Originally posted by evilastro Based on your assumptions (which are ridiculous by the way), EQ Next is fine since it is F2P. It is Wildstar that will have a problem. Although how you missed the fact that the most popular P2P game in the world is stylised is beyond me.
This is pretty much exactly my thoughts on this...subject...for lack of a better term. that won't get me another warning.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
EQN is going to be soooooo awesome. My friends and I can't wait to create our parkay guild of high flying trapeze artist and tightrope walkers. We will jump everywhere instead of walking. Whooo. See y'all in game.
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
SOE can be seen as between a rock and a hard place to customers. I doubt they feel they are that way though. SOE is riding all their money on past EQ credentials, which is a rather good gamble .. albeit bad for retro EQ fans.
Like you said, they are trying to grab both sides of potential customers. But this is what many other companies already do. Whether it pans out is another topic.
I'm personally on the fence with EQN .. it has some interesting features, but the gameplay doesn't seem entirely interesting. Game hoppers who are looking for the next great thing after GW2 or TESO seem to be good candidates to enjoy EQN. But this is not where longevity lies. SOE in their "hard place" is looking for a huge initial fanbase along with long term gamers ... their back talk isn't helping to garner the latter though, IMO, nor is their distancing from elements that made EQ1 still talked about 15 years later.
In any event, EQ:L looks more encouraging for gaming evolution than EQN. But it will take a couple years to evaluate that comparison .. and little "juicy info" is known about either, so that isn't really saying much.
I think you got it pretty well. Amazing only two people undersood the article written, or maybe only two people read it fully. either way, I think you make a great discussion about it.
really its the camera and controls that do it for me. Different styles of graphics are ok, but if you cant get the camera and controls right, I cannot play the game.
I know its not on the top of peoples list, but it should be. Subconsciously it makes and breaks games imo.
This will probably be ignored but thought I would put it up to at least see some feedback.
I been thinking about the current state of MMORPGs and where they been headed over the last couple years. It is not that the genre is dying so much as there is a new evolution about to take place. I made a prediction post early on about what is happening now in this genre http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5339915#5339915
Look at EQN and SOA and where its headed for a moment.
They are now selling you a means to modify a piece of the world and connect this into a meta server.
Will this fails due to bandwidth issues?
I dont think so and the reason is even though it takes a considerable amount to bandwidth to transmit all these micro changes, the programs used to modify are client side. Client side does not require anything other than user input so there is not data stream until the user actually hits send. The modifications you make are then transmitted to the meta server. However, the idea is to generate a changing world and has to be approved to be included into the meta data. Therefore the changes are reviewed and approved then stored and streamed back only if they have been approved. So,we have a data set similar to how utube or google earth work that takes this data and streams it back out to all clients within the area of interest and any client that is borderline AOI will get queued to receive this data.
Now lets look at this from the business aspect. I sell you a program that you build my world and I sell you a program that allows you to build my content with my textures and artwork. The modified data is stored in the meta server so you and everyone else can use it.
But lets take this a bit further.
Suppose You are a one of the modders. You open your favorite 3D program like 3DSMax , Zbrush, Blender and you make a model that is unique. You export it to the meta server with a tag that tells everyone that you will sell this model for them to use for x dollars. Maybe its is one of your favorite castles and it fits the requirements of being within the world governments requirements. Maybe its a dress or suit of armor or weapon. Now suppose that for each transaction I require 10% fee and for each sale you get 90% back. You now have live modding of a live game world that is in constant change!
There is no longer a need to have to charge you for access. There is no longer a need to have to pay developers to make content. This will slowly grow into exactly the prediction I made in 2012.
Eventually you will have MOVW and MMORPGs will be dead.
I might be misunderstanding what the original poster is saying, but it sounds to me like they are implying that P2P games generally attract gamers that wish a more "realistic" graphics approach, while F2P games generally attract a more "stylized" approach.
The #1 most successful MMO ever created is World of Warcraft, which is a P2P game and uses stylized graphics.
I am a staunch supporter of P2P games, imho it produces a higher quality of game, better support and accountability from the company, and more quality and quantity of content updates, as well as long term playability.
However, likewise, I greatly prefer stylized graphics like we see in WoW and Wildstar, they become dated less quickly, they are better for people with seasonal affective disorder, generally they take less system resources, etc..
So, if I understood the original poster correctly, I am an example as a gamer of a contradiction in their ideas, and WoW is an example of an MMO that contradicts their ideas too.
@OP: I think you are clearly wrong. You think astethics is a determinator. But it isn't.
For a lot of people it have to look good and they don't care if it is stylized or realistic. A lot of other people don't care a lot about the look in anyway and looking a lot more for some deep gameplay and features. And a lot people may favor the one style of the other, but will play a game anyway if it is worth it.
And second EQN will come out after the ESO vs. Wildstar launch competition is long over and has been already forgotten.
And as a sidenote i don't see ESO as the pinnacle of realistic asthetics, because it just doesn't look realistic enough.. Battlefield 4 and other do a lot better job with it.. on the other hand those games are not MMOs and don't have to show over 200 avatars on screen and run fluently.. with other words they have it a lot easier to go full on high end graphic with a realistic look.. but of course it tends more to a realistic asthetic.. but that just on a sidenote.
And about the board crying about asthetics and elsewhere.. it was more or less just a placeholder for a lot of oldschool EQ fanatics, which were let down that EQN is not like EQ, and much more of a sandbox with a lot of other elements of today(like more active combat, like less active skills in combat and stuff like that) And those really had to let out some pressure.. and asthetics was a good starting point for them.
Edit:
And by the way everyone likes the Beauty and the Beast, and Lara Croft.. commiting it or not. So SOE and EQN is very spot on with their asthetics.
Comments
This is pretty much exactly my thoughts on this...subject...for lack of a better term. that won't get me another warning.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I think you got it pretty well. Amazing only two people undersood the article written, or maybe only two people read it fully. either way, I think you make a great discussion about it.
really its the camera and controls that do it for me. Different styles of graphics are ok, but if you cant get the camera and controls right, I cannot play the game.
I know its not on the top of peoples list, but it should be. Subconsciously it makes and breaks games imo.
This will probably be ignored but thought I would put it up to at least see some feedback.
I been thinking about the current state of MMORPGs and where they been headed over the last couple years. It is not that the genre is dying so much as there is a new evolution about to take place. I made a prediction post early on about what is happening now in this genre http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5339915#5339915
Look at EQN and SOA and where its headed for a moment.
They are now selling you a means to modify a piece of the world and connect this into a meta server.
Will this fails due to bandwidth issues?
I dont think so and the reason is even though it takes a considerable amount to bandwidth to transmit all these micro changes, the programs used to modify are client side. Client side does not require anything other than user input so there is not data stream until the user actually hits send. The modifications you make are then transmitted to the meta server. However, the idea is to generate a changing world and has to be approved to be included into the meta data. Therefore the changes are reviewed and approved then stored and streamed back only if they have been approved. So,we have a data set similar to how utube or google earth work that takes this data and streams it back out to all clients within the area of interest and any client that is borderline AOI will get queued to receive this data.
Now lets look at this from the business aspect. I sell you a program that you build my world and I sell you a program that allows you to build my content with my textures and artwork. The modified data is stored in the meta server so you and everyone else can use it.
But lets take this a bit further.
Suppose You are a one of the modders. You open your favorite 3D program like 3DSMax , Zbrush, Blender and you make a model that is unique. You export it to the meta server with a tag that tells everyone that you will sell this model for them to use for x dollars. Maybe its is one of your favorite castles and it fits the requirements of being within the world governments requirements. Maybe its a dress or suit of armor or weapon. Now suppose that for each transaction I require 10% fee and for each sale you get 90% back. You now have live modding of a live game world that is in constant change!
There is no longer a need to have to charge you for access. There is no longer a need to have to pay developers to make content. This will slowly grow into exactly the prediction I made in 2012.
Eventually you will have MOVW and MMORPGs will be dead.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
I might be misunderstanding what the original poster is saying, but it sounds to me like they are implying that P2P games generally attract gamers that wish a more "realistic" graphics approach, while F2P games generally attract a more "stylized" approach.
The #1 most successful MMO ever created is World of Warcraft, which is a P2P game and uses stylized graphics.
I am a staunch supporter of P2P games, imho it produces a higher quality of game, better support and accountability from the company, and more quality and quantity of content updates, as well as long term playability.
However, likewise, I greatly prefer stylized graphics like we see in WoW and Wildstar, they become dated less quickly, they are better for people with seasonal affective disorder, generally they take less system resources, etc..
So, if I understood the original poster correctly, I am an example as a gamer of a contradiction in their ideas, and WoW is an example of an MMO that contradicts their ideas too.
@OP: I think you are clearly wrong. You think astethics is a determinator. But it isn't.
For a lot of people it have to look good and they don't care if it is stylized or realistic. A lot of other people don't care a lot about the look in anyway and looking a lot more for some deep gameplay and features. And a lot people may favor the one style of the other, but will play a game anyway if it is worth it.
And second EQN will come out after the ESO vs. Wildstar launch competition is long over and has been already forgotten.
And as a sidenote i don't see ESO as the pinnacle of realistic asthetics, because it just doesn't look realistic enough.. Battlefield 4 and other do a lot better job with it.. on the other hand those games are not MMOs and don't have to show over 200 avatars on screen and run fluently.. with other words they have it a lot easier to go full on high end graphic with a realistic look.. but of course it tends more to a realistic asthetic.. but that just on a sidenote.
And about the board crying about asthetics and elsewhere.. it was more or less just a placeholder for a lot of oldschool EQ fanatics, which were let down that EQN is not like EQ, and much more of a sandbox with a lot of other elements of today(like more active combat, like less active skills in combat and stuff like that) And those really had to let out some pressure.. and asthetics was a good starting point for them.
Edit:
And by the way everyone likes the Beauty and the Beast, and Lara Croft.. commiting it or not. So SOE and EQN is very spot on with their asthetics.