It sounds like you're just addressing hardcore pvp games, and it comes down to the amount of people interested in hardcore pvp games is very insignificant compared to the amount of people who are interested in games with more restrictions.
The truth is, those games still exist: UO and Lineage freeservers, EVE, etc. You guys can play those, just expect the community to be smaller. It will always be like that, UO in its peak was when Trammel was released. FFA PvP games will always have a small community, and you guys shouldn't desire every game in development to have the FFA system you love.
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.
he is lamenting what he thinks is an issue which is that if someone says that they like something and that it's not popular that others will start attacking it and saying that it will fail only because they don't like it.
What you are taking away from that is is sandbox vs themepark.
of course he is using sandbox vs themepark examples to fuel his arguement. I imagine that his argument could be reversed. He is essentially saying that if game elements are not popular the many people think they will fail.
Failure is a relative term.
Not many people like jazz or the blues. Do they fail as a genre? well, they certainly don't get Lady Gaga money backing them but they do have a die hard group of fans and there are new jazz and blues players all the time.
Of course mmo's cost a lot of money so whipping up some sort of alternative game might be more difficult than putting together a blues group.
I think he is trying to merge the two and not realizing that just because someone hates something doesn't mean they can't argue against it believably.
regardless of whether it's themepark, sandbox or anything else.
remember, this is his topic headline: I am right because what you like would not be profitable.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
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.
he is lamenting what he thinks is an issue which is that if someone says that they like something and that it's not popular that others will start attacking it and saying that it will fail only because they don't like it.
What you are taking away from that is is sandbox vs themepark.
of course he is using sandbox vs themepark examples to fuel his arguement. I imagine that his argument could be reversed. He is essentially saying that if game elements are not popular the many people think they will fail.
Failure is a relative term.
Not many people like jazz or the blues. Do they fail as a genre? well, they certainly don't get Lady Gaga money backing them but they do have a die hard group of fans and there are new jazz and blues players all the time.
Of course mmo's cost a lot of money so whipping up some sort of alternative game might be more difficult than putting together a blues group.
I think he is trying to merge the two and not realizing that just because someone hates something doesn't mean they can't argue against it believably.
regardless of whether it's themepark, sandbox or anything else.
remember, this is his topic headline: I am right because what you like would not be profitable. Not
I get what your saying completely and the OP. Its easy to argue Sandbox vs Themepark though, and that is essentially what the thread is about. The OP used all sandbox elements to get across what he was trying to say, and even went as far to say WoW clones don't seem to be all that successful. Which I agree completely.
So why do the new school gamers think that WoW clones are the only way to make money? When time and time again they are proved wrong that the same boring mechanics are creating failures of games. And if they are so successful and themepark gamers are the majority and there is a huge market for them, why are all the themeparks that have come out failed pretty hard? Could it be that they are in actuality the minority and most sandbox gamers are older and just don't voice there opinion as much as themeparkers do and have given up on the MMO genre until something like a new UO comes out?
Originally posted by Gdemami
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.
If your going to spew numbers atleast spew the right ones.
If you looke at Reports Lineage II smashed WoW in worldwide numbers by about 6milion subscribers. They peaked at 17million if you were wondering.
WoW has around 3 mil in the states and 3 milion Europe and has close to 5mil in asia mostly from China.
So your arguement is invalid. If this were the case of profit everyone would be shooting towards the asian market.
"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
Nicely put. Glad you can't think of any more nonsense to spew.
"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
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.
I said that developers may be hesitant to try new ideas because there's a big risk of making a flop and getting severely criticized over it. You countered by saying that all recent flops have failed because they have no new ideas. But there are recent flops that had new ideas. This would invalidate your argument, so you added an exception for "obvious alpha-state releases". See the logical problem that creates?
You've made it so that there's no way for a new idea to cause a game to fail; all the games that did something new and failed, well, they were simply underdeveloped and not ready for release. By "all the recent flops", you actually mean "all the recent flops except for ones that I would like to exclude."
I get what your saying completely and the OP. Its easy to argue Sandbox vs Themepark though, and that is essentially what the thread is about. The OP used all sandbox elements to get across what he was trying to say, and even went as far to say WoW clones don't seem to be all that successful. Which I agree completely.
So why do the new school gamers think that WoW clones are the only way to make money? When time and time again they are proved wrong that the same boring mechanics are creating failures of games. And if they are so successful and themepark gamers are the majority and there is a huge market for them, why are all the themeparks that have come out failed pretty hard? Could it be that they are in actuality the minority and most sandbox gamers are older and just don't voice there opinion as much as themeparkers do and have given up on the MMO genre until something like a new UO comes out?
Well, I do happen to think that most of the money is in themepark games. Keep in mind that I prefer more old school playing and to that point play theme park games more in line with old school methods.
The thempark games that fail do so becasue they were buggy, had design issues, did not deliver what was promised, etc.
Not because they were themepark games that were taking advantage of "same old same old'.
From what I've seen in game and through the years on forums and just speaking to people in "real life" most people seem to like to log on and get set up on an adventure of some sort. They don't want to be plopped down in the middle of nowhere and have to figure out what to do and spend time foraging or making their own goals.
This has nothing to do with them being "stupid' which is an argument that I've seen some players propose. It's because they just want to have some fun for whatever limited time they have to play.
So when the OP is saying that "I am right because what you would like would not be profitable" he doesn't compel me with his arguments.
Themparks are easier games to play for many people. As a friend of mine once said of SWG " it was like a second job that i wasn't getting paid for".
Or the people in Aion who complained that they couldn't find quests when there were quests back at their old areas. However they were so used to going from one quest hub to another and not looking back that they automtically discounted revisting areas they were in before.
And there are perfectly good sandbox games out there. Ryzom is out there, EVE is out there. Vanguard is very sandboxy even though one can get on quest chains if one wants.
bad games will always fail. No matter if they are thempark or sandbox. In the current market Themeparks will prevail if they are done well. Rift still has a decent amount of people playing. It's up to Trion to add the depth and content that will keeep them.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
If your going to spew numbers atleast spew the right ones.
If you looke at Reports Lineage II smashed WoW in worldwide numbers by about 6milion subscribers. They peaked at 17million if you were wondering.
WoW has around 3 mil in the states and 3 milion Europe and has close to 5mil in asia mostly from China.
So your arguement is invalid. If this were the case of profit everyone would be shooting towards the asian market.
1) Those who can, are.
2) Making an MMO and publishing it for SEA or China when you are a western company is nowhere near as easy as you may think. Not only is the culture of the MMO community in each of those markets vastly different and the business model one that is foriegn to most NA developers, but infiltrating the market is a complete PITA. In certain areas, not only does the gam ehave to be published/hosted by a local provider, but the government itself has to give approval first.
3) It makes more sense to emulate their successes in NA/EU rather than try to compete as an outsider in a near flooded market. TIP: "The House always wins," applies to doing business in different territories as much as it applies to gambling.
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
I get what your saying completely and the OP. Its easy to argue Sandbox vs Themepark though, and that is essentially what the thread is about. The OP used all sandbox elements to get across what he was trying to say, and even went as far to say WoW clones don't seem to be all that successful. Which I agree completely.
So why do the new school gamers think that WoW clones are the only way to make money? When time and time again they are proved wrong that the same boring mechanics are creating failures of games. And if they are so successful and themepark gamers are the majority and there is a huge market for them, why are all the themeparks that have come out failed pretty hard? Could it be that they are in actuality the minority and most sandbox gamers are older and just don't voice there opinion as much as themeparkers do and have given up on the MMO genre until something like a new UO comes out?
Well, I do happen to think that most of the money is in themepark games. Keep in mind that I prefer more old school playing and to that point play theme park games more in line with old school methods.
The thempark games that fail do so becasue they were buggy, had design issues, did not deliver what was promised, etc.
Not because they were themepark games that were taking advantage of "same old same old'.
From what I've seen in game and through the years on forums and just speaking to people in "real life" most people seem to like to log on and get set up on an adventure of some sort. They don't want to be plopped down in the middle of nowhere and have to figure out what to do and spend time foraging or making their own goals.
This has nothing to do with them being "stupid' which is an argument that I've seen some players propose. It's because they just want to have some fun for whatever limited time they have to play.
So when the OP is saying that "I am right because what you would like would not be profitable" he doesn't compel me with his arguments.
Themparks are easier games to play for many people. As a friend of mine once said of SWG " it was like a second job that i wasn't getting paid for".
Or the people in Aion who complained that they couldn't find quests when there were quests back at their old areas. However they were so used to going from one quest hub to another and not looking back that they automtically discounted revisting areas they were in before.
And there are perfectly good sandbox games out there. Ryzom is out there, EVE is out there. Vanguard is very sandboxy even though one can get on quest chains if one wants.
bad games will always fail. No matter if they are thempark or sandbox. In the current market Themeparks will prevail if they are done well. Rift still has a decent amount of people playing. It's up to Trion to add the depth and content that will keeep them.
Now we have breached into a new subject of "what is more profitable." If you want to be technical Themeparks aren't more profitable on a subscriber standpoint.
Take WoW and its clones, it would have a subscriber base peaking around 16 million.
Lets look at Lineage II and UO and some of the other old school games. There peak subscriber base would be around 20 million. The minority may not actually be the minority from a numbers standpoint from finacial reports and things of that nature. Granit Lineage II made up most of those subscribers with a peak of 17million, that still goes to show that there are a lot of people out there looking for something that isn't a WoW clone.
The only sandbox game you listed even worth playing is Eve. Vanguard was given up on, and Ryzom has some really unappealing graphics. Mortal Online is a buggy failure and Darkfail is a huge grindfest that Aventurine doesnt know what to do with. If a AAA company came out and did a new Sandbox with decent graphics and some really nice features like Free form housing, castle sieges like lineage II and such it would be a huge hit just by looking at those subscriber numbers. The only reason so many sandboxes have failed is because they have been buggy nightmares or the graphics/animations look like they were done by a 12 year old.
I agree that sandboxes could use some more to them as well. I am hoping Archeage can appeal to both sets of gamers, and that seems to be what Jake Song is aiming for, a sandbox , themepark hybrid. A sandbox that just throws you into the world may succeed, FFXI did it and they werent a sandbox but they were successful. No a sandbox needs to guide its players a little as well. Tutorials and such help wonders, but also a sandbox is usually not for a casual gamer, so if a player cant set his own goals after going through the tutorial of a sandbox, there probably not the right game for him and he/she should give the many themeparks out there a go.
By no means is any arguement about a sandbox vs themepark debate about neglecting either form of gaming. I think there should be a choice for each style though. I dont enjoy themeparks all that much but I would like a decent sandbox to play. While another gamer might not enjoy sandboxes, but would like a themepark to play. There needs to be a game for each style, and right now we are seeing a flood of themeparks with a few pretty poorly done sandboxes.
"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 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.
Clearly, Farmville is a clear winner in the MMO market.
Now we have breached into a new subject of "what is more profitable." If you want to be technical Themeparks aren't more profitable on a subscriber standpoint.
Take WoW and its clones, it would have a subscriber base peaking around 16 million.
Lets look at Lineage II and UO and some of the other old school games. There peak subscriber base would be around 20 million. The minority may not actually be the minority from a numbers standpoint from finacial reports and things of that nature. Granit Lineage II made up most of those subscribers with a peak of 17million, that still goes to show that there are a lot of people out there looking for something that isn't a WoW clone.
The only sandbox game you listed even worth playing is Eve. Vanguard was given up on, and Ryzom has some really unappealing graphics. Mortal Online is a buggy failure and Darkfail is a huge grindfest that Aventurine doesnt know what to do with. If a AAA company came out and did a new Sandbox with decent graphics and some really nice features like Free form housing, castle sieges like lineage II and such it would be a huge hit just by looking at those subscriber numbers. The only reason so many sandboxes have failed is because they have been buggy nightmares or the graphics/animations look like they were done by a 12 year old.
Well, at the risk of taking the topic too far off course, Lineage 2 came out before wow and those who played it and loved it stayed. Heck, I stayed over 4 years. Even after I tried wow, loved some of the things it did and the subsequently went back to L2.
EVE is the amazing game that I want to play but can't because I would just spend way too much time in it. But it's there. Where are the millions of players all clamoring for an in depth sandbox that they can find in EVE?
Ryzom has great aesthetics so that is a personal opinion. I love Ryzom's world and art design. You are correct about Motral Online. Darkfall seems more about pvp than being a sandbox game. I'm not sure that is what it wanted to be but that is what it became. It still has a lot going for it and is one of those games that i feel I'd spend too much time in.
Also, L2's largest fanbase came from the east which is what fuels it today. It had large numbers before WoW was finished with its first year.
But you know what? we will see with archeage. that seems to be one of the few sandbox games to be coming out. of course it's an eastern game so many western players are either going to be leary of playign it or state that they hate the art design and won't play it on that basis alone.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Sovrath Well, at the risk of taking the topic too far off course, Lineage 2 came out before wow and those who played it and loved it stayed. Heck, I stayed over 4 years. Even after I tried wow, loved some of the things it did and the subsequently went back to L2.
Good lord, stop arguing that nonsense, L2 never had those numbers. It was in 3M range and today numbers can be around 1M top, as the game was registering steady decline since WoW was released...
Now we have breached into a new subject of "what is more profitable." If you want to be technical Themeparks aren't more profitable on a subscriber standpoint.
Take WoW and its clones, it would have a subscriber base peaking around 16 million.
Lets look at Lineage II and UO and some of the other old school games. There peak subscriber base would be around 20 million. The minority may not actually be the minority from a numbers standpoint from finacial reports and things of that nature. Granit Lineage II made up most of those subscribers with a peak of 17million, that still goes to show that there are a lot of people out there looking for something that isn't a WoW clone.
The only sandbox game you listed even worth playing is Eve. Vanguard was given up on, and Ryzom has some really unappealing graphics. Mortal Online is a buggy failure and Darkfail is a huge grindfest that Aventurine doesnt know what to do with. If a AAA company came out and did a new Sandbox with decent graphics and some really nice features like Free form housing, castle sieges like lineage II and such it would be a huge hit just by looking at those subscriber numbers. The only reason so many sandboxes have failed is because they have been buggy nightmares or the graphics/animations look like they were done by a 12 year old.
Well, at the risk of taking the topic too far off course, Lineage 2 came out before wow and those who played it and loved it stayed. Heck, I stayed over 4 years. Even after I tried wow, loved some of the things it did and the subsequently went back to L2.
EVE is the amazing game that I want to play but can't because I would just spend way too much time in it. But it's there. Where are the millions of players all clamoring for an in depth sandbox that they can find in EVE?
Ryzom has great aesthetics so that is a personal opinion. I love Ryzom's world and art design. You are correct about Motral Online. Darkfall seems more about pvp than being a sandbox game. I'm not sure that is what it wanted to be but that is what it became. It still has a lot going for it and is one of those games that i feel I'd spend too much time in.
Also, L2's largest fanbase came from the east which is what fuels it today. It had large numbers before WoW was finished with its first year.
But you know what? we will see with archeage. that seems to be one of the few sandbox games to be coming out. of course it's an eastern game so many western players are either going to be leary of playign it or state that they hate the art design and won't play it on that basis alone.
Sov, i'm glad that for once I could have a decent adult discussion with someone, without it turning into a flame war on MMORPG.
As for Eve, I played it for a awhile myself. Its a great sandbox, but it just isnt the game for everyone. Not having an avatar is a killer for some people. The feeling of not having complete control of your person, the point and click aspect of it. Eve is its own breed.
I am really looking forward to Archeage. Jake Song is one of my favorite developers. I hope that this game succeeds, hopefully it will ignite a spark in other developers to start, if not breaking the mold, creating new and improved features for both Sandboxes and Themeparks, not just different setting with a few new half assed things.
Edit:
Yeah Lineage II's subscirbers were and are mostly from Asia, but WoW's are as well. If we cut Asia from WoW, its subsribers would be around 4-5million.
"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
Games are made for profit, no other reason. If your amazing idea (yes, I'm being sarcastic) was really a good idea, an idea that would be "fun" for enough people, then it would be profitable. It you're idea wouldn't be profitable, it's just a bad idea.
I think that you are forgetting/neglecting the creative aspect here. The gaming industry is part of the cultural industry, and I believe that just as the producers and creators of music and film care about their products (it's art!), game developers have creative visions and goals too. Games have to be profitable that is true, but that is just part of the art of producing successful games.
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.
I said that developers may be hesitant to try new ideas because there's a big risk of making a flop and getting severely criticized over it. You countered by saying that all recent flops have failed because they have no new ideas. But there are recent flops that had new ideas. This would invalidate your argument, so you added an exception for "obvious alpha-state releases". See the logical problem that creates?
You've made it so that there's no way for a new idea to cause a game to fail; all the games that did something new and failed, well, they were simply underdeveloped and not ready for release. By "all the recent flops", you actually mean "all the recent flops except for ones that I would like to exclude."
Nope, you missed the subtleties of what I was doing. You were arguing one ridiculous extreme. I threw in a different (no more ridiculous) extreme, to point this out. The original argument, however, was neither ridiculous nor an extreme at all, and you were trying to make it seem so.
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!
The problem is, they use that argument when the debate is over the feature and whether or not it's fun, and not the profitability or business aspect of a game. And those are two different discussions.
1. Is something fun?
2. Will it make money?
But I see posts like this: That's not fun because.......................it won't make money! So I'm right!
Of course we can debate anything we like here. But I'd rather leave making money up to the developers and publishers, anbd discuss what I think would be fun, or not.
And anyway, I don't think most people know what makes money.
WoW makes money, so that's what makes money!
Well, a lot of WoW clones don't do that well.
FFA PvP can't make money, people don't like that!
Well, EVE seems to do ok.
You're just guessing whether or not something will make money, you don't really know.
But you do know, without a doubt, what you think is fun.
Well, maybe they are right. On the other hand, maybe they are wrong.
Not many big producers come to the forums and discuss their ideas so most times it is a small group of people or a single individual.
Most arguments are based on 'it won't make money therefore I am right' or 'It has already been done and does not work so I am right' or the biggest one 'it is in this game already or that game already so why make another copy of the same thing and therefore I am right'
Some ideas are fantastic if fleshed out and some just down right suck. Most times all a forum post will get is these responses as others ignore which leads to another indie that quits and goes does something else.
Games are made for profit, no other reason. If your amazing idea (yes, I'm being sarcastic) was really a good idea, an idea that would be "fun" for enough people, then it would be profitable. It you're idea wouldn't be profitable, it's just a bad idea.
I think that you are forgetting/neglecting the creative aspect here. The gaming industry is part of the cultural industry, and I believe that just as the producers and creators of music and film care about their products (it's art!), game developers have creative visions and goals too. Games have to be profitable that is true, but that is just part of the art of producing successful games.
I agree with both of you. I feel many games are being made mostly just for money right now. But it isn't always that way and doesn't have to be. For example, Portal 2 was made to make money. Was it a great game? Got some pretty great reviews. Portal, on the other hand, was likely made from brilliance and passion as an art. Did the people who created it do so to be rich and famous? I couldn't tell you, but that is definitely not always the case.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I agree with both of you. I feel many games are being made mostly just for money right now. But it isn't always that way and doesn't have to be. For example, Portal 2 was made to make money. Was it a great game? Got some pretty great reviews. Portal, on the other hand, was likely made from brilliance and passion as an art. Did the people who created it do so to be rich and famous? I couldn't tell you, but that is definitely not always the case.
Yowch. You don't think that's a bit harsh?
With that attitude, you could dismiss virtually every sequel of anything successful by saying that only the first one was a labor of love and everything after was a cash in. Not just in MMOs but in all games, books, movies, etc.
I agree with both of you. I feel many games are being made mostly just for money right now. But it isn't always that way and doesn't have to be. For example, Portal 2 was made to make money. Was it a great game? Got some pretty great reviews. Portal, on the other hand, was likely made from brilliance and passion as an art. Did the people who created it do so to be rich and famous? I couldn't tell you, but that is definitely not always the case.
Yowch. You don't think that's a bit harsh?
With that attitude, you could dismiss virtually every sequel of anything successful by saying that only the first one was a labor of love and everything after was a cash in. Not just in MMOs but in all games, books, movies, etc.
They are aint they?
Film = First gets made, makes a big hit, sequel gets made, gets hyped to hell, bums out. When the Predator films are mentioned do you think of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Danny Glover? When the Aliens films are mentioned do you think of a group of marines and Michael Biehn or do you think back to Sigourney Weaver in the lifepod with only a short top on and very small nickers? (hmmmm perkies :P)
Books = Depends on what you read, personally i read Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Allen Poe and Bernard Cornwell (Sharpe).
Games = This is the main issue really. For single player games when sequels are mentioned i think of ME2, KotOR2 etc and think some are great and others are good but could have been better, FPS i think of the CoD and BF genres and have to say that CoD have stagnated and are just rehashes in different skins, BF are finally getting off their butts and making a true BF sequel with BF3. Then there are MMOs, the main bread and butter of a games company these days, can a sequel be done? sure there was Everquest II but without having played either i'll leave those that have to think on that one.
With regards to the profit of what will and won't work all i can say is look at SWG in 2005, outstanding game, more subscribers than was needed to make a profit, they change the game to the same sort of mechanics as WoW and others being released and bang, there goes the regular subscriber income, servers need to close due to lack of players and funds, they bring out a gambling system in order to try and make more money out of the bad crap they turned the actual game into (and yes, the TCG is gambling). With that said i think it's safe to say that if you were around during that time in that game you know first hand what makes a profit, game feature wise.
Actually, if people state "X would be fun", you cant even be sure that they themselves would actually enjoy a game that realizes X. For some hours, sure. But once the news have worn off, they would get used to it.
The main issue is that "X" is usually nothing that actually changes gameplay. But gameplay is the basis for longtime satisfaction with a game. A game which principles bore you wont keep you playing, no matter how much fluff got added to it.
The second issue is that "X" is often extremely expensive or outright impossible to realize. Extremely expensive equals not profitable. Unless you have a really big hit.
Thats besides why I so strongly oppose the "i-word". If someone states "X would increase immersion", its really rare that "X" would actually be an idea that actually improves the gameplay or the game as a whole. Most of the time its just expensive fluff or worse game elements that bloat off the gameplay, like realistic eating in a game not a Sims-like simulation.
Comments
It sounds like you're just addressing hardcore pvp games, and it comes down to the amount of people interested in hardcore pvp games is very insignificant compared to the amount of people who are interested in games with more restrictions.
The truth is, those games still exist: UO and Lineage freeservers, EVE, etc. You guys can play those, just expect the community to be smaller. It will always be like that, UO in its peak was when Trammel was released. FFA PvP games will always have a small community, and you guys shouldn't desire every game in development to have the FFA system you love.
he is lamenting what he thinks is an issue which is that if someone says that they like something and that it's not popular that others will start attacking it and saying that it will fail only because they don't like it.
What you are taking away from that is is sandbox vs themepark.
of course he is using sandbox vs themepark examples to fuel his arguement. I imagine that his argument could be reversed. He is essentially saying that if game elements are not popular the many people think they will fail.
Failure is a relative term.
Not many people like jazz or the blues. Do they fail as a genre? well, they certainly don't get Lady Gaga money backing them but they do have a die hard group of fans and there are new jazz and blues players all the time.
Of course mmo's cost a lot of money so whipping up some sort of alternative game might be more difficult than putting together a blues group.
I think he is trying to merge the two and not realizing that just because someone hates something doesn't mean they can't argue against it believably.
regardless of whether it's themepark, sandbox or anything else.
remember, this is his topic headline: I am right because what you like would not be profitable.
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
Makes me reaalllllly wanna play Farmville!!
I get what your saying completely and the OP. Its easy to argue Sandbox vs Themepark though, and that is essentially what the thread is about. The OP used all sandbox elements to get across what he was trying to say, and even went as far to say WoW clones don't seem to be all that successful. Which I agree completely.
So why do the new school gamers think that WoW clones are the only way to make money? When time and time again they are proved wrong that the same boring mechanics are creating failures of games. And if they are so successful and themepark gamers are the majority and there is a huge market for them, why are all the themeparks that have come out failed pretty hard? Could it be that they are in actuality the minority and most sandbox gamers are older and just don't voice there opinion as much as themeparkers do and have given up on the MMO genre until something like a new UO comes out?
If your going to spew numbers atleast spew the right ones.
If you looke at Reports Lineage II smashed WoW in worldwide numbers by about 6milion subscribers. They peaked at 17million if you were wondering.
WoW has around 3 mil in the states and 3 milion Europe and has close to 5mil in asia mostly from China.
So your arguement is invalid. If this were the case of profit everyone would be shooting towards the asian market.
"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
No, it isn't.
Nicely put. Glad you can't think of any more nonsense to spew.
"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 see what you did there.
I said that developers may be hesitant to try new ideas because there's a big risk of making a flop and getting severely criticized over it. You countered by saying that all recent flops have failed because they have no new ideas. But there are recent flops that had new ideas. This would invalidate your argument, so you added an exception for "obvious alpha-state releases". See the logical problem that creates?
You've made it so that there's no way for a new idea to cause a game to fail; all the games that did something new and failed, well, they were simply underdeveloped and not ready for release. By "all the recent flops", you actually mean "all the recent flops except for ones that I would like to exclude."
Well, I do happen to think that most of the money is in themepark games. Keep in mind that I prefer more old school playing and to that point play theme park games more in line with old school methods.
The thempark games that fail do so becasue they were buggy, had design issues, did not deliver what was promised, etc.
Not because they were themepark games that were taking advantage of "same old same old'.
From what I've seen in game and through the years on forums and just speaking to people in "real life" most people seem to like to log on and get set up on an adventure of some sort. They don't want to be plopped down in the middle of nowhere and have to figure out what to do and spend time foraging or making their own goals.
This has nothing to do with them being "stupid' which is an argument that I've seen some players propose. It's because they just want to have some fun for whatever limited time they have to play.
So when the OP is saying that "I am right because what you would like would not be profitable" he doesn't compel me with his arguments.
Themparks are easier games to play for many people. As a friend of mine once said of SWG " it was like a second job that i wasn't getting paid for".
Or the people in Aion who complained that they couldn't find quests when there were quests back at their old areas. However they were so used to going from one quest hub to another and not looking back that they automtically discounted revisting areas they were in before.
And there are perfectly good sandbox games out there. Ryzom is out there, EVE is out there. Vanguard is very sandboxy even though one can get on quest chains if one wants.
bad games will always fail. No matter if they are thempark or sandbox. In the current market Themeparks will prevail if they are done well. Rift still has a decent amount of people playing. It's up to Trion to add the depth and content that will keeep them.
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
There are a lot of people in this industry with very very preventive attitudes. Don't expect things to change any time soon.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
1) Those who can, are.
2) Making an MMO and publishing it for SEA or China when you are a western company is nowhere near as easy as you may think. Not only is the culture of the MMO community in each of those markets vastly different and the business model one that is foriegn to most NA developers, but infiltrating the market is a complete PITA. In certain areas, not only does the gam ehave to be published/hosted by a local provider, but the government itself has to give approval first.
3) It makes more sense to emulate their successes in NA/EU rather than try to compete as an outsider in a near flooded market. TIP: "The House always wins," applies to doing business in different territories as much as it applies to gambling.
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
Now we have breached into a new subject of "what is more profitable." If you want to be technical Themeparks aren't more profitable on a subscriber standpoint.
Take WoW and its clones, it would have a subscriber base peaking around 16 million.
Lets look at Lineage II and UO and some of the other old school games. There peak subscriber base would be around 20 million. The minority may not actually be the minority from a numbers standpoint from finacial reports and things of that nature. Granit Lineage II made up most of those subscribers with a peak of 17million, that still goes to show that there are a lot of people out there looking for something that isn't a WoW clone.
The only sandbox game you listed even worth playing is Eve. Vanguard was given up on, and Ryzom has some really unappealing graphics. Mortal Online is a buggy failure and Darkfail is a huge grindfest that Aventurine doesnt know what to do with. If a AAA company came out and did a new Sandbox with decent graphics and some really nice features like Free form housing, castle sieges like lineage II and such it would be a huge hit just by looking at those subscriber numbers. The only reason so many sandboxes have failed is because they have been buggy nightmares or the graphics/animations look like they were done by a 12 year old.
I agree that sandboxes could use some more to them as well. I am hoping Archeage can appeal to both sets of gamers, and that seems to be what Jake Song is aiming for, a sandbox , themepark hybrid. A sandbox that just throws you into the world may succeed, FFXI did it and they werent a sandbox but they were successful. No a sandbox needs to guide its players a little as well. Tutorials and such help wonders, but also a sandbox is usually not for a casual gamer, so if a player cant set his own goals after going through the tutorial of a sandbox, there probably not the right game for him and he/she should give the many themeparks out there a go.
By no means is any arguement about a sandbox vs themepark debate about neglecting either form of gaming. I think there should be a choice for each style though. I dont enjoy themeparks all that much but I would like a decent sandbox to play. While another gamer might not enjoy sandboxes, but would like a themepark to play. There needs to be a game for each style, and right now we are seeing a flood of themeparks with a few pretty poorly done sandboxes.
"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
Clearly, Farmville is a clear winner in the MMO market.
Well, at the risk of taking the topic too far off course, Lineage 2 came out before wow and those who played it and loved it stayed. Heck, I stayed over 4 years. Even after I tried wow, loved some of the things it did and the subsequently went back to L2.
EVE is the amazing game that I want to play but can't because I would just spend way too much time in it. But it's there. Where are the millions of players all clamoring for an in depth sandbox that they can find in EVE?
Ryzom has great aesthetics so that is a personal opinion. I love Ryzom's world and art design. You are correct about Motral Online. Darkfall seems more about pvp than being a sandbox game. I'm not sure that is what it wanted to be but that is what it became. It still has a lot going for it and is one of those games that i feel I'd spend too much time in.
Also, L2's largest fanbase came from the east which is what fuels it today. It had large numbers before WoW was finished with its first year.
But you know what? we will see with archeage. that seems to be one of the few sandbox games to be coming out. of course it's an eastern game so many western players are either going to be leary of playign it or state that they hate the art design and won't play it on that basis alone.
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
Good lord, stop arguing that nonsense, L2 never had those numbers. It was in 3M range and today numbers can be around 1M top, as the game was registering steady decline since WoW was released...
Try to stay on topic guys! Thanks!
Sov, i'm glad that for once I could have a decent adult discussion with someone, without it turning into a flame war on MMORPG.
As for Eve, I played it for a awhile myself. Its a great sandbox, but it just isnt the game for everyone. Not having an avatar is a killer for some people. The feeling of not having complete control of your person, the point and click aspect of it. Eve is its own breed.
I am really looking forward to Archeage. Jake Song is one of my favorite developers. I hope that this game succeeds, hopefully it will ignite a spark in other developers to start, if not breaking the mold, creating new and improved features for both Sandboxes and Themeparks, not just different setting with a few new half assed things.
Edit:
Yeah Lineage II's subscirbers were and are mostly from Asia, but WoW's are as well. If we cut Asia from WoW, its subsribers would be around 4-5million.
"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 think that you are forgetting/neglecting the creative aspect here. The gaming industry is part of the cultural industry, and I believe that just as the producers and creators of music and film care about their products (it's art!), game developers have creative visions and goals too. Games have to be profitable that is true, but that is just part of the art of producing successful games.
Nope, you missed the subtleties of what I was doing. You were arguing one ridiculous extreme. I threw in a different (no more ridiculous) extreme, to point this out. The original argument, however, was neither ridiculous nor an extreme at all, and you were trying to make it seem so.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Lets avoid personal arguments please. Thank you.
Well, maybe they are right. On the other hand, maybe they are wrong.
Not many big producers come to the forums and discuss their ideas so most times it is a small group of people or a single individual.
Most arguments are based on 'it won't make money therefore I am right' or 'It has already been done and does not work so I am right' or the biggest one 'it is in this game already or that game already so why make another copy of the same thing and therefore I am right'
Some ideas are fantastic if fleshed out and some just down right suck. Most times all a forum post will get is these responses as others ignore which leads to another indie that quits and goes does something else.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
I agree with both of you. I feel many games are being made mostly just for money right now. But it isn't always that way and doesn't have to be. For example, Portal 2 was made to make money. Was it a great game? Got some pretty great reviews. Portal, on the other hand, was likely made from brilliance and passion as an art. Did the people who created it do so to be rich and famous? I couldn't tell you, but that is definitely not always the case.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Yowch. You don't think that's a bit harsh?
With that attitude, you could dismiss virtually every sequel of anything successful by saying that only the first one was a labor of love and everything after was a cash in. Not just in MMOs but in all games, books, movies, etc.
Financial argument can be made by both sides. A reasonable statement is 'XYZ feature/mechanic is financially better than 123 feature/mechanic'.
e.g 'Little death penalty sells better than a game with perma death in an MMO'
There is not really a 'right or wrong' opinion but there is a logical argument for 'this sells better so it makes sense for companies to do that'.
Public companies are in this to make money for their shareholders and as someone who lives in a captialistic society I accept that.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
They are aint they?
Film = First gets made, makes a big hit, sequel gets made, gets hyped to hell, bums out. When the Predator films are mentioned do you think of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Danny Glover? When the Aliens films are mentioned do you think of a group of marines and Michael Biehn or do you think back to Sigourney Weaver in the lifepod with only a short top on and very small nickers? (hmmmm perkies :P)
Books = Depends on what you read, personally i read Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Allen Poe and Bernard Cornwell (Sharpe).
Games = This is the main issue really. For single player games when sequels are mentioned i think of ME2, KotOR2 etc and think some are great and others are good but could have been better, FPS i think of the CoD and BF genres and have to say that CoD have stagnated and are just rehashes in different skins, BF are finally getting off their butts and making a true BF sequel with BF3. Then there are MMOs, the main bread and butter of a games company these days, can a sequel be done? sure there was Everquest II but without having played either i'll leave those that have to think on that one.
With regards to the profit of what will and won't work all i can say is look at SWG in 2005, outstanding game, more subscribers than was needed to make a profit, they change the game to the same sort of mechanics as WoW and others being released and bang, there goes the regular subscriber income, servers need to close due to lack of players and funds, they bring out a gambling system in order to try and make more money out of the bad crap they turned the actual game into (and yes, the TCG is gambling). With that said i think it's safe to say that if you were around during that time in that game you know first hand what makes a profit, game feature wise.
Actually, if people state "X would be fun", you cant even be sure that they themselves would actually enjoy a game that realizes X. For some hours, sure. But once the news have worn off, they would get used to it.
The main issue is that "X" is usually nothing that actually changes gameplay. But gameplay is the basis for longtime satisfaction with a game. A game which principles bore you wont keep you playing, no matter how much fluff got added to it.
The second issue is that "X" is often extremely expensive or outright impossible to realize. Extremely expensive equals not profitable. Unless you have a really big hit.
Thats besides why I so strongly oppose the "i-word". If someone states "X would increase immersion", its really rare that "X" would actually be an idea that actually improves the gameplay or the game as a whole. Most of the time its just expensive fluff or worse game elements that bloat off the gameplay, like realistic eating in a game not a Sims-like simulation.