And even when it's pointed out they're either too stupid to see it, or too ignorant to admit to it.
Irony is that it is them keeping this site going....
Right... funny how their golden games like Eve and Darkfall aren't amazing enough to keep them playing instead of coming here and whining
Trolling? Or are you simply unaware that some workplaces actually have computers?
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
It's not like your opinions matter anyways. My opinion is right, and yours is stupid. Who cares about profitability! As a play, I represent all other players that agree with me. If they don't agree with me, they obviously are stupid and their game wont/will be profitable.
(IF YOU DON'T THINK I AM BEING SARCASTIC THERE, YOU ARE QUITE THICK)
It is hard to argue with the people who have the money to create MMOs as players, don't you think? Sure, new and different ideas would be great! But as was said, if most MMO players find a WoW like game fun, that's what devs will create.
There is at the very least a casual relationship between what makes money and what is fun. The subtle point that is being communicated in profitability discussions is that a lot more people find that type of gameplay fun and therefore it is more profitable.
It's sad when someone actually has to spell this out. Are there that many people on this forum who have been developer-hatin' so long that they honestly envision meetings where the developers conciously decide to make the game less fun so that it will be more profitable?
And even when it's pointed out they're either too stupid to see it, or too ignorant to admit to it.
No one is claiming that developers are looking for ways to make games less fun. The complaint is that lately, all developers have been so focused on getting a piece of WoW's successful market that they're too scared to look elsewhere. They're not willing to try new ideas in games just because they think they will be fun. They're only willing to use what they think has already worked elsewhere.
New innovative and fun ideas can be extremely profitable, even if they only appeal to niche markets.
Unfortunately, even when it's pointed out many people are either too stupid to see it, or too ignorant to admit to it.
But you're still not getting the fact that games that are fun are also profitable because more people like/play them. If you're going to quantify fun, you have to do it by looking at how many people think it's fun (or more fun than an alternative).
Yeah, you could make an MMO based around organizing protest marches instead of the same old questing and raiding. But if you asked MMO players to compare a WoW clone and World of Protestcraft, a huge majority of them are going to prefer the WoW clone. And that means that it is more fun. Saying that developers are scared to try new ideas that would be fun... that's wrong. If anything, they are scared to try new ideas that end up not being fun. I haven't a clue why that could be though, I mean it's not like we mercilessly crucify games when they flop.
Good discussion, but much of it is not quite on target for what I wanted to express.
Of course you must make a profit, or you will go out of business.
My point is, you don't know what will make a profit.
So why are you berating someone for liking an MMORPG feature that is "unprofitable" because "the majority won't like it".
What you're saying is, I don't like that feature, I think most people like what I like, so I'm right, and you are wrong, and that's not the kind of game developers should make. After all, look at WoW. WoW doesn't have that feature, and WoW is the most successful.
But the people that made EVE didn't listen to that sort of rhetoric, and made a successful game with FFA PvP.
I"m simply saying, if you don't like FFA PvP, then say that. Discuss how ganking is not fun, it's bad for developing a community, or whatever you feel.
There's no need to resort to "well that's a stupid idea because nobody likes it and it won't make money!"
Really? You don't know that. Again, case in point, I think EVE is making money.
Or, if you don't like sandbox games, talk about why you enjoy themeparks better.
Instead of "sandboxers r stupid, look at Galaxies it was a flop!"
Really? I think Galaxies was actually making money before the NGE. Not WoW money, but I don't think it was going broke.
I just find the discussion of what you like, why you like it, and vice a versa, more interesting that just shouting, "that's dumb it won't make money!"
Plenty of theme park non-ffa PvP games don't do well either. But because there is WoW, no one says, well "it's dumb to make a non-pvp theme park game, it won't make money!"
You just have to point to WoW, and go, uh yea, they can make money.
It's the game. The total game. A combination of many things. Artwork, difficulty level, genre, fantasy, sci fi, etc., the lore, the connection to an existing game or IP, and the MIX of features. Just JUST it has FFA PvP or it doesn't, but what combination of PvP, crafting, exploration, PvE, etc., etc., and HOW are they implemented?
ALL those things together, in combination, make a good game.
Picking one feature and saying "if it has that feature it caint make no money! that feature sucks!" doesn't really mean anything.
Features dont' exist in a vacuum, all by themselves.
EVE's PvP probably won't work if you just stick it in Lord of the Rings Online, for example. But it works in EVE.
Okay so I am going to both agree and disagree with you OP.
First, profitability matters, in fact it's arguably the only thing that matters to a company. To explain why, think about this. Say your friend tells you that he has a great idea, but he needs you to invest $100,000 in his idea for him to do it. He promises that if you invest this you'll get even more money in the end. So you take out your life savings and put your faith in your friend.
Now say a year goes by and you check on your friend to see he is creating a remake of the classic text based game Zork. Outraged you scream at him that he's wasted your money, you'll never recoup your investment with this! He replies, yeah...but I think it's really cool! What would you do in this situation? My guess is that you would fire your friend and try to get what money back that he hasn't wasted yet. This is how a game developer's shareholder would feel if the developer spent their money on a game that will likely not be profitable because it is too niche, too arcane, etc. etc.
Shareholders want to make money, if a developer can't prove to them that their concept will make money, then they will likely withdraw their investment and people will lose their jobs. It's important, and it's real.
That said, most people that argue that concept X will not be successful because it's not profitable are generally making a poor argument. Not because profitability doesn't matter, but because they have no proof that it is not profitable, and they could be dead wrong.
Look at it this way, in most business "first movers" have a huge advantage and are difficult for "late movers" or imitators to overcome. WoW is the first mover in the quest-based, mass-appeal, MMORPG space. Other MMORPG companies see WoW's success and figure they can capitalize by imitating it. But this is just wrong, it's a poor strategy. You can't capitalize by imitating WoW, because WoW still exists!
Instead, companies should try to be more innovative and differentiate their product from WoW. Establish a NEW space, create NEW market segments! Imitating WoW with one minor change is generally a losing game!
But you're still not getting the fact that games that are fun are also profitable because more people like/play them. If you're going to quantify fun, you have to do it by looking at how many people think it's fun (or more fun than an alternative).
Yeah, you could make an MMO based around organizing protest marches instead of the same old questing and raiding. But if you asked MMO players to compare a WoW clone and World of Protestcraft, a huge majority of them are going to prefer the WoW clone. And that means that it is more fun. Saying that developers are scared to try new ideas that would be fun... that's wrong. If anything, they are scared to try new ideas that end up not being fun. I haven't a clue why that could be though, I mean it's not like we mercilessly crucify games when they flop.
No, you just THINK I don't get that. Of course something has a higher potential for more profit if more people like it. Thing is, there's this concept called supply & demand, and something else called market saturation.
There's also a lot of other facts that play into it, like the fact that you can't know how well-liked a certain feature will be in YOUR particular game, until you've tried it. Just because a feature is well-liked and profitable in one game doesn't mean it'll work just as well in another. Just because one feature ISN'T well liked and profitable in one game doesn't mean it WON'T be in another. MMOs have many features, and it's the combination of them that makes the finished product.
I don't know if it's the developers, the publishers, the investors, or some other group of people entirely that has been stifling innovation in MMOs the last few years, but it's happening somewhere, and it's because someone is too scared to try new stuff that might not be as profitable as what they THINK they "know" will be profitable. I know for damn sure it's not due to a lack of ideas, because there's way too many people in the industry with good imaginations.
As a side note, your sarcastic comment about being merciless about games that flop just serves to further undermine your position. It's not at all unfair to say that (besides the obvious alpha-state releases such as Vanguard) all the recent flops failed BECAUSE they were more of the same crap that's supposed to be the most "fun", when in truth they're releasing into a market that is so saturated with that stuff they were doomed before they even began. We have every right to be mercilessly cruel with these morons, because they're releasing more of the same junk when it's already obvious that the supply easily meets the demand. If they wanted to release something successful they should have been looking for a demand that's NOT being met.
There is at the very least a casual relationship between what makes money and what is fun. The subtle point that is being communicated in profitability discussions is that a lot more people find that type of gameplay fun and therefore it is more profitable.
It's sad when someone actually has to spell this out. Are there that many people on this forum who have been developer-hatin' so long that they honestly envision meetings where the developers conciously decide to make the game less fun so that it will be more profitable?
And even when it's pointed out they're either too stupid to see it, or too ignorant to admit to it.
No one is claiming that developers are looking for ways to make games less fun. The complaint is that lately, all developers have been so focused on getting a piece of WoW's successful market that they're too scared to look elsewhere. They're not willing to try new ideas in games just because they think they will be fun. They're only willing to use what they think has already worked elsewhere.
New innovative and fun ideas can be extremely profitable, even if they only appeal to niche markets.
Unfortunately, even when it's pointed out many people are either too stupid to see it, or too ignorant to admit to it.
But you're still not getting the fact that games that are fun are also profitable because more people like/play them. If you're going to quantify fun, you have to do it by looking at how many people think it's fun (or more fun than an alternative).
Yeah, you could make an MMO based around organizing protest marches instead of the same old questing and raiding. But if you asked MMO players to compare a WoW clone and World of Protestcraft, a huge majority of them are going to prefer the WoW clone. And that means that it is more fun. Saying that developers are scared to try new ideas that would be fun... that's wrong. If anything, they are scared to try new ideas that end up not being fun. I haven't a clue why that could be though, I mean it's not like we mercilessly crucify games when they flop.
Lol ending statement was icing on the cake. ^ This +1
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
But you're still not getting the fact that games that are fun are also profitable because more people like/play them. If you're going to quantify fun, you have to do it by looking at how many people think it's fun (or more fun than an alternative).
Yeah, you could make an MMO based around organizing protest marches instead of the same old questing and raiding. But if you asked MMO players to compare a WoW clone and World of Protestcraft, a huge majority of them are going to prefer the WoW clone. And that means that it is more fun. Saying that developers are scared to try new ideas that would be fun... that's wrong. If anything, they are scared to try new ideas that end up not being fun. I haven't a clue why that could be though, I mean it's not like we mercilessly crucify games when they flop.
No, you just THINK I don't get that. Of course something has a higher potential for more profit if more people like it. Thing is, there's this concept called supply & demand, and something else called market saturation.
There's also a lot of other facts that play into it, like the fact that you can't know how well-liked a certain feature will be in YOUR particular game, until you've tried it. Just because a feature is well-liked and profitable in one game doesn't mean it'll work just as well in another. Just because one feature ISN'T well liked and profitable in one game doesn't mean it WON'T be in another. MMOs have many features, and it's the combination of them that makes the finished product.
I don't know if it's the developers, the publishers, the investors, or some other group of people entirely that has been stifling innovation in MMOs the last few years, but it's happening somewhere, and it's because someone is too scared to try new stuff that might not be as profitable as what they THINK they "know" will be profitable. I know for damn sure it's not due to a lack of ideas, because there's way too many people in the industry with good imaginations.
As a side note, your sarcastic comment about being merciless about games that flop just serves to further undermine your position. It's not at all unfair to say that (besides the obvious alpha-state releases such as Vanguard) all the recent flops failed BECAUSE they were more of the same crap that's supposed to be the most "fun", when in truth they're releasing into a market that is so saturated with that stuff they were doomed before they even began. We have every right to be mercilessly cruel with these morons, because they're releasing more of the same junk when it's already obvious that the supply easily meets the demand. If they wanted to release something successful they should have been looking for a demand that's NOT being met.
Yep, I agree. In a market saturated with competition like this one, developers should be trying to find a significant group of consumers whose needs are not being met by the current flock of MMORPGs as well as they possibly could be and then cater to THAT group. It's called segmenting the market.
For example, maybe there is a group of consumers that value features like social interaction, world interactivity, and dynamic content highly. Well if the group is large enough, then a company could steal customers away from other MMORPGs by meeting those SPECIFIC needs, better than the competition.
The point is that you can't be everything to everbody, but you can be everything to somebody, and those somebodies are unlikely to leave you since you have expertise in satisfying their needs.
The problem is that fun is a subjective term. There's no way to quantify how "fun" something is because we all have different ideas of what fun is. (some folks like whips, me, not so much)
But its pretty easy to quantify if something is popular, because generally speaking people are willing to pay for things that are popular. Be it MMO's like WOW, Pet Rocks, greasy fast food, no arguing that many things are popular, so one can see why game developers are easily drawn to include features that the market demands.
So for some of us out there, FFA PVP is fun and we're willing to pay for a game that has it. For far more people this is not enjoyable, and they will pay for a game that does not have it.
So its not too hard to agree with everyone who claims that certain features are more popular and profitable.
But if the discussion at hand is whetheror not a feature is fun or not, the question shouldn't really be brought up.
Except as someone else pointed out, usually the debate is whether or not their favorite feature could be profitable in a different setting. (no one is arguing that it is fun to someone, somewhere).
As the OP mentioned, no one knows for sure what feature sets would really be fun (and popular) to the larger audience.
Currently the Dev's take a look at WOW and see its success and will continue to try to emulate it. TOR will be very WOW-like in its presentation I think, however if its story based approach turns out to be a big hit, watch the imitators line up, heck I'll bet even Blizzard weaves story driven content into their next expansion. (well, come to think of it, they sort of had it in their last expansion)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You make a business decision that uses the resources available the best way possible within the time available at a cost that is viable to keep the opportunity costs as small as possible.
If your programmers say an idea is possible if you add six months to the project but your accountants give you information that you see says the opportunity cost of doing so is too high then you don't do it.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
"hey, I got a great idea! Let's make a game that caters to X crowd, because there aren't enough quality games for them! All I need is $_____. It will make some profit, but it won't be the kind of profit that WoW generated, because, well, we're not trying to pull in that audience. We still plan to make a pretty good return on your investment. What do you think, Mr. Investor?"
"ok. you sure you can't make WoW's profit?"
"well, we're not trying to, but anything's possible. What we will commit to is making _____ profit, which will still net you _____ profit on your investment."
"ok. Sounds good! We'll give you $_____ in that case."
"great! Let's get to work!"
Easy. The problem with the example stated above my post here, is that they are saying that developers go to investors asking for large sums of money, promissing an even larger sum on the return, and then all of a sudden, "whoops! the investors found out that we tricked them! we're not going to make the super duper wow killer, but instead we're going to make this retro game! buahahaha!!!" That's just not realistic. It's comical, and a little childish to assume business works that way.
Allbeit, my own example is pretty basic and unrealistic, it's still more to the point of how a smart developer would propose their projects to investors. Being up front from the get-go. If you tell an investor that you plan to make a niche game that will only make X amount of dollars over X amount of years, and they sign off on it, then there's no "omg what did you do with my money?! where's our wow-killer that's going to make us rich?!"
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
If a developer creates an MMO, with RVR, FFA, castle sieges, Housing system, Bosses that actually have meaning to them aside from that specific item so you can get that piece of gear. Your going to say it fails?
So your saying a developer is going to look at all the "Successes" a themepark forumla brings, your saying he is going to do well. Yeah I can see it already:
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Warhammer was!"
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Everquest II was!"
"...Umm lets make another themepark? Look how successful Aion was...."
"LoTRO?"....."FFXIV....yea we wont even go there..."
"Rift?...RIFT! we got one! lets make another!"
As apposed to, hey lets make something nobody has before or maybe mix a bunch of features from the old school:
"Yea lets make an updated UO!"
"Lets make a new Shadowbane!"
"Lets really make a sequel to Asherons Call!"
"DAoC!"
"No, no! I got a better idea lets remake SWG pre NGE with some updated graphics!"
"Let's take Eve's new character creator, Lineage's sieging mechanics and mix it all together with an updated graphical UO theme"
Yea... I can see where everyone is coming from....
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
If a developer creates an MMO, with RVR, FFA, castle sieges, Housing system, Bosses that actually have meaning to them aside from that specific item so you can get that piece of gear. Your going to say it fails?
So your saying a developer is going to look at all the "Successes" a themepark forumla brings, your saying he is going to do well. Yeah I can see it already:
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Warhammer was!"
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Everquest II was!"
"...Umm lets make another themepark? Look how successful Aion was...."
"LoTRO?"....."FFXIV....yea we wont even go there..."
"Rift?...RIFT! we got one! lets make another!"
As apposed to, hey lets make something nobody has before or maybe mix a bunch of features from the old school:
"Yea lets make an updated UO!"
"Lets make a new Shadowbane!"
"Lets really make a sequel to Asherons Call!"
"DAoC!"
"No, no! I got a better idea lets remake SWG pre NGE with some updated graphics!"
"Let's take Eve's new character creator, Lineage's sieging mechanics and mix it all together with an updated graphical UO theme"
Yea... I can see where everyone is coming from....
Exactly!
"you are all wrong. theme parks are profitible, so that's what will be made" but then, they can't show us what themeparks are profitible besides wow. At least, any more profitible than past games that have come and gone, or are still going with niche audiences.
So I say it still comes down to "I think FFA/housing/customization/world dynamic/ and all the things that made other games live with strong communities for years is stupid. So that means most people don't like them and they won't make a profit"
So, if the 'lets make another themepark" business approach is so superior, where's the game that is pulling in these profits? *looks around*.... anyone?
Where's the successful product of this never-fails business model of copying "the features that work" and not copying "the other features that work, but aren't in wow" ?
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
Reading this thread, I realized something. It seems like the only two options players believe developers have is to either clone WoW, or clone UO. Either old school or new school...
What about something completely new that stands on its own?
As has been said over, and over, and over again...
The problem is that the people with the money to invest in developing and MMO all see WoW, and want a piece of that pie.
None of them have yet to be convinced that WoW is an abberation, and everyone that wants to play a game like WoW, is already playing WoW. Clones of WoW may grab a handful of subscribers from WoW, but they will never trump WoW.
Creating MMOs for different niches is the best alternative. This is the only way to actually "compete" with WoW, which is by not competing with it directly at all. I guarentee that there are countless people playing WoW who are simply doing so for 'lack of something better', and continue to do so because the clones are just more of the same thing, only worse.
Reading this thread, I realized something. It seems like the only two options players believe developers have is to either clone WoW, or clone UO. Either old school or new school...
What about something completely new that stands on its own?
If a developer creates an MMO, with RVR, FFA, castle sieges, Housing system, Bosses that actually have meaning to them aside from that specific item so you can get that piece of gear. Your going to say it fails?
So your saying a developer is going to look at all the "Successes" a themepark forumla brings, your saying he is going to do well. Yeah I can see it already:
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Warhammer was!"
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Everquest II was!"
"...Umm lets make another themepark? Look how successful Aion was...."
"LoTRO?"....."FFXIV....yea we wont even go there..."
"Rift?...RIFT! we got one! lets make another!"
As apposed to, hey lets make something nobody has before or maybe mix a bunch of features from the old school:
"Yea lets make an updated UO!"
"Lets make a new Shadowbane!"
"Lets really make a sequel to Asherons Call!"
"DAoC!"
"No, no! I got a better idea lets remake SWG pre NGE with some updated graphics!"
"Let's take Eve's new character creator, Lineage's sieging mechanics and mix it all together with an updated graphical UO theme"
Yea... I can see where everyone is coming from....
No, that's not what people are saying.
This was the op's argument:
Some one will start a discussion about a feature they like in a game. Maybe it's a game that has an incentive for grouping, maybe it's an RvR game without instanced PvP, maybe it's FFA PvP, maybe it's a game with only player crafted items, or whatever.
And someone will disagree, and state why that's a bad game design. but they won't stick with that argument for very long. Pretty quickly they start with, well, that's a bad design because it will never be popular and a game company would lose money if they made it, so I'm right, and you're wrong!
They are not arguing against doing something differnet at all. They are not saying that doing something different means financial failure.
The OP is converging two separate arguments and I suspect (though I haven't gone throught to see his rebuttal for surely he has one) that he is assuming that anyone who doesn't like a feature and also says that a feature will fail is doing so because they don't like the feature.
I don't like permadeath and believe, from what I've seen over the years, that most players don't like permadeath AND that any game that incorporates it will most likely be a niche game.
but that's not because I don't like it. it's because over numerous posts, websites and discussions my sense is that more dislike it than like it. Does that mean a game shouldn't have it? no. Does that mean that a company should spend millons upon millions to make a permadeath game? Well, only if they have done their research and are sure as sure can be that they will recoup their money or at least break even and not fold.
It does no one any good to have a company come out with some good ideas and then fold. (I'm looking at you spellborn).
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Reading this thread, I realized something. It seems like the only two options players believe developers have is to either clone WoW, or clone UO. Either old school or new school...
What about something completely new that stands on its own?
Not true, I said create something completely new... But if I had to choose between a WoW clone and a UO clone
.... I would be smashing the shit out of the UO clone button any day.
Most people think they need to clone either of those because developers of today, aside from maybe CCP with EVE, dont have enough imagination to create something from scratch. Developers today are pretty damn lazy.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
Originally posted by Vunak23 Most people think they need to clone either of those because developers of today, aside from maybe CCP with EVE, dont have enough imagination to create something from scratch. Developers today are pretty damn lazy.
It isn't about creativity nor devs are lazy, it is simply not financially interesting.
If a developer creates an MMO, with RVR, FFA, castle sieges, Housing system, Bosses that actually have meaning to them aside from that specific item so you can get that piece of gear. Your going to say it fails?
So your saying a developer is going to look at all the "Successes" a themepark forumla brings, your saying he is going to do well. Yeah I can see it already:
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Warhammer was!"
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Everquest II was!"
"...Umm lets make another themepark? Look how successful Aion was...."
"LoTRO?"....."FFXIV....yea we wont even go there..."
"Rift?...RIFT! we got one! lets make another!"
As apposed to, hey lets make something nobody has before or maybe mix a bunch of features from the old school:
"Yea lets make an updated UO!"
"Lets make a new Shadowbane!"
"Lets really make a sequel to Asherons Call!"
"DAoC!"
"No, no! I got a better idea lets remake SWG pre NGE with some updated graphics!"
"Let's take Eve's new character creator, Lineage's sieging mechanics and mix it all together with an updated graphical UO theme"
Yea... I can see where everyone is coming from....
No, that's not what people are saying.
This was the op's argument:
Some one will start a discussion about a feature they like in a game. Maybe it's a game that has an incentive for grouping, maybe it's an RvR game without instanced PvP, maybe it's FFA PvP, maybe it's a game with only player crafted items, or whatever.
And someone will disagree, and state why that's a bad game design. but they won't stick with that argument for very long. Pretty quickly they start with, well, that's a bad design because it will never be popular and a game company would lose money if they made it, so I'm right, and you're wrong!
They are not arguing against doing something differnet at all. They are not saying that doing something different means financial failure.
The OP is converging two separate arguments and I suspect (though I haven't gone throught to see his rebuttal for surely he has one) that he is assuming that anyone who doesn't like a feature and also says that a feature will fail is doing so because they don't like the feature.
I got the arguement completely. And all the features he listed are usually associated with Sandboxes. Whens the last Themepark you saw with a Free placing housing system or RvR or FFA PvP or non instanced PVP. Those are all sandbox elements. Adding only one of those features obviously doesnt make a game an automatic sandbox, but MOST, and I do stress that word, people that play themeparks dont agree with those elements because they think they will fail. Thus lets stick to the same formula thats failed so many times.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
Most people think they need to clone either of those because developers of today, aside from maybe CCP with EVE, dont have enough imagination to create something from scratch. Developers today are pretty damn lazy.
It isn't about creativity nor devs are lazy, it is simply not financially interesting.
You should probably look at my previous post.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
Reading this thread, I realized something. It seems like the only two options players believe developers have is to either clone WoW, or clone UO. Either old school or new school...
What about something completely new that stands on its own?
I know where you're coming from, but let me offer my opinion on why it seems this way.
Basically, we've all seen a trend going on in recent mmo development. Details and specifics aside, the trend is, in the simplest way put, "how to gain the kind of profits wow gets"
To achieve this, we've seen many of the traits and features of WoW (and yes, other games have buttons and maps and quests too... but WoW's spin on them is what I'm talking about here. Don't try and act like WoW didn't put it's own spin on things that already existed. That spin is context i'm referring to.) used and subtly reshaped and implimented into other games, in hopes that those features and traits were the magic selling point that caused WoW to become as successful as it is.
After seeing this done all too many times, and never once being as successful as claimed it would be, some of us are starting to wonder why WoW's success is the only success that matters. UO, EQ, DaOC, AC, SWG all had other traits and features that devs and investors don't seem to want to acknowledge as being a part of their success. This is frustrating to us because there's so many companies willing to gamble on yet another attempt to cash in on WoW's success, with cheap, stolen wow-tactics, yet they aren't willing to gamble on other aspects of the genre that people have been virtually begging for since 2004.
I too agree that emulating old school or emulating new school shouldn't be the only 2 options. BUT, since emulating new school is the only consitent option we see [AAA]devs going to, I think we at least want to see them explore the other option a little bit more before completely scrapping our love for the features of those games that haven't been updated and provided to us in a quality game.
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
Reading this thread, I realized something. It seems like the only two options players believe developers have is to either clone WoW, or clone UO. Either old school or new school...
What about something completely new that stands on its own?
I know where you're coming from, but let me offer my opinion on why it seems this way.
Basically, we've all seen a trend going on in recent mmo development. Details and specifics aside, the trend is, in the simplest way put, "how to gain the kind of profits wow gets"
To achieve this, we've seen many of the traits and features of WoW (and yes, other games have buttons and maps and quests too... but WoW's spin on them is what I'm talking about here. Don't try and act like WoW didn't put it's own spin on things that already existed. That spin is context i'm referring to.) used and subtly reshaped and implimented into other games, in hopes that those features and traits were the magic selling point that caused WoW to become as successful as it is.
After seeing this done all too many times, and never once being as successful as claimed it would be, some of us are starting to wonder why WoW's success is the only success that matters. UO, EQ, DaOC, AC, SWG all had other traits and features that devs and investors don't seem to want to acknowledge as being a part of their success. This is frustrating to us because there's so many companies willing to gamble on yet another attempt to cash in on WoW's success, with cheap, stolen wow-tactics, yet they aren't willing to gamble on other aspects of the genre that people have been virtually begging for since 2004.
I too agree that emulating old school or emulating new school shouldn't be the only 2 options. BUT, since emulating new school is the only consitent option we see [AAA]devs going to, I think we at least want to see them explore the other option a little bit more before completely scrapping our love for the features of those games that haven't been updated and provided to us in a quality game.
I think your my brother from another mother right now.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
Originally posted by mm0wiggins I think we at least want to see them explore the other option a little bit more before completely scrapping our love for the features of those games that haven't been updated and provided to us in a quality game.
UO+EQ+DAOC+AC = 50k subs
WoW = 11M subs
Farmville = 80M users
You really need to think in what play style and why you should put your 50M USD investment...?
They do explore other options, just not the options you would prefer. That's all.
Comments
Trolling? Or are you simply unaware that some workplaces actually have computers?
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
It's not like your opinions matter anyways. My opinion is right, and yours is stupid. Who cares about profitability! As a play, I represent all other players that agree with me. If they don't agree with me, they obviously are stupid and their game wont/will be profitable.
(IF YOU DON'T THINK I AM BEING SARCASTIC THERE, YOU ARE QUITE THICK)
It is hard to argue with the people who have the money to create MMOs as players, don't you think? Sure, new and different ideas would be great! But as was said, if most MMO players find a WoW like game fun, that's what devs will create.
But you're still not getting the fact that games that are fun are also profitable because more people like/play them. If you're going to quantify fun, you have to do it by looking at how many people think it's fun (or more fun than an alternative).
Yeah, you could make an MMO based around organizing protest marches instead of the same old questing and raiding. But if you asked MMO players to compare a WoW clone and World of Protestcraft, a huge majority of them are going to prefer the WoW clone. And that means that it is more fun. Saying that developers are scared to try new ideas that would be fun... that's wrong. If anything, they are scared to try new ideas that end up not being fun. I haven't a clue why that could be though, I mean it's not like we mercilessly crucify games when they flop.
Good discussion, but much of it is not quite on target for what I wanted to express.
Of course you must make a profit, or you will go out of business.
My point is, you don't know what will make a profit.
So why are you berating someone for liking an MMORPG feature that is "unprofitable" because "the majority won't like it".
What you're saying is, I don't like that feature, I think most people like what I like, so I'm right, and you are wrong, and that's not the kind of game developers should make. After all, look at WoW. WoW doesn't have that feature, and WoW is the most successful.
But the people that made EVE didn't listen to that sort of rhetoric, and made a successful game with FFA PvP.
I"m simply saying, if you don't like FFA PvP, then say that. Discuss how ganking is not fun, it's bad for developing a community, or whatever you feel.
There's no need to resort to "well that's a stupid idea because nobody likes it and it won't make money!"
Really? You don't know that. Again, case in point, I think EVE is making money.
Or, if you don't like sandbox games, talk about why you enjoy themeparks better.
Instead of "sandboxers r stupid, look at Galaxies it was a flop!"
Really? I think Galaxies was actually making money before the NGE. Not WoW money, but I don't think it was going broke.
I just find the discussion of what you like, why you like it, and vice a versa, more interesting that just shouting, "that's dumb it won't make money!"
Plenty of theme park non-ffa PvP games don't do well either. But because there is WoW, no one says, well "it's dumb to make a non-pvp theme park game, it won't make money!"
You just have to point to WoW, and go, uh yea, they can make money.
It's the game. The total game. A combination of many things. Artwork, difficulty level, genre, fantasy, sci fi, etc., the lore, the connection to an existing game or IP, and the MIX of features. Just JUST it has FFA PvP or it doesn't, but what combination of PvP, crafting, exploration, PvE, etc., etc., and HOW are they implemented?
ALL those things together, in combination, make a good game.
Picking one feature and saying "if it has that feature it caint make no money! that feature sucks!" doesn't really mean anything.
Features dont' exist in a vacuum, all by themselves.
EVE's PvP probably won't work if you just stick it in Lord of the Rings Online, for example. But it works in EVE.
Okay so I am going to both agree and disagree with you OP.
First, profitability matters, in fact it's arguably the only thing that matters to a company. To explain why, think about this. Say your friend tells you that he has a great idea, but he needs you to invest $100,000 in his idea for him to do it. He promises that if you invest this you'll get even more money in the end. So you take out your life savings and put your faith in your friend.
Now say a year goes by and you check on your friend to see he is creating a remake of the classic text based game Zork. Outraged you scream at him that he's wasted your money, you'll never recoup your investment with this! He replies, yeah...but I think it's really cool! What would you do in this situation? My guess is that you would fire your friend and try to get what money back that he hasn't wasted yet. This is how a game developer's shareholder would feel if the developer spent their money on a game that will likely not be profitable because it is too niche, too arcane, etc. etc.
Shareholders want to make money, if a developer can't prove to them that their concept will make money, then they will likely withdraw their investment and people will lose their jobs. It's important, and it's real.
That said, most people that argue that concept X will not be successful because it's not profitable are generally making a poor argument. Not because profitability doesn't matter, but because they have no proof that it is not profitable, and they could be dead wrong.
Look at it this way, in most business "first movers" have a huge advantage and are difficult for "late movers" or imitators to overcome. WoW is the first mover in the quest-based, mass-appeal, MMORPG space. Other MMORPG companies see WoW's success and figure they can capitalize by imitating it. But this is just wrong, it's a poor strategy. You can't capitalize by imitating WoW, because WoW still exists!
Instead, companies should try to be more innovative and differentiate their product from WoW. Establish a NEW space, create NEW market segments! Imitating WoW with one minor change is generally a losing game!
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
No, you just THINK I don't get that. Of course something has a higher potential for more profit if more people like it. Thing is, there's this concept called supply & demand, and something else called market saturation.
There's also a lot of other facts that play into it, like the fact that you can't know how well-liked a certain feature will be in YOUR particular game, until you've tried it. Just because a feature is well-liked and profitable in one game doesn't mean it'll work just as well in another. Just because one feature ISN'T well liked and profitable in one game doesn't mean it WON'T be in another. MMOs have many features, and it's the combination of them that makes the finished product.
I don't know if it's the developers, the publishers, the investors, or some other group of people entirely that has been stifling innovation in MMOs the last few years, but it's happening somewhere, and it's because someone is too scared to try new stuff that might not be as profitable as what they THINK they "know" will be profitable. I know for damn sure it's not due to a lack of ideas, because there's way too many people in the industry with good imaginations.
As a side note, your sarcastic comment about being merciless about games that flop just serves to further undermine your position. It's not at all unfair to say that (besides the obvious alpha-state releases such as Vanguard) all the recent flops failed BECAUSE they were more of the same crap that's supposed to be the most "fun", when in truth they're releasing into a market that is so saturated with that stuff they were doomed before they even began. We have every right to be mercilessly cruel with these morons, because they're releasing more of the same junk when it's already obvious that the supply easily meets the demand. If they wanted to release something successful they should have been looking for a demand that's NOT being met.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Thank you for that. Made my day.
Sub to me on YouTube @ http://www.youtube.com/user/JJJK29isGaming?feature=mhee
Lol ending statement was icing on the cake. ^ This +1
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
Yep, I agree. In a market saturated with competition like this one, developers should be trying to find a significant group of consumers whose needs are not being met by the current flock of MMORPGs as well as they possibly could be and then cater to THAT group. It's called segmenting the market.
For example, maybe there is a group of consumers that value features like social interaction, world interactivity, and dynamic content highly. Well if the group is large enough, then a company could steal customers away from other MMORPGs by meeting those SPECIFIC needs, better than the competition.
The point is that you can't be everything to everbody, but you can be everything to somebody, and those somebodies are unlikely to leave you since you have expertise in satisfying their needs.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
The problem is that fun is a subjective term. There's no way to quantify how "fun" something is because we all have different ideas of what fun is. (some folks like whips, me, not so much)
But its pretty easy to quantify if something is popular, because generally speaking people are willing to pay for things that are popular. Be it MMO's like WOW, Pet Rocks, greasy fast food, no arguing that many things are popular, so one can see why game developers are easily drawn to include features that the market demands.
So for some of us out there, FFA PVP is fun and we're willing to pay for a game that has it. For far more people this is not enjoyable, and they will pay for a game that does not have it.
So its not too hard to agree with everyone who claims that certain features are more popular and profitable.
But if the discussion at hand is whetheror not a feature is fun or not, the question shouldn't really be brought up.
Except as someone else pointed out, usually the debate is whether or not their favorite feature could be profitable in a different setting. (no one is arguing that it is fun to someone, somewhere).
As the OP mentioned, no one knows for sure what feature sets would really be fun (and popular) to the larger audience.
Currently the Dev's take a look at WOW and see its success and will continue to try to emulate it. TOR will be very WOW-like in its presentation I think, however if its story based approach turns out to be a big hit, watch the imitators line up, heck I'll bet even Blizzard weaves story driven content into their next expansion. (well, come to think of it, they sort of had it in their last expansion)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Have you ever heard of the term Opportunity Cost? That is one thing that drives business decisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
You make a business decision that uses the resources available the best way possible within the time available at a cost that is viable to keep the opportunity costs as small as possible.
If your programmers say an idea is possible if you add six months to the project but your accountants give you information that you see says the opportunity cost of doing so is too high then you don't do it.
"hey, I got a great idea! Let's make a game that caters to X crowd, because there aren't enough quality games for them! All I need is $_____. It will make some profit, but it won't be the kind of profit that WoW generated, because, well, we're not trying to pull in that audience. We still plan to make a pretty good return on your investment. What do you think, Mr. Investor?"
"ok. you sure you can't make WoW's profit?"
"well, we're not trying to, but anything's possible. What we will commit to is making _____ profit, which will still net you _____ profit on your investment."
"ok. Sounds good! We'll give you $_____ in that case."
"great! Let's get to work!"
Easy. The problem with the example stated above my post here, is that they are saying that developers go to investors asking for large sums of money, promissing an even larger sum on the return, and then all of a sudden, "whoops! the investors found out that we tricked them! we're not going to make the super duper wow killer, but instead we're going to make this retro game! buahahaha!!!" That's just not realistic. It's comical, and a little childish to assume business works that way.
Allbeit, my own example is pretty basic and unrealistic, it's still more to the point of how a smart developer would propose their projects to investors. Being up front from the get-go. If you tell an investor that you plan to make a niche game that will only make X amount of dollars over X amount of years, and they sign off on it, then there's no "omg what did you do with my money?! where's our wow-killer that's going to make us rich?!"
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
So what people are argueing against the OP is:
If a developer creates an MMO, with RVR, FFA, castle sieges, Housing system, Bosses that actually have meaning to them aside from that specific item so you can get that piece of gear. Your going to say it fails?
So your saying a developer is going to look at all the "Successes" a themepark forumla brings, your saying he is going to do well. Yeah I can see it already:
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Warhammer was!"
"Lets make another themepark! I mean look how successful Everquest II was!"
"...Umm lets make another themepark? Look how successful Aion was...."
"LoTRO?"....."FFXIV....yea we wont even go there..."
"Rift?...RIFT! we got one! lets make another!"
As apposed to, hey lets make something nobody has before or maybe mix a bunch of features from the old school:
"Yea lets make an updated UO!"
"Lets make a new Shadowbane!"
"Lets really make a sequel to Asherons Call!"
"DAoC!"
"No, no! I got a better idea lets remake SWG pre NGE with some updated graphics!"
"Let's take Eve's new character creator, Lineage's sieging mechanics and mix it all together with an updated graphical UO theme"
Yea... I can see where everyone is coming from....
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
Exactly!
"you are all wrong. theme parks are profitible, so that's what will be made" but then, they can't show us what themeparks are profitible besides wow. At least, any more profitible than past games that have come and gone, or are still going with niche audiences.
So I say it still comes down to "I think FFA/housing/customization/world dynamic/ and all the things that made other games live with strong communities for years is stupid. So that means most people don't like them and they won't make a profit"
So, if the 'lets make another themepark" business approach is so superior, where's the game that is pulling in these profits? *looks around*.... anyone?
Where's the successful product of this never-fails business model of copying "the features that work" and not copying "the other features that work, but aren't in wow" ?
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
Reading this thread, I realized something. It seems like the only two options players believe developers have is to either clone WoW, or clone UO. Either old school or new school...
What about something completely new that stands on its own?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
As has been said over, and over, and over again...
The problem is that the people with the money to invest in developing and MMO all see WoW, and want a piece of that pie.
None of them have yet to be convinced that WoW is an abberation, and everyone that wants to play a game like WoW, is already playing WoW. Clones of WoW may grab a handful of subscribers from WoW, but they will never trump WoW.
Creating MMOs for different niches is the best alternative. This is the only way to actually "compete" with WoW, which is by not competing with it directly at all. I guarentee that there are countless people playing WoW who are simply doing so for 'lack of something better', and continue to do so because the clones are just more of the same thing, only worse.
We have that already, it's called farmville.
No, that's not what people are saying.
This was the op's argument:
Some one will start a discussion about a feature they like in a game. Maybe it's a game that has an incentive for grouping, maybe it's an RvR game without instanced PvP, maybe it's FFA PvP, maybe it's a game with only player crafted items, or whatever.
And someone will disagree, and state why that's a bad game design. but they won't stick with that argument for very long. Pretty quickly they start with, well, that's a bad design because it will never be popular and a game company would lose money if they made it, so I'm right, and you're wrong!
They are not arguing against doing something differnet at all. They are not saying that doing something different means financial failure.
The OP is converging two separate arguments and I suspect (though I haven't gone throught to see his rebuttal for surely he has one) that he is assuming that anyone who doesn't like a feature and also says that a feature will fail is doing so because they don't like the feature.
I don't like permadeath and believe, from what I've seen over the years, that most players don't like permadeath AND that any game that incorporates it will most likely be a niche game.
but that's not because I don't like it. it's because over numerous posts, websites and discussions my sense is that more dislike it than like it. Does that mean a game shouldn't have it? no. Does that mean that a company should spend millons upon millions to make a permadeath game? Well, only if they have done their research and are sure as sure can be that they will recoup their money or at least break even and not fold.
It does no one any good to have a company come out with some good ideas and then fold. (I'm looking at you spellborn).
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Not true, I said create something completely new... But if I had to choose between a WoW clone and a UO clone
.... I would be smashing the shit out of the UO clone button any day.
Most people think they need to clone either of those because developers of today, aside from maybe CCP with EVE, dont have enough imagination to create something from scratch. Developers today are pretty damn lazy.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
It isn't about creativity nor devs are lazy, it is simply not financially interesting.
I got the arguement completely. And all the features he listed are usually associated with Sandboxes. Whens the last Themepark you saw with a Free placing housing system or RvR or FFA PvP or non instanced PVP. Those are all sandbox elements. Adding only one of those features obviously doesnt make a game an automatic sandbox, but MOST, and I do stress that word, people that play themeparks dont agree with those elements because they think they will fail. Thus lets stick to the same formula thats failed so many times.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
You should probably look at my previous post.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
I know where you're coming from, but let me offer my opinion on why it seems this way.
Basically, we've all seen a trend going on in recent mmo development. Details and specifics aside, the trend is, in the simplest way put, "how to gain the kind of profits wow gets"
To achieve this, we've seen many of the traits and features of WoW (and yes, other games have buttons and maps and quests too... but WoW's spin on them is what I'm talking about here. Don't try and act like WoW didn't put it's own spin on things that already existed. That spin is context i'm referring to.) used and subtly reshaped and implimented into other games, in hopes that those features and traits were the magic selling point that caused WoW to become as successful as it is.
After seeing this done all too many times, and never once being as successful as claimed it would be, some of us are starting to wonder why WoW's success is the only success that matters. UO, EQ, DaOC, AC, SWG all had other traits and features that devs and investors don't seem to want to acknowledge as being a part of their success. This is frustrating to us because there's so many companies willing to gamble on yet another attempt to cash in on WoW's success, with cheap, stolen wow-tactics, yet they aren't willing to gamble on other aspects of the genre that people have been virtually begging for since 2004.
I too agree that emulating old school or emulating new school shouldn't be the only 2 options. BUT, since emulating new school is the only consitent option we see [AAA]devs going to, I think we at least want to see them explore the other option a little bit more before completely scrapping our love for the features of those games that haven't been updated and provided to us in a quality game.
This is not a troll, flame, or anything else worth banning me over. It is simply my pure opinion, and I have a right to share it.
I think your my brother from another mother right now.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
UO+EQ+DAOC+AC = 50k subs
WoW = 11M subs
Farmville = 80M users
You really need to think in what play style and why you should put your 50M USD investment...?
They do explore other options, just not the options you would prefer. That's all.