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?
Nothing.
I'm just being realistic here.
I'm sure you, and many posters on here, would have said the same thing about EVE if it was just a forum topic, and not an actual game.
But they made it anyway, and it's quite successful.
...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...
I got a flash of housing options ending up in the cash shop.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
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?
Nothing.
I'm just being realistic here.
I'm sure you, and many posters on here, would have said the same thing about EVE if it was just a forum topic, and not an actual game.
But they made it anyway, and it's quite successful.
Look, as much as I love EVE, I'll be the first to say its success is as much a fluke as WOW's. It started a long time about 10 years or more I'm guessing, when the marketplace wasn't totally fixated on the current theme park design that is so financially successful.
As such, it would be much easier to sell investors on your 'sure fire" win formula, because there was no formula that was proven much better than another.
Toss in some support from the Icelandic government who was interested in increasing technology within their borders. (one of the reasons DF was able to be created, same situation) and wa la.... you get EVE.
Which was pretty primative in its first incarnation, but it had the good fortune of releasing and growing about the time SWG decided to implode and from then on has largely existed in its own bubble of space themed MMO's.
I'm not sure another developer starting out today could really follow in EVE/DF's footsteps (Recall DF was also started about 8 or 9 years ago) where the investment climate was decidedly different.
That said, there's some sleeper titles out there like COS that might just bring us something new, stranger things have happened.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Reading this thread, I realized something. It seems like the only two options players believe developers have is to either clone WoW, or clone UO. Either old school or new school...
What about something completely new that stands on its own?
I know where you're coming from, but let me offer my opinion on why it seems this way.
Basically, we've all seen a trend going on in recent mmo development. Details and specifics aside, the trend is, in the simplest way put, "how to gain the kind of profits wow gets"
To achieve this, we've seen many of the traits and features of WoW (and yes, other games have buttons and maps and quests too... but WoW's spin on them is what I'm talking about here. Don't try and act like WoW didn't put it's own spin on things that already existed. That spin is context i'm referring to.) used and subtly reshaped and implimented into other games, in hopes that those features and traits were the magic selling point that caused WoW to become as successful as it is.
After seeing this done all too many times, and never once being as successful as claimed it would be, some of us are starting to wonder why WoW's success is the only success that matters. UO, EQ, DaOC, AC, SWG all had other traits and features that devs and investors don't seem to want to acknowledge as being a part of their success. This is frustrating to us because there's so many companies willing to gamble on yet another attempt to cash in on WoW's success, with cheap, stolen wow-tactics, yet they aren't willing to gamble on other aspects of the genre that people have been virtually begging for since 2004.
I too agree that emulating old school or emulating new school shouldn't be the only 2 options. BUT, since emulating new school is the only consitent option we see [AAA]devs going to, I think we at least want to see them explore the other option a little bit more before completely scrapping our love for the features of those games that haven't been updated and provided to us in a quality game.
I don't know you wiggins but I love you. This is exactly what I've been beating the drum about. It's not the themepark vs sandbox argument or FFA PVP it's the fact that when devs do throw in a feature they half-ass it, scared to death they will scare the newly acquired soccer-mom mmo player away.
I have a ton of ideas that could work IF the game was developed to handle it from the get-go and not as some cheap add-in tacked on to say "yes we have it" on the box (I'm looking at you Age of Conan/Warhammer Keep Sieges and open world pvp).
Thirty years of gaming experience...not sure if I should be proud of that www.mmoexaminer.blogspot.com
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.
What's the pass you're giving them for the other two?
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.
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.
What's the pass you're giving them for the other two?
Don't have one other than that people are probably just accustomed to the oldschool client. Well, that and the 2D sprites are much higher quality than the low quality 3D renders of the new client, which makes 2D overall just look a heck of a lot nicer.
But it's a bit of a moot point, since the next major expansion after Third Dawn, Age of Shadows, completely mutated UO into what is arguably a completely different game by makng charatcer performance extremely item based, which is in my opinion a contributor of what chased off most of the playerbase.
So how many people would want to play UO with shiny new graphics, is subjective on just how much more 'shiny and new' the graphics actually are, and which iteration of UO was being re-released.
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.
Here is the problem, people assume that WoW stole all of the old MMORPG gamers. If you look at sites like MMOCHART, then you find out when WoW came out, the other MMORPGs did not lose that many subscriptions, INSTEAD WoW brought new people to the Genre (basically doubling the size of the subscription based MMORPG genre). The problem is, and the reason why the MMORPG genre is contracting overall, that half of the MMORPG genre has been neglected, the Non-WoW players.
And you are quite wrong about sustainability, and if you think I am wrong look at a natural science, biology, specifically evolution. Life is a successful model because life is diverse and not exclusive to one environment/condition. Exclusivity in evolution commonly leads towards extinction.
Also in business, the Wal Marts, which deal in cheap clothing, housewares, and groceries are more successful than the stores which just deal EXCLUSIVELY in cheap clothing.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
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.
Here is the problem, people assume that WoW stole all of the old MMORPG gamers. If you look at sites like MMOCHART, then you find out when WoW came out, the other MMORPGs did not lose that many subscriptions, INSTEAD WoW brought new people to the Genre (basically doubling the size of the subscription based MMORPG genre). The problem is, and the reason why the MMORPG genre is contracting overall, that half of the MMORPG genre has been neglected, the Non-WoW players.
And you are quite wrong about sustainability, and if you think I am wrong look at a natural science, biology, specifically evolution. Life is a successful model because life is diverse and not exclusive to one environment/condition. Exclusivity in evolution commonly leads towards extinction.
Also in business, the Wal Marts, which deal in cheap clothing, housewares, and groceries are more successful than the stores which just deal EXCLUSIVELY in cheap clothing.
Why do I need to look at science when we're talking about mmos here? When applying my statement toward the subject matter we often do find that those mmos that cater to an exclusive group of players are more likely sustaining themselves rather than turning a healthy profit.
Also in nature when lifeforms are content with sustaining themselves rather that gorging themselves (which I would associate with profit) then things can and often do work out for the good of their environment and gives time for things to replenish. Thus continuing the cycle. If and when a lifeform tends to consume with no sense of moderation, they either die from obesity or utterly destroy what was once giving them sustenance.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Also in nature when lifeforms are content with sustaining themselves rather that gorging themselves (which I would associate with profit) then things can and often do work out for the good of their environment and gives time for things to replenish. Thus continuing the cycle. If and when a lifeform tends to consume with no sense of moderation, they either die from obesity or utterly destroy what was once giving them sustenance.
Only if you equate profit with accumulation of material things. Profit, properly understood, is simply the attainment of a more satisfactory state than what is presently experienced. With this more general definition all action can be determined as either profitable/unprofitable for the actor, not simply actions involving monetary transactions.
E.g. taking a nap is profitable to me if said nap leaves me in a state that I value more highly than the one that would have resulted from me not napping, or doing something else.
The seeking of this general profit is the essence of action. A person that continually undertook unprofitable action would be continually making themselves worse and worse off, according to their values.
So... the point of all this... well, the point of the OP...
If you have ideas for an MMO, share them but don't mix in your whinging about other games.
If you think someones idea sucks, criticize the idea and don't default to bland rhetoric about profitability.
Of course, if a game is not fun for the players, the players will leave and the game will flop (generally speaking). We all know this. But going around in circles with that argument doesn't help any readers of these forums.
Keep your ideas and criticisms pure. Who knows, maybe some developers and publishers are keeping an eye on these forums and might just take away some good ideas.
Of course, if a game is not fun for the players, the players will leave and the game will flop (generally speaking). We all know this.
No, we don't all know this, as that is the gaping HOLE in the 'developers aren't trying to make games fun, they are just trying to make money' argument, but that argument keeps showing up on a regular basis.
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
Of course, if a game is not fun for the players, the players will leave and the game will flop (generally speaking). We all know this.
No, we don't all know this, as that is the gaping HOLE in the 'developers aren't trying to make games fun, they are just trying to make money' argument, but that argument keeps showing up on a regular basis.
Regardless of which side of the argument you are on, when you see news stories like these,
MMO players should (IMO) be concern with the financial side of things. I don't want my char that I played for how many months to suddenly disappear.
We have all seen MMOs get shut down and whether it is sandbox or themepark or whatever, it sucks and players who have gone through that will be cautious next time.
If MMO players who want an MMO that will be around for a long time, they will go to the largest (in most people minds, most sub numbers = secure, i guess?) one.
My friend was a Earth and Beyond player and I can see why he sticks with WoW.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Of course, if a game is not fun for the players, the players will leave and the game will flop (generally speaking). We all know this.
No, we don't all know this, as that is the gaping HOLE in the 'developers aren't trying to make games fun, they are just trying to make money' argument, but that argument keeps showing up on a regular basis.
Regardless of which side of the argument you are on, when you see news stories like these,
MMO players should (IMO) be concern with the financial side of things. I don't want my char that I played for how many months to suddenly disappear.
We have all seen MMOs get shut down and whether it is sandbox or themepark or whatever, it sucks and players who have gone through that will be cautious next time.
If MMO players who want an MMO that will be around for a long time, they will go to the largest (in most people minds, most sub numbers = secure, i guess?) one.
My friend was a Earth and Beyond player and I can see why he sticks with WoW.
Sure, if you're equally happy playing WoW and playing EnB, then play WoW. It's more established, and has a bigger player base. I doubt most will be equally happy with both games, but will play the one they think is most fun, regardless of longevity.
Of course, if a game is not fun for the players, the players will leave and the game will flop (generally speaking). We all know this.
No, we don't all know this, as that is the gaping HOLE in the 'developers aren't trying to make games fun, they are just trying to make money' argument, but that argument keeps showing up on a regular basis.
This I agree with completely.
We also see the flip side of this argument. That small indie dev company isn't just concerned about money. They actually make games because they care, and they want to make something fun and creative, and innovative!
No one is doing the hard work it takes to make an MMORPG because they hope no one will play it, and it won't be profitable.
Those small indie devs are just as profit motivated as the big boys at Blizzard.
Both are trying to make a fun game, and both know that fun = profit.
So... the point of all this... well, the point of the OP...
If you have ideas for an MMO, share them but don't mix in your whinging about other games.
If you think someones idea sucks, criticize the idea and don't default to bland rhetoric about profitability.
Of course, if a game is not fun for the players, the players will leave and the game will flop (generally speaking). We all know this. But going around in circles with that argument doesn't help any readers of these forums.
Keep your ideas and criticisms pure. Who knows, maybe some developers and publishers are keeping an eye on these forums and might just take away some good ideas.
Correct. IMO, the "profitability" argument is a fall back position, when you can't express why you don't like a particular feature, or you're getting frustrated because the other side of the argument won't give up and agree that your way of playing games is superior.
1. Profitibility has nothing to do with whether or not you like a feature. If you're honest, you'll admit that your dislike of PvP games, your preference for cash shop games over P2P games, etc., has NOTHING to do with which one will make more money. That's not why anyone likes a feature in a game, or dislikes a feature in a game.
2. Your predictions about profitability are pure baloney. You don't know what game will be successful, and which game won't, based on the inclusion of one particular feature.
EVE is proof FFA PvP can be "profitable", for example.
Stick to arguing about what you actually know, which is why you like a feature, or why you don't.
OR, make a thread to discuss profitibility and the business aspect of an MMO, if that's what you're really interested in.
Comments
I'm sure you, and many posters on here, would have said the same thing about EVE if it was just a forum topic, and not an actual game.
But they made it anyway, and it's quite successful.
I got a flash of housing options ending up in the cash shop.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Look, as much as I love EVE, I'll be the first to say its success is as much a fluke as WOW's. It started a long time about 10 years or more I'm guessing, when the marketplace wasn't totally fixated on the current theme park design that is so financially successful.
As such, it would be much easier to sell investors on your 'sure fire" win formula, because there was no formula that was proven much better than another.
Toss in some support from the Icelandic government who was interested in increasing technology within their borders. (one of the reasons DF was able to be created, same situation) and wa la.... you get EVE.
Which was pretty primative in its first incarnation, but it had the good fortune of releasing and growing about the time SWG decided to implode and from then on has largely existed in its own bubble of space themed MMO's.
I'm not sure another developer starting out today could really follow in EVE/DF's footsteps (Recall DF was also started about 8 or 9 years ago) where the investment climate was decidedly different.
That said, there's some sleeper titles out there like COS that might just bring us something new, stranger things have happened.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't know you wiggins but I love you. This is exactly what I've been beating the drum about. It's not the themepark vs sandbox argument or FFA PVP it's the fact that when devs do throw in a feature they half-ass it, scared to death they will scare the newly acquired soccer-mom mmo player away.
I have a ton of ideas that could work IF the game was developed to handle it from the get-go and not as some cheap add-in tacked on to say "yes we have it" on the box (I'm looking at you Age of Conan/Warhammer Keep Sieges and open world pvp).
Thirty years of gaming experience...not sure if I should be proud of that
www.mmoexaminer.blogspot.com
What's the pass you're giving them for the other two?
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
Don't have one other than that people are probably just accustomed to the oldschool client. Well, that and the 2D sprites are much higher quality than the low quality 3D renders of the new client, which makes 2D overall just look a heck of a lot nicer.
But it's a bit of a moot point, since the next major expansion after Third Dawn, Age of Shadows, completely mutated UO into what is arguably a completely different game by makng charatcer performance extremely item based, which is in my opinion a contributor of what chased off most of the playerbase.
So how many people would want to play UO with shiny new graphics, is subjective on just how much more 'shiny and new' the graphics actually are, and which iteration of UO was being re-released.
Here is the problem, people assume that WoW stole all of the old MMORPG gamers. If you look at sites like MMOCHART, then you find out when WoW came out, the other MMORPGs did not lose that many subscriptions, INSTEAD WoW brought new people to the Genre (basically doubling the size of the subscription based MMORPG genre). The problem is, and the reason why the MMORPG genre is contracting overall, that half of the MMORPG genre has been neglected, the Non-WoW players.
And you are quite wrong about sustainability, and if you think I am wrong look at a natural science, biology, specifically evolution. Life is a successful model because life is diverse and not exclusive to one environment/condition. Exclusivity in evolution commonly leads towards extinction.
Also in business, the Wal Marts, which deal in cheap clothing, housewares, and groceries are more successful than the stores which just deal EXCLUSIVELY in cheap clothing.
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
They are idle. Nothing more than that.
Once upon a time....
Why do I need to look at science when we're talking about mmos here? When applying my statement toward the subject matter we often do find that those mmos that cater to an exclusive group of players are more likely sustaining themselves rather than turning a healthy profit.
Also in nature when lifeforms are content with sustaining themselves rather that gorging themselves (which I would associate with profit) then things can and often do work out for the good of their environment and gives time for things to replenish. Thus continuing the cycle. If and when a lifeform tends to consume with no sense of moderation, they either die from obesity or utterly destroy what was once giving them sustenance.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Only if you equate profit with accumulation of material things. Profit, properly understood, is simply the attainment of a more satisfactory state than what is presently experienced. With this more general definition all action can be determined as either profitable/unprofitable for the actor, not simply actions involving monetary transactions.
E.g. taking a nap is profitable to me if said nap leaves me in a state that I value more highly than the one that would have resulted from me not napping, or doing something else.
The seeking of this general profit is the essence of action. A person that continually undertook unprofitable action would be continually making themselves worse and worse off, according to their values.
Profit != more money
So... the point of all this... well, the point of the OP...
If you have ideas for an MMO, share them but don't mix in your whinging about other games.
If you think someones idea sucks, criticize the idea and don't default to bland rhetoric about profitability.
Of course, if a game is not fun for the players, the players will leave and the game will flop (generally speaking). We all know this. But going around in circles with that argument doesn't help any readers of these forums.
Keep your ideas and criticisms pure. Who knows, maybe some developers and publishers are keeping an eye on these forums and might just take away some good ideas.
No, we don't all know this, as that is the gaping HOLE in the 'developers aren't trying to make games fun, they are just trying to make money' argument, but that argument keeps showing up on a regular basis.
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
Regardless of which side of the argument you are on, when you see news stories like these,
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/17/atari-seeking-to-sell-cryptic-studios-as-another-fiscal-year-end/
MMO players should (IMO) be concern with the financial side of things. I don't want my char that I played for how many months to suddenly disappear.
We have all seen MMOs get shut down and whether it is sandbox or themepark or whatever, it sucks and players who have gone through that will be cautious next time.
If MMO players who want an MMO that will be around for a long time, they will go to the largest (in most people minds, most sub numbers = secure, i guess?) one.
My friend was a Earth and Beyond player and I can see why he sticks with WoW.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Sure, if you're equally happy playing WoW and playing EnB, then play WoW. It's more established, and has a bigger player base. I doubt most will be equally happy with both games, but will play the one they think is most fun, regardless of longevity.
This I agree with completely.
We also see the flip side of this argument. That small indie dev company isn't just concerned about money. They actually make games because they care, and they want to make something fun and creative, and innovative!
No one is doing the hard work it takes to make an MMORPG because they hope no one will play it, and it won't be profitable.
Those small indie devs are just as profit motivated as the big boys at Blizzard.
Both are trying to make a fun game, and both know that fun = profit.
Correct. IMO, the "profitability" argument is a fall back position, when you can't express why you don't like a particular feature, or you're getting frustrated because the other side of the argument won't give up and agree that your way of playing games is superior.
1. Profitibility has nothing to do with whether or not you like a feature. If you're honest, you'll admit that your dislike of PvP games, your preference for cash shop games over P2P games, etc., has NOTHING to do with which one will make more money. That's not why anyone likes a feature in a game, or dislikes a feature in a game.
2. Your predictions about profitability are pure baloney. You don't know what game will be successful, and which game won't, based on the inclusion of one particular feature.
EVE is proof FFA PvP can be "profitable", for example.
Stick to arguing about what you actually know, which is why you like a feature, or why you don't.
OR, make a thread to discuss profitibility and the business aspect of an MMO, if that's what you're really interested in.