And you think this is Smed lying? "the Asian model" is to have full free to play and be able to buy items of power in a cash shop. EQ2 is not a fully free to play game is it? In order to get everything you have to have a subscription. So he didn't lie. Ask the other SoE detractors and they will yell and scream how SoE's model is not really free to play.
As for the second quote SoE took out the items that one would "but their way to power" so where is the beef?
I thank you for finding the quotes though, the "Smed lied" argument makes more sense now.
Originally posted by Aelious And you think this is Smed lying? "the Asian model" is to have full free to play and be able to buy items of power in a cash shop. EQ2 is not a fully free to play game is it? In order to get everything you have to have a subscription. So he didn't lie. Ask the other SoE detractors and they will yell and scream how SoE's model is not really free to play.
As for the second quote SoE took out the items that one would "but their way to power" so where is the beef?
I thank you for finding the quotes though, the "Smed lied" argument makes more sense now.
The whole point is, they said one thing, and then turned around and did exactly what they said they wouldn't.
At least some of their customers did not want to play on EQ2 free servers, SOE said "That's fine, you won't have to, no worries" and turned around and did it anyway.
You can argue what the effects were or weren't, but you can't argue that they didn't say one thing and do another. They did that.
And again, I don't care much about EQ2, I am not a player.
I care that SOE has a crap track record in treating their customers as a company.
Not to the effect that was the initial reason for the resistance. You bolded it yourself.
Players did not want to play with those that bought their way in and they didn't have to, right?
SoE didn't go with an "Asian style" F2P, right?
That's my point. Yes, they brought a "free to play" model in but the fears that players had SoE took away. I guess that wasn't enough for some people. Oh well.
Originally posted by rungard while the writing may be on the wall, it appears that well be able to destroy that wall with fireballs, and then rebuild the wall.
Sandbox MMO's are were things are going to start going. Themepark MMO's haven't done any better then the original MMO's that were basically sandboxes, and hardcore themepark. WoW has been the only exception.
It's not like Rift has more people playing than SWG did before the NGE, or UO at it's prime.
And no large studios outside of asia are attempting sandbox MMO's.
As long as there's a way to play just PvE, a sandbox MMO wouldn't do any worse than Rift. I'd bet EVE has more subs than Rift.
While a lot of people in these parts hate SOE, they do at least innovate some rather than trying to create completely generic WoW-clones. Thus, they make games that at least had a chance of being good, rather than being destined for medicrity from the day they were greenlighted, as some other companies do. Of course, even if they were to make a really good game, they'd probably nickle-and-dime their players to death and kill the game that way.
I read this comment from Smed about the changes of EQ Next to a sandbox:
"Once we made that shift, everything else had to follow. And what we saw was RIFT. We saw the writing on the wall with SWTOR. We saw The Secret World. We saw all these games that we knew were in development and very high-quality, but we saw what was going to happen -- this big spike and then it goes down. That's the truth of what's been happening with MMOs. The fans need to realize that if you don't change the nature of what these games are, you're not going to change that core behavior. We want to make games that last more than 15 years. That's why we made the decision to change it."
If in fact they are throwing everything out the window. and in fact they will be making a completely new game, I can't help but notice that this announcement comes AFTER the success story of GW2. It's like the entire mmo industry was waiting holding their breath to see what would happen with Anet's title once released.
GW2 didn't single handedly change the entire industry but Anet had a hand in it. I'm sure there will be many a hater who disagrees with me but you can't deny the influence it's had on the players and essentially and most notably in this economy the players have final say on a product because they simply won't pay if they do it poorly.
It's just started folks, can't wait to see what happens next with the "big changes" announcements from other gaming companies that were all about the endless dungeon/raid gear treadmill as the only means of progression in a title.
People keep complaining about being 'let down' by game after game, and yet they'll buy into this guys' propaganda? I'll reserve my opinion on EQN for when I start seeing what game mechanics they are actually putting into their game.
Talk is cheap, and it's easy to say the right words to hype up your product. It's actually putting those words into meaningful action that matters. It's one thing to say 'we learned from our mistakes, and this next MMO is going to blow you guys away!' It's an entirely different thing to put that into a tangible product.
It's easy to criticize other games for not changing their core gameplay enough. However, there is a deeper & far more complex issue going on in the MMO genre today. There's a bit of a catch 22 with gamers atm. Gamers want something different, but they really just want to play more of the same. From what has been seen time & time again with MMOs, is even when an MMO comes out that is a really solid / well made game, most of the time gamers won't support it enough to allow it to grow. Many gamers expect MMOs to release in a status that rivals game X which has been out for close to a decade. And they want it to not be rushed. And they want it to come out last year.
It doesn't take a genius to see such expectations aren't sustainable. However, how are you going to release an MMO if you aren't sure people will play it? The production costs aren't cheap enough to make that kind of a risk. Hence the conundrum we find ourselves in today.
In order to actually achieve what Smedley is preaching, 2 things have to happen. 1) The focus of the MMO has to shift dramatically away from gear progression. An idea that most gamers will run from screaming. 2) The mentallity of gamers has to shift from the current, unsustainable mindset. We are a large part of the problem. I'm not sure SOE could even pull off fixing 1 of those issues fully, let alone both.
If in fact they are throwing everything out the window. and in fact they will be making a completely new game, I can't help but notice that this announcement comes AFTER the success story of GW2. It's like the entire mmo industry was waiting holding their breath to see what would happen with Anet's title once released.
GW2 didn't single handedly change the entire industry but Anet had a hand in it. I'm sure there will be many a hater who disagrees with me but you can't deny the influence it's had on the players and essentially and most notably in this economy the players have final say on a product because they simply won't pay if they do it poorly.
It's just started folks, can't wait to see what happens next with the "big changes" announcements from other gaming companies that were all about the endless dungeon/raid gear treadmill as the only means of progression in a title.
GW2 also falls into the category of games that spiked at the beginning and then had numbers fall off, quite drastically by the looks of it, so im not sure GW2 is really geared to becomming a long term success, certainly the numbers don't hold up for that, although initial box sales were encouraging, making a game though, that is going to appeal to players to keep on playing, and possibly 'paying' beyond the first 5 or 6 weeks is really what this is about, im not sure whether a Sandbox game is really the answer, but the current crop of Themepark games do not appear to have met player requirements for long term playability, it is very clear that in order to create a game with a long term playerbase that actually grows rather than the current trend of games that taper off after a few weeks, that something actually radically different needs to be attempted. Whether SOE is the company to achieve this, i am also not so sure about, Smedley may be just stating how things are at the moment, but with what know so far about SOE's current games, they don't really seem to be able to 'apply' that knowledge meaningfully, DCUO was an unmittigated disaster, and in the post SWG era, (NGE) SOE hasnt really had any meaningfully successful games, even Planetside 2 is shaping up to be an 'also ran' game, just a shadow of its previous incarnation, which is pretty much what the NGE was to SWG. I will keep my fingers crossed for the next incarnation of Everquest, but after being let down so badly with Planetside 2, its not something i have a great deal of confidence about, Smedley might well talk the talk, but i have yet to see him walk
Smed hypes all of SOEs new games in this way, I'll reserve my judgments til I see the product itself and how it plays.
After the way they have dealt with PS2 I'm even more skeptical that they can create this amazing sandbox world. Ignoring player input and feedback, stepping away from the things that made PS1 great (and directly contributed to it's long lasting appeal), and then the final decision to rush the product out prematurely next month.
Probably not a good idea to get too excited yet, or you just might end up a very disappointed individual.
Well, if I am going to be disappointed, at least I have the fun now. If I am sour now and right afterwards, what good does that?
Well, and I'm only making this judgment based on your past posting history, but you seem to get easily excited when there is little to no info regarding a new game you are interested in.
Then, post launch, you have a habit of coming back here and making a thread explaining how disappointed you have become with the product. This is seen repeatedly among your posting history for the last few years.
My point was that you could avoid that happening, again, if you didn't get so invested into these products at an early stage, based on nothing more than company propaganda.
Take note...
Was thinking the same thing.
On topic, I really think he's gonna put out a sandbox - SOE made SWG, even if they did destroy it afterwards. The potential is there.
His propaganda! He's a liar! He's gotten us before! lol. No one ever wonders if developers where not lying and perhaps really believe in what they are making.
I guess it's just the difference from people who create things(they take a risk on their opinions and hope that others believe in the same things), and you have the "people that don't create anything(your employee type person, that gripes about their boss, and blames the system for their lack of promotion in 10 years at safeway).
I believe smed believes in what hes saying, like I believe the devs at bioware thought story was the answer, and every little thing that devs think will make their games great. They probably do believe it.
Not saying I like or know smed, but I'll check out a giant sandbox game out, 59 dollars is really not that big of a deal, as it is too some apparently(that feel they where ripped off and wronged somehow lol)
Do alot of you buy -I can't believe it's not butter, than take it back to the store and tell the clerk that you "in fact can tell it is not butter, and that you knew all along that you would be able to tell?" and demand your money back? Just curious.
I read this comment from Smed about the changes of EQ Next to a sandbox:
"Once we made that shift, everything else had to follow. And what we saw was RIFT. We saw the writing on the wall with SWTOR. We saw The Secret World. We saw all these games that we knew were in development and very high-quality, but we saw what was going to happen -- this big spike and then it goes down. That's the truth of what's been happening with MMOs. The fans need to realize that if you don't change the nature of what these games are, you're not going to change that core behavior. We want to make games that last more than 15 years. That's why we made the decision to change it."
Like I pointed out in the other big thread. OP and others hyped about all this, really need to question his definition of a sandbox.
because it doesn't really have a set in stone definition. Notice the same guy called Everqyest a sandbox. That should be a huge red flag.
Because if he consider EQ a sandbox, than his definition of a sandbox may not be the same as many people expect from a Minecraft or Eve.
Maybe you all should be asking him to define a sandbox MMO. That would be better.
People always try to point this out, but have you thought about it completely? If someone thinks product "A" is a sandbox, and another person thinks it is a themepark, and someone says it is a hybrid....Then it isn't, no one can agree what a sandbox is....People do not agree what a themepark, hybrid, or themepark are completely.....
Everyone has different opinions/standards, I have seen people call Vanguard a themepark, a sandbox, and a hybrid. This is not the only one....Some people refuse to call some 'sandboxes' that do not have PvE fighting in them a MMO....A lot of people agree that GW1/Diablo are not MMOs....Some think that MOBAs are MMOs...
This notion that only the defiinition of sandbox is in question, is complete BS.
I am encouraged no matter the definition, because I like deeper systems, which generally are associated with sandboxes in my themepark/hybrid.
No matter if he sticks to what he says, that someone in his position SAYS it is worth a lot. The insight and pure themeparks are essentially and funamentally flawed, and not some forum hobo says it, but a MMO developer who is known, is worth alot in itself, if you ask me. It is THE singlemost important insight of the MMO decade.
I dont think that themeparks are flawed as such, the problem is more that remaking Wow wont get you anywhere.
And if they have no good ideas for making a good themepark game trying the sandbox thing is a good option.
Smed actually had a good thought, we tried to remake EQ and we tried to remake Wow both failed. Lets try something new, that might actually work.
If in fact they are throwing everything out the window. and in fact they will be making a completely new game, I can't help but notice that this announcement comes AFTER the success story of GW2. It's like the entire mmo industry was waiting holding their breath to see what would happen with Anet's title once released.
GW2 didn't single handedly change the entire industry but Anet had a hand in it. I'm sure there will be many a hater who disagrees with me but you can't deny the influence it's had on the players and essentially and most notably in this economy the players have final say on a product because they simply won't pay if they do it poorly.
It's just started folks, can't wait to see what happens next with the "big changes" announcements from other gaming companies that were all about the endless dungeon/raid gear treadmill as the only means of progression in a title.
GW2 also falls into the category of games that spiked at the beginning and then had numbers fall off, quite drastically by the looks of it, so im not sure GW2 is really geared to becomming a long term success, certainly the numbers don't hold up for that, although initial box sales were encouraging, making a game though, that is going to appeal to players to keep on playing, and possibly 'paying' beyond the first 5 or 6 weeks is really what this is about, im not sure whether a Sandbox game is really the answer, but the current crop of Themepark games do not appear to have met player requirements for long term playability, it is very clear that in order to create a game with a long term playerbase that actually grows rather than the current trend of games that taper off after a few weeks, that something actually radically different needs to be attempted. Whether SOE is the company to achieve this, i am also not so sure about, Smedley may be just stating how things are at the moment, but with what know so far about SOE's current games, they don't really seem to be able to 'apply' that knowledge meaningfully, DCUO was an unmittigated disaster, and in the post SWG era, (NGE) SOE hasnt really had any meaningfully successful games, even Planetside 2 is shaping up to be an 'also ran' game, just a shadow of its previous incarnation, which is pretty much what the NGE was to SWG. I will keep my fingers crossed for the next incarnation of Everquest, but after being let down so badly with Planetside 2, its not something i have a great deal of confidence about, Smedley might well talk the talk, but i have yet to see him walk
any links with empirical data to back up your claim? because they don't count subs you know just box sales. Oh and before the halloween event started I was being placed in overflow in low level areas all the time which means that the game is still selling like crazy
I read this comment from Smed about the changes of EQ Next to a sandbox:
"Once we made that shift, everything else had to follow. And what we saw was RIFT. We saw the writing on the wall with SWTOR. We saw The Secret World. We saw all these games that we knew were in development and very high-quality, but we saw what was going to happen -- this big spike and then it goes down. That's the truth of what's been happening with MMOs. The fans need to realize that if you don't change the nature of what these games are, you're not going to change that core behavior. We want to make games that last more than 15 years. That's why we made the decision to change it."
Like I pointed out in the other big thread. OP and others hyped about all this, really need to question his definition of a sandbox.
because it doesn't really have a set in stone definition. Notice the same guy called Everqyest a sandbox. That should be a huge red flag.
Because if he consider EQ a sandbox, than his definition of a sandbox may not be the same as many people expect from a Minecraft or Eve.
Maybe you all should be asking him to define a sandbox MMO. That would be better.
People always try to point this out, but have you thought about it completely? If someone thinks product "A" is a sandbox, and another person thinks it is a themepark, and someone says it is a hybrid....Then it isn't, no one can agree what a sandbox is....People do not agree what a themepark, hybrid, or themepark are completely.....
Everyone has different opinions/standards, I have seen people call Vanguard a themepark, a sandbox, and a hybrid. This is not the only one....Some people refuse to call some 'sandboxes' that do not have PvE fighting in them a MMO....A lot of people agree that GW1/Diablo are not MMOs....Some think that MOBAs are MMOs...
This notion that only the defiinition of sandbox is in question, is complete BS.
I am encouraged no matter the definition, because I like deeper systems, which generally are associated with sandboxes in my themepark/hybrid.
That's not the point though. If someone went up and declare he's going to make the largest sandbox, people should clarify what he meant by sandbox, instead of getting all hyped and jumping for joy.
If in fact they are throwing everything out the window. and in fact they will be making a completely new game, I can't help but notice that this announcement comes AFTER the success story of GW2. It's like the entire mmo industry was waiting holding their breath to see what would happen with Anet's title once released.
GW2 didn't single handedly change the entire industry but Anet had a hand in it. I'm sure there will be many a hater who disagrees with me but you can't deny the influence it's had on the players and essentially and most notably in this economy the players have final say on a product because they simply won't pay if they do it poorly.
It's just started folks, can't wait to see what happens next with the "big changes" announcements from other gaming companies that were all about the endless dungeon/raid gear treadmill as the only means of progression in a title.
GW2 also falls into the category of games that spiked at the beginning and then had numbers fall off, quite drastically by the looks of it, so im not sure GW2 is really geared to becomming a long term success, certainly the numbers don't hold up for that, although initial box sales were encouraging, making a game though, that is going to appeal to players to keep on playing, and possibly 'paying' beyond the first 5 or 6 weeks is really what this is about, im not sure whether a Sandbox game is really the answer, but the current crop of Themepark games do not appear to have met player requirements for long term playability, it is very clear that in order to create a game with a long term playerbase that actually grows rather than the current trend of games that taper off after a few weeks, that something actually radically different needs to be attempted. Whether SOE is the company to achieve this, i am also not so sure about, Smedley may be just stating how things are at the moment, but with what know so far about SOE's current games, they don't really seem to be able to 'apply' that knowledge meaningfully, DCUO was an unmittigated disaster, and in the post SWG era, (NGE) SOE hasnt really had any meaningfully successful games, even Planetside 2 is shaping up to be an 'also ran' game, just a shadow of its previous incarnation, which is pretty much what the NGE was to SWG. I will keep my fingers crossed for the next incarnation of Everquest, but after being let down so badly with Planetside 2, its not something i have a great deal of confidence about, Smedley might well talk the talk, but i have yet to see him walk
any links with empirical data to back up your claim? because they don't count subs you know just box sales. Oh and before the halloween event started I was being placed in overflow in low level areas all the time which means that the game is still selling like crazy
You brought up F2P coming into all of EQ2. That's a valid point from a players standpoint but what were they to do? The populations of every server was lower than Freeport and only two even came close in populations. Merge servers? Open another EQ2X server?
There comes a point where you have to make responsible business decisions and that's what happened. What was the outcome? More people on servers other than Freeport. People complain all the time that the SoE model is too restrictive yet why is that? It wouldn't be to give subs a rightful experience would it? To prefer subs while still getting more players in the door.
What did players of the original servers lose by having F2P?
That's nice and all, but the big thing is: Smed and SOE did it explictly after they said they would not, and on every single server, not even exempting one, for the people that didn't want to be a part of that.
At a certain point, a company/person's word has to mean something. What would it have cost SOE to not do the stupid deal with EQ2 on one server? Not much.
But it would have given people a choice, and those people that didn't want it, would have been happy.
Instead, for the Nth time, SOE said in effect: "Customers be damned."
Why is it that every single thing like this is always at the expense of customers or the customer experience?
Different is one thing and not necessarily bad, but always making things worse/more restrictive/more expensive is quite another.
And that is what SOE has a long and documented history of: making things worse for a game, and for the players.
That is the same with EA/Bioware with SWTOR
They said they were happy with the $15 monthly fee, and did not want the game going F2P, and were exploring other payment models than stooping to F2P, but then caved and now making it F2P.
Metro Last Light was said to have multiplayer but now is not
Which companies are guaranteed to do everything they say?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I read this comment from Smed about the changes of EQ Next to a sandbox:
"Once we made that shift, everything else had to follow. And what we saw was RIFT. We saw the writing on the wall with SWTOR. We saw The Secret World. We saw all these games that we knew were in development and very high-quality, but we saw what was going to happen -- this big spike and then it goes down. That's the truth of what's been happening with MMOs. The fans need to realize that if you don't change the nature of what these games are, you're not going to change that core behavior. We want to make games that last more than 15 years. That's why we made the decision to change it."
I'm glad someone finally understands what many of us have been saying for the last 6-7 years now, hype, big promises and copying what was essentially a anomaly at the time (WoW) is not a guarnteed success and is also a quick route to going to F2P like so many MMO have gone now for the simple fact they all are the same thing WoW does better, I also he understands that it's finally time to create something unique in it's own right and start making MMOs that target the underserved segment of MMO players, us.
Maybe the reemergence of virtual worlds will be making a return sooner than we think, but leaning different design directions whether it be themepark or sandbox really isn't the way to go but down the middle (hybrids) is the way to go where you can target both with the best elements of themepark and sandbox into 1 game. If just 1 studio does this with a good budget and a talented team they could have a potential goldmine on their hands by offering something not offered in MMOs in a very long time : freedom and a world to play in , not just another game.
If Blizzard can take all the best elements of the themepark genre and make a a game that caters to that playstyle and do well for themselves just think what could happen if you can make a hybrid that does the same thing as well another game that is the perfect storm, a MMO that people have been really waiting for a long time.
I read this comment from Smed about the changes of EQ Next to a sandbox:
"Once we made that shift, everything else had to follow. And what we saw was RIFT. We saw the writing on the wall with SWTOR. We saw The Secret World. We saw all these games that we knew were in development and very high-quality, but we saw what was going to happen -- this big spike and then it goes down. That's the truth of what's been happening with MMOs. The fans need to realize that if you don't change the nature of what these games are, you're not going to change that core behavior. We want to make games that last more than 15 years. That's why we made the decision to change it."
I don't think SOE have much of a choice now, other than to do something different. There's plenty of MMO's that are similar enough to the WoW formula for the market to be prettty saturaited. An I doubt SOE have the budget to compete with Biowares production values (SWTOR I found dull, the VO and story was pretty well done dull however).
Personnally I don't really care if it's FFA PvP sandbox, or a themepark, or some hybrid . What I'd like is character that requires a good investment of time, where reputation matters, where the role you fill is important to the group and where every encounter requires some technique more than just AOE button mashing.
There needs to be more risk and less reward, the reward should be in the doing not in some loot. Sure I cared in EQ about the loot I was wearing, but it was always secondary to who I was and what the rest of my guild, groupmates thought about how I fullfiled my role in that group.
Comments
As for the second quote SoE took out the items that one would "but their way to power" so where is the beef?
I thank you for finding the quotes though, the "Smed lied" argument makes more sense now.
The whole point is, they said one thing, and then turned around and did exactly what they said they wouldn't.
At least some of their customers did not want to play on EQ2 free servers, SOE said "That's fine, you won't have to, no worries" and turned around and did it anyway.
You can argue what the effects were or weren't, but you can't argue that they didn't say one thing and do another. They did that.
And again, I don't care much about EQ2, I am not a player.
I care that SOE has a crap track record in treating their customers as a company.
Players did not want to play with those that bought their way in and they didn't have to, right?
SoE didn't go with an "Asian style" F2P, right?
That's my point. Yes, they brought a "free to play" model in but the fears that players had SoE took away. I guess that wasn't enough for some people. Oh well.
while the writing may be on the wall, it appears that well be able to destroy that wall with fireballs, and then rebuild the wall.
this.
I agree.
Sandbox MMO's are were things are going to start going. Themepark MMO's haven't done any better then the original MMO's that were basically sandboxes, and hardcore themepark. WoW has been the only exception.
It's not like Rift has more people playing than SWG did before the NGE, or UO at it's prime.
And no large studios outside of asia are attempting sandbox MMO's.
As long as there's a way to play just PvE, a sandbox MMO wouldn't do any worse than Rift. I'd bet EVE has more subs than Rift.
Like I pointed out in the other big thread. OP and others hyped about all this, really need to question his definition of a sandbox.
because it doesn't really have a set in stone definition. Notice the same guy called Everqyest a sandbox. That should be a huge red flag.
Because if he consider EQ a sandbox, than his definition of a sandbox may not be the same as many people expect from a Minecraft or Eve.
Maybe you all should be asking him to define a sandbox MMO. That would be better.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
The irony in this statement, when SoE created the WoW model.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
If in fact they are throwing everything out the window. and in fact they will be making a completely new game, I can't help but notice that this announcement comes AFTER the success story of GW2. It's like the entire mmo industry was waiting holding their breath to see what would happen with Anet's title once released.
GW2 didn't single handedly change the entire industry but Anet had a hand in it. I'm sure there will be many a hater who disagrees with me but you can't deny the influence it's had on the players and essentially and most notably in this economy the players have final say on a product because they simply won't pay if they do it poorly.
It's just started folks, can't wait to see what happens next with the "big changes" announcements from other gaming companies that were all about the endless dungeon/raid gear treadmill as the only means of progression in a title.
This ^
People keep complaining about being 'let down' by game after game, and yet they'll buy into this guys' propaganda? I'll reserve my opinion on EQN for when I start seeing what game mechanics they are actually putting into their game.
Talk is cheap, and it's easy to say the right words to hype up your product. It's actually putting those words into meaningful action that matters. It's one thing to say 'we learned from our mistakes, and this next MMO is going to blow you guys away!' It's an entirely different thing to put that into a tangible product.
It's easy to criticize other games for not changing their core gameplay enough. However, there is a deeper & far more complex issue going on in the MMO genre today. There's a bit of a catch 22 with gamers atm. Gamers want something different, but they really just want to play more of the same. From what has been seen time & time again with MMOs, is even when an MMO comes out that is a really solid / well made game, most of the time gamers won't support it enough to allow it to grow. Many gamers expect MMOs to release in a status that rivals game X which has been out for close to a decade. And they want it to not be rushed. And they want it to come out last year.
It doesn't take a genius to see such expectations aren't sustainable. However, how are you going to release an MMO if you aren't sure people will play it? The production costs aren't cheap enough to make that kind of a risk. Hence the conundrum we find ourselves in today.
In order to actually achieve what Smedley is preaching, 2 things have to happen. 1) The focus of the MMO has to shift dramatically away from gear progression. An idea that most gamers will run from screaming. 2) The mentallity of gamers has to shift from the current, unsustainable mindset. We are a large part of the problem. I'm not sure SOE could even pull off fixing 1 of those issues fully, let alone both.
GW2 also falls into the category of games that spiked at the beginning and then had numbers fall off, quite drastically by the looks of it, so im not sure GW2 is really geared to becomming a long term success, certainly the numbers don't hold up for that, although initial box sales were encouraging, making a game though, that is going to appeal to players to keep on playing, and possibly 'paying' beyond the first 5 or 6 weeks is really what this is about, im not sure whether a Sandbox game is really the answer, but the current crop of Themepark games do not appear to have met player requirements for long term playability, it is very clear that in order to create a game with a long term playerbase that actually grows rather than the current trend of games that taper off after a few weeks, that something actually radically different needs to be attempted. Whether SOE is the company to achieve this, i am also not so sure about, Smedley may be just stating how things are at the moment, but with what know so far about SOE's current games, they don't really seem to be able to 'apply' that knowledge meaningfully, DCUO was an unmittigated disaster, and in the post SWG era, (NGE) SOE hasnt really had any meaningfully successful games, even Planetside 2 is shaping up to be an 'also ran' game, just a shadow of its previous incarnation, which is pretty much what the NGE was to SWG. I will keep my fingers crossed for the next incarnation of Everquest, but after being let down so badly with Planetside 2, its not something i have a great deal of confidence about, Smedley might well talk the talk, but i have yet to see him walk
Was thinking the same thing.
On topic, I really think he's gonna put out a sandbox - SOE made SWG, even if they did destroy it afterwards. The potential is there.
His propaganda! He's a liar! He's gotten us before! lol. No one ever wonders if developers where not lying and perhaps really believe in what they are making.
I guess it's just the difference from people who create things(they take a risk on their opinions and hope that others believe in the same things), and you have the "people that don't create anything(your employee type person, that gripes about their boss, and blames the system for their lack of promotion in 10 years at safeway).
I believe smed believes in what hes saying, like I believe the devs at bioware thought story was the answer, and every little thing that devs think will make their games great. They probably do believe it.
Not saying I like or know smed, but I'll check out a giant sandbox game out, 59 dollars is really not that big of a deal, as it is too some apparently(that feel they where ripped off and wronged somehow lol)
Do alot of you buy -I can't believe it's not butter, than take it back to the store and tell the clerk that you "in fact can tell it is not butter, and that you knew all along that you would be able to tell?" and demand your money back? Just curious.
People always try to point this out, but have you thought about it completely? If someone thinks product "A" is a sandbox, and another person thinks it is a themepark, and someone says it is a hybrid....Then it isn't, no one can agree what a sandbox is....People do not agree what a themepark, hybrid, or themepark are completely.....
Everyone has different opinions/standards, I have seen people call Vanguard a themepark, a sandbox, and a hybrid. This is not the only one....Some people refuse to call some 'sandboxes' that do not have PvE fighting in them a MMO....A lot of people agree that GW1/Diablo are not MMOs....Some think that MOBAs are MMOs...
This notion that only the defiinition of sandbox is in question, is complete BS.
I am encouraged no matter the definition, because I like deeper systems, which generally are associated with sandboxes in my themepark/hybrid.
I dont think that themeparks are flawed as such, the problem is more that remaking Wow wont get you anywhere.
And if they have no good ideas for making a good themepark game trying the sandbox thing is a good option.
Smed actually had a good thought, we tried to remake EQ and we tried to remake Wow both failed. Lets try something new, that might actually work.
any links with empirical data to back up your claim? because they don't count subs you know just box sales. Oh and before the halloween event started I was being placed in overflow in low level areas all the time which means that the game is still selling like crazy
That's not the point though. If someone went up and declare he's going to make the largest sandbox, people should clarify what he meant by sandbox, instead of getting all hyped and jumping for joy.
Xfire hours.
That is the same with EA/Bioware with SWTOR
They said they were happy with the $15 monthly fee, and did not want the game going F2P, and were exploring other payment models than stooping to F2P, but then caved and now making it F2P.
Metro Last Light was said to have multiplayer but now is not
Which companies are guaranteed to do everything they say?
Star Trek Online - Best Free MMORPG of 2012
I most sincerely hope it does not, eventually, become:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USD1vfMRPwI
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I'm glad someone finally understands what many of us have been saying for the last 6-7 years now, hype, big promises and copying what was essentially a anomaly at the time (WoW) is not a guarnteed success and is also a quick route to going to F2P like so many MMO have gone now for the simple fact they all are the same thing WoW does better, I also he understands that it's finally time to create something unique in it's own right and start making MMOs that target the underserved segment of MMO players, us.
Maybe the reemergence of virtual worlds will be making a return sooner than we think, but leaning different design directions whether it be themepark or sandbox really isn't the way to go but down the middle (hybrids) is the way to go where you can target both with the best elements of themepark and sandbox into 1 game. If just 1 studio does this with a good budget and a talented team they could have a potential goldmine on their hands by offering something not offered in MMOs in a very long time : freedom and a world to play in , not just another game.
If Blizzard can take all the best elements of the themepark genre and make a a game that caters to that playstyle and do well for themselves just think what could happen if you can make a hybrid that does the same thing as well another game that is the perfect storm, a MMO that people have been really waiting for a long time.
SOE are even bad than EA or funcom . why they think they can make a sandbox that everyone will like ? not to mention extreme f2p restrictions .
I don't think SOE have much of a choice now, other than to do something different. There's plenty of MMO's that are similar enough to the WoW formula for the market to be prettty saturaited. An I doubt SOE have the budget to compete with Biowares production values (SWTOR I found dull, the VO and story was pretty well done dull however).
Personnally I don't really care if it's FFA PvP sandbox, or a themepark, or some hybrid . What I'd like is character that requires a good investment of time, where reputation matters, where the role you fill is important to the group and where every encounter requires some technique more than just AOE button mashing.
There needs to be more risk and less reward, the reward should be in the doing not in some loot. Sure I cared in EQ about the loot I was wearing, but it was always secondary to who I was and what the rest of my guild, groupmates thought about how I fullfiled my role in that group.