See the problem with arguing without taking into account profitability is like arguing how the world would be a better place if we all stopped killing each other, it won't happen basically so there's no point in talking about it.
I agree its an overused argument, but thats because gamers who have never worked for a game have no idea what it takes to run a game and get things done, they just mouth off about what they don't like without any understanding of why its like that, and then offer completely unrealistic solutions to problems.
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.
In other words, developers absolutely will make a game less fun in order to increase profitability. Even if a feature will improve absolute net profit, it may well still be cut if it decreases margin.
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.
In other words, developers absolutely will make a game less fun in order to increase profitability. Even if a feature will improve absolute net profit, it may well still be cut if it decreases margin.
Features are variable, time and cost are generally not. Given X units of resources, make the most fun game.
You're supposing that developers say: "Dragonback Jousting would be a lot of fun, meaning that it would bring in more people and earn us more money. However, the extra time and staff needed to do it would cost more than we would make. So we're not putting Dragonback Jousting into the game."
In reality, it's more like: "Dragonback Jousting would be a lot of fun, meaning that it would bring in more people and earn us more money. However, we do not have the time and staff needed to do it by the deadline. To fit in jousting, we could abandon other features like raids, crafting, or guild banks, but we feel that those features are much more fun and necessary for the game to be good. So we're not putting Dragonback Jousting into the game."
Opportunity cost is not Let's compare the profit of adding this feature to the cost of adding this feature. It is Let's compare the profit (aka fun) of adding this feature to the profit (fun) of adding a different feature.
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.
In other words, developers absolutely will make a game less fun in order to increase profitability. Even if a feature will improve absolute net profit, it may well still be cut if it decreases margin.
Features are variable, time and cost are generally not. Given X units of resources, make the most fun game.
You're supposing that developers say: "Dragonback Jousting would be a lot of fun, meaning that it would bring in more people and earn us more money. However, the extra time and staff needed to do it would cost more than we would make. So we're not putting Dragonback Jousting into the game."
In reality, it's more like: "Dragonback Jousting would be a lot of fun, meaning that it would bring in more people and earn us more money. However, we do not have the time and staff needed to do it by the deadline. To fit in jousting, we could abandon other features like raids, crafting, or guild banks, but we feel that those features are much more fun and necessary for the game to be good. So we're not putting Dragonback Jousting into the game."
Opportunity cost is not Let's compare the profit of adding this feature to the cost of adding this feature. It is Let's compare the profit (aka fun) of adding this feature to the profit (fun) of adding a different feature.
Well said, Disdena.
Time, money and resources are finite. The scope of a project has to be within those finite constraints, and the quality of a product is determined by how well all four of those are managed. I truly believe that almost everyone in this thread would make a really great addition to the think tank or brainstorming teams for an MMO. I say that in complete sincerity. However, as project managers I think most of us here would end up releasing a client that would make Sigil's December 2006 beta build of Vanguard look like a stable and polished product.
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
Time, money and resources are finite. The scope of a project has to be within those finite constraints, and the quality of a product is determined by how well all four of those are managed. I truly believe that almost everyone in this thread would make a really great addition to the think tank or brainstorming teams for an MMO. I say that in complete sincerity. However, as project managers I think most of us here would end up releasing a client that would make Sigil's December 2006 beta build of Vanguard look like a stable and polished product.
Pft, no way. My idea for an MMO is you stand in a little box with windows, where you can see all the other players standing in identical boxes. There's two buttons. One drops a monster into the room, and you can kill it and loot it for tokens.
The other button drops a shopkeeper into the room, and you can trade in your tokens for better gear, so the other players you see don't get too far ahead of you in being AWESOME.
I'm pretty sure that I can make the game practically bug free with a mere ten million dollar budget. I could probably even come in significantly under budget.
See the problem with arguing without taking into account profitability is like arguing how the world would be a better place if we all stopped killing each other, it won't happen basically so there's no point in talking about it.
I agree its an overused argument, but thats because gamers who have never worked for a game have no idea what it takes to run a game and get things done, they just mouth off about what they don't like without any understanding of why its like that, and then offer completely unrealistic solutions to problems.
No, the problem is nobody mouthing off about "profitability" has any clue what they are talking about.
If you listened to that crowd, EVE would never be made. DAoC would probably never have been made. A game based on PvP? UO showed with trammel that won't work! It will FAIL!
The only thing gamers DO understand is what they enjoy plaing. But they, and in most cases even game DEvelopers, often don't know what will make a profit.
Did you know EQ was designed to last for a year or two at the most? That was the business plan. They planned that if they could get the game to stay up for a year or two, they'd make a profit. They had no idea it would be so popular or last so long.
If developers KNEW with certainty what would make a profit, they would not make Tabula Rasa, Ryzom, Auto Assault, The Matrix, and a host of others.
I think it's fine to start a discussion about profitability.
But what I see, is this is used as a fall back position to bolster your argument about fun.
Some one will start a discussion about why say, FFA PvP is fun.
And another person will start tearing that apart. You're wrong, it's all about ganking, and you must be a 12 year old that just wants to gank, etc., etc.
Adn the argument will go on for a bit, and then, bang, the person arguing why FFA PvP is such a terrible feature that is no enjoyable will say "But, but, but......not many people like that and it will FAIL! So why are you discussing ? You lose!"
They just switch mid stream from why it's fun, why you don't think it's fun, to the "profitability issue".
You see it with grouping vs solo discussions.
"But, but, but....most people like solo friendly games, so that will FAIL! "
Basically, any feature that's not prominent in WoW.
RvR?
"But, but, but....that's in DAoC go play that if you want to. And DAoC doesn't have the WoW numbers, so no need to make another RVR game, it will FAIL!"
Ok, you think an RvR game will fail. But why don't you think it's fun?
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.
Waxing philosophically about what's fun, and whats not in MMORPGs is fine, but when it comes down to brass tax....the profitability is a pretty big driver on whether or not a publisher picks a game up or not.
The reason the theoretical guy in your arugment eventually backs into that "It wouldn't be profitable" corner is because they don't understand MMORPG games outside the model of the UBER polished Big Tent MMORPG that WOW has made an industry gold standard.
WOW has set the expectation (particuarly among the younger MMO crowd) that all MMORPGs have developers that are working 365 days a year on releasing new content every 4 or so months, the soundtrack is laid down by world renown orchestras, and a general high level of polish and production value that makes everything seem relatively seemless and bug free.
All of these things take a ALOT of money to do. And if you (as the developer / publisher) want to operate in this space of casual MMORPG gaming....then that is what is required to compete with WOW.
So in that....yes, Electronic Arts cannot drop 500 million on a Ultima Online 2 and be profitable targeting the same old school sandbox audience. What game companies CAN do is lower thier costs so that making games for the niche audiences is more profitable.
Sandbox folks aren't looking for constant around the clock development.....give us the tools and let us create our own content. - Cost Saver
Sandbox folks aren't looking for complicated network technology that allows cross server grouping in instances of the persistant game world - Cost Saver
Sandbox folks aren't looking for ingame sound composed by award winning orchestras - Cost Saver
Sandbox folks are generally more interested in deep meaningful gameplay over breath taking graphics, written for the latest n' greatest computer hardware & 3D engines - Cost Saver
So when someone pulls out the "Your game isn't profitable" card, you can let them know that it can be, if all the fluff and crap that's been added to the MMORPG genere to satisfy the casual single player crowd is taken out.....it can be.
Time, money and resources are finite. The scope of a project has to be within those finite constraints, and the quality of a product is determined by how well all four of those are managed. I truly believe that almost everyone in this thread would make a really great addition to the think tank or brainstorming teams for an MMO. I say that in complete sincerity. However, as project managers I think most of us here would end up releasing a client that would make Sigil's December 2006 beta build of Vanguard look like a stable and polished product.
Pft, no way. My idea for an MMO is you stand in a little box with windows, where you can see all the other players standing in identical boxes. There's two buttons. One drops a monster into the room, and you can kill it and loot it for tokens.
The other button drops a shopkeeper into the room, and you can trade in your tokens for better gear, so the other players you see don't get too far ahead of you in being AWESOME.
I'm pretty sure that I can make the game practically bug free with a mere ten million dollar budget. I could probably even come in significantly under budget.
You forgot the third button for the cash shop, so you can buy the gear with your credit card, in case you don't have time to push the other two buttons.
Time, money and resources are finite. The scope of a project has to be within those finite constraints, and the quality of a product is determined by how well all four of those are managed. I truly believe that almost everyone in this thread would make a really great addition to the think tank or brainstorming teams for an MMO. I say that in complete sincerity. However, as project managers I think most of us here would end up releasing a client that would make Sigil's December 2006 beta build of Vanguard look like a stable and polished product.
Pft, no way. My idea for an MMO is you stand in a little box with windows, where you can see all the other players standing in identical boxes. There's two buttons. One drops a monster into the room, and you can kill it and loot it for tokens.
The other button drops a shopkeeper into the room, and you can trade in your tokens for better gear, so the other players you see don't get too far ahead of you in being AWESOME.
I'm pretty sure that I can make the game practically bug free with a mere ten million dollar budget. I could probably even come in significantly under budget.
You just reminded me of the lever dungeon in AC, Meowhead.
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 personally don't pull out the 'your game wouldn't be profitable' card, I pull out the 'Great idea. You should go make it and prove everybody wrong' card.
If everybody who had a game preference made a game meeting it, instead of complaining about how such a game didn't exist... well, these forums would actually be pretty empty.
... no, scratch that. Instead of people saying 'I wish there was a game that had X', it would be full of people saying 'I played this game that had X, but it sucked, somebody should do it, but BETTER.'
The point isn't whether or not =I= think a game will be profitable, it's if you can convince anybody who can actually do anything about it that it'll be profitable.
(edit: Maybe I'm hanging out in the wrong threads, but I usually see the 'They're not doing it because it wont' be profitable' comment in a thread where somebody else started off by saying 'Why don't game companies do what I want, instead of what they're doing?'. I think this is mostly because people are REALLY free with other people's money. 'They should spend it the way I want!'. Well... good luck with that. I'd suggest lots of charts and petitions and maybe winning the lottery and investing it in your own game. That's the surest way to get a lot of money invested the way you'd like)
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
You forgot the third button for the cash shop, so you can buy the gear with your credit card, in case you don't have time to push the other two buttons.
I came up with that game design when a friend of mine told me he wanted to make an MMORPG. I told him if he could make at least THAT much, I'd believe that he was serious.
... but your third button really moves this game into financially viable territory! I like it. That's a great third button. Also, it made me laugh.
I personally don't pull out the 'your game wouldn't be profitable' card, I pull out the 'Great idea. You should go make it and prove everybody wrong' card.
If everybody who had a game preference made a game meeting it, instead of complaining about how such a game didn't exist... well, these forums would actually be pretty empty.
... no, scratch that. Instead of people saying 'I wish there was a game that had X', it would be full of people saying 'I played this game that had X, but it sucked, somebody should do it, but BETTER.'
The point isn't whether or not =I= think a game will be profitable, it's if you can convince anybody who can actually do anything about it that it'll be profitable.
I don't think anyone on this forum has a clue about what will be profitable or not.
I think the majority of those making the "People dont' like that it will FAIL" argument, would have vetoed EVE.
I also don't think the "you should make it" argument is valid.
Do you want a new movie to come out?
A sequel to something you liked, a movie about a comic book you liked, a game, a book you read?
Should people tell you to go make that movie?
What's the point in that?
You WATCH movies, you don't make them. You're part of the audience, not a director.
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.
Well in truth, all games are made to create profit or generate the potential for future profit. That said, this does NOT mean games are not artistic. Capitalism is just the society we live in, and to be honest, I think it encourages art more than old systems.
In the 17th century, artists were employed by lords and basically had to create art to please their patron. This was great for artists that had patrons, but the vast majority of them did not and were paupers.
Now however, artists are basically employed by everyone by virtue of being able to sell their art. It allows a lot more artists to benefit and I think it encourages art over all. Just because something was made to make a profit does not mean it's not artistic.
See the problem with arguing without taking into account profitability is like arguing how the world would be a better place if we all stopped killing each other, it won't happen basically so there's no point in talking about it.
I agree its an overused argument, but thats because gamers who have never worked for a game have no idea what it takes to run a game and get things done, they just mouth off about what they don't like without any understanding of why its like that, and then offer completely unrealistic solutions to problems.
No, the problem is nobody mouthing off about "profitability" has any clue what they are talking about. If you listened to that crowd, EVE would never be made. DAoC would probably never have been made. A game based on PvP? UO showed with trammel that won't work! It will FAIL!
Actually, UO showed that players will enjoy a game that supports both PvE and PvP as long as the PvE players have reasonable insulation from the PvP part. Both EVE and DAoC have that as a core part of their design.
it will FAIL!
that will FAIL!
it will FAIL!"
I don't see the point in making it seem like anyone here is shouting you down when quite a few have presented logical and practical reasons for the stances they hold on the matter.
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
Just to add to this discussion, here is a list of some little ideas/products that were rejected as not being profitable at first:
1. Harry Potter - Rejected by three separate publishers.
2. Microsoft Windows - IBM refused to endorse it.
3. Dyson Vacuums - No one would invest in it, James Dyson had to remortgage his house to finance his venture.
4. The Beatles - Rejected by two record companies before finding one that offered them a recording contract.
5. Monopoly - Initially rejected by Parker Bros., the inventor financed it himself, and Parker Bros had to spend a fortune buying it back.
There are many more.
The point is that it is VERY difficult to judge what will be profitable even for industry "gurus," and mistakes are made all the time. So when someone on a forum, with very little industry knowledge, spouts off that idea X will fail because it won't be profitable, they probably have no idea what they are talking about.
The point is that it is VERY difficult to judge what will be profitable even for industry "gurus," and mistakes are made all the time. So when someone on a forum, with very little industry knowledge, spouts off that idea X will fail because it won't be profitable, they probably have no idea what they are talking about.
Technically, they have just as much of an idea what they're talking about as the person who says that if some AAA company would just man up and make the game that person wants, they'd make a fortune.
It cuts both ways! This whole site is full of people who can't actually tell the future!
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.
I think you should just say it. He is making, like a lot of people do these days, a strawman argument. When someone is making a strawman argument, they are having an internal discussion, and not having a discussion with you. There is no way two people can come to an understanding when it is that way.
I think what usually happens is someone asks a question, "I like xxx feature, I see a lot of people post that xxx feature is fun, I wonder why there isn't more of it. I wonder why large developers, like Blizzard and Bioware, don't add them to their games?"
Someone else, "They are going for mainstream audiences, and that feature would make it a niche game, and their huge money investment would go down the drain. Derp!"
Person is insulted, "OMG, just because you don't like a feature, doesn't mean it won't be profitable" (strawman)
Honestly, I don't see a lot of people calling for Eve not to exist. They do tell why those features are not, and should not be from a business point of view, incorporated in games that are shooting for millions of subscribers. This in itself could be inaccurate, however they are just answering the question with what we know today.
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.
You're right, I wasn't trying to say all sequels don't have brilliance and passion behind them. It was just an example.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Originally posted by Creslin321 Just to add to this discussion, here is a list of some little ideas/products that were rejected as not being profitable at first: 1. Harry Potter - Rejected by three separate publishers. 2. Microsoft Windows - IBM refused to endorse it. 3. Dyson Vacuums - No one would invest in it, James Dyson had to remortgage his house to finance his venture. 4. The Beatles - Rejected by two record companies before finding one that offered them a recording contract. 5. Monopoly - Initially rejected by Parker Bros., the inventor financed it himself, and Parker Bros had to spend a fortune buying it back.
There are many more. The point is that it is VERY difficult to judge what will be profitable even for industry "gurus," and mistakes are made all the time. So when someone on a forum, with very little industry knowledge, spouts off that idea X will fail because it won't be profitable, they probably have no idea what they are talking about.
What you are not saying is that vast majority of small businesses won't make it past first 3 years. There are more closed businesses than there are successful ones and listed examples are statistical exceptions only.
Statistically, my 'clone' has better chances to be successful than risky project.
Those projects were rejected not because investors had no clue about what is profitable, on the contrary. They knew what is profitable but they were considered as too risky.
The point is that it is VERY difficult to judge what will be profitable even for industry "gurus," and mistakes are made all the time. So when someone on a forum, with very little industry knowledge, spouts off that idea X will fail because it won't be profitable, they probably have no idea what they are talking about.
Technically, they have just as much of an idea what they're talking about as the person who says that if some AAA company would just man up and make the game that person wants, they'd make a fortune.
It cuts both ways! This whole site is full of people who can't actually tell the future!
Exactly.
But you can defintely explain why you prefer solo gaming to games that encourage grouping, why you like PvE and don't care for PvP, or you like RvR but not FFA, or why you want player crafted items to be the best in the game, why you would enjoy a perma death game, why you think that's the most horrible way to play a game, etc., etc.
And that's interesting. I want to hear your opinions about what you think is fun in the game, and why you think that.
Do your predictions about "any game having X feature will fail" mean anything?
See the problem with arguing without taking into account profitability is like arguing how the world would be a better place if we all stopped killing each other, it won't happen basically so there's no point in talking about it.
I agree its an overused argument, but thats because gamers who have never worked for a game have no idea what it takes to run a game and get things done, they just mouth off about what they don't like without any understanding of why its like that, and then offer completely unrealistic solutions to problems.
No, the problem is nobody mouthing off about "profitability" has any clue what they are talking about.
If you listened to that crowd, EVE would never be made. DAoC would probably never have been made. A game based on PvP? UO showed with trammel that won't work! It will FAIL!
Actually, UO showed that players will enjoy a game that supports both PvE and PvP as long as the PvE players have reasonable insulation from the PvP part. Both EVE and DAoC have that as a core part of their design.
it will FAIL!
that will FAIL!
it will FAIL!"
I don't see the point in making it seem like anyone here is shouting you down when quite a few have presented logical and practical reasons for the stances they hold on the matter.
Is there one person on this thread who has industry experience? Ones who say "your idea sucks because it wouldn't bring in revenue" are basing that off their own subjective assumption. I don't want to hear anyone who does not have industry experience say an idea will or will not make money. That is 100% up to the developer, designer and investor. Not you, not some guy on the forum who thinks they understand the principles of game design. Now, I am not negating ones on the forum who are inspired game designers and actually are trying to comprehend the whole package of gamedesign; but the ones who are clueless on game design and all of the attributes that go along with it.
Is there one person on this thread who has industry experience? Ones who say "your idea sucks because it wouldn't bring in revenue" are basing that off their own subjective assumption. I don't want to hear anyone who does not have industry experience say an idea will or will not make money. That is 100% up to the developer, designer and investor. Not you, not some guy on the forum who thinks they understand the principles of game design. Now, I am not negating ones on the forum who are inspired game designers and actually are trying to comprehend the whole package of gamedesign; but the ones who are clueless on game design and all of the attributes that go along with it.
I had a 1 year stint working in the industry, but not as a developer, I worked in TS at Blizzard right before BC launch, but that in no way made me an expert on the financial operations going on up top. I was a peon, so to speak.
That said, I still don't think anyone's opinion HERE on a forum on whether a game will or won't be profitible has any real significance. It's all speculation based on their own experiences in the games they have played. What their friends say, or their guildmates, or the other posters on forums. That's all... and that means little to nothing. As said in one of the posts above mine, if all these people that think "different" = non-profitible, than we would have never seen EVE, DFO, DaOC, UO, SWG, or any other sandbox style MMO.
Again, I'm waiting for one of these corporate economists posing as forum posters to show me one shred of proof that copying WoW mechanics/gameplay/graphics aka "stuff that works" is more profitible than sandbox mechanics being a part of the game design for new titles, because as of right now, aside from WoW, themepark games aren't doing stellar in comparison.
EVE for life.
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.
Again, I'm waiting for one of these corporate economists posing as forum posters to show me one shred of proof that copying WoW mechanics/gameplay/graphics aka "stuff that works" is more profitible than sandbox mechanics being a part of the game design for new titles, because as of right now, aside from WoW, themepark games aren't doing stellar in comparison.
Aion is kicking ass and taking names. Just sayin'.
... and LotRO is making mad money.
... and Rift has already made a profit, even if they were to shut down the servers tommorow.
It's pretty sad when 'Better than Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, Asheron's Call or Anarchy Online ever managed to do' = 'not doing stellar'.
They're not WoW, but they're doing well for themselves.
Again, I'm waiting for one of these corporate economists posing as forum posters to show me one shred of proof that copying WoW mechanics/gameplay/graphics aka "stuff that works" is more profitible than sandbox mechanics being a part of the game design for new titles, because as of right now, aside from WoW, themepark games aren't doing stellar in comparison.
Aion is kicking ass and taking names. Just sayin'.
... and LotRO is making mad money.
... and Rift has already made a profit, even if they were to shut down the servers tommorow.
It's pretty sad when 'Better than Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, Asheron's Call or Anarchy Online ever managed to do' = 'not doing stellar'.
They're not WoW, but they're doing well for themselves.
I didn't say they weren't profitting. As a matter of fact, I personally really enjoyed Aion for what it was...
All I'm saying is that too many people talk about how themepark(S) are more profitible than sandboxes in the MMORPG genre, when the only one doing far better than anything else is WoW. Outside of that one title, the rest of them, themepark or sandbox alike, are on average pretty close in subscriber numbers.
That is the point I was touching on.
If you take away WoW from the equasion, what makes people think themeparks are the only financially logical direction for developers to go?
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 didn't say they weren't profitting. As a matter of fact, I personally really enjoyed Aion for what it was...
All I'm saying is that too many people talk about how themepark(S) are more profitible than sandboxes in the MMORPG genre, when the only one doing far better than anything else is WoW. Outside of that one title, the rest of them, themepark or sandbox alike, are on average pretty close in subscriber numbers.
That is the point I was touching on.
If you take away WoW from the equasion, what makes people think themeparks are the only financially logical direction for developers to go?
I'd say that the fact there's room for WoW AND Aion and LotRO and all the other themepark games....
... and then compare to how many active sandbox games there are, and how many members they have.
There's apparently TONS of themepark fans... or at least, a lot of sandbox fans who are willing to choke down their bile and play a themepark rather than Xsyon or Darkfall or Fallen Earth or something.
Seriously, the fact there's so MANY themepark games, yet somehow they manage to be successful... it's pretty crazy if you think about it!
I agree the world could use more sandboxes, but somehow they still manage to shoehorn in more themeparks despite the amazing numbers of people already playing them, so they must be doing something right.
Comments
See the problem with arguing without taking into account profitability is like arguing how the world would be a better place if we all stopped killing each other, it won't happen basically so there's no point in talking about it.
I agree its an overused argument, but thats because gamers who have never worked for a game have no idea what it takes to run a game and get things done, they just mouth off about what they don't like without any understanding of why its like that, and then offer completely unrealistic solutions to problems.
In other words, developers absolutely will make a game less fun in order to increase profitability. Even if a feature will improve absolute net profit, it may well still be cut if it decreases margin.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Features are variable, time and cost are generally not. Given X units of resources, make the most fun game.
You're supposing that developers say: "Dragonback Jousting would be a lot of fun, meaning that it would bring in more people and earn us more money. However, the extra time and staff needed to do it would cost more than we would make. So we're not putting Dragonback Jousting into the game."
In reality, it's more like: "Dragonback Jousting would be a lot of fun, meaning that it would bring in more people and earn us more money. However, we do not have the time and staff needed to do it by the deadline. To fit in jousting, we could abandon other features like raids, crafting, or guild banks, but we feel that those features are much more fun and necessary for the game to be good. So we're not putting Dragonback Jousting into the game."
Opportunity cost is not Let's compare the profit of adding this feature to the cost of adding this feature. It is Let's compare the profit (aka fun) of adding this feature to the profit (fun) of adding a different feature.
Well said, Disdena.
Time, money and resources are finite. The scope of a project has to be within those finite constraints, and the quality of a product is determined by how well all four of those are managed. I truly believe that almost everyone in this thread would make a really great addition to the think tank or brainstorming teams for an MMO. I say that in complete sincerity. However, as project managers I think most of us here would end up releasing a client that would make Sigil's December 2006 beta build of Vanguard look like a stable and polished product.
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
Pft, no way. My idea for an MMO is you stand in a little box with windows, where you can see all the other players standing in identical boxes. There's two buttons. One drops a monster into the room, and you can kill it and loot it for tokens.
The other button drops a shopkeeper into the room, and you can trade in your tokens for better gear, so the other players you see don't get too far ahead of you in being AWESOME.
I'm pretty sure that I can make the game practically bug free with a mere ten million dollar budget. I could probably even come in significantly under budget.
No, the problem is nobody mouthing off about "profitability" has any clue what they are talking about.
If you listened to that crowd, EVE would never be made. DAoC would probably never have been made. A game based on PvP? UO showed with trammel that won't work! It will FAIL!
The only thing gamers DO understand is what they enjoy plaing. But they, and in most cases even game DEvelopers, often don't know what will make a profit.
Did you know EQ was designed to last for a year or two at the most? That was the business plan. They planned that if they could get the game to stay up for a year or two, they'd make a profit. They had no idea it would be so popular or last so long.
If developers KNEW with certainty what would make a profit, they would not make Tabula Rasa, Ryzom, Auto Assault, The Matrix, and a host of others.
I think it's fine to start a discussion about profitability.
But what I see, is this is used as a fall back position to bolster your argument about fun.
Some one will start a discussion about why say, FFA PvP is fun.
And another person will start tearing that apart. You're wrong, it's all about ganking, and you must be a 12 year old that just wants to gank, etc., etc.
Adn the argument will go on for a bit, and then, bang, the person arguing why FFA PvP is such a terrible feature that is no enjoyable will say "But, but, but......not many people like that and it will FAIL! So why are you discussing ? You lose!"
They just switch mid stream from why it's fun, why you don't think it's fun, to the "profitability issue".
You see it with grouping vs solo discussions.
"But, but, but....most people like solo friendly games, so that will FAIL! "
Basically, any feature that's not prominent in WoW.
RvR?
"But, but, but....that's in DAoC go play that if you want to. And DAoC doesn't have the WoW numbers, so no need to make another RVR game, it will FAIL!"
Ok, you think an RvR game will fail. But why don't you think it's fun?
Waxing philosophically about what's fun, and whats not in MMORPGs is fine, but when it comes down to brass tax....the profitability is a pretty big driver on whether or not a publisher picks a game up or not.
The reason the theoretical guy in your arugment eventually backs into that "It wouldn't be profitable" corner is because they don't understand MMORPG games outside the model of the UBER polished Big Tent MMORPG that WOW has made an industry gold standard.
WOW has set the expectation (particuarly among the younger MMO crowd) that all MMORPGs have developers that are working 365 days a year on releasing new content every 4 or so months, the soundtrack is laid down by world renown orchestras, and a general high level of polish and production value that makes everything seem relatively seemless and bug free.
All of these things take a ALOT of money to do. And if you (as the developer / publisher) want to operate in this space of casual MMORPG gaming....then that is what is required to compete with WOW.
So in that....yes, Electronic Arts cannot drop 500 million on a Ultima Online 2 and be profitable targeting the same old school sandbox audience. What game companies CAN do is lower thier costs so that making games for the niche audiences is more profitable.
Sandbox folks aren't looking for constant around the clock development.....give us the tools and let us create our own content. - Cost Saver
Sandbox folks aren't looking for complicated network technology that allows cross server grouping in instances of the persistant game world - Cost Saver
Sandbox folks aren't looking for ingame sound composed by award winning orchestras - Cost Saver
Sandbox folks are generally more interested in deep meaningful gameplay over breath taking graphics, written for the latest n' greatest computer hardware & 3D engines - Cost Saver
So when someone pulls out the "Your game isn't profitable" card, you can let them know that it can be, if all the fluff and crap that's been added to the MMORPG genere to satisfy the casual single player crowd is taken out.....it can be.
You forgot the third button for the cash shop, so you can buy the gear with your credit card, in case you don't have time to push the other two buttons.
You just reminded me of the lever dungeon in AC, Meowhead.
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 personally don't pull out the 'your game wouldn't be profitable' card, I pull out the 'Great idea. You should go make it and prove everybody wrong' card.
If everybody who had a game preference made a game meeting it, instead of complaining about how such a game didn't exist... well, these forums would actually be pretty empty.
... no, scratch that. Instead of people saying 'I wish there was a game that had X', it would be full of people saying 'I played this game that had X, but it sucked, somebody should do it, but BETTER.'
The point isn't whether or not =I= think a game will be profitable, it's if you can convince anybody who can actually do anything about it that it'll be profitable.
(edit: Maybe I'm hanging out in the wrong threads, but I usually see the 'They're not doing it because it wont' be profitable' comment in a thread where somebody else started off by saying 'Why don't game companies do what I want, instead of what they're doing?'. I think this is mostly because people are REALLY free with other people's money. 'They should spend it the way I want!'. Well... good luck with that. I'd suggest lots of charts and petitions and maybe winning the lottery and investing it in your own game. That's the surest way to get a lot of money invested the way you'd like)
I came up with that game design when a friend of mine told me he wanted to make an MMORPG. I told him if he could make at least THAT much, I'd believe that he was serious.
... but your third button really moves this game into financially viable territory! I like it. That's a great third button. Also, it made me laugh.
I don't think anyone on this forum has a clue about what will be profitable or not.
I think the majority of those making the "People dont' like that it will FAIL" argument, would have vetoed EVE.
I also don't think the "you should make it" argument is valid.
Do you want a new movie to come out?
A sequel to something you liked, a movie about a comic book you liked, a game, a book you read?
Should people tell you to go make that movie?
What's the point in that?
You WATCH movies, you don't make them. You're part of the audience, not a director.
Well in truth, all games are made to create profit or generate the potential for future profit. That said, this does NOT mean games are not artistic. Capitalism is just the society we live in, and to be honest, I think it encourages art more than old systems.
In the 17th century, artists were employed by lords and basically had to create art to please their patron. This was great for artists that had patrons, but the vast majority of them did not and were paupers.
Now however, artists are basically employed by everyone by virtue of being able to sell their art. It allows a lot more artists to benefit and I think it encourages art over all. Just because something was made to make a profit does not mean it's not artistic.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Actually, UO showed that players will enjoy a game that supports both PvE and PvP as long as the PvE players have reasonable insulation from the PvP part. Both EVE and DAoC have that as a core part of their design.
I don't see the point in making it seem like anyone here is shouting you down when quite a few have presented logical and practical reasons for the stances they hold on the matter.
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
Just to add to this discussion, here is a list of some little ideas/products that were rejected as not being profitable at first:
1. Harry Potter - Rejected by three separate publishers.
2. Microsoft Windows - IBM refused to endorse it.
3. Dyson Vacuums - No one would invest in it, James Dyson had to remortgage his house to finance his venture.
4. The Beatles - Rejected by two record companies before finding one that offered them a recording contract.
5. Monopoly - Initially rejected by Parker Bros., the inventor financed it himself, and Parker Bros had to spend a fortune buying it back.
There are many more.
The point is that it is VERY difficult to judge what will be profitable even for industry "gurus," and mistakes are made all the time. So when someone on a forum, with very little industry knowledge, spouts off that idea X will fail because it won't be profitable, they probably have no idea what they are talking about.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Technically, they have just as much of an idea what they're talking about as the person who says that if some AAA company would just man up and make the game that person wants, they'd make a fortune.
It cuts both ways! This whole site is full of people who can't actually tell the future!
I think you should just say it. He is making, like a lot of people do these days, a strawman argument. When someone is making a strawman argument, they are having an internal discussion, and not having a discussion with you. There is no way two people can come to an understanding when it is that way.
I think what usually happens is someone asks a question, "I like xxx feature, I see a lot of people post that xxx feature is fun, I wonder why there isn't more of it. I wonder why large developers, like Blizzard and Bioware, don't add them to their games?"
Someone else, "They are going for mainstream audiences, and that feature would make it a niche game, and their huge money investment would go down the drain. Derp!"
Person is insulted, "OMG, just because you don't like a feature, doesn't mean it won't be profitable" (strawman)
Honestly, I don't see a lot of people calling for Eve not to exist. They do tell why those features are not, and should not be from a business point of view, incorporated in games that are shooting for millions of subscribers. This in itself could be inaccurate, however they are just answering the question with what we know today.
You're right, I wasn't trying to say all sequels don't have brilliance and passion behind them. It was just an example.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
What you are not saying is that vast majority of small businesses won't make it past first 3 years. There are more closed businesses than there are successful ones and listed examples are statistical exceptions only.
Statistically, my 'clone' has better chances to be successful than risky project.
Those projects were rejected not because investors had no clue about what is profitable, on the contrary. They knew what is profitable but they were considered as too risky.
Exactly.
But you can defintely explain why you prefer solo gaming to games that encourage grouping, why you like PvE and don't care for PvP, or you like RvR but not FFA, or why you want player crafted items to be the best in the game, why you would enjoy a perma death game, why you think that's the most horrible way to play a game, etc., etc.
And that's interesting. I want to hear your opinions about what you think is fun in the game, and why you think that.
Do your predictions about "any game having X feature will fail" mean anything?
IMO, they don't.
I guess my post has failed.
Is there one person on this thread who has industry experience? Ones who say "your idea sucks because it wouldn't bring in revenue" are basing that off their own subjective assumption. I don't want to hear anyone who does not have industry experience say an idea will or will not make money. That is 100% up to the developer, designer and investor. Not you, not some guy on the forum who thinks they understand the principles of game design. Now, I am not negating ones on the forum who are inspired game designers and actually are trying to comprehend the whole package of gamedesign; but the ones who are clueless on game design and all of the attributes that go along with it.
I had a 1 year stint working in the industry, but not as a developer, I worked in TS at Blizzard right before BC launch, but that in no way made me an expert on the financial operations going on up top. I was a peon, so to speak.
That said, I still don't think anyone's opinion HERE on a forum on whether a game will or won't be profitible has any real significance. It's all speculation based on their own experiences in the games they have played. What their friends say, or their guildmates, or the other posters on forums. That's all... and that means little to nothing. As said in one of the posts above mine, if all these people that think "different" = non-profitible, than we would have never seen EVE, DFO, DaOC, UO, SWG, or any other sandbox style MMO.
Again, I'm waiting for one of these corporate economists posing as forum posters to show me one shred of proof that copying WoW mechanics/gameplay/graphics aka "stuff that works" is more profitible than sandbox mechanics being a part of the game design for new titles, because as of right now, aside from WoW, themepark games aren't doing stellar in comparison.
EVE for life.
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.
Aion is kicking ass and taking names. Just sayin'.
... and LotRO is making mad money.
... and Rift has already made a profit, even if they were to shut down the servers tommorow.
It's pretty sad when 'Better than Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, Asheron's Call or Anarchy Online ever managed to do' = 'not doing stellar'.
They're not WoW, but they're doing well for themselves.
I didn't say they weren't profitting. As a matter of fact, I personally really enjoyed Aion for what it was...
All I'm saying is that too many people talk about how themepark(S) are more profitible than sandboxes in the MMORPG genre, when the only one doing far better than anything else is WoW. Outside of that one title, the rest of them, themepark or sandbox alike, are on average pretty close in subscriber numbers.
That is the point I was touching on.
If you take away WoW from the equasion, what makes people think themeparks are the only financially logical direction for developers to go?
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'd say that the fact there's room for WoW AND Aion and LotRO and all the other themepark games....
... and then compare to how many active sandbox games there are, and how many members they have.
There's apparently TONS of themepark fans... or at least, a lot of sandbox fans who are willing to choke down their bile and play a themepark rather than Xsyon or Darkfall or Fallen Earth or something.
Seriously, the fact there's so MANY themepark games, yet somehow they manage to be successful... it's pretty crazy if you think about it!
I agree the world could use more sandboxes, but somehow they still manage to shoehorn in more themeparks despite the amazing numbers of people already playing them, so they must be doing something right.