Originally posted by StonesDK So to sum it up in a few words. Demand determines supply. How is this news?
It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of people out there who think that if they demand something, even if they are one of a very few who care about that particular thing, that someone damned well better supply it or they get pissed.
Did anybody ever think that it's only a problem to the people who think it's a problem?
If millions of people are enjoying themselves, whether it be a movie, game or fast food restaurant then obviously some don't think it's a problem.
I enjoy hardcore modern music concerts.
Most people would never be able to sit through 10 minutes. Should I expect them to "wake up" and realize the awesome and to spend their hard earned money to support something that I as a reasonable human being can understand most people not enjoying?
Here's where you missed the point.
Your hardcore concerts? Still being produced for the people that like them.
Your non hardcore concerts? Still enjoying success from people that like them.
Hardcore MMOs? Not being produced.
Casual MMOs? Failing left and right because people don't like them, and most of them have flawed design.
That's because the concerts still have a significant number of people willing to pay and attend them. They are financially viable. That's just not the case for hardcore MMOs. Developers do tons of market research before making an MMO, they aren't finding that enough people want a hardcore MMO to warrant making one. If there was enough interest, they'd have made one by now.
It's all about the money. Always has been, always will be.
Originally posted by StonesDK So to sum it up in a few words. Demand determines supply. How is this news?
It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of people out there who think that if they demand something, even if they are one of a very few who care about that particular thing, that someone damned well better supply it or they get pissed.
demand determining supply has always been a myth.
more so now
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I dont recall where I read or heard it but from my understanding large gaming companies are looking to make changes more in line with what indies are doing.
small teams, quick iterations, digital distrubution, risks on small projects.
They seem to see its working.
That would be great for single player games to an extent, although I'm not sure it would be good for MMORPGs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I dont recall where I read or heard it but from my understanding large gaming companies are looking to make changes more in line with what indies are doing.
small teams, quick iterations, digital distrubution, risks on small projects.
They seem to see its working.
That would be great for single player games to an extent, although I'm not sure it would be good for MMORPGs.
well it is the trend.
I personally do not see how it would make any difference.
Regardless. one of the newest 'terms' in the gaming industry now is 'gaming as a service'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Life would be boring if we all had the same opinions.
The problem with Micheal Bay, and particularly Transformers is that the CGI is a mess. Fast cuts and endless scenes of lumps of metal doing fuck knows what until it just becomes a relentless onslaught of inept film-making. It is so desperate for your attention, so convinced that audiences these days must suffer relentless explosions and overblown effects or they will become instantly bored. Citreon managed to make an advert with a transforming car that was superior to any of the Transformer films, and that is saying something.
Problem is tons of people want nothing more than just that. IF it's what they want it's not inept, as it's filling it's purpose, is it any worse than an expendables movie?
There are plenty of dialogue heavy movies made, some good some bad, as with everything... Same goes for movies with a real message to learn from. IF that's what you want, you have plenty of options to pick from.
I hate the transformers movies, same with Gi-joe, the expendables, so and and so forth, that doesn't make them inept films, it just means I'm looking for something else. I'd say they do what they're trying to do fairly well.
I don't know, I would argue that they are inept. There are many examples of good blockbusters with quality effects, but Transformers is not that. Just look at some talented directors who make very popular movies (and who have also made some mediocre movies): James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Stephen Spielberg, Peter Jackson. The talent gap is apparent.
Take books as another example. Dan Brown is a poor author. He writes to a formula that appeals to people and that formula basically is that every 3,000- 5,000 words he sets up a scene that ends on a cliff-hanger and moves onto the next chapter. It is a standard formula in a lot of modern fiction. It is popular, but no-one out there is going to argue that he is in the same class as Steinbeck.
But that doesn't matter. It makes money. That's all that counts. Therefore they can't be inept because they do what they are intended to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you. James Cameron made the most financially movie of all time with Titanic. I hate that movie. It's certainly not inept though, it did what it was supposed to do, make money.
Games are the same way. There are plenty of very popular genres that I have no interest in. They're still popular though and I don't whine about companies not making games that I would enjoy, just because they make games that I do not. They don't owe me a thing, any more than they owe you a thing. They make games that they hope will make money and you can either choose to play those games or you can not. It's up to you. Take it or leave it. Your opinions really are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.
Originally posted by StonesDK So to sum it up in a few words. Demand determines supply. How is this news?
It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of people out there who think that if they demand something, even if they are one of a very few who care about that particular thing, that someone damned well better supply it or they get pissed.
demand determining supply has always been a myth.
more so now
It's only a myth for people who fall into the minority.
But that doesn't matter. It makes money. That's all that counts. Therefore they can't be inept because they do what they are intended to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you. James Cameron made the most financially movie of all time with Titanic. I hate that movie. It's certainly not inept though, it did what it was supposed to do, make money.
Games are the same way. There are plenty of very popular genres that I have no interest in. They're still popular though and I don't whine about companies not making games that I would enjoy, just because they make games that I do not. They don't owe me a thing, any more than they owe you a thing. They make games that they hope will make money and you can either choose to play those games or you can not. It's up to you. Take it or leave it. Your opinions really are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.
I wouldnt jump to that assumption. I wouldnt at all be surprised to learn that the % of ROI is higher for indies now then it is for AAA.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by StonesDK So to sum it up in a few words. Demand determines supply. How is this news?
It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of people out there who think that if they demand something, even if they are one of a very few who care about that particular thing, that someone damned well better supply it or they get pissed.
demand determining supply has always been a myth.
more so now
It's only a myth for people who fall into the minority.
wrong.
stop of a second an think how the process works. really in ANY product. step through the process and you will find that companies only know what people like based on what they (the companies) offer them. on items not offered they have no clue
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I dont recall where I read or heard it but from my understanding large gaming companies are looking to make changes more in line with what indies are doing.
small teams, quick iterations, digital distrubution, risks on small projects.
They seem to see its working.
That would be great for single player games to an extent, although I'm not sure it would be good for MMORPGs.
well it is the trend.
I personally do not see how it would make any difference.
Regardless. one of the newest 'terms' in the gaming industry now is 'gaming as a service'
I just worry about seeing anything as deep or complex as SWG ever again under such a plan.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As a followup to supply-n-demand, that would be a good point if freewill existed. We have been programed to fall for hype and keywords. It a well documented science in how to manipulate the public. We all fall for it to some degree. Example: the fools who pay for the overpriced apple products and willingly stand in line to buy up the garbage they peddle.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
I dont recall where I read or heard it but from my understanding large gaming companies are looking to make changes more in line with what indies are doing.
small teams, quick iterations, digital distrubution, risks on small projects.
They seem to see its working.
That would be great for single player games to an extent, although I'm not sure it would be good for MMORPGs.
well it is the trend.
I personally do not see how it would make any difference.
Regardless. one of the newest 'terms' in the gaming industry now is 'gaming as a service'
I just worry about seeing anything as deep or complex as SWG ever again under such a plan.
ok let me explain in detail how it works and how 'big companies' are now starting to do things.
In programming there is a project management style called Agile Programming which is extensively used in custom business software.
Past Problem: requirement gathering would start for the entire project, be fined tuned, development and tested. The customer would not see anything for a year or longer. Then when complete the customer may or may not get what he expected OR his needs might have changed.
Solution: many small 'releases' in (usually 6 week sprints). each sprint would have something the customer could interact with and provide feedback. This way the development team can react and change based on customer feedback.
This is EXACTLY what CCP is doing now with its 6 week.
The problem with long dev cycles is that by the time a 5 year project is released new technologies come around, customers change their mind and want minor changes. These minor changes are much easier on a agile program management framework.
This is 'gaming as a service' instead of me buying a product I am buying a service.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
ok let me explain in detail how it works and how 'big companies' are now starting to do things.
In programming there is a project management style called Agile Programming which is extensively used in custom business software.
Past Problem: requirement gathering would start for the entire project, be fined tuned, development and tested. The customer would not see anything for a year or longer. Then when complete the customer may or may not get what he expected OR his needs might have changed.
Solution: many small 'releases' in (usually 6 week sprints). each sprint would have something the customer could interact with and provide feedback. This way the development team can react and change based on customer feedback.
This is EXACTLY what CCP is doing now with its 6 week.
The problem with long dev cycles is that by the time a 5 year project is released new technologies come around, customers change their mind and want minor changes. These minor changes are much easier on a agile program management framework.
This is 'gaming as a service' instead of me buying a product I am buying a service.
Yeah I understand what you're saying now, especially about the five+ year cycle. We've seen how that effects titles over and over again.
Many studios are definitely going with this open forum of development, and I think that's a good move.It will certainly help in keeping a game fresh from it's early design into it's final stages.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
'The audience is the problem but you aren't suppose to say that'.
The 6:30mins video is a look at the movie critics who come out and write 'articles' (lets be honest and say what it actually is; an attack piece to get clicks) on how evil Michael Bay is and how his latest blockbuster is a crime against humanity.
Movie Bob makes a statement to his fellow critics; we both know the attack articles on Michael Bay isn't about Michael Bay but its audience, the 'Joe Public'. But you aren't allowed to say that. A critic should never place the blame on why a movie succeeds and fails to where it belongs; the movie goers. And I know you know this because I am a movie critic as well so lets drop the lie.
You know what? Just substitute Michael Bay with Blizzard / NCSoft / EA etc and 'latest blockbuster' with 'Latest AAA MMO' and BAM! You have 90% of the thread here ranting about how WoW / themepark killed MMOs.
I personally don't think there is a 'problem' as I believe in such things as 'free market / capitalism' but it was uncanny on how close the comparison between the message of this video and most 'back in my day threads on this site' were.
You can believe in 'free market / capitalism' without letting it shit on you...
You know what? Just substitute Michael Bay with Blizzard / NCSoft / EA etc and 'latest blockbuster' with 'Latest AAA MMO' and BAM! You have 90% of the thread here ranting about how WoW / themepark killed MMOs.
I personally don't think there is a 'problem' as I believe in such things as 'free market / capitalism' but it was uncanny on how close the comparison between the message of this video and most 'back in my day threads on this site' were.
I am really getting tired of the attacks on older MMO players on this site. Yes, we know "we" are the problem here, because obviously the masses are enjoying this ridiculous free to play hopscotch between soul-less MMOs. We want our real MMO communities back that existed to be more than text in some general troll chat, all it will take is ONE game to give it to us and you can be rid of us...trust me on that.
You like where the genre is right now, good for you. We don't. If you expect us to just shut up and go away don't hold your breath....we were here first by the way.
Never quite understood why the anti old-school crowd is so against us old-schoolers having a game or two we can still enjoy, that caters to us.
Ever notice how hostile they are about the very idea? They have a genre full of MMOs catering to the newer "casual friendly, mainstream" crowd. You'd think they'd be satisfied with that and happy to see others find something they could enjoy as well. Yet, the moment someone suggests that even one MMO be developed to cater more to those who prefer the older-school approach, they get all bent out of shape.
An entire genre dedicated almost entirely to their preferred playstyle, and the idea of one or two MMOs not fitting their personal taste is just unacceptable.
Question is: Why? Why begrudge someone something they'd enjoy, just because you don't? Is it some kind of selfishness? They only want people to like what they do? Does the idea that some group of people may not like what they do somehow ruin their experience, or lesson their enjoyment of the games they choose to play?
I don't get it.
It reminds me of a video I saw where a person points out how a certain group of people in the US account for a majority of the population. Yet, they're still angry and unsatisfied with the fact that their majority isn't larger than it is. The idea that there's any number of people who don't think as they do pisses them off. They've got the majority. They're "winning". Yet, they're still bitter.
Also reminds me of this bit from 'From Dusk 'til Dawn' (caution: language ).
Never quite understood why the anti old-school crowd is so against us old-schoolers having a game or two we can still enjoy, that caters to us.
Ever notice how hostile they are about the very idea? They have a genre full of MMOs catering to the newer "casual friendly, mainstream" crowd. You'd think they'd be satisfied with that and happy to see others find something they could enjoy as well. Yet, the moment someone suggests that even one MMO be developed to cater more to those who prefer the older-school approach, they go on the attack.
An entire genre dedicated almost entirely to their preferred playstyle, and the idea of one or two MMOs not fitting their personal taste is just unacceptable.
Question is: Why? Why begrudge someone something they'd enjoy, just because you don't? Is it some kind of selfishness? They only want people to like what they do? Does the idea that some group of people may not like what they do somehow ruin their experience, or lesson their enjoyment of the games they choose to play?
I don't get it.
I'd first have to see examples of anyone saying the old-school can't have a game or shouldn't..
I'd look at the hostility as more a reaction to redundancy than anything else. This same question in whatever form, comes up numerous times a week around here, and it's always the same answer in the end. Hence threads like this, where the other side decides to strike first blood.
The market (the everyman gamer) sets the trend, and corps follow it until they suck it dry. That's all anyone is ever really saying in these threads, and it comes from more than some anti-old school front (which I still question it's existence). I'm certainly more inclined to the old school ways of MMO gaming. Even I at times facepalm when I see this question brought up time and time again.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by lugal As a followup to supply-n-demand, that would be a good point if freewill existed. We have been programed to fall for hype and keywords. It a well documented science in how to manipulate the public. We all fall for it to some degree. Example: the fools who pay for the overpriced apple products and willingly stand in line to buy up the garbage they peddle.
You're only telling half the story.... First there must be clear precedence to push something onto the public in such a way. That's what creates the real "everyone is doing it" believability. It has to exist in their world. WOW is what exists in their world. Strike(through) that... Candy Crush is what exists in their world now...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But that doesn't matter. It makes money. That's all that counts. Therefore they can't be inept because they do what they are intended to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you. James Cameron made the most financially movie of all time with Titanic. I hate that movie. It's certainly not inept though, it did what it was supposed to do, make money.
Games are the same way. There are plenty of very popular genres that I have no interest in. They're still popular though and I don't whine about companies not making games that I would enjoy, just because they make games that I do not. They don't owe me a thing, any more than they owe you a thing. They make games that they hope will make money and you can either choose to play those games or you can not. It's up to you. Take it or leave it. Your opinions really are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.
I wouldnt jump to that assumption. I wouldnt at all be surprised to learn that the % of ROI is higher for indies now then it is for AAA.
AAA titles cost more than indy titles so you're probably right, in the short term at least, indy titles make more ROI than AAA titles do, but they give less than AAA titles do. But when people start calling for games that appeal to them, they typically call for AAA games that have incredible graphics, huge worlds, superior AI, etc. You're not likely to get any of that from an indy title.
Never quite understood why the anti old-school crowd is so against us old-schoolers having a game or two we can still enjoy, that caters to us.
Ever notice how hostile they are about the very idea? They have a genre full of MMOs catering to the newer "casual friendly, mainstream" crowd. You'd think they'd be satisfied with that and happy to see others find something they could enjoy as well. Yet, the moment someone suggests that even one MMO be developed to cater more to those who prefer the older-school approach, they go on the attack.
An entire genre dedicated almost entirely to their preferred playstyle, and the idea of one or two MMOs not fitting their personal taste is just unacceptable.
Question is: Why? Why begrudge someone something they'd enjoy, just because you don't? Is it some kind of selfishness? They only want people to like what they do? Does the idea that some group of people may not like what they do somehow ruin their experience, or lesson their enjoyment of the games they choose to play?
I don't get it.
I'd first have to see examples of anyone saying the old-school can't have a game or shouldn't..
I'd look at the hostility as more a reaction to redundancy than anything else. This same question in whatever form, comes up numerous times a week around here, and it's always the same answer in the end. Hence threads like this, where the other side decides to strike first blood.
The market (the everyman gamer) sets the trend, and corps follow it until they suck it dry. That's all anyone is ever really saying in these threads, and it comes from more than some anti-old school front (which I still question it's existence). I'm certainly more inclined to the old school ways of MMO gaming. Even I at times facepalm when I see this question brought up time and time again.
lol... well, you just saw an example (the post I quoted was responding to someone else providing just that), however, you immediately, and quite conveniently, excuse it as "the other side striking first blood", basically putting blame back on those who've asked for such a thing.
As for not seeing any examples of it yourself... I'm calling BS on that. It's more likely you simply dismiss or explain them away as you did the one in this very thread. And, given the rest of your post, I'm just gonna go out on a really safe limb here and guess that any "evidence" would be met with similarly dishonest dismissal.
Regardless... you having not seen it personally means just that... you haven't seen it personally. It's not an argument against it happening. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Never quite understood why the anti old-school crowd is so against us old-schoolers having a game or two we can still enjoy, that caters to us.
Ever notice how hostile they are about the very idea? They have a genre full of MMOs catering to the newer "casual friendly, mainstream" crowd. You'd think they'd be satisfied with that and happy to see others find something they could enjoy as well. Yet, the moment someone suggests that even one MMO be developed to cater more to those who prefer the older-school approach, they go on the attack.
An entire genre dedicated almost entirely to their preferred playstyle, and the idea of one or two MMOs not fitting their personal taste is just unacceptable.
Question is: Why? Why begrudge someone something they'd enjoy, just because you don't? Is it some kind of selfishness? They only want people to like what they do? Does the idea that some group of people may not like what they do somehow ruin their experience, or lesson their enjoyment of the games they choose to play?
I don't get it.
I'd first have to see examples of anyone saying the old-school can't have a game or shouldn't..
I'd look at the hostility as more a reaction to redundancy than anything else. This same question in whatever form, comes up numerous times a week around here, and it's always the same answer in the end. Hence threads like this, where the other side decides to strike first blood.
The market (the everyman gamer) sets the trend, and corps follow it until they suck it dry. That's all anyone is ever really saying in these threads, and it comes from more than some anti-old school front (which I still question it's existence). I'm certainly more inclined to the old school ways of MMO gaming. Even I at times facepalm when I see this question brought up time and time again.
No one is saying that old-school can't have a game or shouldn't have a game, we're only saying that they need to earn it through having a financially valuable and sizeable number of people who will play the games. It's like having people who are big fans of silent movies. They love silent movies. They want silent movies. They think movies are specifically meant to be silent and anyone who is making talkies is doing it wrong.
How many filmmakers are going to take these people seriously? Virtually none. Yet that's exactly what the old-school gamers are doing today, they think that their way is the only way and anyone who does it differently is doing it wrong, but the fact remains, they represent a minuscule percentage of the overall gaming market. It's not an anti-old-school sentiment, it's just the way reality works.
lol... well, you just saw an example (the post I quoted was responding to someone else providing just that), however, you immediately, and quite conveniently, excuse it as "the other side striking first blood", basically putting blame back on those who've asked for such a thing.
As for not seeing any examples of it yourself... I'm calling BS on that. It's more likely you simply dismiss or explain them away as you did the one in this very thread. And, given the rest of your post, I'm just gonna go out on a really safe limb here and guess that any "evidence" would be met with similarly dishonest dismissal.
Regardless... you having not seen it personally means just that... you haven't seen it personally. It's not an argument against it happening. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Dismissal would say I view what he said as an example, He said nothing on whether anyone should get their game or not..
You know what? Just substitute Michael Bay with Blizzard / NCSoft / EA etc and 'latest blockbuster' with 'Latest AAA MMO' and BAM! You have 90% of the thread here ranting about how WoW / themepark killed MMOs.
I personally don't think there is a 'problem' as I believe in such things as 'free market / capitalism' but it was uncanny on how close the comparison between the message of this video and most 'back in my day threads on this site' were.
He just said he doesn't see any problem with the market as it stands now. His other point was about blaming WOW for the state of the genre. Again nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.
I didn't say it didn't happen I said I'd like to see an example, and if this is your example, it makes the reality you're trying to present seem even less likely.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Problem is tons of people want nothing more than just that. IF it's what they want it's not inept, as it's filling it's purpose, is it any worse than an expendables movie?
There are plenty of dialogue heavy movies made, some good some bad, as with everything... Same goes for movies with a real message to learn from. IF that's what you want, you have plenty of options to pick from.
I hate the transformers movies, same with Gi-joe, the expendables, so and and so forth, that doesn't make them inept films, it just means I'm looking for something else. I'd say they do what they're trying to do fairly well.
I don't know, I would argue that they are inept. There are many examples of good blockbusters with quality effects, but Transformers is not that. Just look at some talented directors who make very popular movies (and who have also made some mediocre movies): James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Stephen Spielberg, Peter Jackson. The talent gap is apparent.
Take books as another example. Dan Brown is a poor author. He writes to a formula that appeals to people and that formula basically is that every 3,000- 5,000 word he sets up a scene that ends on a cliff-hanger and moves onto the next chapter. It is a standard formula in a lot of modern fiction. It is popular, but no-one out there is going to argue that he is in the same class as Steinbeck.
That's just the thing, the talent behind such a product is more a matter of hitting a direct demographic that will support your films. Knowing exactly which devices will please that crowd.
As for Dan Brown many would say the same about Timothy Zahn, or countless others who write for serial brand novels. That doesn't stop them from hitting the right marks for those crowds. There's a difference between creative talent, and talent within a select medium. George Lucas is probably the best example of all, he's creative, but he lacks the skills needed to excel at his medium.
But is aiming for the lowest common denominator actually worth a great deal, beyond some funders/ shareholders making money? Does it actually enrich us in anyway?
Like I said earlier, I enjoy action movies, but I enjoy quality action movies with some thought and talent behind them beside a purely commercial and mercenary exercise to get bums on seats and cash in registers. The same with books. To me Dan Brown is toilet paper. Michael Bay is a waste of time and money.
I am not against entertainment for the sake of entertainment; I am against being treated like a mug by someone trying to make a fast buck.
i dont understand why you guys take the opinions of some schlub you dont even know so seriously. ive never even heard of this bob guy, wtf makes his opinion on ANYTHING relevant. especially an opinion abt video games from someone calling themselves 'moviebob.'
So this the 'Attack the person not the post as I can't argue rationally' post.
Gratz!
If my 4 year old nephew tells me that the 'sky is blue', should I dismiss him because he is only a child? Logic is logic, regardless of who is saying it.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
But is aiming for the lowest common denominator actually worth a great deal, beyond some funders/ shareholders making money? Does it actually enrich us in anyway?
Like I said earlier, I enjoy action movies, but I enjoy quality action movies with some thought and talent behind them beside a purely commercial and mercenary exercise to get bums on seats and cash in registers. The same with books. To me Dan Brown is toilet paper. Michael Bay is a waste of time and money.
I am not against entertainment for the sake of entertainment; I am against being treated like a mug by someone trying to make a fast buck.
You are against a product and that's fine.
The issue that moviebob has (which I agree with) is to attack that product.
Don't attack the product as the product can't do anything. It is a 'thing'.
And if you are attacking the product, be a man and admit what you are truly doing; attacking the customers of that product.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Comments
It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of people out there who think that if they demand something, even if they are one of a very few who care about that particular thing, that someone damned well better supply it or they get pissed.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
That's because the concerts still have a significant number of people willing to pay and attend them. They are financially viable. That's just not the case for hardcore MMOs. Developers do tons of market research before making an MMO, they aren't finding that enough people want a hardcore MMO to warrant making one. If there was enough interest, they'd have made one by now.
It's all about the money. Always has been, always will be.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
demand determining supply has always been a myth.
more so now
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That would be great for single player games to an extent, although I'm not sure it would be good for MMORPGs.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
well it is the trend.
I personally do not see how it would make any difference.
Regardless. one of the newest 'terms' in the gaming industry now is 'gaming as a service'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But that doesn't matter. It makes money. That's all that counts. Therefore they can't be inept because they do what they are intended to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you. James Cameron made the most financially movie of all time with Titanic. I hate that movie. It's certainly not inept though, it did what it was supposed to do, make money.
Games are the same way. There are plenty of very popular genres that I have no interest in. They're still popular though and I don't whine about companies not making games that I would enjoy, just because they make games that I do not. They don't owe me a thing, any more than they owe you a thing. They make games that they hope will make money and you can either choose to play those games or you can not. It's up to you. Take it or leave it. Your opinions really are irrelevant to anyone but yourself.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
It's only a myth for people who fall into the minority.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I wouldnt jump to that assumption. I wouldnt at all be surprised to learn that the % of ROI is higher for indies now then it is for AAA.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
wrong.
stop of a second an think how the process works. really in ANY product. step through the process and you will find that companies only know what people like based on what they (the companies) offer them. on items not offered they have no clue
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I just worry about seeing anything as deep or complex as SWG ever again under such a plan.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Arent you an average consumer?
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
ok let me explain in detail how it works and how 'big companies' are now starting to do things.
In programming there is a project management style called Agile Programming which is extensively used in custom business software.
Past Problem: requirement gathering would start for the entire project, be fined tuned, development and tested. The customer would not see anything for a year or longer. Then when complete the customer may or may not get what he expected OR his needs might have changed.
Solution: many small 'releases' in (usually 6 week sprints). each sprint would have something the customer could interact with and provide feedback. This way the development team can react and change based on customer feedback.
This is EXACTLY what CCP is doing now with its 6 week.
The problem with long dev cycles is that by the time a 5 year project is released new technologies come around, customers change their mind and want minor changes. These minor changes are much easier on a agile program management framework.
This is 'gaming as a service' instead of me buying a product I am buying a service.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yeah I understand what you're saying now, especially about the five+ year cycle. We've seen how that effects titles over and over again.
Many studios are definitely going with this open forum of development, and I think that's a good move.It will certainly help in keeping a game fresh from it's early design into it's final stages.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You can believe in 'free market / capitalism' without letting it shit on you...
Never quite understood why the anti old-school crowd is so against us old-schoolers having a game or two we can still enjoy, that caters to us.
Ever notice how hostile they are about the very idea? They have a genre full of MMOs catering to the newer "casual friendly, mainstream" crowd. You'd think they'd be satisfied with that and happy to see others find something they could enjoy as well. Yet, the moment someone suggests that even one MMO be developed to cater more to those who prefer the older-school approach, they get all bent out of shape.
An entire genre dedicated almost entirely to their preferred playstyle, and the idea of one or two MMOs not fitting their personal taste is just unacceptable.
Question is: Why? Why begrudge someone something they'd enjoy, just because you don't? Is it some kind of selfishness? They only want people to like what they do? Does the idea that some group of people may not like what they do somehow ruin their experience, or lesson their enjoyment of the games they choose to play?
I don't get it.
It reminds me of a video I saw where a person points out how a certain group of people in the US account for a majority of the population. Yet, they're still angry and unsatisfied with the fact that their majority isn't larger than it is. The idea that there's any number of people who don't think as they do pisses them off. They've got the majority. They're "winning". Yet, they're still bitter.
Also reminds me of this bit from 'From Dusk 'til Dawn' (caution: language
).
I'd first have to see examples of anyone saying the old-school can't have a game or shouldn't..
I'd look at the hostility as more a reaction to redundancy than anything else. This same question in whatever form, comes up numerous times a week around here, and it's always the same answer in the end. Hence threads like this, where the other side decides to strike first blood.
The market (the everyman gamer) sets the trend, and corps follow it until they suck it dry. That's all anyone is ever really saying in these threads, and it comes from more than some anti-old school front (which I still question it's existence). I'm certainly more inclined to the old school ways of MMO gaming. Even I at times facepalm when I see this question brought up time and time again.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You're only telling half the story.... First there must be clear precedence to push something onto the public in such a way. That's what creates the real "everyone is doing it" believability. It has to exist in their world. WOW is what exists in their world. Strike(through) that... Candy Crush is what exists in their world now...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
AAA titles cost more than indy titles so you're probably right, in the short term at least, indy titles make more ROI than AAA titles do, but they give less than AAA titles do. But when people start calling for games that appeal to them, they typically call for AAA games that have incredible graphics, huge worlds, superior AI, etc. You're not likely to get any of that from an indy title.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
lol... well, you just saw an example (the post I quoted was responding to someone else providing just that), however, you immediately, and quite conveniently, excuse it as "the other side striking first blood", basically putting blame back on those who've asked for such a thing.
As for not seeing any examples of it yourself... I'm calling BS on that. It's more likely you simply dismiss or explain them away as you did the one in this very thread. And, given the rest of your post, I'm just gonna go out on a really safe limb here and guess that any "evidence" would be met with similarly dishonest dismissal.
Regardless... you having not seen it personally means just that... you haven't seen it personally. It's not an argument against it happening. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No one is saying that old-school can't have a game or shouldn't have a game, we're only saying that they need to earn it through having a financially valuable and sizeable number of people who will play the games. It's like having people who are big fans of silent movies. They love silent movies. They want silent movies. They think movies are specifically meant to be silent and anyone who is making talkies is doing it wrong.
How many filmmakers are going to take these people seriously? Virtually none. Yet that's exactly what the old-school gamers are doing today, they think that their way is the only way and anyone who does it differently is doing it wrong, but the fact remains, they represent a minuscule percentage of the overall gaming market. It's not an anti-old-school sentiment, it's just the way reality works.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Dismissal would say I view what he said as an example, He said nothing on whether anyone should get their game or not..
You know what? Just substitute Michael Bay with Blizzard / NCSoft / EA etc and 'latest blockbuster' with 'Latest AAA MMO' and BAM! You have 90% of the thread here ranting about how WoW / themepark killed MMOs.
I personally don't think there is a 'problem' as I believe in such things as 'free market / capitalism' but it was uncanny on how close the comparison between the message of this video and most 'back in my day threads on this site' were.
He just said he doesn't see any problem with the market as it stands now. His other point was about blaming WOW for the state of the genre. Again nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.
I didn't say it didn't happen I said I'd like to see an example, and if this is your example, it makes the reality you're trying to present seem even less likely.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But is aiming for the lowest common denominator actually worth a great deal, beyond some funders/ shareholders making money? Does it actually enrich us in anyway?
Like I said earlier, I enjoy action movies, but I enjoy quality action movies with some thought and talent behind them beside a purely commercial and mercenary exercise to get bums on seats and cash in registers. The same with books. To me Dan Brown is toilet paper. Michael Bay is a waste of time and money.
I am not against entertainment for the sake of entertainment; I am against being treated like a mug by someone trying to make a fast buck.
So this the 'Attack the person not the post as I can't argue rationally' post.
Gratz!
If my 4 year old nephew tells me that the 'sky is blue', should I dismiss him because he is only a child? Logic is logic, regardless of who is saying it.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You are against a product and that's fine.
The issue that moviebob has (which I agree with) is to attack that product.
Don't attack the product as the product can't do anything. It is a 'thing'.
And if you are attacking the product, be a man and admit what you are truly doing; attacking the customers of that product.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.