT make it a good game, it makes it a profitable game.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.
No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
Again we've had emulation because of WoW. No bigger data then the wild success of WoW. Even if you see a market for a game that could support a max of 1 million players, you have WoW with a former 10 million plus base. What do you think is easier to sell to investors?
Who are the developers and investors that you are talking to who are saying things like this?
The devs have metrics from each of their games (and often on their competitor's games as well) on what content people are playing and what thresholds of penalty/difficulty/challenge/grind dropoff occurs at. When devs leave one company and go to another, that information gets further disseminated.
You seem to have this view that there is any investor that would turn away a 1 million playerbase MMO if it was profitable. You and many others here seem to have created in your minds some kind of mythical investor that isn't aware of the numbers that point to a 150k-300k retention after Day 91.
I deal with both developers and investors regularly. Your description of what they are like, the data they have access to, and what they look for so far don't match my experiences. It's entirely possible that I've just met the odd ones out and my view - and theirs - is skewed. I'm not sure it is, though.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"? The only one that I personally was really excited for was DFUW. And I do like that game, but it's not a sandbox unfortunately. So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one?
Perpetuum
Dafrkfall Online
ArcheAge
Age of Wushu
Star Citizen
Black Desert
Everquest Next
You could travel back further and watch the pattern over and over again.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
And I'm sick of people (you) acting like all opinions and tastes are equal. They aren't. There is such a thing as objective quality, it's just not easy to measure. But let me put it this way: The average sandbox player has more knowledge of themeparks than the average themepark player has of sandboxes. Most of us prefer sandboxes and "oldschool style" games because we've played BOTH and and have been disappointed by themeparks over and over. I highly doubt the 10+ million WoW players can say the same. This whole "it's my preference and you can't criticize it or analyze it in any way!" stance is such garbage.
Also I'm sick of people acting like greed has nothing to do with developers' decisions on what kind of game to make. You say that you don't like people implying that developers are greedy... are you saying they're not? This is just so typical you: criticize somebody's position without having the ability to argue against it.
How do you know your opinion is better than mine?
I don't know that, and I also don't think I said it. Though judging by some of the things you've said, I think it's a pretty safe assumption.
But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion.
Anyone else think my opinion is inferior to Holophonist's?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Indeed. GTA V has content for less than 50 hours. Is it a bad game?
Clearly not since it's making sales records and has already passed a billion dollars in sales. It was making more than $800 a minute it's first day of release. That's not a bad game by any means.
LOL are you serious? Lots of money = good product? Is this a joke?
GTA V may be a good game (I haven't played it, nor do I intend to), but the fact that it has sold so many copies does NOT make it a good game, it makes it a profitable game.
Cephus we need to hold on the verdict before he tries the game. His opinion carries more weight than ours apparently.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"? The only one that I personally was really excited for was DFUW. And I do like that game, but it's not a sandbox unfortunately. So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one?
Perpetuum
Dafrkfall Online
ArcheAge
Age of Wushu
Star Citizen
Black Desert
Everquest Next
You could travel back further and watch the pattern over and over again.
Wtf over half of that list isn't even out in the US yet. Also, I don't see anybody screaming about any of those games (except maybe EQN) being THE ONE... and that's not out yet. Some of them are promising to be sandboxes, and people are getting excited about it. If they come out and it turns out they're really NOT much of a sandbox, are we supposed to be somehow at fault for getting our hopes up when a game is marketed as something that we want? This argument is so silly.
And I'm sick of people (you) acting like all opinions and tastes are equal. They aren't. There is such a thing as objective quality, it's just not easy to measure. But let me put it this way: The average sandbox player has more knowledge of themeparks than the average themepark player has of sandboxes. Most of us prefer sandboxes and "oldschool style" games because we've played BOTH and and have been disappointed by themeparks over and over. I highly doubt the 10+ million WoW players can say the same. This whole "it's my preference and you can't criticize it or analyze it in any way!" stance is such garbage.
Also I'm sick of people acting like greed has nothing to do with developers' decisions on what kind of game to make. You say that you don't like people implying that developers are greedy... are you saying they're not? This is just so typical you: criticize somebody's position without having the ability to argue against it.
How do you know your opinion is better than mine?
I don't know that, and I also don't think I said it. Though judging by some of the things you've said, I think it's a pretty safe assumption.
But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion.
Anyone else think my opinion is inferior to Holophonist's?
I'm sorry but what exactly is your problem? Are you 100% incapable of having a straight up conversation without derailing it or just flat out tucking tail and running?
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I'm sorry but what exactly is your problem? Are you 100% incapable of having a straight up conversation without derailing it or just flat out tucking tail and running?
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I've told you my problem. And ridiculing your proclamation that your opinion carries more weight than mine, or anyone else's who disagrees with you is very relevant to the topic.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I'm sorry but what exactly is your problem? Are you 100% incapable of having a straight up conversation without derailing it or just flat out tucking tail and running?
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I've told you my problem. And ridiculing your proclamation that your opinion carries more weight than mine, or anyone else's who disagrees with you is very relevant to the topic.
No, it isn't. I could just as easily delete the part where I said it's safe to assume that my opinion is more important than yours or whatever the exact nomenclature was because it has little to do with the actual point. You disagree that my opinion holds more weight than yours, fine. But it's all you're talking about because it's the only thing you have a response for.
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I'm sorry but what exactly is your problem? Are you 100% incapable of having a straight up conversation without derailing it or just flat out tucking tail and running?
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I've told you my problem. And ridiculing your proclamation that your opinion carries more weight than mine, or anyone else's who disagrees with you is very relevant to the topic.
No, it isn't. I could just as easily delete the part where I said it's safe to assume that my opinion is more important than yours or whatever the exact nomenclature was because it has little to do with the actual point. You disagree that my opinion holds more weight than yours, fine. But it's all you're talking about because it's the only thing you have a response for.
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
Focus
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I'm sorry but what exactly is your problem? Are you 100% incapable of having a straight up conversation without derailing it or just flat out tucking tail and running?
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I've told you my problem. And ridiculing your proclamation that your opinion carries more weight than mine, or anyone else's who disagrees with you is very relevant to the topic.
No, it isn't. I could just as easily delete the part where I said it's safe to assume that my opinion is more important than yours or whatever the exact nomenclature was because it has little to do with the actual point. You disagree that my opinion holds more weight than yours, fine. But it's all you're talking about because it's the only thing you have a response for.
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
You have no rational argument in favor of old school MMOs other than "you know better", but frankly, between few posters here, we have experienced the old school MMORPGs and we didn't like them or we don't want to go back. You don't know better than us, and we've given you reasons why it is highly unlikely for them to come back.
In that one thread people filled 5 pages trying to explain to you how industry and the market works, but did you listen? -No. You think you know better.
Do you have any idea how insulting and hostile you come across? You call games a lot of people enjoy greatly "dumbed down", "watered down", "for kiddies" or just plain "failures". Then you proceed to call the developers clueless, greedy and lazy. Have you thought of what kind of person would spew such abuse that the one indie dev said "fuck it" and quit the industry?
-Its your kind of person.
Put yourself in our shoes. How should we have a conversation with you when you said in another thread "just because there's no evidence, its not true", which is a remarkable statement in itself, but then you proceed with the notion that you know better than most of us? So where exactly have you left room for discussion?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I'm sorry but what exactly is your problem? Are you 100% incapable of having a straight up conversation without derailing it or just flat out tucking tail and running?
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I've told you my problem. And ridiculing your proclamation that your opinion carries more weight than mine, or anyone else's who disagrees with you is very relevant to the topic.
No, it isn't. I could just as easily delete the part where I said it's safe to assume that my opinion is more important than yours or whatever the exact nomenclature was because it has little to do with the actual point. You disagree that my opinion holds more weight than yours, fine. But it's all you're talking about because it's the only thing you have a response for.
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
You have no rational argument in favor of old school MMOs other than "you know better", but frankly, between few posters here, we have experienced the old school MMORPGs and we didn't like them or we don't want to go back. You don't know better than us, and we've given you reasons why it is highly unlikely for them to come back.
In that one thread people filled 5 pages trying to explain to you how industry and the market works, but did you listen? -No. You think you know better.
Do you have any idea how insulting and hostile you come across? You call games a lot of people enjoy greatly "dumbed down", "watered down", "for kiddies" or just plain "failures". Then you proceed to call the developers clueless, greedy and lazy. Have you thought of what kind of person would spew such abuse that the one indie dev said "fuck it" and quit the industry?
-Its your kind of person.
Put yourself in our shoes. How should we have a conversation with you when you said in another thread "just because there's no evidence, its not true", which is a remarkable statement in itself, but then you proceed with the notion that you know better than most of us? So where exactly have you left room for discussion?
How many times can you misrepresent the facts in one post?
1. I've given a TON of rational arguments for why I'm in favor of old school games. I've explained how watering down works. I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on.
2. You can't nebulously reference a thread where people argued with me for "5 pages" about how the market works. I KNOW how the market works, trust me. You don't have to teach me anything about free markets or economics in general. And tt's not a valid discussion if most of the people just don't respond to my points.
3. I don't think I've said any game is for kiddies, and I don't think I've called them "failures." At least not in a derogatory way. I may have pointed that games have failed, so what? You all LOVE to point out how old school games have "failed." You have a double standard here.
4. I call the developers who are being greedy and lazy greedy and lazy, sure. If you think I'm talking about the little guy who's just doing his job writing code, you're wrong. I'm talking about the people making the decision. If there's a developer that is looking to steal ideas from other games and hoping to ride a wave of easy money, I don't see the problem with pointing it out. It's not like I'm going after some "indie developer." In fact I rarely even mention a specific company.
5. I'm pretty sure what I said was "just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean I'm wrong." And that's a completely true and reasonable thing to say. You have a tendency to simply say "you can't prove that" or "you don't know that" (even though I'm rarely claiming that I have proof for what I'm saying) without taking a stance one way or the other. In other words, ARGUE YOUR POINT. It's not an argument to say "that's your opinion." Yes, a lot of what I said is opinion, just like a lot of what you say is opinion, and a lot of what everybody here says is opinion.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.
No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
Again we've had emulation because of WoW. No bigger data then the wild success of WoW. Even if you see a market for a game that could support a max of 1 million players, you have WoW with a former 10 million plus base. What do you think is easier to sell to investors?
Who are the developers and investors that you are talking to who are saying things like this?
The devs have metrics from each of their games (and often on their competitor's games as well) on what content people are playing and what thresholds of penalty/difficulty/challenge/grind dropoff occurs at. When devs leave one company and go to another, that information gets further disseminated.
You seem to have this view that there is any investor that would turn away a 1 million playerbase MMO if it was profitable. You and many others here seem to have created in your minds some kind of mythical investor that isn't aware of the numbers that point to a 150k-300k retention after Day 91.
I deal with both developers and investors regularly. Your description of what they are like, the data they have access to, and what they look for so far don't match my experiences. It's entirely possible that I've just met the odd ones out and my view - and theirs - is skewed. I'm not sure it is, though.
I never gave a description of investors. I'm just stating that its obvious that market trended towards the extraordinary success of WoW. Not surprising considering the risk involved in the creation of MMORPG. But until someone actually create a game with modern polish and old school MMORPG features it's all speculation it will or won't work. If these developers were perfect with their metrics and polling then so many wouldn't fail into F2P.
Of course good games make money, but we're reflecting back on Old MMORPGs, which weren't good games. They had some traits which could be polished up with modern sensibilities, but the old atmosphere of high-timesink for low-gameplay and big inconveniences all dramatically reduced the potential audience.
"Longer to develop" is the exact same as "bigger budget game". Which again is going to be driven by the expected audience size for a game.
As for immediate payoffs, that's a separate issue. A game which manages to successfully be fun long-term will be substantially more profitable long-term.
There literally is no evidence to support what you're saying. Marketing trends have killed all of that due emulation and risk vs. budget factor. All evidence points others wise in my opinion. My opinion is based on the fact that older games still maintain a paying player base over the long haul in the face of newer games and newer "casual" games would have long died if forced to have paying player bases. The conversations us just opinion based. Until there is a high quality game based on older game principles its all opinion based as there has not been one to test either theory.
No one is going to make the game you suggest unless there is data to support there is a sizable enough audience for it. If their data showed it was profitable, the devs would make it. After all, devs are greedy, right?
If you have data to the contrary, definitely bring it to the developer of your choice and let them see it.
Again we've had emulation because of WoW. No bigger data then the wild success of WoW. Even if you see a market for a game that could support a max of 1 million players, you have WoW with a former 10 million plus base. What do you think is easier to sell to investors?
Who are the developers and investors that you are talking to who are saying things like this?
The devs have metrics from each of their games (and often on their competitor's games as well) on what content people are playing and what thresholds of penalty/difficulty/challenge/grind dropoff occurs at. When devs leave one company and go to another, that information gets further disseminated.
You seem to have this view that there is any investor that would turn away a 1 million playerbase MMO if it was profitable. You and many others here seem to have created in your minds some kind of mythical investor that isn't aware of the numbers that point to a 150k-300k retention after Day 91.
I deal with both developers and investors regularly. Your description of what they are like, the data they have access to, and what they look for so far don't match my experiences. It's entirely possible that I've just met the odd ones out and my view - and theirs - is skewed. I'm not sure it is, though.
I never gave a description of investors. I'm just stating that its obvious that market trended towards the extraordinary success of WoW. Not surprising considering the risk involved in the creation of MMORPG. But until someone actually create a game with modern polish and old school MMORPG features it's all speculation it will or won't work. If these developers were perfect with their metrics and polling then so many wouldn't fail into F2P.
That seems like a pretty reasonable answer.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal I never gave a description of investors. I'm just stating that its obvious that market trended towards the extraordinary success of WoW. Not surprising considering the risk involved in the creation of MMORPG. But until someone actually create a game with modern polish and old school MMORPG features it's all speculation it will or won't work. If these developers were perfect with their metrics and polling then so many wouldn't fail into F2P.
Your view on some of these things is a little off.
Investors may be aware of games, but they invest in developers, not games. If some no-name developer says they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good, they are not going to get any investment dollars. If a developer has created profitable games in the past and has some people who worked on MMORPGs in the past they are much more likely to get funding if they say they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good.
So, what can we take away from this? Developers and investors are the people who are most likely to know what will work and what won't. That doesn't mean they are perfect, but they certainly know more than anyone on these forums who isn't involved in the industry.
It is significant that the only people who are trying to build the "old school" games are people with little experience in MMORPGs. It is also significant that they are having to use crowd funding to build their tech demos to try and secure further funding for their games. The developers who probably could secure funding aren't looking for it, and the developers who want funding are having to prove that an "old school" game can give a reasonable return on investment. This is no mean feat given the cost of MMORPG development and the fact that every comparison between the "old school" and "new school" games shows the "new school" games retaining more players and making more money. This is still true even if WoW did not exist.
So on the one side we have people who have years of experience financing, building and yes, playing MMORPGs shying away from "old school" games, and on the other side we have people who have only played MMORPGs for years. Of the two, it seems that the people who have been involved in the industry would be the ones more likely to be right.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Both.
I can use other examples that make my point.
But if you want to answer, Id like to hear it. But you must provide data to back it up.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
All you have to do is ask around here and you'll find tons and tons of people who started playing UO and EQ and now, would never, ever go back to that kind of game again. I'm one of them.
They aren't being tried because the MMO market research shows that they will not perform as well as what's currently being put out. You assume that you have to have millions poured into an MMO and have it out in the wild before you'll admit that they don't do well, in fact, you're even critical of games that have come out and failed. However, we see this cycle around here where people of a particular mindset will declare Game X to be the turning point, the game that will prove that their particular gaming interests are better than everyone else's, but the second that game comes out and fails to garner the audience they had hoped, they declare it a failure, not that good anyhow, and point to a new game on the horizon that will be "The One"! This goes on over and over and over and over. There is never the admission that the claim was wrong, only that they picked the wrong game and they have complete and utter faith that their particular playstyle will eventually win!
It just never does.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
No, people just need to deal with reality. If all the games in the MMO genre suck, don't play them. Find something else to do. Go get another hobby. Unfortunately, far too many people are so fanatically fixated on MMOs as the one and only thing they want to do, especially when they fall outside of the mainstream audience, that all they do is sit around and whine when they can't find that shining example of the perfect MMO.
It's just not going to come along, sorry.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
70% of all new businesses, regardless of genre or medium, fail in their first year. It's the way things go.
F2P isn't a crappy trend, it's the way of the future and it makes more for the companies than P2P does, like it or not. The market for a successful niche game, especially one with AAA money behind it, has to be huge. That's just the way it works. You'd need to find hundreds of thousands of people who were willing to pay on a consistent basis for years on end to make such a game successful and make back it's money for the developers and their investors. That would show up in market research. It hasn't.
You have no way of making that guarantee. If you feel so strongly about it, get financial backers together, hire a staff and make the game yourself, with your own time and money on the line. I see lots of people "guaranteeing" success, but none willing to put their own time and money on the line for it. Get 500K people who will throw in a year's-worth of subscription behind a promising Kickstarter and I'll say you have proven your point. Until then, you simply haven't.
Just wishing something was true doesn't make it true.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Clearly not since it's making sales records and has already passed a billion dollars in sales. It was making more than $800 a minute it's first day of release. That's not a bad game by any means.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
So in other words, there will be no more AAA mmo titles because even those with all the data and money and popular IP's, with televised ads, still cant turn a profit.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I don't know that, and I also don't think I said it. Though judging by some of the things you've said, I think it's a pretty safe assumption.
But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion.
Thanks for the anecdote? I already specifically said that I'm sure some people played those games and quit, just like some people started out playing WoW and would play a sandbox if they had the chance. You're the one making the assumption that the people who used to play sandboxes aren't around anymore. Dance around it all you want.
THESE AREN'T FACTS. You said the fact is that they can't compete with mainstream MMOs. I'll ask AGAIN, what makes you think that? All you're doing is saying "They won't be made because they can't compete with mainstream MMOs and I know this because they aren't being made." It's a circular argument.
What game did we sandbox players point to as being "the one"? The only one that I personally was really excited for was DFUW. And I do like that game, but it's not a sandbox unfortunately. So tell me, what sandbox game came out that we all claimed was going to be the big one? Because what I see is a lot of games that promise one thing, and turn out to be another. That's not our fault. That's not us wobbling on our preferences or opinions, that's us being scammed by developers who claim to be making a game "for everyone."
LOL are you serious? Lots of money = good product? Is this a joke?
GTA V may be a good game (I haven't played it, nor do I intend to), but the fact that it has sold so many copies does NOT make it a good game, it makes it a profitable game.
Who are the developers and investors that you are talking to who are saying things like this?
The devs have metrics from each of their games (and often on their competitor's games as well) on what content people are playing and what thresholds of penalty/difficulty/challenge/grind dropoff occurs at. When devs leave one company and go to another, that information gets further disseminated.
You seem to have this view that there is any investor that would turn away a 1 million playerbase MMO if it was profitable. You and many others here seem to have created in your minds some kind of mythical investor that isn't aware of the numbers that point to a 150k-300k retention after Day 91.
I deal with both developers and investors regularly. Your description of what they are like, the data they have access to, and what they look for so far don't match my experiences. It's entirely possible that I've just met the odd ones out and my view - and theirs - is skewed. I'm not sure it is, though.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Perpetuum
Dafrkfall Online
ArcheAge
Age of Wushu
Star Citizen
Black Desert
Everquest Next
You could travel back further and watch the pattern over and over again.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Anyone else think my opinion is inferior to Holophonist's?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Wtf over half of that list isn't even out in the US yet. Also, I don't see anybody screaming about any of those games (except maybe EQN) being THE ONE... and that's not out yet. Some of them are promising to be sandboxes, and people are getting excited about it. If they come out and it turns out they're really NOT much of a sandbox, are we supposed to be somehow at fault for getting our hopes up when a game is marketed as something that we want? This argument is so silly.
I'm sorry but what exactly is your problem? Are you 100% incapable of having a straight up conversation without derailing it or just flat out tucking tail and running?
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I've told you my problem. And ridiculing your proclamation that your opinion carries more weight than mine, or anyone else's who disagrees with you is very relevant to the topic.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No, it isn't. I could just as easily delete the part where I said it's safe to assume that my opinion is more important than yours or whatever the exact nomenclature was because it has little to do with the actual point. You disagree that my opinion holds more weight than yours, fine. But it's all you're talking about because it's the only thing you have a response for.
"But what you said is you're fed up with people acting like their opinion is better than anybody else's. Opinions and preferences are NOT always equal. You can indeed criticize or analyse another person's opinion."
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Focus
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You have no rational argument in favor of old school MMOs other than "you know better", but frankly, between few posters here, we have experienced the old school MMORPGs and we didn't like them or we don't want to go back. You don't know better than us, and we've given you reasons why it is highly unlikely for them to come back.
In that one thread people filled 5 pages trying to explain to you how industry and the market works, but did you listen? -No. You think you know better.
Do you have any idea how insulting and hostile you come across? You call games a lot of people enjoy greatly "dumbed down", "watered down", "for kiddies" or just plain "failures". Then you proceed to call the developers clueless, greedy and lazy. Have you thought of what kind of person would spew such abuse that the one indie dev said "fuck it" and quit the industry?
-Its your kind of person.
Put yourself in our shoes. How should we have a conversation with you when you said in another thread "just because there's no evidence, its not true", which is a remarkable statement in itself, but then you proceed with the notion that you know better than most of us? So where exactly have you left room for discussion?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
How many times can you misrepresent the facts in one post?
1. I've given a TON of rational arguments for why I'm in favor of old school games. I've explained how watering down works. I've explained how it makes sense that developers would go for the easy buck instead of making an innovative game. Why wouldn't they? They saw WoW's success so they try to emulate it. I've said over and over that I understand this is how the market works... the other side of the market is consumers voicing their opinions about what they want. I'm not sure how it's wrong for me to do so. Yours is the side that is tells us to just "move on" and "give up." How about you mind your own business and let use decide for ourselves how we want to spend our time? And as I've pointed out to you before, it's not a coincidence that so many people "whine" about wanting a sandbox and now a lot of sandbox games are on the horizon. Seems to me you don't have a leg to stand on.
2. You can't nebulously reference a thread where people argued with me for "5 pages" about how the market works. I KNOW how the market works, trust me. You don't have to teach me anything about free markets or economics in general. And tt's not a valid discussion if most of the people just don't respond to my points.
3. I don't think I've said any game is for kiddies, and I don't think I've called them "failures." At least not in a derogatory way. I may have pointed that games have failed, so what? You all LOVE to point out how old school games have "failed." You have a double standard here.
4. I call the developers who are being greedy and lazy greedy and lazy, sure. If you think I'm talking about the little guy who's just doing his job writing code, you're wrong. I'm talking about the people making the decision. If there's a developer that is looking to steal ideas from other games and hoping to ride a wave of easy money, I don't see the problem with pointing it out. It's not like I'm going after some "indie developer." In fact I rarely even mention a specific company.
5. I'm pretty sure what I said was "just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean I'm wrong." And that's a completely true and reasonable thing to say. You have a tendency to simply say "you can't prove that" or "you don't know that" (even though I'm rarely claiming that I have proof for what I'm saying) without taking a stance one way or the other. In other words, ARGUE YOUR POINT. It's not an argument to say "that's your opinion." Yes, a lot of what I said is opinion, just like a lot of what you say is opinion, and a lot of what everybody here says is opinion.
I never gave a description of investors. I'm just stating that its obvious that market trended towards the extraordinary success of WoW. Not surprising considering the risk involved in the creation of MMORPG. But until someone actually create a game with modern polish and old school MMORPG features it's all speculation it will or won't work. If these developers were perfect with their metrics and polling then so many wouldn't fail into F2P.
That seems like a pretty reasonable answer.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Your view on some of these things is a little off.
Investors may be aware of games, but they invest in developers, not games. If some no-name developer says they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good, they are not going to get any investment dollars. If a developer has created profitable games in the past and has some people who worked on MMORPGs in the past they are much more likely to get funding if they say they can make a game like Mortal Online, but good.
So, what can we take away from this? Developers and investors are the people who are most likely to know what will work and what won't. That doesn't mean they are perfect, but they certainly know more than anyone on these forums who isn't involved in the industry.
It is significant that the only people who are trying to build the "old school" games are people with little experience in MMORPGs. It is also significant that they are having to use crowd funding to build their tech demos to try and secure further funding for their games. The developers who probably could secure funding aren't looking for it, and the developers who want funding are having to prove that an "old school" game can give a reasonable return on investment. This is no mean feat given the cost of MMORPG development and the fact that every comparison between the "old school" and "new school" games shows the "new school" games retaining more players and making more money. This is still true even if WoW did not exist.
So on the one side we have people who have years of experience financing, building and yes, playing MMORPGs shying away from "old school" games, and on the other side we have people who have only played MMORPGs for years. Of the two, it seems that the people who have been involved in the industry would be the ones more likely to be right.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.