Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Does the continuation of old games discourage new ones?

AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,190
Right now there are a lot of older mmorogs still up and running. Part of me celebrates that. I like the idea that I can always go home.

But I have to believe that game makers take these games into account in assessing how well the market space is being serviced. Maybe if more old mmorpgs went inactive, new ones would appear. Or maybe not. But I think it's worth discussing.

EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

tzervoblueturtle13GdemamiAlBQuirkyTokken
«13

Comments

  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 326
    edited July 12
    Amathe said:
    Right now there are a lot of older mmorogs still up and running. Part of me celebrates that. I like the idea that I can always go home.

    But I have to believe that game makers take these games into account in assessing how well the market space is being serviced. Maybe if more old mmorpgs went inactive, new ones would appear. Or maybe not. But I think it's worth discussing.
    I would love to see a properly set up survey on that by someone like Quantic Foundry.

    My belief is that older MMOs just cull the herd. When ESO, FFXIV and GW2 came out they did not kill WOW but they took a slice of the pie on their own merits (though the pie was larger back then). Lots of other themeparks didn't. When BDO and E:D came out they did not have an issue surviving, they did enough to feel fresh and take another slice of the pie and become successful.

    Older MMOs just make sure that cheapo attempts at a game will be short lived. New games can still get popular (or at least grab a niche) if they are good and offer something to set them apart. If you did not have the old popular MMOs, that would just give the new cheapo releases a few more breaths before dying.

    The only way in which older MMOs sometimes cut the oxygen from new releases is when they can successfully integrate innovative ideas from new MMOs, which makes them competitive to new releases.

    The biggest threat (as far as game maker decisions go) comes from mobile and non-MMO online games, which are today more profitable and cheaper to make, not from old MMOs.
    AmatheNyghthowlerAlBQuirkyBrainy
  • remsleepremsleep Member RarePosts: 519
    edited July 12
    Competition and market saturation is always a factor, the question is to what extent?

    Vast majority of MMOs after a long time shrink down to a tiny fraction of the playerbase so having players who are willing to play and try a new game is not an issue

    I think the biggest factor that is discouraging new games is not old games but 

    1. Risk of cost vs return on investment (mmos are very expensive)

    2. Player retention and player traction is a huge problem (players might flock to a new game quickly and leave after a few weeks)

    3. 5 year dev cycle - hard to predict competition and quickly changing player interests - example several Overwatch type games released almost at the same time - none but Overwatch made it

    4. If there are already a handful of super successful games that have captured 90% of the specific segment (example Fortnite for battle royale, LoL for mobas) - it's almost impossible to make a game that can break into the same segment and be a blockbuster 

    I think number 4 is really the killer when it comes to older games totally cockblocking new games

    This is why we see a return to very focused niche projects that target a very specific playerbase, aka indie projects like Pantheon
    tzervoAmatheAlBQuirky
  • remsleepremsleep Member RarePosts: 519
    tzervo said:

    The biggest threat (as far as game maker decisions go) comes from mobile and non-MMO online games, which are today more profitable and cheaper to make, not from old MMOs.

    Top AAA mobile games still cost over 20mil to develop, and marketing costs are the same as non-mobile games.

    So dev + marketing cost for top mobile games can still go over 100milion dollars.

    There is a myth that mobile games are cheap to make  and rake in cash - reality is mobile space is so oversaturated that vast majority of mobile games never make money.

    AAA mobile segment requires such huge amount of market funds that it is litteraly out of reach of all but the richest of companies.

    So to make a ton in mobile space - you have to have a massive marketing budget and you are still taking a huge risk.

    Bottom line - there is no easy money and that includes mobile games

    tzervoblueturtle13AmatheKyleranWaanAlBQuirky
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 5,772
    I think a large part of why most MMOs die on arrival is that they face unfair and impossible comparisons to the amount of content accumulated by WoW over years and years of subscription-funded service.
    AmatheAlBQuirky
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,246
    I had a meeting a few years back with a team of developers and investors that was throwing around the idea of creating a new mmorpg in the vain of Asheron's Call and Spellborn.
    (I was a part of it because of work on Spellborn and early contract work for SOE)
    The initial budget was fine the concept was good enough.
    Systems were decent yet half of us still voted to not want to be a part of it. 
    My concern personally was the time commitment involved in creating and maintaining an mmorpg. Budget was a concern sure but for me it was all about the time commitment. 
    So much ground work has to be put down in all the right order for it to survive long term then years of content creation and pressure to deliver. 
    Too many developers in our current time do not want to agree to such a long term commitment.  
    Many people think the market reads and competition and this and that are the biggest factors and the reality is for producers, investors and developers that could not be further from the truth. Because (for the most part) if you make a really good game it will get played.
    It boils down to not wanting a long term personal commitment and creative focus for such an extended period of time. 
     Developing is for the majority, project based.
    Most like to develop a project and move on.
    Not commit to a ten year+ sentence.
    There are a couple of projects in the works that show promise for a new era type mmorpg but they use gameplay systems beyond just the tired whack a mole system we have grown used to from 20+ years ago. How these will be received is beyond guess at this point but it is clear that a more fluid and dynamic way of developing is required for the genre to have any future beyond just rehashed games we have all already played.
       
    remsleepSovrathtzervoGladDogAmatheMendelUngoodcheyaneKyleranWaanand 2 others.

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • tzervotzervo Member RarePosts: 326
    edited July 12
    remsleep said:

    Top AAA mobile games still cost over 20mil to develop, and marketing costs are the same as non-mobile games.

    So dev + marketing cost for top mobile games can still go over 100milion dollars.

    There is a myth that mobile games are cheap to make  and rake in cash - reality is mobile space is so oversaturated that vast majority of mobile games never make money.

    AAA mobile segment requires such huge amount of market funds that it is litteraly out of reach of all but the richest of companies.

    So to make a ton in mobile space - you have to have a massive marketing budget and you are still taking a huge risk.

    Bottom line - there is no easy money and that includes mobile games

    I did not know that. You are right - thanks for correcting me:

    https://venturebeat.com/2018/01/23/the-cost-of-games/

    will say that a couple of the recent top of the line mobile games have budgets ranging from $5 million to $20 million — the bottom end is not as low as people think, when doing “triple-A mobile.”
    ...
    In mobile, it’s not uncommon to hear savvy shops set aside three to 10 times the development budget for marketing, because the market is that crowded.
    AlBQuirky
  • remsleepremsleep Member RarePosts: 519
    I had a meeting a few years back with a team of developers and investors that was throwing around the idea of creating a new mmorpg in the vain of Asheron's Call and Spellborn.
    (I was a part of it because of work on Spellborn and early contract work for SOE)
    The initial budget was fine the concept was good enough.
    Systems were decent yet half of us still voted to not want to be a part of it. 
    My concern personally was the time commitment involved in creating and maintaining an mmorpg. Budget was a concern sure but for me it was all about the time commitment. 
    So much ground work has to be put down in all the right order for it to survive long term then years of content creation and pressure to deliver. 
    Too many developers in our current time do not want to agree to such a long term commitment.  
    Many people think the market reads and competition and this and that are the biggest factors and the reality is for producers, investors and developers that could not be further from the truth. Because (for the most part) if you make a really good game it will get played.
    It boils down to not wanting a long term personal commitment and creative focus for such an extended period of time. 
     Developing is for the majority, project based.
    Most like to develop a project and move on.
    Not commit to a ten year+ sentence.
    There are a couple of projects in the works that show promise for a new era type mmorpg but they use gameplay systems beyond just the tired whack a mole system we have grown used to from 20+ years ago. How these will be received is beyond guess at this point but it is clear that a more fluid and dynamic way of developing is required for the genre to have any future beyond just rehashed games we have all already played.
       


    This is true - devs who have worked on supporting the same game for 10+ years all taking about how they are just completely burned out and amd have lost passion for the game they orginally created.

    The time commitment for a mmorpg is a real killer for sure.

    This is why when a new project is about to spin up inside a studio- there is a blood feeding frenzy of everyone wanting to jump on the new project because anything would be better than staying with the old 10 year game and keeping that going
    blueturtle13AmatheAlBQuirky
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,581
    I still play Anarchy Online and rarely EQ1...If I stopped playing those, taht doesn't mean I will automatically go to ESO or GW2......Even if we still play older MMORPGs, we most likely try the new ones....imo ESO and GW2 just don't hold my interest...If they did I would play them more than AO or EQ.
    AlBQuirky
  • remsleepremsleep Member RarePosts: 519
    Aeander said:
    I think a large part of why most MMOs die on arrival is that they face unfair and impossible comparisons to the amount of content accumulated by WoW over years and years of subscription-funded service.


    This is why new games have to offer gameplay that is different enough to warrant interest based on new ideas and concepts and not the same old shit that Everquest, WoW and other old games have.

    You cannot compete with 15 years of content, but if you make a new game with new concepts, new ideas and new mechanics that players flock to - then you make those 15 years of content irrelevant. 



    tzervoAmatheMendelAlBQuirky
  • GladDogGladDog Member RarePosts: 1,060
    Hmm, I had not thought of it that way Blue.

    Is that the reason New World keeps being delayed, since the project is so huge it is hard to hold the team together?

    I'll be looking forward to seeing what develops in the new systems you mentioned briefly.  
    Amathe


    The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!


  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,581
    remsleep said:
    Aeander said:
    I think a large part of why most MMOs die on arrival is that they face unfair and impossible comparisons to the amount of content accumulated by WoW over years and years of subscription-funded service.


    This is why new games have to offer gameplay that is different enough to warrant interest based on new ideas and concepts and not the same old shit that Everquest, WoW and other old games have.

    You cannot compete with 15 years of content, but if you make a new game with new concepts, new ideas and new mechanics that players flock to - then you make those 15 years of content irrelevant. 




    and I guess they did that...it's called Fortnite......We just didn't like the direction it went.
    tzervoAlBQuirky
  • remsleepremsleep Member RarePosts: 519
    remsleep said:
    Aeander said:
    I think a large part of why most MMOs die on arrival is that they face unfair and impossible comparisons to the amount of content accumulated by WoW over years and years of subscription-funded service.


    This is why new games have to offer gameplay that is different enough to warrant interest based on new ideas and concepts and not the same old shit that Everquest, WoW and other old games have.

    You cannot compete with 15 years of content, but if you make a new game with new concepts, new ideas and new mechanics that players flock to - then you make those 15 years of content irrelevant. 




    and I guess they did that...it's called Fortnite......We just didn't like the direction it went.

    Interestingly enough, no matter how much each person feels that life should deliver on their personal wants and desires, turns out that's not how life works 


  • ShaniaRebornShaniaReborn Member UncommonPosts: 48
    Aeander said:
    I think a large part of why most MMOs die on arrival is that they face unfair and impossible comparisons to the amount of content accumulated by WoW over years and years of subscription-funded service.
    Unfair?  What is unfair about it?  WoW started off with 270,000 copies of the game shipped.  It was sold out within hours and stores had to wait weeks for more copies of the game.  Today, WoW alone is over a $2 Billion a year business.  They built that from the ground up.  There is nothing unfair about that.

    The game today costs as much as it did on launch day, $15 a month.

    Any new game today can do the same exact thing.  Don't think you are going to be a WoW killer as that will never happen.  Many have tried, yet WoW is still King of the MMORPG landscape.  Manage expectations for the game.  Under promise and over deliver.   Slow and steady wins the race.  Remember, WoW started as a relatively small game and 270,000 units sold.  If Blizzard can do it with WoW, anyone can.
    AlBQuirky
  • remsleepremsleep Member RarePosts: 519
    Aeander said:
    I think a large part of why most MMOs die on arrival is that they face unfair and impossible comparisons to the amount of content accumulated by WoW over years and years of subscription-funded service.
    Unfair?  What is unfair about it?  WoW started off with 270,000 copies of the game shipped.  It was sold out within hours and stores had to wait weeks for more copies of the game.  Today, WoW alone is over a $2 Billion a year business.  They built that from the ground up.  There is nothing unfair about that.

    The game today costs as much as it did on launch day, $15 a month.

    Any new game today can do the same exact thing.  Don't think you are going to be a WoW killer as that will never happen.  Many have tried, yet WoW is still King of the MMORPG landscape.  Manage expectations for the game.  Under promise and over deliver.   Slow and steady wins the race.  Remember, WoW started as a relatively small game and 270,000 units sold.  If Blizzard can do it with WoW, anyone can.

    The thing is WoW is not a king of mmorpgs anymore.

    Even Blizzard cant out-WoW anymore, they've been trying for years with internal projects that all failed.

    Blizzard would love to have another WoW blockbuster- but the fact that they haven't been able to do another mmorpg proves how exceedingly rare this phenomenon was and it goes way beyond just slow and steady and all these other bullshit pep talk sayings.

    2020 is a vastly different gaming landscape than 2004 - stuff that worked in 2004 doesn't work now.

    tzervoKyleranAlBQuirky
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,000
    Does the availability of older single-player games discourage the creation of new single-player games?  If anything, you'd expect that to be a much stronger effect than for MMORPGs.

    For starters, single-player games have a much longer history.  While a lot of people don't still have the hardware needed to play old console games, a lot of them are still available via emulators.  Companies like Capcom and Square have been re-releasing some of their older games on Steam.

    Additionally, single-player games tend to remain playable forever, which isn't really true of MMORPGs.  It's not just that MMORPGs will sometimes pull the plug.  It's not even that group content can become unplayable if the playerbase is too small.  Often game developers make changes with the intent of altering or adding top end content without particularly caring how it affects lower level content, and that can leave the lower level content in an unplayable state.  People mention WoW above, but a new player who wants to start WoW today very nearly can't, as the lower level content is a mess, and apart from paying a lot of money for a boost to high levels, he'll have to slog through a very long string of awfulness in order to reach the little bit of content that the developers still maintain.
    MendelNyghthowlerAlBQuirky
  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member LegendaryPosts: 7,216
    edited July 12
    Too much choice in general is making the genre harder to thrive in. When you think back to games mmorpgs like WoW and prior, how much competition was there really? Keep in mind that all mmorpgs back then only had to compete with others in that same genre as well. Compared to now where mmorpgs are competing with mmos in the general sense, mobile games (including single player), and even streaming services, because all of these things are fighting not over subs, but a person's time (pretty much why blizzard shifting from talking about subs to talking about MAUs, since people are wanting to see how much time they can invest in something for the amount of money they would be paying).

    The head of Microsoft put the reality of 'console wars' pretty realistically, that its not just competing with each other, but services as a whole since at the end of the day, everything has a service attached to it (playstation plus, xbox game pass, w/e nintendo has, all competing with stuff like netflix/hulu/etc). The only way a game can thrive now is if its apart of something larger and offers people more for there money since time is very limited and people will always have more money than time (definitely something you learn as you get older).
    tzervoAlBQuirky
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,139
    I had a meeting a few years back with a team of developers and investors that was throwing around the idea of creating a new mmorpg in the vain of Asheron's Call and Spellborn.
    (I was a part of it because of work on Spellborn and early contract work for SOE)
    The initial budget was fine the concept was good enough.
    Systems were decent yet half of us still voted to not want to be a part of it. 
    My concern personally was the time commitment involved in creating and maintaining an mmorpg. Budget was a concern sure but for me it was all about the time commitment. 
    So much ground work has to be put down in all the right order for it to survive long term then years of content creation and pressure to deliver. 
    Too many developers in our current time do not want to agree to such a long term commitment.  
    Many people think the market reads and competition and this and that are the biggest factors and the reality is for producers, investors and developers that could not be further from the truth. Because (for the most part) if you make a really good game it will get played.
    It boils down to not wanting a long term personal commitment and creative focus for such an extended period of time. 
     Developing is for the majority, project based.
    Most like to develop a project and move on.
    Not commit to a ten year+ sentence.
    There are a couple of projects in the works that show promise for a new era type mmorpg but they use gameplay systems beyond just the tired whack a mole system we have grown used to from 20+ years ago. How these will be received is beyond guess at this point but it is clear that a more fluid and dynamic way of developing is required for the genre to have any future beyond just rehashed games we have all already played.
       
    This is fascinating to tell the truth, and in such stark contrast to my own profession, for example, when the company I worked for took a job building a train station, it was a 12 year project from start to finish, and we were eager to be part of that, as that gave use a sense of security that we would have a guaranteed locked-in job for the next 12 years.

    Where you make it sound like that same kind of situation for a developer is a person sentence. 

    So in that vein, what you said was very informative, something I personally never even thought about, or looked at from a very different lens.

    Thank you for this insight.
    NyghthowlerAmatheKyleranAlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,120
    edited July 12
    I had a meeting a few years back with a team of developers and investors that was throwing around the idea of creating a new mmorpg in the vain of Asheron's Call and Spellborn.
    (I was a part of it because of work on Spellborn and early contract work for SOE)
    The initial budget was fine the concept was good enough.
    Systems were decent yet half of us still voted to not want to be a part of it. 
    My concern personally was the time commitment involved in creating and maintaining an mmorpg. Budget was a concern sure but for me it was all about the time commitment. 
    So much ground work has to be put down in all the right order for it to survive long term then years of content creation and pressure to deliver. 
    Too many developers in our current time do not want to agree to such a long term commitment.  
    Many people think the market reads and competition and this and that are the biggest factors and the reality is for producers, investors and developers that could not be further from the truth. Because (for the most part) if you make a really good game it will get played.
    It boils down to not wanting a long term personal commitment and creative focus for such an extended period of time. 
     Developing is for the majority, project based.
    Most like to develop a project and move on.
    Not commit to a ten year+ sentence.
    There are a couple of projects in the works that show promise for a new era type mmorpg but they use gameplay systems beyond just the tired whack a mole system we have grown used to from 20+ years ago. How these will be received is beyond guess at this point but it is clear that a more fluid and dynamic way of developing is required for the genre to have any future beyond just rehashed games we have all already played.
       
    Hmm I think maintaining an MMORPG is very hard if you need to keep up content and it is not an easy thing to do. I would personally also not want to part of that because as a developer I would want to work on different projects too. It must be stagnating to keep working on one project for years being limited by the engine and resources that players have to provide. You can just rot away there and lose your edge.

    I understand your perspective but I am very sad for the future of MMORPGs because this reasoning is what is making their development rarer. New games aren't going to be developed by large companies not in the vein we saw in the beginning of this genre.
    AlBQuirky
    Martens: "With all due respect, madam, where are you going with this?"
    Avasarala: "Wherever I goddamn like."
  • NyghthowlerNyghthowler Member UncommonPosts: 352
    Ungood said:
    I had a meeting a few years back with a team of developers and investors that was throwing around the idea of creating a new mmorpg in the vain of Asheron's Call and Spellborn.
    (I was a part of it because of work on Spellborn and early contract work for SOE)
    The initial budget was fine the concept was good enough.
    Systems were decent yet half of us still voted to not want to be a part of it. 
    My concern personally was the time commitment involved in creating and maintaining an mmorpg. Budget was a concern sure but for me it was all about the time commitment. 
    So much ground work has to be put down in all the right order for it to survive long term then years of content creation and pressure to deliver. 
    Too many developers in our current time do not want to agree to such a long term commitment.  
    Many people think the market reads and competition and this and that are the biggest factors and the reality is for producers, investors and developers that could not be further from the truth. Because (for the most part) if you make a really good game it will get played.
    It boils down to not wanting a long term personal commitment and creative focus for such an extended period of time. 
     Developing is for the majority, project based.
    Most like to develop a project and move on.
    Not commit to a ten year+ sentence.
    There are a couple of projects in the works that show promise for a new era type mmorpg but they use gameplay systems beyond just the tired whack a mole system we have grown used to from 20+ years ago. How these will be received is beyond guess at this point but it is clear that a more fluid and dynamic way of developing is required for the genre to have any future beyond just rehashed games we have all already played.
       
    This is fascinating to tell the truth, and in such stark contrast to my own profession, for example, when the company I worked for took a job building a train station, it was a 12 year project from start to finish, and we were eager to be part of that, as that gave use a sense of security that we would have a guaranteed locked-in job for the next 12 years.

    Where you make it sound like that same kind of situation for a developer is a person sentence. 

    So in that vein, what you said was very informative, something I personally never even thought about, or looked at from a very different lens.

    Thank you for this insight.
    I have to agree with this. I would have never thought of developers not wanting to be locked into almost guaranteed work for a period of years.
    Honestly, the concept is hard to wrap my mind around in this day and age where all you hear is over saturated work forces, and companies requiring more and more experience to land an entry position job...
    UngoodKyleranAlBQuirky
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,538
    Amathe said:
    Right now there are a lot of older mmorogs still up and running. Part of me celebrates that. I like the idea that I can always go home.

    But I have to believe that game makers take these games into account in assessing how well the market space is being serviced. Maybe if more old mmorpgs went inactive, new ones would appear. Or maybe not. But I think it's worth discussing.

    First, I hold the firm belief that the potential market for mmos is vastly bigger than the actual market being serviced by existing mmos. This genre has so much potential, but hardly any of it has been tapped. So, the existing market is just a niche of a niche of a niche of a.....


    Second, I firmly believe that lots of older MMOs should have shut down ages ago, though not for the reasons you stated. My concern is around the turnaround time for games. If you work in other genres, then you get to build a new game every year (CoD, Fifa etc) or every 3 years (bethesda, rockstar etc) or whatever. You build, you launch, you learn lessons, then you make the next game better.

    In the MMO market, a dev gets tied into a game for many years, potentially a decade+. Sure, you can iterate / improve on your designs through updates and expansions, but you are generally limited by the engine and the original design decisions.

    This means that the entire genre evolves much, much slower than other genres. Lessons get learned slower than other genres. Given the vast costs of development, studios are also less willing to take risks. A bad decision at the start could trouble you for years, whereas other genres, a bad decision might just mean a bad year, and you can recover the following year with a better game.



    Finally, my main line of thought when it comes to "why we don't have nice things" is simply the nature of massively multiplayer games. Standard mechanics from other genres often don't work well when you add hundreds of other players into the mix. Most of the mmorpgs we have are designed around single player mechanics and this causes a lot of problems. Studios have realised this (by watching a long succession of mediocre games come out) but no-one has given us a good template for how to do it right. I think a lot of studios out there are just sitting on their hands, waiting for that spark of inspiration (or good game to copy) to come along.

    I do firmly believe that once we get the next "great" mmo, we'll quickly see a load of studios re-enter the genre. How we get that first one, i don't know. maybe an indie studio will get there, but I think it still needs a larger studio.
    tzervoAlBQuirkyMendel
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,676
    edited July 12
    No what we are seeing right now is an era in gaming where devs no longer want to spend big money and/or take risks on new IP's.

    So when Wow came out and made money,everyone jumped on the bandwagon,when Zombie games made money we got tons of them.When BR's began making loads of money again everyone jumped on the bandwagon.
    When Dota and LOL's were making it big others saw that and jumped on the bandwagon.
    Just like Wow was a huge turning point in the industry ,Fortnite might also be THAT GAME.You see Epic stopped developing Fortnite,stopped developing at least 2-3 other games just to focus on joining the BR movement.
    Point being it is not only older games but the rehashing of the same gimmicks.

    Starcraft 1...2,Warcraft 1..2..++,Daiblo 1...2...3 +,there is no risk to create a new IP and if they do create a new IP it will copy a current trend/gimmick.

    Survival games came out in drones,tons of them,tcg's all seem to arrive around the same 2 year period.
    There is of course  the possibility that after 30 years of gaming developers have simply run out of ideas,run out of gimmicks.So when they ran out of ideas for gamin,they turned to ideas on marketing,the money side,loot boxes,"seasons","cosmetics""full cash shops""card packs" ,selling ships,selling GTA$$$,ISK etc etc.

    So this is a phase,the sad part is that i don't see it getting better,the next phase will again be some gimmick to make money,while NOT bettering our games.


    AlBQuirky

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,676
    We are sort of already seeing the other phases,VR can we really say even one great game came out for it?
    The next money phase seems to be control of where we play our games and who gets a cut of the profits.Microsoft was trying to corner the entire market and why Sweeney created a controversial article on the subject.
    Now we see these big businesses all jockeying for the new CLOUD wave,streaming services and  once again<NONE of this gives us better games,if anything worse quality trying to play them or wearing some clunky VR machine on your head.
    AlBQuirky

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,186
    Ungood said:
    I had a meeting a few years back with a team of developers and investors that was throwing around the idea of creating a new mmorpg in the vain of Asheron's Call and Spellborn.
    (I was a part of it because of work on Spellborn and early contract work for SOE)
    The initial budget was fine the concept was good enough.
    Systems were decent yet half of us still voted to not want to be a part of it. 
    My concern personally was the time commitment involved in creating and maintaining an mmorpg. Budget was a concern sure but for me it was all about the time commitment. 
    So much ground work has to be put down in all the right order for it to survive long term then years of content creation and pressure to deliver. 
    Too many developers in our current time do not want to agree to such a long term commitment.  
    Many people think the market reads and competition and this and that are the biggest factors and the reality is for producers, investors and developers that could not be further from the truth. Because (for the most part) if you make a really good game it will get played.
    It boils down to not wanting a long term personal commitment and creative focus for such an extended period of time. 
     Developing is for the majority, project based.
    Most like to develop a project and move on.
    Not commit to a ten year+ sentence.
    There are a couple of projects in the works that show promise for a new era type mmorpg but they use gameplay systems beyond just the tired whack a mole system we have grown used to from 20+ years ago. How these will be received is beyond guess at this point but it is clear that a more fluid and dynamic way of developing is required for the genre to have any future beyond just rehashed games we have all already played.
       
    This is fascinating to tell the truth, and in such stark contrast to my own profession, for example, when the company I worked for took a job building a train station, it was a 12 year project from start to finish, and we were eager to be part of that, as that gave use a sense of security that we would have a guaranteed locked-in job for the next 12 years.

    Where you make it sound like that same kind of situation for a developer is a person sentence. 

    So in that vein, what you said was very informative, something I personally never even thought about, or looked at from a very different lens.

    Thank you for this insight.
    I have to agree with this. I would have never thought of developers not wanting to be locked into almost guaranteed work for a period of years.
    Honestly, the concept is hard to wrap my mind around in this day and age where all you hear is over saturated work forces, and companies requiring more and more experience to land an entry position job...
    Agreed, I've been delivering financial services software for almost 20 years now, mostly in the same department, not bored yet.

    Some of my peers have over 35 years in, some within the same Tech group for more than 20.

    So I can't really relate to the ideas of devs fearing being trapped.
    AlBQuirkyUngood

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    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






  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,581
    Gorwe said:
    Well, there is just so many free hours in the day. But! You answer me:

    "Would I rather play a proven and remastered old game or a promising, but ultimately unknown new game?"

    The difference now is we can take a few minutes, watch a youtube video, and have a pretty good idea of what we are getting into.
    tzervoAlBQuirkycheyane
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,818
    Kyleran said:
    Ungood said:
    I had a meeting a few years back with a team of developers and investors that was throwing around the idea of creating a new mmorpg in the vain of Asheron's Call and Spellborn.
    (I was a part of it because of work on Spellborn and early contract work for SOE)
    The initial budget was fine the concept was good enough.
    Systems were decent yet half of us still voted to not want to be a part of it. 
    My concern personally was the time commitment involved in creating and maintaining an mmorpg. Budget was a concern sure but for me it was all about the time commitment. 
    So much ground work has to be put down in all the right order for it to survive long term then years of content creation and pressure to deliver. 
    Too many developers in our current time do not want to agree to such a long term commitment.  
    Many people think the market reads and competition and this and that are the biggest factors and the reality is for producers, investors and developers that could not be further from the truth. Because (for the most part) if you make a really good game it will get played.
    It boils down to not wanting a long term personal commitment and creative focus for such an extended period of time. 
     Developing is for the majority, project based.
    Most like to develop a project and move on.
    Not commit to a ten year+ sentence.
    There are a couple of projects in the works that show promise for a new era type mmorpg but they use gameplay systems beyond just the tired whack a mole system we have grown used to from 20+ years ago. How these will be received is beyond guess at this point but it is clear that a more fluid and dynamic way of developing is required for the genre to have any future beyond just rehashed games we have all already played.
       
    This is fascinating to tell the truth, and in such stark contrast to my own profession, for example, when the company I worked for took a job building a train station, it was a 12 year project from start to finish, and we were eager to be part of that, as that gave use a sense of security that we would have a guaranteed locked-in job for the next 12 years.

    Where you make it sound like that same kind of situation for a developer is a person sentence. 

    So in that vein, what you said was very informative, something I personally never even thought about, or looked at from a very different lens.

    Thank you for this insight.
    I have to agree with this. I would have never thought of developers not wanting to be locked into almost guaranteed work for a period of years.
    Honestly, the concept is hard to wrap my mind around in this day and age where all you hear is over saturated work forces, and companies requiring more and more experience to land an entry position job...
    Agreed, I've been delivering financial services software for almost 20 years now, mostly in the same department, not bored yet.

    Some of my peers have over 35 years in, some within the same Tech group for more than 20.

    So I can't really relate to the ideas of devs fearing being trapped.
    How many 60+ hour crunch weeks do you get to endure in a year?  Does your office have bunk beds for staff to sleep over?   How's the workplace toxicity?   Do your kids wonder who you are when you come home?  (okay, that one may happen regardless)

    Different expectations.....
    AlBQuirkyblueturtle13

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

Sign In or Register to comment.