Sorry, I think it's been proven more than it's been disproven that the "old school" formula doesn't work anymore.
It does work. There is a market for it for sure.
It would probably help if you linked to some data supporting those claims.
Probably stored in the same database Steve Jobs used when he decided there must be a market for a device called the iPhone.
Do you really think Steve Jobs just decided to make some cool device and hope there was a market for it, or do you think he did research and had data to support investing about $100 million of Apple money into RnD for his product and strategy?
C'mon now.
Steve Jobs put more thought, money and preparation into the 90-minute presentation of the first iPhone than most companies will ever put into their whole product, let alone what went into the two and a half years prior.
Actually, a lot of current documentation supports the idea that he just decided to make some cool device and was absolutely certain there was a market for it with no market research at all. He was convinced that consumers would have no idea that they wanted an iPhone because as technology goes, it was not an evolution of the standard telephone, it was something new.
Market research is something that works very well to tell which product, of existing products consumers most prefer, but it's less well suited to giving an accurate representation of what consumers want when something is completely new. Apparently. I'm not an expert here, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn once.
He already had the Mac, iTunes and the iPod. His vision was to makes a phone that works in harmony with those devices - syncs together and simple to use. He was building on the brand culture that he had already established. His plan extended beyond the device itself, building on the exclusivity appeal, creating availability with limited carriers for a reason.
But to get back to knowing there was a market before creating it...
According to a 2013 NY Times article, "Apple fans had for years begged Jobs to put a cellphone inside their iPods so they could stop carrying two devices in their pockets." (source)
Well, there you go. He didn't need the market research because he already had a captive audience telling him they wanted the iPhone. He "knew" because enough people told him. :-)
I'm just going to go ahead and invoke the term "old school" since that seems to be what's being discussed here. We've already invoked the iPhone, so mashing the two together, what do we get? Why don't we have another old school MMORPG similar to what the OP described? As others have said, market research isn't the be all and end all of determining what products are viable, so what's missing? My guess would be enough people saying that they want a particular style of game. With the iPhone, the product and the path to that product was pretty clear. Take an iPod that everyone loved, and stick a phone in it. With the old school MMORPG product though, the product and the path to the product are far less clear. Even as specific as the OP's description is, it leaves out things that would either attract people or turn them off. The setting and the graphics are going to attract or repel a significant number of people. Every "what about this old school MMORPG design" post illustrates this problem. There is no one "old school" market. It's a fractured market, made up of a bunch of smaller markets, and the points where they don't agree on features are hard stops. There aren't enough people telling developers about the one product that they could build that would attract the size of market they need to justify spending the money it would take to build the game.
The OP's game is no exception. If there were enough people saying, "This is what I want", somebody would notice, and probably build the game. That's what Steve Jobs did and that's what other people do and it works. The lack of market research doesn't show that a particular style of game is viable, it just illustrates the lack of interest by the very markets people say really want these games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If your telling me the website "MMORPG.com" doesnt contain a relevant sample group, please direct me to some place better suited because Im baffled.
You're baffled because you are working on the false assumption that there is significant overlap between the main site visitors and the forum visitors. In my experience working with gaming sites and developers, there is minimal overlap between the two.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Polls include responses from individuals who are part of a particular population. For polls on MMORPG.com, that population is "people who are currently posting to the forums on MMORPG.com". This is not the same thing as "All MMORPG players". To say that a poll on this site represents MMORPG players in general would require proof that the population here is indeed a cross section of MMORPG players. This is going to be problematic because there are obvious distinctions between people posting on MMORPG.com and "All MMORPG players". For one, the people are posting on MMORPG.com. Most MMORPG players do not post on forums. Second is that people on MMORPG.com are interested in MMORPGs in particular. Are we sure that most MMORPG players are interested in MMORPGs in particular, or do they just enjoy the games they play, regardless of the type of game they are? If there are obvious gaps between who is participating in a poll, and the population the poll respondents are supposed to represent, then there is a gap between the poll's results and generalizing those results to that population.
It gets worse. "Random selection" gets a lot of mentions, but the random selection happens after the population is chosen. From there, we could say that polls on the MMORPG.com site are a random selection of MMORPG.com forum posters who happen to see the poll, and it would be true. But again, the problem is taking the results and generalizing them to another population that may or may not share the same views. For instance, the poll in this thread is in the "Pub" forum. What if someone never sees this thread, or only visits a subforum for a particular game? We can only say with authority that the poll results are representative of "MMORPG.com forum posters who frequent the Pub forum during the time the thread was visible, and who also took an interest in the thread's topic, enough so that they saw the first post". This is a very specific selection criteria. This isn't likely to apply to "MMORPG players in general".
**
I'm sure there's more if anyone wants to jump on this particular bandwagon.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sorry, I think it's been proven more than it's been disproven that the "old school" formula doesn't work anymore.
It does work. There is a market for it for sure.
It would probably help if you linked to some data supporting those claims.
Take a look at the poll. Last time I checked more people want this style of game versus who don't. I know it's a very minute sample but still. Like I have mentioned before. I have no idea how big the market is. That's why I am seeing how big it would be based on these forums alone. It be nice if more people would vote.
Well, I guess you're right, I've got to say I didn't see it happening, but you proved me wrong. Approx. 60 of 80 people said they want this game. Therefore, there must be a market of like 75 million people who want this game.
If 1% of these people happen to come across this post, they should go to shardsonline.com and support the Shards release, since it basically has all the features you outlined. Right now, there are fewer than 1000 people, so their message must not be getting out there, but I think you've already managed to get better penetration then them, so might as well use this steam train you've created and try to get another couple hundred thousand people to support the project.
Can't tell if sarcastic or serious? Obviously you can't comprehend what I am trying to convey here. Just because more people vote yes they would rather have this type of game for the poll means I am right based on the number of voters for this forum alone. The sample is way to small to determine if this market is feasible to generate profit or even considered to make a title. I am not saying "oh my lands out of 80 votes 70% of people want this game so lets make a title, the market is here!" But right now, just on people who voted more people want this game. Understand the word preference? Comprehend?
You should also mention that this poll is pretty much unusable because the data is not independent, IE you do not have a relevant sample size from your average MMO player as MMORPG.com tends to be a place where older generations of MMO gamers hang out (generation here means in gaming not real world terms, a EQ generation gamer could be younger than a AoC generation one) thus the data obtained is actually linked to a market which is naturally biased towards such things... if the forums had 50-60 mil people and 50% of those voted on this poll then it would bazooka its way into at least being business relevant but those two conditions have not been met.
If your telling me the website "MMORPG.com" doesnt contain a relevant sample group, please direct me to some place better suited because Im baffled. Just because WoW isnt popular here doesnt mean the average MMO player doesnt visit the site, WoW has its own main forum so why would they come here anyways?
Also just because he has a small sample size (IE: Slightly over 100 people atm) doesnt mean his results are incorrect, if anything he just has a greater margin for error.
Also do we really need a 15-page research report and supporting data to prove that a niche MMO would make money?
Seriously, if the game is good it will make money, if its not it wont.
EvE has the most Niche market imaginable, yet CCP has become a full fledged business because of that one game. Hell there other endeavors to branch from it have proved the most dissastorous so what does that tell you?
People need to stop assuming niche MMO's cant make it, because 200k subs wasnt good enough after WoW's 10 mill. 200k subs supports a company, and as long as your not SWTORing it, and throwing 100Mill+ into development, youll come out ahead in the end.
1) A few things wrong with this assumption:
Only a a very small fraction of web browsers will actively participate in a forum (or bother to create an account). See 1% rule.
This site really is biased towards nostalgia/rose colored glasses mentality. You are not going to get a representative sample on here or any game site.
2) That is exactly what it means. Sure you can use a small sample size but your margin of error will hover around +/- 30% or more making your results meaningless. See "http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm"; to get an idea of sample size needed.
3) Putting aside the problem of trying to define what makes a "good" MMO for a large population, it is a myth that people hang on to that if a product is well made/high quality that this automatically translates to it being profitable. History is littered with good, quality products years ahead of the competition that failed miserably.
4) I would counter that EvE is the exception to the rule. Yes they have had great success catering to their particular "niche" but their results are in no way representative of the MMO market. For every "EvE" there are more Xsyon, Dark&Light, MortalOnline, et al.
5) That past success is not a good predictor of future success?
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Sorry, I think it's been proven more than it's been disproven that the "old school" formula doesn't work anymore.
It does work. There is a market for it for sure.
It would probably help if you linked to some data supporting those claims.
Take a look at the poll. Last time I checked more people want this style of game versus who don't. I know it's a very minute sample but still. Like I have mentioned before. I have no idea how big the market is. That's why I am seeing how big it would be based on these forums alone. It be nice if more people would vote.
Well, I guess you're right, I've got to say I didn't see it happening, but you proved me wrong. Approx. 60 of 80 people said they want this game. Therefore, there must be a market of like 75 million people who want this game.
If 1% of these people happen to come across this post, they should go to shardsonline.com and support the Shards release, since it basically has all the features you outlined. Right now, there are fewer than 1000 people, so their message must not be getting out there, but I think you've already managed to get better penetration then them, so might as well use this steam train you've created and try to get another couple hundred thousand people to support the project.
Can't tell if sarcastic or serious? Obviously you can't comprehend what I am trying to convey here. Just because more people vote yes they would rather have this type of game for the poll means I am right based on the number of voters for this forum alone. The sample is way to small to determine if this market is feasible to generate profit or even considered to make a title. I am not saying "oh my lands out of 80 votes 70% of people want this game so lets make a title, the market is here!" But right now, just on people who voted more people want this game. Understand the word preference? Comprehend?
You should also mention that this poll is pretty much unusable because the data is not independent, IE you do not have a relevant sample size from your average MMO player as MMORPG.com tends to be a place where older generations of MMO gamers hang out (generation here means in gaming not real world terms, a EQ generation gamer could be younger than a AoC generation one) thus the data obtained is actually linked to a market which is naturally biased towards such things... if the forums had 50-60 mil people and 50% of those voted on this poll then it would bazooka its way into at least being business relevant but those two conditions have not been met.
If your telling me the website "MMORPG.com" doesnt contain a relevant sample group, please direct me to some place better suited because Im baffled. Just because WoW isnt popular here doesnt mean the average MMO player doesnt visit the site, WoW has its own main forum so why would they come here anyways?
Also just because he has a small sample size (IE: Slightly over 100 people atm) doesnt mean his results are incorrect, if anything he just has a greater margin for error.
Also do we really need a 15-page research report and supporting data to prove that a niche MMO would make money?
Seriously, if the game is good it will make money, if its not it wont.
EvE has the most Niche market imaginable, yet CCP has become a full fledged business because of that one game. Hell there other endeavors to branch from it have proved the most dissastorous so what does that tell you?
People need to stop assuming niche MMO's cant make it, because 200k subs wasnt good enough after WoW's 10 mill. 200k subs supports a company, and as long as your not SWTORing it, and throwing 100Mill+ into development, youll come out ahead in the end.
Data analysis 101: You do not go to a hospital to poll to determine how many sick people there are in a given city.
See previous point as to why he'd need a massive sample size (millions) to attain validity from a business, not mathmatical, not social, just pure business, standpoint.
Considering current game development prices? Yes. If you want there are plenty of 2D MMO capable engines available for free in which you could make your game and many people do just that but if you have the audacity to ask for a AA or AAA title then you'd need facts and allot of figures to back it up.
Contrary to popular belief SWG was dying at the time of the NGE, granted the NGE was pretty much pulling the life-support completely but it was dying and good games die every year because they do not turn a profit.... Hell Archeage is arguably a good game and it was dying before F2P.
That they cannot replicate their initial conditions much like how WoW has been slipping gradually in numbers.
People also need to stop assuming that developers would risk millions on a niche... Hell your previous example (EVE-Online) was made with a budget which wouldn't (even adjusting for inflation) cut it for a medium sized MMO at current expectations.
A game needs to cater to as many people as possible without focusing on any one particular demographic if you want the investment from the developers, money-wise, to be substantial otherwise... yeah best you're gonna get is Unity or Hero Engine level graphics that grows over time after an initial core feature launch or a markedly ambitious 2D title.
I can't decide if Forum Dueling By Color is better than Forum Dueling By Splitting Posts Into Component Parts. I think maybe it is, but that could just be me.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
Not to mention those who respond to the polls are not a representative sample of the MMORPG pop (which itself is not representative). This is the classical "self-selection" bias.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
Not to mention those who respond to the polls are not a representative sample of the MMORPG pop (which itself is not representative). This is the classical "self-selection" bias.
It is simple to look that up.
It could be self selection bias. Or it could mean that 3/4 people want MMORPG's to be MMORPG's again instead of lobby based, anti-social, money hungry single player RPG's with an online component tacked on the end.
And we know, you hate MMORPG's, you don't need to reiterate that again for the umpteenth time.
This thread has been so derailed at this point we may as well start another topic, obviously people can't let others have one game that gets back to the roots of the genre without getting upset and stomping around having a tantrum all over the thread.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Contrary to popular belief SWG was dying at the time of the NGE, granted the NGE was pretty much pulling the life-support completely but it was dying and good games die every year because they do not turn a profit.... Hell Archeage is arguably a good game and it was dying before F2P.
Oh wow, yeah, that just happened.
Sorry, you must be new here, but you're actually not allowed to say anything negative about SWG or you lose all credibility
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
Not to mention those who respond to the polls are not a representative sample of the MMORPG pop (which itself is not representative). This is the classical "self-selection" bias.
It is simple to look that up.
It could be self selection bias. Or it could mean that 3/4 people want MMORPG's to be MMORPG's again instead of lobby based, anti-social, money hungry single player RPG's with an online component tacked on the end.
And we know, you hate MMORPG's, you don't need to reiterate that again for the umpteenth time.
This thread has been so derailed at this point we may as well start another topic, obviously people can't let others have one game that gets back to the roots of the genre without getting upset and stomping around having a tantrum all over the thread.
Obviously you got lost somewhere along the thread because no one is saying or throwing a tantrum that other can't have the game they want. Just pointing the fallacies of someones argument when they claim that because they posted a poll on MMORPG.com, they somehow have the pulse or inside track of what gamers want/think they want/developers need to do.
Please don't create a straw man to "fight".
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
Not to mention those who respond to the polls are not a representative sample of the MMORPG pop (which itself is not representative). This is the classical "self-selection" bias.
It is simple to look that up.
It could be self selection bias. Or it could mean that 3/4 people want MMORPG's to be MMORPG's again instead of lobby based, anti-social, money hungry single player RPG's with an online component tacked on the end.
And we know, you hate MMORPG's, you don't need to reiterate that again for the umpteenth time.
This thread has been so derailed at this point we may as well start another topic, obviously people can't let others have one game that gets back to the roots of the genre without getting upset and stomping around having a tantrum all over the thread.
The least likely scenario is that this poll represents MMORPG players in general. It obviously represents somebody, but trying to generalize the results to some larger population can't be done without wishful thinking.
Narisseldon plays several MMORPGs.
Asking someone what they think about something doesn't come with a requirement that the thinking be agreeable. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the question.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't think anyone is stating solo gameplay never happened or did not exist in older MMOs.
I believe the point is that those MMOs very much favored group activities, even down to grinding mob camps. Could you do these things solo? Most certainly, and some classes were more capable than others. But none were nearly as efficient as grouping as far as progression throughout the levels and camps/dungeons. Grouping was easily the most effective method, and was so much so it was worth the wait to put that group together.
Today, in MMOs where getting a group together has never been easier, people choose to forego this interaction because it's easier (and most of the time, more efficient) to just solo quest grind, grouping only to mindlessly rush through a dungeon 2-3 times for a drop they might want. Grouping anywhere else is a waste of time, as it won't speed up your progression even if the group is a competent one. That's silly.
EDIT - Adding and proofreading from where I posted from my phone earlier.
Originally posted by Nephaerius To the above poster you do have more choice today in MMos than you had in the past and no they're not all the same crap. These are actually facts not opinions. Maybe you should log off eq, uo, or swgemu and play some of the games you're trashing.
You are taking something subjective (whether something is crap or not) and assigning the term "Fact" to it? Really? While you can say there are more choices for you, (Subjective, not a fact) I can say, I don't have the choices I had 10 years ago.
And as for your advice, do you know what I've played? If you are making the assumption I haven't played them, you'd be wrong. Sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously.
Aside from SWG, you have all the choices you had 10 years ago, in addition to a slew of new games to play. That's more choice. Having choices doesn't mean you have to be provided a choice that you like.
Also, all of the games are not the same. ESO is not the same thing as SWToR which isn't the same thing as Wildstar. And so on. If everything was the same, everyone would still be playing WoW because it has the most content. Instead millions of people are playing other games.
**
It's not subjective to say whether or not they are all the same. There are notable mechanical, graphical and general game play differences between the games. They aren't all the same.
Just because you can point to a title and say "It's still online" Doesn't mean it offers the same experience it did a few years ago. Anarchy Online was one of my all time favorite games. That experience has been ruined by a cash shop. Vanilla and TBC WoW were also games I highly enjoyed. Those experiences are gone now too. The games have changed. All of them have. And none for the better. (IMO)
So, No, the choices are not the same. What I really don't understand is how you guys can take something as subjective as "Choice" and label it as facts.
There are more MMORPGs today than there were ten years ago is a fact. There are more choices to choose from today is subjective. To me, almost all those MMORPGs, both new and old, share common failings. It's not optional to me.
Originally posted by Nephaerius To the above poster you do have more choice today in MMos than you had in the past and no they're not all the same crap. These are actually facts not opinions. Maybe you should log off eq, uo, or swgemu and play some of the games you're trashing.
You are taking something subjective (whether something is crap or not) and assigning the term "Fact" to it? Really? While you can say there are more choices for you, (Subjective, not a fact) I can say, I don't have the choices I had 10 years ago.
And as for your advice, do you know what I've played? If you are making the assumption I haven't played them, you'd be wrong. Sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously.
Aside from SWG, you have all the choices you had 10 years ago, in addition to a slew of new games to play. That's more choice. Having choices doesn't mean you have to be provided a choice that you like.
Also, all of the games are not the same. ESO is not the same thing as SWToR which isn't the same thing as Wildstar. And so on. If everything was the same, everyone would still be playing WoW because it has the most content. Instead millions of people are playing other games.
**
It's not subjective to say whether or not they are all the same. There are notable mechanical, graphical and general game play differences between the games. They aren't all the same.
Just because you can point to a title and say "It's still online" Doesn't mean it offers the same experience it did a few years ago. Anarchy Online was one of my all time favorite games. That experience has been ruined by a cash shop. Vanilla and TBC WoW were also games I highly enjoyed. Those experiences are gone now too. The games have changed. All of them have. And none for the better. (IMO)
So, No, the choices are not the same. What I really don't understand is how you guys can take something as subjective as "Choice" and label it as facts.
There are more MMORPGs today than there were ten years ago is a fact. There are more choices to choose from today is subjective. To me, almost all those MMORPGs, both new and old, share common failings. It's not optional to me.
Well of course the games changed. The other option would have been to close down like Warhammer Online did. I will amend my statements to say that you have many of the choices you had ten years ago, in addition to choices added by additions to the genre. You are correct though, things have changed, in both the games that are still running, and in the new games that have released in the past ten years.
Are there more choices now? Yes. There have to be more choices because there are more games and all the games that are still running have added more content. Are they good choices? Depends on who you are and what you're looking for. You do have more choices than you did ten years ago. You have fewer choices that you are happy with than ten years ago though. You may have zero choices that you are happy with.
I would suggest playing the new Wolfenstein game. It actually got what amounts to a good review from Yahtzee on Zero Punctuation. Maybe that will take your mind off of MMORPGs for awhile.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Niche needs to return to offer variety and specialization in what you play, if you make a good game people will play, word will get around about this game more people play and a new hit is born. Current titles or I should say the last title that launched that was cut from the WoW mold with small diffferences and gimmicks just launched . I think from here on out we are going to see very different and innovative MMORPGs from here on out.
Are there more choices now? Yes. There have to be more choices because there are more games and all the games that are still running have added more content. Are they good choices? Depends on who you are and what you're looking for. You do have more choices than you did ten years ago. You have fewer choices that you are happy with than ten years ago though. You may have zero choices that you are happy with.
I would suggest playing the new Wolfenstein game. It actually got what amounts to a good review from Yahtzee on Zero Punctuation. Maybe that will take your mind off of MMORPGs for awhile.
Personally i think there are plenty of gaming choices.
And yes, Wolfenstein is a pretty good shooter with good scripted stories. The part in the hospital is really nicely done. Now only if MMO can get that kind of scripting/story telling going ..... (not that I need a MMO to get that)
Are there more choices now? Yes. There have to be more choices because there are more games and all the games that are still running have added more content. Are they good choices? Depends on who you are and what you're looking for. You do have more choices than you did ten years ago. You have fewer choices that you are happy with than ten years ago though. You may have zero choices that you are happy with.
I would suggest playing the new Wolfenstein game. It actually got what amounts to a good review from Yahtzee on Zero Punctuation. Maybe that will take your mind off of MMORPGs for awhile.
Personally i think there are plenty of gaming choices.
And yes, Wolfenstein is a pretty good shooter with good scripted stories. The part in the hospital is really nicely done. Now only if MMO can get that kind of scripting/story telling going ..... (not that I need a MMO to get that)
Find a good sandbox, a good group of people and you get that type of story telling in a emergent fashion... you may even end up hating someone in real life due to it :P.
Contrary to popular belief SWG was dying at the time of the NGE, granted the NGE was pretty much pulling the life-support completely but it was dying and good games die every year because they do not turn a profit.... Hell Archeage is arguably a good game and it was dying before F2P.
Oh wow, yeah, that just happened.
Sorry, you must be new here, but you're actually not allowed to say anything negative about SWG or you lose all credibility
Au Contraire! That's how you can tell someone has credibility.....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Personally i think there are plenty of gaming choices.
And yes, Wolfenstein is a pretty good shooter with good scripted stories. The part in the hospital is really nicely done. Now only if MMO can get that kind of scripting/story telling going ..... (not that I need a MMO to get that)
Find a good sandbox, a good group of people and you get that type of story telling in a emergent fashion... you may even end up hating someone in real life due to it :P.
I highly doubt it. So far, the only thing i have seen coming out with a group of people in an emergent fashion is drama, and i don't need any of that.
Heck, there is some story telling when i played PnP AD&D, and that is by far a lot LESS entertaining than professionally scripted games like Wolfenstein.
Personally i think there are plenty of gaming choices.
And yes, Wolfenstein is a pretty good shooter with good scripted stories. The part in the hospital is really nicely done. Now only if MMO can get that kind of scripting/story telling going ..... (not that I need a MMO to get that)
Find a good sandbox, a good group of people and you get that type of story telling in a emergent fashion... you may even end up hating someone in real life due to it :P.
I highly doubt it. So far, the only thing i have seen coming out with a group of people in an emergent fashion is drama, and i don't need any of that.
Heck, there is some story telling when i played PnP AD&D, and that is by far a lot LESS entertaining than professionally scripted games like Wolfenstein.
PnP games are pretty much dependant on the skill of the GM and the players. If you have good ones, you have a good experiance. Now I've been spoiled by having stellar GMs, and so many online games are less than that.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Comments
Well, there you go. He didn't need the market research because he already had a captive audience telling him they wanted the iPhone. He "knew" because enough people told him. :-)
I'm just going to go ahead and invoke the term "old school" since that seems to be what's being discussed here. We've already invoked the iPhone, so mashing the two together, what do we get? Why don't we have another old school MMORPG similar to what the OP described? As others have said, market research isn't the be all and end all of determining what products are viable, so what's missing? My guess would be enough people saying that they want a particular style of game. With the iPhone, the product and the path to that product was pretty clear. Take an iPod that everyone loved, and stick a phone in it. With the old school MMORPG product though, the product and the path to the product are far less clear. Even as specific as the OP's description is, it leaves out things that would either attract people or turn them off. The setting and the graphics are going to attract or repel a significant number of people. Every "what about this old school MMORPG design" post illustrates this problem. There is no one "old school" market. It's a fractured market, made up of a bunch of smaller markets, and the points where they don't agree on features are hard stops. There aren't enough people telling developers about the one product that they could build that would attract the size of market they need to justify spending the money it would take to build the game.
The OP's game is no exception. If there were enough people saying, "This is what I want", somebody would notice, and probably build the game. That's what Steve Jobs did and that's what other people do and it works. The lack of market research doesn't show that a particular style of game is viable, it just illustrates the lack of interest by the very markets people say really want these games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You're baffled because you are working on the false assumption that there is significant overlap between the main site visitors and the forum visitors. In my experience working with gaming sites and developers, there is minimal overlap between the two.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Concerning polls and research.
Polls include responses from individuals who are part of a particular population. For polls on MMORPG.com, that population is "people who are currently posting to the forums on MMORPG.com". This is not the same thing as "All MMORPG players". To say that a poll on this site represents MMORPG players in general would require proof that the population here is indeed a cross section of MMORPG players. This is going to be problematic because there are obvious distinctions between people posting on MMORPG.com and "All MMORPG players". For one, the people are posting on MMORPG.com. Most MMORPG players do not post on forums. Second is that people on MMORPG.com are interested in MMORPGs in particular. Are we sure that most MMORPG players are interested in MMORPGs in particular, or do they just enjoy the games they play, regardless of the type of game they are? If there are obvious gaps between who is participating in a poll, and the population the poll respondents are supposed to represent, then there is a gap between the poll's results and generalizing those results to that population.
It gets worse. "Random selection" gets a lot of mentions, but the random selection happens after the population is chosen. From there, we could say that polls on the MMORPG.com site are a random selection of MMORPG.com forum posters who happen to see the poll, and it would be true. But again, the problem is taking the results and generalizing them to another population that may or may not share the same views. For instance, the poll in this thread is in the "Pub" forum. What if someone never sees this thread, or only visits a subforum for a particular game? We can only say with authority that the poll results are representative of "MMORPG.com forum posters who frequent the Pub forum during the time the thread was visible, and who also took an interest in the thread's topic, enough so that they saw the first post". This is a very specific selection criteria. This isn't likely to apply to "MMORPG players in general".
**
I'm sure there's more if anyone wants to jump on this particular bandwagon.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
2) That is exactly what it means. Sure you can use a small sample size but your margin of error will hover around +/- 30% or more making your results meaningless. See "http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm"; to get an idea of sample size needed.
3) Putting aside the problem of trying to define what makes a "good" MMO for a large population, it is a myth that people hang on to that if a product is well made/high quality that this automatically translates to it being profitable. History is littered with good, quality products years ahead of the competition that failed miserably.
4) I would counter that EvE is the exception to the rule. Yes they have had great success catering to their particular "niche" but their results are in no way representative of the MMO market. For every "EvE" there are more Xsyon, Dark&Light, MortalOnline, et al.
5) That past success is not a good predictor of future success?
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Data analysis 101: You do not go to a hospital to poll to determine how many sick people there are in a given city.
See previous point as to why he'd need a massive sample size (millions) to attain validity from a business, not mathmatical, not social, just pure business, standpoint.
Considering current game development prices? Yes. If you want there are plenty of 2D MMO capable engines available for free in which you could make your game and many people do just that but if you have the audacity to ask for a AA or AAA title then you'd need facts and allot of figures to back it up.
Contrary to popular belief SWG was dying at the time of the NGE, granted the NGE was pretty much pulling the life-support completely but it was dying and good games die every year because they do not turn a profit.... Hell Archeage is arguably a good game and it was dying before F2P.
That they cannot replicate their initial conditions much like how WoW has been slipping gradually in numbers.
People also need to stop assuming that developers would risk millions on a niche... Hell your previous example (EVE-Online) was made with a budget which wouldn't (even adjusting for inflation) cut it for a medium sized MMO at current expectations.
A game needs to cater to as many people as possible without focusing on any one particular demographic if you want the investment from the developers, money-wise, to be substantial otherwise... yeah best you're gonna get is Unity or Hero Engine level graphics that grows over time after an initial core feature launch or a markedly ambitious 2D title.
I can't decide if Forum Dueling By Color is better than Forum Dueling By Splitting Posts Into Component Parts. I think maybe it is, but that could just be me.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Not to mention those who respond to the polls are not a representative sample of the MMORPG pop (which itself is not representative). This is the classical "self-selection" bias.
It is simple to look that up.
It could be self selection bias. Or it could mean that 3/4 people want MMORPG's to be MMORPG's again instead of lobby based, anti-social, money hungry single player RPG's with an online component tacked on the end.
And we know, you hate MMORPG's, you don't need to reiterate that again for the umpteenth time.
This thread has been so derailed at this point we may as well start another topic, obviously people can't let others have one game that gets back to the roots of the genre without getting upset and stomping around having a tantrum all over the thread.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Oh wow, yeah, that just happened.
Sorry, you must be new here, but you're actually not allowed to say anything negative about SWG or you lose all credibility
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Obviously you got lost somewhere along the thread because no one is saying or throwing a tantrum that other can't have the game they want. Just pointing the fallacies of someones argument when they claim that because they posted a poll on MMORPG.com, they somehow have the pulse or inside track of what gamers want/think they want/developers need to do.
Please don't create a straw man to "fight".
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
PvP? Nope travel split it. Missy popular servers in eq were not the zeal servers and they were only what 4 out of 50 servers.
Crafting? Nope. Deep needed crafting was rare.
Housing? Nope. Rare.
Grouping? Nope. Most of the mmos then were very solo friendly.
You could argue that today's games are just as much true to the roots of the genre ad the first ones were.
The least likely scenario is that this poll represents MMORPG players in general. It obviously represents somebody, but trying to generalize the results to some larger population can't be done without wishful thinking.
Narisseldon plays several MMORPGs.
Asking someone what they think about something doesn't come with a requirement that the thinking be agreeable. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the question.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't think anyone is stating solo gameplay never happened or did not exist in older MMOs.
I believe the point is that those MMOs very much favored group activities, even down to grinding mob camps. Could you do these things solo? Most certainly, and some classes were more capable than others. But none were nearly as efficient as grouping as far as progression throughout the levels and camps/dungeons. Grouping was easily the most effective method, and was so much so it was worth the wait to put that group together.
Today, in MMOs where getting a group together has never been easier, people choose to forego this interaction because it's easier (and most of the time, more efficient) to just solo quest grind, grouping only to mindlessly rush through a dungeon 2-3 times for a drop they might want. Grouping anywhere else is a waste of time, as it won't speed up your progression even if the group is a competent one. That's silly.
EDIT - Adding and proofreading from where I posted from my phone earlier.
Just because you can point to a title and say "It's still online" Doesn't mean it offers the same experience it did a few years ago. Anarchy Online was one of my all time favorite games. That experience has been ruined by a cash shop. Vanilla and TBC WoW were also games I highly enjoyed. Those experiences are gone now too. The games have changed. All of them have. And none for the better. (IMO)
So, No, the choices are not the same. What I really don't understand is how you guys can take something as subjective as "Choice" and label it as facts.
There are more MMORPGs today than there were ten years ago is a fact. There are more choices to choose from today is subjective. To me, almost all those MMORPGs, both new and old, share common failings. It's not optional to me.
More styles of games means more choice. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
That is not subjective.
The number of choices is not subjective. It is factual and objective. Whether you like the choices is subjective.
Hundreds is more than 10.
10 sandboxes is more than 5.
Well of course the games changed. The other option would have been to close down like Warhammer Online did. I will amend my statements to say that you have many of the choices you had ten years ago, in addition to choices added by additions to the genre. You are correct though, things have changed, in both the games that are still running, and in the new games that have released in the past ten years.
Are there more choices now? Yes. There have to be more choices because there are more games and all the games that are still running have added more content. Are they good choices? Depends on who you are and what you're looking for. You do have more choices than you did ten years ago. You have fewer choices that you are happy with than ten years ago though. You may have zero choices that you are happy with.
I would suggest playing the new Wolfenstein game. It actually got what amounts to a good review from Yahtzee on Zero Punctuation. Maybe that will take your mind off of MMORPGs for awhile.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Personally i think there are plenty of gaming choices.
And yes, Wolfenstein is a pretty good shooter with good scripted stories. The part in the hospital is really nicely done. Now only if MMO can get that kind of scripting/story telling going ..... (not that I need a MMO to get that)
Find a good sandbox, a good group of people and you get that type of story telling in a emergent fashion... you may even end up hating someone in real life due to it :P.
Au Contraire! That's how you can tell someone has credibility.....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I highly doubt it. So far, the only thing i have seen coming out with a group of people in an emergent fashion is drama, and i don't need any of that.
Heck, there is some story telling when i played PnP AD&D, and that is by far a lot LESS entertaining than professionally scripted games like Wolfenstein.
PnP games are pretty much dependant on the skill of the GM and the players. If you have good ones, you have a good experiance. Now I've been spoiled by having stellar GMs, and so many online games are less than that.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.