The only reason sandbox MMOs can't succeed is because players refuse to compromise. People don't want to have to PvP, so as a result, the PKer suffers. People don't want to have to roleplay, so as a result, the roleplayer suffers. People don't want to have to travel, so as a result, the explorer/survivalist suffers. People don't want to have to buy and sell to get their gear, so as a result, the trading player suffers. And because none of us are willing to do things we don't like, we end up with games that are shallow, and please nobody for very long.
What don't you understand? Eve exists and is a very popular game and it is most definitely a sandbox game? Doesn't that completely shatter your argument to smithereens?
I guess you have a reading deficiency and did not see all the posts affirming that Eve is one and is alive and quite well.
Yes, Eve does not have Wow numbers, but then no one else does either. But then CCP is doing so well they managed to buy Whtewolf and are now embarked with them on another MMO project most certainly dealing with werewolves. Oh and by the way, you don't have to pvp in Eve, I rarely do and when I do, it is my choice. So the ruleset in a sandbox CAN allow people with different tastes to coexist. There are large roleplay alliances in EVE also. If you don't like traveling, EVE is not for you, If you want to get from one side to another of the universe it will take you awhile. There is instant travel in the pvp area, but you still need one of your fleet at the destination, so someone has to make the trip first.
EVE may be a sandbox in the loosest sense, but I personally think its sand is shallow.
Too much metagaming, too much reliance on lootables from complexes, and too much of the same sights for my taste.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Sandbox games can definitely succeed. The Sim City and Civ series are sandbox games. The only problem right now is there's a proven formula for MMO success and everybody's afraid to commit resources to a sandbox MMO because it would deviate from that formula.
So why did the Sims fail? Or Ryzom?
Seems to me that people who know about and want sandbox games are always on the look out for them so it's possible it's marketing but I don't think that's it.
I'm not saying they can't succeed. But I am doubtful that they are in as high demand as people think.
They take up time, they require more from players and becasue of this you aren't going to get a huge amount of players because nowadays most players have other things to do.
More structured games allow for part time players to log in for short amounts of time and have a bit of fun.
Well, how come Asheron's Call 2 failed? Tabula Rasa is on that path too. Asheron's Call 1 was a sandbox that people loved, AC2, was not, and people didn't want that. Tabula Rasa was created by the father of the sandbox MMO, Ultima Online, but its all level based and linear, and its failing.
It goes both ways. There's less of a demand for a sandbox game, sure, but that's because the majority of the MMO market have only played WoW. They're used to their hands being held and everything behind spoon fed to them with their dribble wiped away. If they were to go into a sandbox they'd be confused and scared and have no idea what to do with a REAL MMO.
But, for us vets that have been here since the MMO Golden Age (Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EQ, AC) we're DYING for a sandbox, or at least SOMETHING with some difficulty.
Sorry I think that's just sour grapes.
It's like certain players have taken the (seemingly) high road and declared that sandbox games are the creme de la creme and anything else is lesser because they say so.
But you are right, it does work both ways. But proof is in the pudding. You had sandbox games. If what I'm reading is correct, that was the prevalent style of game when the market first started. But now all those sandbox games have changed (this is what I've read thus far on these forums).
I've been playing a bit of Vanguard lately. One of the things that seems to be touted about sandbox games is the exploration. I can't deny this is attractive because it''s what got me hooked into Morrowind and what eventually led me to online games with the hope that I'd find the same thing but with people.
However, I was running someplace in Vanguard and though the whole exploration thing can be fun, I was finding it hard to deal with because it just took too long. Too long to actually do anything with the time I had.
That is why I think sandbox games fail, or at least fail in this market. It does take more of an effort on the players but with players not being "gamers" and not wanting to devote huge amounts of time to figuring out what they should be doing, they seek other types of games.
they want mini adventures for small amounts of time. Send them on some small quests, let them do some socializing and they are good to go.
As I've posted before, I have a friend who played pre-NGE SWG. Someone above made the comment that my stating that people don't want to have a second job could refer to EQ1 and the endless camping and grinding. That could easily be true.
But his comment on SWG was that it felt like a job. That he basically felt it wasn't fun because he just didn't have the time to really do anything and when he did do things it was crafting which really felt like a job. Now, that could be his experience but he really did like EQ1 so perhaps it was the structure of EQ1 (because granted it did take time from what I heard).
I get the idea of having more freedom and quite frankly I'm for it. However, for the average player they want to feel like they are in a theme park and not a world. And quite frankly I can't blame them. It's just a game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Sandbox games can definitely succeed. The Sim City and Civ series are sandbox games. The only problem right now is there's a proven formula for MMO success and everybody's afraid to commit resources to a sandbox MMO because it would deviate from that formula.
So why did the Sims fail? Or Ryzom?
Seems to me that people who know about and want sandbox games are always on the look out for them so it's possible it's marketing but I don't think that's it.
I'm not saying they can't succeed. But I am doubtful that they are in as high demand as people think.
They take up time, they require more from players and becasue of this you aren't going to get a huge amount of players because nowadays most players have other things to do.
More structured games allow for part time players to log in for short amounts of time and have a bit of fun.
Well, how come Asheron's Call 2 failed? Tabula Rasa is on that path too. Asheron's Call 1 was a sandbox that people loved, AC2, was not, and people didn't want that. Tabula Rasa was created by the father of the sandbox MMO, Ultima Online, but its all level based and linear, and its failing.
It goes both ways. There's less of a demand for a sandbox game, sure, but that's because the majority of the MMO market have only played WoW. They're used to their hands being held and everything behind spoon fed to them with their dribble wiped away. If they were to go into a sandbox they'd be confused and scared and have no idea what to do with a REAL MMO.
But, for us vets that have been here since the MMO Golden Age (Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EQ, AC) we're DYING for a sandbox, or at least SOMETHING with some difficulty.
Sorry I think that's just sour grapes.
It's like certain players have taken the (seemingly) high road and declared that sandbox games are the creme de la creme and anything else is lesser because they say so.
But you are right, it does work both ways. But proof is in the pudding. You had sandbox games. If what I'm reading is correct, that was the prevalent style of game when the market first started. But now all those sandbox games have changed (this is what I've read thus far on these forums).
I've been playing a bit of Vanguard lately. One of the things that seems to be touted about sandbox games is the exploration. I can't deny this is attractive because it''s what got me hooked into Morrowind and what eventually led me to online games with the hope that I'd find the same thing but with people.
However, I was running someplace in Vanguard and though the whole exploration thing can be fun, I was finding it hard to deal with because it just took too long. Too long to actually do anything with the time I had.
That is why I think sandbox games fail, or at least fail in this market. It does take more of an effort on the players but with players not being "gamers" and not wanting to devote huge amounts of time to figuring out what they should be doing, they seek other types of games.
they want mini adventures for small amounts of time. Send them on some small quests, let them do some socializing and they are good to go.
As I've posted before, I have a friend who played pre-NGE SWG. Someone above made the comment that my stating that people don't want to have a second job could refer to EQ1 and the endless camping and grinding. That could easily be true.
But his comment on SWG was that it felt like a job. That he basically felt it wasn't fun because he just didn't have the time to really do anything and when he did do things it was crafting which really felt like a job. Now, that could be his experience but he really did like EQ1 so perhaps it was the structure of EQ1 (because granted it did take time from what I heard).
I get the idea of having more freedom and quite frankly I'm for it. However, for the average player they want to feel like they are in a theme park and not a world. And quite frankly I can't blame them. It's just a game.
All very valid points, I appreciate your very well written response, its not what often comes about on the internet. I agree, the demand for sandbox games is on such a smaller scale than the theme park games. I think most people who are crying about wanting some (disgruntled or bored WoW players) can't remember how they were, or never played one, and just want something different. The rest, know what they want, they want that sense of WORK to achieve something, feel proud over doing something, to be living in their MMO world. Risk vs Reward and all that.
A sandbox MMO would be hard pressed to be as successful as the mind numbingly easy theme park games, but a game doesn't need a million subs to be successful. No even close.
All very valid points, I appreciate your very well written response, its not what often comes about on the internet. I agree, the demand for sandbox games is on such a smaller scale than the theme park games. I think most people who are crying about wanting some (disgruntled or bored WoW players) can't remember how they were, or never played one, and just want something different. The rest, know what they want, they want that sense of WORK to achieve something, feel proud over doing something, to be living in their MMO world. Risk vs Reward and all that. A sandbox MMO would be hard pressed to be as successful as the mind numbingly easy theme park games, but a game doesn't need a million subs to be successful. No even close.
That's true, it doesn't need to have millions upon millions of subscribers.
However, the catch 22 is that apparently these games are hard to make and expensive.
If you look at most of the games released, there always seems to be some issue. So either all the dev teams are incompetant or it is just too hard to make these games?
Let's look at Blizzard. They put out very polished games. Now, i've seen people post that there are bugs but quite frankly, after trying most of the offerings out there, I can feel very confidant in saying that their games are far more polished than most games out there.
Now, is this because they are better devs or because they can afford to be better devs?
They did put out pretty polished games and were financially successful. So, they can afford to hire more people and better people and then adopt the mantra of "It's done when it's done - Much like ID software. Interesting enough they are very successful, put out polished games and also have the same mantra (maybe even coined it).
So then ask ourselves "why is it that all other games out there have issues"? Is it a money thing? Is it that they just can't get their act together? Is it something else?
So then people say "well, it doesn't take many subs to make a game successful (True) and dev's should be thinking outside the box".
This is also true. But the sad reality is that the players are so fickle that if a game company were to put out a pretty bug free sandbox game the players would complain about this and that and then move on. Problem is that it doesn't take that many subs but it does take enough subs to cover developement costs and then enough to keep development going.
If the game company fails to capture the imaginations of the players then it's game over. So no wonder game companies are a bit on the safe side when it comes to making games in today's market!
And with the rising costs of development that is a huge barrier. Games are no longer made in people's garages and quite frankly, when I've seen smaller games with less spectacular presentation being advertised on these forums the general consensus is that they seem dated and who would want to play it?
Is it any wonder that dev's need to strive for current graphics and still great gameplay which seems to be elusive.
And I highly doubt that the people who are creating the gameplay are the same people who are creatign the graphics. As gameplay is more of a feature of ideas rather than one of technology, it's hard to imagine that money spent on graphics really impacts the gameplay all that much.
Essentially what it seems that many players want are the same games they started to play all those many years back but with updated graphics.
I just don't think there is a market that will support that or perhaps the dev's, having seen the numbers, don't believe it can be supported with the market that is interested in it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Can a sandbox game like pre-hologrind SWG topple WoW? That is a very intriguing question to be honest.
SWG had, at it's peak, before the hologrind over 250K subscriptions. Where UO I think had peaked at about 200K and EQ at about 300k that is a very respectable number.
Blizzard does one thing VERY well. They took the elements of computer based RPG's, distilled them to the core experience and released Diablo. I do not think there is a single person that could argue that diablo did not outsell baldur's gate, icewind dale, or any of the "traditional", crpgs released around the same time. Just like with what they did with the RTS genre. They took what westwood had done with the Dune and Command and Conquer refined it and released Warcraft and Starcraft. I think, again, it would be hard to argue which one sold more.
They take complex games and whittle them down to easy to digest components. Not to say that there isn't some semblance of depth to the games but just that they are more pallatable to people of varying skill levels. Now with the couple million US and EU subscribers that they have brought into the MMO genre I imagine there are a large number of people that want more. They want a more satisfying experience and they want something deeper. These people are looking for something new, and without it they stick around raiding the same crap night after night.
Look at the peak of users AOC had experienced. Here was the promise of something new and it was not delivered on and those people are making there way back to wow. I think that the pvp crowd, the ones that actually played the battlegrounds and not exploited there way up the ladder will be drawn to Warhammer. I honestly and truthfully believe that if SWG were to be released today, or aroudn the time of the Clone Wars thing thats coming, with updated graphics and physics, and without the plethora of launch bugs and balance issues, it would be a resounding success.
Comments
What don't you understand? Eve exists and is a very popular game and it is most definitely a sandbox game? Doesn't that completely shatter your argument to smithereens?
I guess you have a reading deficiency and did not see all the posts affirming that Eve is one and is alive and quite well.
Yes, Eve does not have Wow numbers, but then no one else does either. But then CCP is doing so well they managed to buy Whtewolf and are now embarked with them on another MMO project most certainly dealing with werewolves. Oh and by the way, you don't have to pvp in Eve, I rarely do and when I do, it is my choice. So the ruleset in a sandbox CAN allow people with different tastes to coexist. There are large roleplay alliances in EVE also. If you don't like traveling, EVE is not for you, If you want to get from one side to another of the universe it will take you awhile. There is instant travel in the pvp area, but you still need one of your fleet at the destination, so someone has to make the trip first.
EVE may be a sandbox in the loosest sense, but I personally think its sand is shallow.
Too much metagaming, too much reliance on lootables from complexes, and too much of the same sights for my taste.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
So why did the Sims fail? Or Ryzom?
Seems to me that people who know about and want sandbox games are always on the look out for them so it's possible it's marketing but I don't think that's it.
I'm not saying they can't succeed. But I am doubtful that they are in as high demand as people think.
They take up time, they require more from players and becasue of this you aren't going to get a huge amount of players because nowadays most players have other things to do.
More structured games allow for part time players to log in for short amounts of time and have a bit of fun.
Well, how come Asheron's Call 2 failed? Tabula Rasa is on that path too. Asheron's Call 1 was a sandbox that people loved, AC2, was not, and people didn't want that. Tabula Rasa was created by the father of the sandbox MMO, Ultima Online, but its all level based and linear, and its failing.
It goes both ways. There's less of a demand for a sandbox game, sure, but that's because the majority of the MMO market have only played WoW. They're used to their hands being held and everything behind spoon fed to them with their dribble wiped away. If they were to go into a sandbox they'd be confused and scared and have no idea what to do with a REAL MMO.
But, for us vets that have been here since the MMO Golden Age (Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EQ, AC) we're DYING for a sandbox, or at least SOMETHING with some difficulty.
Sorry I think that's just sour grapes.
It's like certain players have taken the (seemingly) high road and declared that sandbox games are the creme de la creme and anything else is lesser because they say so.
But you are right, it does work both ways. But proof is in the pudding. You had sandbox games. If what I'm reading is correct, that was the prevalent style of game when the market first started. But now all those sandbox games have changed (this is what I've read thus far on these forums).
I've been playing a bit of Vanguard lately. One of the things that seems to be touted about sandbox games is the exploration. I can't deny this is attractive because it''s what got me hooked into Morrowind and what eventually led me to online games with the hope that I'd find the same thing but with people.
However, I was running someplace in Vanguard and though the whole exploration thing can be fun, I was finding it hard to deal with because it just took too long. Too long to actually do anything with the time I had.
That is why I think sandbox games fail, or at least fail in this market. It does take more of an effort on the players but with players not being "gamers" and not wanting to devote huge amounts of time to figuring out what they should be doing, they seek other types of games.
they want mini adventures for small amounts of time. Send them on some small quests, let them do some socializing and they are good to go.
As I've posted before, I have a friend who played pre-NGE SWG. Someone above made the comment that my stating that people don't want to have a second job could refer to EQ1 and the endless camping and grinding. That could easily be true.
But his comment on SWG was that it felt like a job. That he basically felt it wasn't fun because he just didn't have the time to really do anything and when he did do things it was crafting which really felt like a job. Now, that could be his experience but he really did like EQ1 so perhaps it was the structure of EQ1 (because granted it did take time from what I heard).
I get the idea of having more freedom and quite frankly I'm for it. However, for the average player they want to feel like they are in a theme park and not a world. And quite frankly I can't blame them. It's just a game.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
So why did the Sims fail? Or Ryzom?
Seems to me that people who know about and want sandbox games are always on the look out for them so it's possible it's marketing but I don't think that's it.
I'm not saying they can't succeed. But I am doubtful that they are in as high demand as people think.
They take up time, they require more from players and becasue of this you aren't going to get a huge amount of players because nowadays most players have other things to do.
More structured games allow for part time players to log in for short amounts of time and have a bit of fun.
Well, how come Asheron's Call 2 failed? Tabula Rasa is on that path too. Asheron's Call 1 was a sandbox that people loved, AC2, was not, and people didn't want that. Tabula Rasa was created by the father of the sandbox MMO, Ultima Online, but its all level based and linear, and its failing.
It goes both ways. There's less of a demand for a sandbox game, sure, but that's because the majority of the MMO market have only played WoW. They're used to their hands being held and everything behind spoon fed to them with their dribble wiped away. If they were to go into a sandbox they'd be confused and scared and have no idea what to do with a REAL MMO.
But, for us vets that have been here since the MMO Golden Age (Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EQ, AC) we're DYING for a sandbox, or at least SOMETHING with some difficulty.
Sorry I think that's just sour grapes.
It's like certain players have taken the (seemingly) high road and declared that sandbox games are the creme de la creme and anything else is lesser because they say so.
But you are right, it does work both ways. But proof is in the pudding. You had sandbox games. If what I'm reading is correct, that was the prevalent style of game when the market first started. But now all those sandbox games have changed (this is what I've read thus far on these forums).
I've been playing a bit of Vanguard lately. One of the things that seems to be touted about sandbox games is the exploration. I can't deny this is attractive because it''s what got me hooked into Morrowind and what eventually led me to online games with the hope that I'd find the same thing but with people.
However, I was running someplace in Vanguard and though the whole exploration thing can be fun, I was finding it hard to deal with because it just took too long. Too long to actually do anything with the time I had.
That is why I think sandbox games fail, or at least fail in this market. It does take more of an effort on the players but with players not being "gamers" and not wanting to devote huge amounts of time to figuring out what they should be doing, they seek other types of games.
they want mini adventures for small amounts of time. Send them on some small quests, let them do some socializing and they are good to go.
As I've posted before, I have a friend who played pre-NGE SWG. Someone above made the comment that my stating that people don't want to have a second job could refer to EQ1 and the endless camping and grinding. That could easily be true.
But his comment on SWG was that it felt like a job. That he basically felt it wasn't fun because he just didn't have the time to really do anything and when he did do things it was crafting which really felt like a job. Now, that could be his experience but he really did like EQ1 so perhaps it was the structure of EQ1 (because granted it did take time from what I heard).
I get the idea of having more freedom and quite frankly I'm for it. However, for the average player they want to feel like they are in a theme park and not a world. And quite frankly I can't blame them. It's just a game.
All very valid points, I appreciate your very well written response, its not what often comes about on the internet. I agree, the demand for sandbox games is on such a smaller scale than the theme park games. I think most people who are crying about wanting some (disgruntled or bored WoW players) can't remember how they were, or never played one, and just want something different. The rest, know what they want, they want that sense of WORK to achieve something, feel proud over doing something, to be living in their MMO world. Risk vs Reward and all that.
A sandbox MMO would be hard pressed to be as successful as the mind numbingly easy theme park games, but a game doesn't need a million subs to be successful. No even close.
Darkfall Travelogues!
That's true, it doesn't need to have millions upon millions of subscribers.
However, the catch 22 is that apparently these games are hard to make and expensive.
If you look at most of the games released, there always seems to be some issue. So either all the dev teams are incompetant or it is just too hard to make these games?
Let's look at Blizzard. They put out very polished games. Now, i've seen people post that there are bugs but quite frankly, after trying most of the offerings out there, I can feel very confidant in saying that their games are far more polished than most games out there.
Now, is this because they are better devs or because they can afford to be better devs?
They did put out pretty polished games and were financially successful. So, they can afford to hire more people and better people and then adopt the mantra of "It's done when it's done - Much like ID software. Interesting enough they are very successful, put out polished games and also have the same mantra (maybe even coined it).
So then ask ourselves "why is it that all other games out there have issues"? Is it a money thing? Is it that they just can't get their act together? Is it something else?
So then people say "well, it doesn't take many subs to make a game successful (True) and dev's should be thinking outside the box".
This is also true. But the sad reality is that the players are so fickle that if a game company were to put out a pretty bug free sandbox game the players would complain about this and that and then move on. Problem is that it doesn't take that many subs but it does take enough subs to cover developement costs and then enough to keep development going.
If the game company fails to capture the imaginations of the players then it's game over. So no wonder game companies are a bit on the safe side when it comes to making games in today's market!
And with the rising costs of development that is a huge barrier. Games are no longer made in people's garages and quite frankly, when I've seen smaller games with less spectacular presentation being advertised on these forums the general consensus is that they seem dated and who would want to play it?
Is it any wonder that dev's need to strive for current graphics and still great gameplay which seems to be elusive.
And I highly doubt that the people who are creating the gameplay are the same people who are creatign the graphics. As gameplay is more of a feature of ideas rather than one of technology, it's hard to imagine that money spent on graphics really impacts the gameplay all that much.
Essentially what it seems that many players want are the same games they started to play all those many years back but with updated graphics.
I just don't think there is a market that will support that or perhaps the dev's, having seen the numbers, don't believe it can be supported with the market that is interested in it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Can a sandbox game like pre-hologrind SWG topple WoW? That is a very intriguing question to be honest.
SWG had, at it's peak, before the hologrind over 250K subscriptions. Where UO I think had peaked at about 200K and EQ at about 300k that is a very respectable number.
Blizzard does one thing VERY well. They took the elements of computer based RPG's, distilled them to the core experience and released Diablo. I do not think there is a single person that could argue that diablo did not outsell baldur's gate, icewind dale, or any of the "traditional", crpgs released around the same time. Just like with what they did with the RTS genre. They took what westwood had done with the Dune and Command and Conquer refined it and released Warcraft and Starcraft. I think, again, it would be hard to argue which one sold more.
They take complex games and whittle them down to easy to digest components. Not to say that there isn't some semblance of depth to the games but just that they are more pallatable to people of varying skill levels. Now with the couple million US and EU subscribers that they have brought into the MMO genre I imagine there are a large number of people that want more. They want a more satisfying experience and they want something deeper. These people are looking for something new, and without it they stick around raiding the same crap night after night.
Look at the peak of users AOC had experienced. Here was the promise of something new and it was not delivered on and those people are making there way back to wow. I think that the pvp crowd, the ones that actually played the battlegrounds and not exploited there way up the ladder will be drawn to Warhammer. I honestly and truthfully believe that if SWG were to be released today, or aroudn the time of the Clone Wars thing thats coming, with updated graphics and physics, and without the plethora of launch bugs and balance issues, it would be a resounding success.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012