Originally posted by Ceridith There are many decent gameplay concepts that were present in older MMOs that are completely void in new MMOs. Not because they were fundamentally flawed or unenjoyable, but because there is the perception of today's developers that these features aren't worthy of development resources.
And where this perception of nowadays developers came from...go figure.
It certainly isn't because 'decent' concepts lost subscribers to nowadays concepts...
If you seriously believe that 'discussions' on these boards are an attempt at anything...there isn't anything that could pierce your blindness.
In this business, the more fun the game is, the more money it should make. So FUN should be the focus of the developer. That's the problem though. They have it backwards. They aren't thinking about making games fun. They're thinking about how to make money, so they come up with some gimmicks and advertise, then the gamer gets duped into thinking it's fun, it's not, too late. Your money is now spent along with thousands of others.
There are many decent gameplay concepts that were present in older MMOs that are completely void in new MMOs. Not because they were fundamentally flawed or unenjoyable, but because there is the perception of today's developers that these features aren't worthy of development resources.
And where this perception of nowadays developers came from...go figure.
It certainly isn't because 'decent' concepts lost subscribers to nowadays concepts...
If you seriously believe that 'discussions' on these boards are an attempt at anything...there isn't anything that could pierce your blindness.
The perception has come from Blizzard's freak success with WOW, which lacks countless game features. 'If WoW doesn't need X, Y, Z, to get millions of people playing, then why should another MMO?' Well, we've all seen how well copying WoW's "forumula" has done in the past... which should hint to developers that maybe what Blizzard can get away with leaving out of an MMO isn't something they can get away with leaving out of an MMO.
And no, I don't seriously believe that discussions of what I like or don't like in an MMO are actually going to have an impact on anything. While it would be nice if a developer stumbled onto these boards and reconsidered the feasibility of a game feature based on feedback, I highly doubt it would ever happen. Discussions on these forums are moreso to vent frustration with the state of things, and to simply share ideas with likeminded individuals, not to mention get news about upcoming MMOs.
In this business, the more fun the game is, the more money it should make. So FUN should be the focus of the developer. That's the problem though. They have it backwards. They aren't thinking about making games fun. They're thinking about how to make money, so they come up with some gimmicks and advertise, then the gamer gets duped into thinking it's fun, it's not, too late. Your money is now spent along with thousands of others.
What makes you think that the game isn't fun? Apparently, if it's financially successful, lots of people think it's fun. Just because *YOU* don't, doesn't mean a damn thing.
In this business, the more fun the game is, the more money it should make. So FUN should be the focus of the developer. That's the problem though. They have it backwards. They aren't thinking about making games fun. They're thinking about how to make money, so they come up with some gimmicks and advertise, then the gamer gets duped into thinking it's fun, it's not, too late. Your money is now spent along with thousands of others.
In this business, the more fun the game is, the more money it should make. So FUN should be the focus of the developer. That's the problem though. They have it backwards. They aren't thinking about making games fun. They're thinking about how to make money, so they come up with some gimmicks and advertise, then the gamer gets duped into thinking it's fun, it's not, too late. Your money is now spent along with thousands of others.
I think that "fun" is a far too subjective term to use when describing what a game should be. Saying a game should be "fun" is almost the same as saying it should be "good." Of course a game should be both good and fun, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. No developer is going to say "our game will not be fun."
The problem is that "fun" means a different thing to every person. So what one person thinks is very fun is extremely boring to another.
What this means is that a game developer has to pick and choose who their game is going to appeal to. They could try to go for a game that appeals to a massive amount of people, but they may miss the mark since many people want differing things, and wind up attracting no one. On the other hand, they may choose to make a game that appeals to a small group of people extremely, but this group may be so small that no profit is made.
This is really the heart of what strategic marketing is. Examining your potential customers, picking a group that you're going to appeal to, determining what they want, and delivering it in a product. If you do this right, the game will be extremely "fun" to your target market.
I am all for talking about features and ideas and systems that lead to fun instead of profitability. The problem is, you can hardly quantify fun, and fun is so subjective there really isn't an argument you can win about fun right? What's fun for you might not be fun for you so who can argue that? It just is. I think in the end, profitability can certainly be recorded and measured so we wind up in that park. What's unfortunate is it's just like movies, you can have a fun game or movie that isn't profitable, but it's still fun.
In any event, I do know one thing, industries like to stick with the status quo, and the status quo will make them money, somewhat reliably for awhile, until the next big thing that creatures the next status quo. Too many MMOs start off trying to create the next big thing and then wind up settling for a quasi status quo that isn't solid enough to be status quo and not new enough to take it to the next level.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
In this business, the more fun the game is, the more money it should make. So FUN should be the focus of the developer. That's the problem though. They have it backwards. They aren't thinking about making games fun. They're thinking about how to make money, so they come up with some gimmicks and advertise, then the gamer gets duped into thinking it's fun, it's not, too late. Your money is now spent along with thousands of others.
The joy of pre-ordering.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I am all for talking about features and ideas and systems that lead to fun instead of profitability. The problem is, you can hardly quantify fun, and fun is so subjective there really isn't an argument you can win about fun right? What's fun for you might not be fun for you so who can argue that? It just is. I think in the end, profitability can certainly be recorded and measured so we wind up in that park. What's unfortunate is it's just like movies, you can have a fun game or movie that isn't profitable, but it's still fun.
In any event, I do know one thing, industries like to stick with the status quo, and the status quo will make them money, somewhat reliably for awhile, until the next big thing that creatures the next status quo. Too many MMOs start off trying to create the next big thing and then wind up settling for a quasi status quo that isn't solid enough to be status quo and not new enough to take it to the next level.
Good point on the metrics....I never thought about that, but makes perfect sense.
There are a couple of things happening in the MMO space that will determine what we will see in development over the next 5 years.
Bioware spending nearly as much money on SW:TOR as it cost to make Avatar
If SW:TOR goes the way of Warhammer and barely scratches into WOW's market share.....I think the AAA publishers will conceed the fight and focus on smaller niche markets (if they decide to stay in the MMO space)
ArcheAge by XL Games - Full blown sandbox game with AAA production quality
If ArcheAge becomes a commercial success, expect the big publishers to shift gears back to virtual world building with player generated content in mind
If a company makes one penny over what is required to pay all of it's expenses, it made a profit.
The only person that cares about profit are the people who get those profits. The company owner. I can't even say shareholders if it's a publicly traded company because stock value isn't even entirely based on profit. (I"m no business whiz. I'm no stock market guru. However, when a company like best buy loses money over the coarse of a year, and tells it's investores they have a 10 year cost saving plan, and then thier stock price jumps because of SPECULATION, it's a pretty good indicator that stocks aren't entirely based on profit.)
What we have on these forums is a disconnect from reality, and logic, for a considerable portion of posters.
X game is fail, going to fail, has failed because:
I don't like it
It has so and so feature
It doesn't have so and so feature
it's made by so and so developer
It's associated with so and so publisher
Etc, etc. etc.
It's a case of the know it all twerps, and armchair developers who know more and can do better then the company behind "X" game. Coincidentally, they aren't game developers, or even have any experience developing a video game; let alone an MMO.
It's also funny how a lot of people here can tell us what is and isn't profittible whithout ever seeing finacial records for any game. Cryptic says their games make money, but according to people here they don't.
Your conclusion is that no one could use an "old school" feature, in a game in a way that is new and innovative.
That all games must be the same, if they have one particular feature in them, regardless of the other 100's of features they have, or the way those features are implemented.
I don't think that's correct.
I never said an old school feature, I said an old school MMO. Lots of people seem to be looking for UO with shiny new graphics and that kind of game simply will never fly again, no matter what it looks like. You can take a feature here and there and it might work. Trying to recreate the past, however, is doomed to failure.
I think the features are irrelevant.
What is relevant is the budget.
If I make a UO clone with shiny new graphic for a Billion dollars, I will never make my money back. I'm certain of that.
If I make a UO clone with shiny new graphics for 50 cents, I will make a HUGE profit. I'm certain of that.
Obviously, no one would spend a Billion dollars making a UO clone with shiny new graphics, and yuo cannot make a UO clone with shiny new graphics for 50 cents.
But the "profitablitly" lies somewhere in between, nothing to do with the "features".
Profit = revenue minus overhead.
NO ONE would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm sure that's not true.
How many people would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm certain I don't know, and I'm really certain you don't either.
Could you make it cheaply enough, and would enough people play, that it would make a profit?
I'm very certain you don't know the answer to that question either.
I do know that you understand what you like to play, and apparantly you don't like UO.
The perception has come from Blizzard's freak success with WOW, which lacks countless game features. 'If WoW doesn't need X, Y, Z, to get millions of people playing, then why should another MMO?' Well, we've all seen how well copying WoW's "forumula" has done in the past... which should hint to developers that maybe what Blizzard can get away with leaving out of an MMO isn't something they can get away with leaving out of an MMO.
{mod edit}
I think popularity is very popular.
Let's say there were 3 bars, with 3 different bands playing. One of those bars has a line out the door, and the other two have 4 or 5 people in them.
I'm ont saying EVERYONE, but a lot of people would go to the bar with the line out the door, regardless of the band playing.
Even if they didn't care for that band, and liked a band at one of the other bars better, they might still go to the popular bar.
This is rather complicated, do anyone think Wow would make money if it was made by Starvault, Cryptic or Aventurine?
I am doubtful of that. Blizzard have good programmers and that is the minimum requirement to make lots of money. Any game with bad coding can't be fairly compared to one with good no matter what ruleset and mechanics it uses.
If I make a UO clone with shiny new graphic for a Billion dollars, I will never make my money back. I'm certain of that.
If I make a UO clone with shiny new graphics for 50 cents, I will make a HUGE profit. I'm certain of that.
Obviously, no one would spend a Billion dollars making a UO clone with shiny new graphics, and yuo cannot make a UO clone with shiny new graphics for 50 cents.
But the "profitablitly" lies somewhere in between, nothing to do with the "features".
Profit = revenue minus overhead.
NO ONE would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm sure that's not true.
How many people would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm certain I don't know, and I'm really certain you don't either.
Could you make it cheaply enough, and would enough people play, that it would make a profit?
I'm very certain you don't know the answer to that question either.
I do know that you understand what you like to play, and apparantly you don't like UO.
You can definitely discuss why you don't like UO.
I think you are an expert on that.
We both know how much it costs to make a decent MMO these days. The question is, what type of MMO has the best return for investment, all things being equal? When you're going to talk to investors, what kind of presentation are you going to make? That a casual theme park MMO, which represents the majority of high-income games on the market should be made, or that an old-school sandbox MMO, which really doesn't make much money at all, should be made?
Investors don't just hand you money and tell you to have fun, they expect results and the biggest possible return on their investment. You'd probably have to have some pretty stupid investors to be investing in an old-school MMO at this point. That's one big strike against old-school MMOs right there. Secondly, the marketplace in general just isn't demonstrably interested in old-school MMOs. Sure, you have a couple of people on a forum who want it, but we're talking MILLIONS of people that you need to convince. Can you convince a few tens of thousands? Sure. Are many investors going to want to give millions of development dollars for a game that will only attract a few tens of thousands of players? Probably not.
How cheaply you can make the game is really irrelevant. Quality games cost money to make. Sure, you can make a cheap piece of crap game, like most F2P games, and it'll look cheap. AAA-quality games are expensive, that's why they're made with an eye on attracting lots of paying customers.
Until the old-school market can convince someone that there's a large number of people who want such a game, I don't think anyone is going to risk the millions of dollars and years of their lives making one without any promise of profit at the end. Casual theme-parks have the proof that there is a call for it, they have existing, successful games currently in existence. What do old-school games have?
This is rather complicated, do anyone think Wow would make money if it was made by Starvault, Cryptic or Aventurine?
I am doubtful of that. Blizzard have good programmers and that is the minimum requirement to make lots of money. Any game with bad coding can't be fairly compared to one with good no matter what ruleset and mechanics it uses.
WoW did a lot of things right. They hit at just the right time to explode with subscription numbers. That wasn't really under their control. However, Blizzard knew exactly how to market the game, they put lots of TV advertising, magazine advertising, etc. and that drew tons of people to their game. They do, indeed, have excellent programmers, but beyond that, they started with a quality product and they've never let the quality slip. They put out regular updates, they have good customer service, etc.
All of those have contributed to making WoW the game to beat. If another company had lucked into the same set of circumstances that Blizzard did, I don't know that they would have done so well.
The perception has come from Blizzard's freak success with WOW, which lacks countless game features. 'If WoW doesn't need X, Y, Z, to get millions of people playing, then why should another MMO?' Well, we've all seen how well copying WoW's "forumula" has done in the past... which should hint to developers that maybe what Blizzard can get away with leaving out of an MMO isn't something they can get away with leaving out of an MMO.
Oh, don't let reason stand in your way of wishful thinking...
I think popularity is very popular.
Let's say there were 3 bars, with 3 different bands playing. One of those bars has a line out the door, and the other two have 4 or 5 people in them.
I'm ont saying EVERYONE, but a lot of people would go to the bar with the line out the door, regardless of the band playing.
Even if they didn't care for that band, and liked a band at one of the other bars better, they might still go to the popular bar.
Very true. That's part of what increases the success of a successful game and what accelerates the decline of a failing game.
A lot of people play WOW because other people are playing WOW. With MMOs, price and location are removed from the normal shopping comparison. Accessibility only exists in the form of system requirements and, well, have you heard many complaints about WOW not being able to run on a computer that was made in the past five years?
If XYZ Studios came out with SuperMegaCivWOW Online: GTA Edition and it had just the right combination of GTA, Civilization and WOW features to appeal to all three crowds equally, they still would have to generate the traction and following that Blizzard built for years prior to introducing WOW in order to get most people to consider buying a box and forking over 15 dollars a month for their game.
Ask your friends that are relatively unfamiliar with MMOs which one they'd consider trying. You'd most likely hear them mention WOW in the context of 'that's what my friends play' or they hear the other games are dead or not as populated as WOW.
The bars example is a very accurate. Most people, when they see the packed bar and the two empty ones, aren't going to peek in to see what games they have, how much a pitcher is or what band is playing. They're going to line up where all the screaming, dancing, drinking and smiling appears to be.
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
NO ONE would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm sure that's not true.
Depends on what 'shiny new grahpics' means. Historically, UO fans have shown they don't even want a genuine UO with EA's idea of shiny new graphics, let alone a UO clone with them.
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
NO ONE would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm sure that's not true.
Depends on what 'shiny new grahpics' means. Historically, UO fans have shown they don't even want a genuine UO with EA's idea of shiny new graphics, let alone a UO clone with them.
I've seen people on these forums ask for UO with updated graphics, that's why I initially said that. There are people who want old-school, as it existed back in the day, with eye-candy.
NO ONE would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm sure that's not true.
Depends on what 'shiny new grahpics' means. Historically, UO fans have shown they don't even want a genuine UO with EA's idea of shiny new graphics, let alone a UO clone with them.
I've seen people on these forums ask for UO with updated graphics, that's why I initially said that. There are people who want old-school, as it existed back in the day, with eye-candy.
My comment was more a jab at the various attmepts since Third Dawn to give UO a shiny new look than anything else.
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
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Could you make it cheaply enough, and would enough people play, that it would make a profit?
Yes, you could. Would it be smart? No. Would it be viable in long term perspective? Maybe, probably not.
You were on the right track there but you need to thought it out more. Profit isn't the only important thing, important is also how much you actually make in total numbers. Why? Because you need to grow. That is why 'start small and grow slowly' doesn't really work.
If you are in a business and you are not frequently and constantly improving, you will fall apart sooner or later and to improve, you need profits - profits as large as possible.
Truth is, such project as 'AAA sandbox' would be way beyond risk tolerance of any investor and the chance you will see one are next to none.
The perception has come from Blizzard's freak success with WOW, which lacks countless game features. 'If WoW doesn't need X, Y, Z, to get millions of people playing, then why should another MMO?' Well, we've all seen how well copying WoW's "forumula" has done in the past... which should hint to developers that maybe what Blizzard can get away with leaving out of an MMO isn't something they can get away with leaving out of an MMO.
Oh, don't let reason stand in your way of wishful thinking...
Adding certain game features/mechanics that were present in oldschool MMOs into new MMOs wouldn't suddenly make those games unprofitable. If those features weren't widely popular and didn't do much to garner additional attention to the game, then it just means the company doesn't make quite as much profit as they otherwise would.
If the addition of something like meaningful crafting or player housing is enough to turn an MMO from profitable to unprofitable, then the game has much more severe problems than simply whether or not those features exist.
During WoW's development Blizzard promised players up and down that player housing would be added to the game. Beta was near an end, and there was no housing in site, so this changed to 'shortly after beta'. Months after release, Blizzard pushed it back again saying "maybe later". Well, six years and three expansions later, still no player housing, and it's nowhere in site.
Blizzard adding player housing wouldn't make WoW suddenly be unpopular. It would be an optional feature, and if you didn't want to use it you wouldn't have to. It also wouldn't make WoW suddenly become unprofitable... believe me, it would take a lot to make WoW suddenly become unprofitable. Worst case scenario would have been that Blizzard made slightly less profit than they are, had the feature not been very popular, but they still would have made a hell of a lot of profit with the rest of the game.
It's more about cost benefit analysis done by business people. Essentially a bunch of business men sat down and decided that the feature should be scrapped because they didn't feel the cost to add that feature, along with tons of others I'm sure, were worth it compared to what their best guess was about how well the feature would be received. Again, it's all about speculation. For all they know, adding those features could have caused WoW to have millions more players today, but they'll never know because they never took a chance.
Which is the point. A lot of the 'oldschool' game features many of us would like, aren't terrible ideas if they're done properly. Claiming that oldschool MMO features are unprofitable is pure speculation, because there is no proof that these features alone are enough cause an MMO to be unprofitable. Pretty much every failure of the more recent games that use 'oldschool' features can be clearly linked to mismanagement or poor development, and not because of the features themselves*.
*The exception being FFA PvP. This scares away tons of people, but I consider this more of a ruleset issue than I do a "feature".
Could you make it cheaply enough, and would enough people play, that it would make a profit?
Yes, you could. Would it be smart? No. Would it be viable in long term perspective? Maybe, probably not.
You were on the right track there but you need to thought it out more. Profit isn't the only important thing, important is also how much you actually make in total numbers. Why? Because you need to grow. That is why 'start small and grow slowly' doesn't really work.
If you are in a business and you are not frequently and constantly improving, you will fall apart sooner or later and to improve, you need profits - profits as large as possible.
Truth is, such project as 'AAA sandbox' would be way beyond risk tolerance of any investor and the chance you will see one are next to none.
It simply makes no business sense.
When people have largely stopped buying Themeparks, and calling for Sandbox, it makes all the sense in the world.
You know, many people in the industry thought Blizzard was taking too big of a gamble putting so much shine on their game at the time. It was, after all, "just another EQ clone". But it wasn't "just another", it was far more polished than any other MMORPG.
NO ONE would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm sure that's not true.
Depends on what 'shiny new grahpics' means. Historically, UO fans have shown they don't even want a genuine UO with EA's idea of shiny new graphics, let alone a UO clone with them.
Honestly I think that was more of an issue of the 3D client being a piece of junk when it first came out. Constant crashes, memory leaks, ad otherwise terrible performance. It was unplayable for most people, which is why so many people stuck with the 2D client.
Comments
And where this perception of nowadays developers came from...go figure.
It certainly isn't because 'decent' concepts lost subscribers to nowadays concepts...
If you seriously believe that 'discussions' on these boards are an attempt at anything...there isn't anything that could pierce your blindness.
In this business, the more fun the game is, the more money it should make. So FUN should be the focus of the developer. That's the problem though. They have it backwards. They aren't thinking about making games fun. They're thinking about how to make money, so they come up with some gimmicks and advertise, then the gamer gets duped into thinking it's fun, it's not, too late. Your money is now spent along with thousands of others.
The perception has come from Blizzard's freak success with WOW, which lacks countless game features. 'If WoW doesn't need X, Y, Z, to get millions of people playing, then why should another MMO?' Well, we've all seen how well copying WoW's "forumula" has done in the past... which should hint to developers that maybe what Blizzard can get away with leaving out of an MMO isn't something they can get away with leaving out of an MMO.
And no, I don't seriously believe that discussions of what I like or don't like in an MMO are actually going to have an impact on anything. While it would be nice if a developer stumbled onto these boards and reconsidered the feasibility of a game feature based on feedback, I highly doubt it would ever happen. Discussions on these forums are moreso to vent frustration with the state of things, and to simply share ideas with likeminded individuals, not to mention get news about upcoming MMOs.
What makes you think that the game isn't fun? Apparently, if it's financially successful, lots of people think it's fun. Just because *YOU* don't, doesn't mean a damn thing.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
+1, good post
I think that "fun" is a far too subjective term to use when describing what a game should be. Saying a game should be "fun" is almost the same as saying it should be "good." Of course a game should be both good and fun, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. No developer is going to say "our game will not be fun."
The problem is that "fun" means a different thing to every person. So what one person thinks is very fun is extremely boring to another.
What this means is that a game developer has to pick and choose who their game is going to appeal to. They could try to go for a game that appeals to a massive amount of people, but they may miss the mark since many people want differing things, and wind up attracting no one. On the other hand, they may choose to make a game that appeals to a small group of people extremely, but this group may be so small that no profit is made.
This is really the heart of what strategic marketing is. Examining your potential customers, picking a group that you're going to appeal to, determining what they want, and delivering it in a product. If you do this right, the game will be extremely "fun" to your target market.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
So basically OP you're saying that popularity does not always equate to fun.
But we all understand that profitability is due to popularity.
Also we can all agree that exclusivity does not always equate to boring.
But we all know that sustainability is usually in the presence of exclusivity.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I am all for talking about features and ideas and systems that lead to fun instead of profitability. The problem is, you can hardly quantify fun, and fun is so subjective there really isn't an argument you can win about fun right? What's fun for you might not be fun for you so who can argue that? It just is. I think in the end, profitability can certainly be recorded and measured so we wind up in that park. What's unfortunate is it's just like movies, you can have a fun game or movie that isn't profitable, but it's still fun.
In any event, I do know one thing, industries like to stick with the status quo, and the status quo will make them money, somewhat reliably for awhile, until the next big thing that creatures the next status quo. Too many MMOs start off trying to create the next big thing and then wind up settling for a quasi status quo that isn't solid enough to be status quo and not new enough to take it to the next level.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
The joy of pre-ordering.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Good point on the metrics....I never thought about that, but makes perfect sense.
There are a couple of things happening in the MMO space that will determine what we will see in development over the next 5 years.
Bioware spending nearly as much money on SW:TOR as it cost to make Avatar
If SW:TOR goes the way of Warhammer and barely scratches into WOW's market share.....I think the AAA publishers will conceed the fight and focus on smaller niche markets (if they decide to stay in the MMO space)
ArcheAge by XL Games - Full blown sandbox game with AAA production quality
If ArcheAge becomes a commercial success, expect the big publishers to shift gears back to virtual world building with player generated content in mind
If a company makes one penny over what is required to pay all of it's expenses, it made a profit.
The only person that cares about profit are the people who get those profits. The company owner. I can't even say shareholders if it's a publicly traded company because stock value isn't even entirely based on profit. (I"m no business whiz. I'm no stock market guru. However, when a company like best buy loses money over the coarse of a year, and tells it's investores they have a 10 year cost saving plan, and then thier stock price jumps because of SPECULATION, it's a pretty good indicator that stocks aren't entirely based on profit.)
What we have on these forums is a disconnect from reality, and logic, for a considerable portion of posters.
X game is fail, going to fail, has failed because:
I don't like it
It has so and so feature
It doesn't have so and so feature
it's made by so and so developer
It's associated with so and so publisher
Etc, etc. etc.
It's a case of the know it all twerps, and armchair developers who know more and can do better then the company behind "X" game. Coincidentally, they aren't game developers, or even have any experience developing a video game; let alone an MMO.
It's also funny how a lot of people here can tell us what is and isn't profittible whithout ever seeing finacial records for any game. Cryptic says their games make money, but according to people here they don't.
I think the features are irrelevant.
What is relevant is the budget.
If I make a UO clone with shiny new graphic for a Billion dollars, I will never make my money back. I'm certain of that.
If I make a UO clone with shiny new graphics for 50 cents, I will make a HUGE profit. I'm certain of that.
Obviously, no one would spend a Billion dollars making a UO clone with shiny new graphics, and yuo cannot make a UO clone with shiny new graphics for 50 cents.
But the "profitablitly" lies somewhere in between, nothing to do with the "features".
Profit = revenue minus overhead.
NO ONE would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm sure that's not true.
How many people would play a UO game with shiny new graphics? I'm certain I don't know, and I'm really certain you don't either.
Could you make it cheaply enough, and would enough people play, that it would make a profit?
I'm very certain you don't know the answer to that question either.
I do know that you understand what you like to play, and apparantly you don't like UO.
You can definitely discuss why you don't like UO.
I think you are an expert on that.
I think popularity is very popular.
Let's say there were 3 bars, with 3 different bands playing. One of those bars has a line out the door, and the other two have 4 or 5 people in them.
I'm ont saying EVERYONE, but a lot of people would go to the bar with the line out the door, regardless of the band playing.
Even if they didn't care for that band, and liked a band at one of the other bars better, they might still go to the popular bar.
This is rather complicated, do anyone think Wow would make money if it was made by Starvault, Cryptic or Aventurine?
I am doubtful of that. Blizzard have good programmers and that is the minimum requirement to make lots of money. Any game with bad coding can't be fairly compared to one with good no matter what ruleset and mechanics it uses.
We both know how much it costs to make a decent MMO these days. The question is, what type of MMO has the best return for investment, all things being equal? When you're going to talk to investors, what kind of presentation are you going to make? That a casual theme park MMO, which represents the majority of high-income games on the market should be made, or that an old-school sandbox MMO, which really doesn't make much money at all, should be made?
Investors don't just hand you money and tell you to have fun, they expect results and the biggest possible return on their investment. You'd probably have to have some pretty stupid investors to be investing in an old-school MMO at this point. That's one big strike against old-school MMOs right there. Secondly, the marketplace in general just isn't demonstrably interested in old-school MMOs. Sure, you have a couple of people on a forum who want it, but we're talking MILLIONS of people that you need to convince. Can you convince a few tens of thousands? Sure. Are many investors going to want to give millions of development dollars for a game that will only attract a few tens of thousands of players? Probably not.
How cheaply you can make the game is really irrelevant. Quality games cost money to make. Sure, you can make a cheap piece of crap game, like most F2P games, and it'll look cheap. AAA-quality games are expensive, that's why they're made with an eye on attracting lots of paying customers.
Until the old-school market can convince someone that there's a large number of people who want such a game, I don't think anyone is going to risk the millions of dollars and years of their lives making one without any promise of profit at the end. Casual theme-parks have the proof that there is a call for it, they have existing, successful games currently in existence. What do old-school games have?
Nothing.
I'm just being realistic here.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
WoW did a lot of things right. They hit at just the right time to explode with subscription numbers. That wasn't really under their control. However, Blizzard knew exactly how to market the game, they put lots of TV advertising, magazine advertising, etc. and that drew tons of people to their game. They do, indeed, have excellent programmers, but beyond that, they started with a quality product and they've never let the quality slip. They put out regular updates, they have good customer service, etc.
All of those have contributed to making WoW the game to beat. If another company had lucked into the same set of circumstances that Blizzard did, I don't know that they would have done so well.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Very true. That's part of what increases the success of a successful game and what accelerates the decline of a failing game.
A lot of people play WOW because other people are playing WOW. With MMOs, price and location are removed from the normal shopping comparison. Accessibility only exists in the form of system requirements and, well, have you heard many complaints about WOW not being able to run on a computer that was made in the past five years?
If XYZ Studios came out with SuperMegaCivWOW Online: GTA Edition and it had just the right combination of GTA, Civilization and WOW features to appeal to all three crowds equally, they still would have to generate the traction and following that Blizzard built for years prior to introducing WOW in order to get most people to consider buying a box and forking over 15 dollars a month for their game.
Ask your friends that are relatively unfamiliar with MMOs which one they'd consider trying. You'd most likely hear them mention WOW in the context of 'that's what my friends play' or they hear the other games are dead or not as populated as WOW.
The bars example is a very accurate. Most people, when they see the packed bar and the two empty ones, aren't going to peek in to see what games they have, how much a pitcher is or what band is playing. They're going to line up where all the screaming, dancing, drinking and smiling appears to be.
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
Depends on what 'shiny new grahpics' means. Historically, UO fans have shown they don't even want a genuine UO with EA's idea of shiny new graphics, let alone a UO clone with them.
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've seen people on these forums ask for UO with updated graphics, that's why I initially said that. There are people who want old-school, as it existed back in the day, with eye-candy.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
My comment was more a jab at the various attmepts since Third Dawn to give UO a shiny new look than anything else.
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
Yes, you could. Would it be smart? No. Would it be viable in long term perspective? Maybe, probably not.
You were on the right track there but you need to thought it out more. Profit isn't the only important thing, important is also how much you actually make in total numbers. Why? Because you need to grow. That is why 'start small and grow slowly' doesn't really work.
If you are in a business and you are not frequently and constantly improving, you will fall apart sooner or later and to improve, you need profits - profits as large as possible.
Truth is, such project as 'AAA sandbox' would be way beyond risk tolerance of any investor and the chance you will see one are next to none.
It simply makes no business sense.
Adding certain game features/mechanics that were present in oldschool MMOs into new MMOs wouldn't suddenly make those games unprofitable. If those features weren't widely popular and didn't do much to garner additional attention to the game, then it just means the company doesn't make quite as much profit as they otherwise would.
If the addition of something like meaningful crafting or player housing is enough to turn an MMO from profitable to unprofitable, then the game has much more severe problems than simply whether or not those features exist.
During WoW's development Blizzard promised players up and down that player housing would be added to the game. Beta was near an end, and there was no housing in site, so this changed to 'shortly after beta'. Months after release, Blizzard pushed it back again saying "maybe later". Well, six years and three expansions later, still no player housing, and it's nowhere in site.
Blizzard adding player housing wouldn't make WoW suddenly be unpopular. It would be an optional feature, and if you didn't want to use it you wouldn't have to. It also wouldn't make WoW suddenly become unprofitable... believe me, it would take a lot to make WoW suddenly become unprofitable. Worst case scenario would have been that Blizzard made slightly less profit than they are, had the feature not been very popular, but they still would have made a hell of a lot of profit with the rest of the game.
It's more about cost benefit analysis done by business people. Essentially a bunch of business men sat down and decided that the feature should be scrapped because they didn't feel the cost to add that feature, along with tons of others I'm sure, were worth it compared to what their best guess was about how well the feature would be received. Again, it's all about speculation. For all they know, adding those features could have caused WoW to have millions more players today, but they'll never know because they never took a chance.
Which is the point. A lot of the 'oldschool' game features many of us would like, aren't terrible ideas if they're done properly. Claiming that oldschool MMO features are unprofitable is pure speculation, because there is no proof that these features alone are enough cause an MMO to be unprofitable. Pretty much every failure of the more recent games that use 'oldschool' features can be clearly linked to mismanagement or poor development, and not because of the features themselves*.
*The exception being FFA PvP. This scares away tons of people, but I consider this more of a ruleset issue than I do a "feature".
When people have largely stopped buying Themeparks, and calling for Sandbox, it makes all the sense in the world.
You know, many people in the industry thought Blizzard was taking too big of a gamble putting so much shine on their game at the time. It was, after all, "just another EQ clone". But it wasn't "just another", it was far more polished than any other MMORPG.
Once upon a time....
That's the thing, it didn't happen. They were and still are spending their money on 'themeparks'.
Honestly I think that was more of an issue of the 3D client being a piece of junk when it first came out. Constant crashes, memory leaks, ad otherwise terrible performance. It was unplayable for most people, which is why so many people stuck with the 2D client.