You did not mention taxes. Don't know how is it in USA, but in Poland companies have to pay 19% income tax. I think 50k subs is enough to sustain 25 man team. Anyways i agree with most of Your post, but in any calculations You have to take all stuff not simple 50 000 * 20$ = 1 000 000 .
Agreed, there are certainly at lot more things to consider and taxes are among them. A company that doesn't have a solid plan on how to deal with their profit can quickly end up being fleeced by the governments via taxes, fees, licenses, and numerous business regulations that strangle most small businesses these days.
I dont think it is because devs don't understand EQ, Morhaime recruited Kaplan from his EQ guild and I am pretty sure they aren't the only devs who played. More likely is that publishers generally don't believe in it and wont fund it. They look on what games that made most money and fund similar things.
I look forward to Pantheon but I don't think it would be great if too many games tried the same thing. The real problem with the current MMO market is the lack of originality and if the publishers just start copy a new game instead of Wow we would be just at the same place we are now.
Then collect your data and get it to a developer, because their data evidently says otherwise.
Brad already has, the game is called Pantheon. Do any of you even read the Tenants/Features or his blog comments? It is like you walk into a forum and go on about things without a shred of knowledge.
Here's some knowledge. EQ peaked at less than 500k subscriptions, and that was in a market that was, essentially, untouched. There's no denying that there's a market for EQ, but it's not a mass market, the MMORPG genre is saturated, and it's entirely possible that EQ fans don't want a new EQ game. I mean EQ on steam has nearly 300k "owners" and sees an average of 100-150 concurrent users daily. Compare this to something more mainstream like RIFT (averaging 1500 orso concurrent users daily) or LOTRO (around 1000 average concurrent users), and it shows that there's definitely a niche market. However, it's not a mass market, so that's scary as hell. You're, basically, banking on securing old EQ users and hoping that there are others who might be interested in trying an old school game.
As far as Pantheon goes, I think it's being developed on passion. Don't forget that Pantheon went to Kickstarter and failed. It didn't even reach 500k in funding and barely made it over 3000 backers. What else do you need? That's the market talking, not Brad talking. That's not to say it won't be successful, but the measure of success will be significantly different than most other games.
The Dark Souls series sells around 2 million copies per game. There was no market for a hardcore or difficult single player rpg game either. Does it sell 35 million like GTA? No, but 2 million is still really successful for a game that found it's niche.
Developers try to blame the downfall of the hardcore mmo on people having less time or too much media outside mmos. And sure a bunch of people may fall in that category. But there is that microcosm of players who relish that type of game.
Most genres had graphics and power limitations in the old days. Now you see newer versions of every genre with improved graphics, larger worlds, new server tech. There is no way of knowing if Pantheon will do great. Because there isn't really no new modern place for EQ,FFXI,Vanguard, vets to call home currently. Some players quit the old games simply because they spent 5-10 years in said game and became fatigued, finally wanting something new. Doesn't necessarily mean they are tired of hardcore games.
One thing I would like to see change in this space is the traditional single experience bar. It is one bar that governs everything you do. In a world with 1000s of creatures, this bar doesn't take into account what you do, only where you do(level appropriate content). It doesn't care how or what you kill, only that you kill level appropriate stuff. I can see how that would be the kind of grind people detest.
But what if there was a system that took those other ideas into consideration? Synergy based systems like FFXI renkei attempted this and newer game in GW2 made a separate xp bar called Masteries. Why can't there be a scoring and leveling system that cares how and what I kill to level up. Should a player be able to kill a 20 story dragon because they killed 2000 rabbits? Or would it make more sense to level up and get stronger based on what enemy you fight? I create a mini dragon genocide, I should be the dragon master.
The sad thing about oldschool MMOs is, more people didn't just stop because they wanted something new or a game with better graphics, they stopped because the game fundamentally changed to try to capture a different audience.
The sad thing about oldschool MMOs is, more people didn't just stop because they wanted something new or a game with better graphics, they stopped because the game fundamentally changed to try to capture a different audience.
In short, they sold out.
Right on the mark, you couldn't be more center if your tried. This is why I left EQ and why I left every game I ever played with any real intent out there. They stopped making games and started marketing gimmicks to the lazy and inept.
There are more modern game closures and cancellations than ever and it has to at least be in part due to current game design. Player retention is at an all time low for the industry across the board, please explain why that couldn't be in part due to current game design?
There are vague complaints all the time about a stagnant industry. Everyone wants something different than what is currently being offered. Fads have a way of coming around full circle and maybe it's time for some games with a touch of old school or maybe RPGers want their genre back from the arcaders.
Sounds like you're basing your entire argument on stuff you see here....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The sad thing about oldschool MMOs is, more people didn't just stop because they wanted something new or a game with better graphics, they stopped because the game fundamentally changed to try to capture a different audience.
In short, they sold out.
Right on the mark, you couldn't be more center if your tried. This is why I left EQ and why I left every game I ever played with any real intent out there. They stopped making games and started marketing gimmicks to the lazy and inept.
Those games changed because the greater playing populace was leaving them for WOW....The exodus happened first...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Those games changed because the greater playing populace was leaving them for WOW....The exodus happened first...
People left for WoW because of many things, part was due to mainstream "dumbing down" of the game, part was that they only catered to a small percent of the player base (ie multiple expansions for raiders only).
Aside from EQs unique situation with many reasons, every other game caused this to happen. LoTRO, WoW (Even WoW catered to the mainstream and ran off its gamer base), RIFT, DDO, etc.. all started mainstreaming and ran off their core player base.
They changed because mainstream is a bigger audience than the niche market they were initially trying to attend to. All of them sold out and became cheap marketing gimmicks.
Those games changed because the greater playing populace was leaving them for WOW....The exodus happened first...
People left for WoW because of many things, part was due to mainstream "dumbing down" of the game, part was that they only catered to a small percent of the player base (ie multiple expansions for raiders only).
Aside from EQs unique situation with many reasons, every other game caused this to happen. LoTRO, WoW (Even WoW catered to the mainstream and ran off its gamer base), RIFT, DDO, etc.. all started mainstreaming and ran off their core player base.
They changed because mainstream is a bigger audience than the niche market they were initially trying to attend to. All of them sold out and became cheap marketing gimmicks.
Of course mainstream has the bigger audience... that goes without saying. Yet what you still seem to ignore, is that even the core audiences of EQ, SWG, UO, AO, etc... were leaving for the new shiny that had what many viewed at the time to be a better leveling experience. As well as better game-play. As a hold out I saw it first hand in SWG, what was left was pretty abysmal as far as player-bases go.
I"m sure it wasn't much different in other games. This is the whole reason the WOW model became the mainstay, it's design proved to be more popular, even for the core MMO audience before they became a household name.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Those games changed because the greater playing populace was leaving them for WOW....The exodus happened first...
People left for WoW because of many things, part was due to mainstream "dumbing down" of the game, part was that they only catered to a small percent of the player base (ie multiple expansions for raiders only).
Aside from EQs unique situation with many reasons, every other game caused this to happen. LoTRO, WoW (Even WoW catered to the mainstream and ran off its gamer base), RIFT, DDO, etc.. all started mainstreaming and ran off their core player base.
They changed because mainstream is a bigger audience than the niche market they were initially trying to attend to. All of them sold out and became cheap marketing gimmicks.
Of course mainstream has the bigger audience... that goes without saying. Yet what you still seem to ignore, is that even the core audiences of EQ, SWG, UO, AO, etc... were leaving for the new shiny that had what many viewed at the time to be a better leveling experience. As well as better game-play. As a hold out I saw it first hand in SWG, what was left was pretty abysmal as far as player-bases go.
I"m sure it wasn't much different in other games. This is the whole reason the WOW model became the mainstay, it's design proved to be more popular, even for the core MMO audience before they became a household name.
Sure, but keep in mind WoW Vanilla was nothing like it is today. It is night and day. WoW streamlined the questing into some carrot style of play, this was new and shiny as you say so it was an interesting change up. Then you had instances, which with EQs continued "bottle neck" contested content design (which wasn't that bad in the early game and expansions) made the appeal of instancing enticing.
I was there, I fell for it to. I loved the idea of instancing, especially because it was so nice to be able to work the schedule around. I loved the closed feel of an instance, like it was an adventure made just for you. There were many things I liked about WoW, and why many of us moved on to try it.
Keep in mind though, it was the technical features that were sought, not the dumbing down. Even the more arcade action combat was interesting for a change up if you were used to the EQ/AC style. That said, the game was still hard. Solo questing was now possible for everyone, but the content was still challenging and resulted in lots of deaths. Also, a lot of the content had group required content layered through it all, so groups were still needed for a major portion of the game.
Now I don't think those things WoW did were "better", just a different style of play. Also, WoWs features has its own slew of problems. Instancing destroys the social aspect of the game, it doesn't control the influx of gear into the game (ie people can farm gear over and over with as fast as theycan run an instance) and all of this led to content being consumed fast, everyone having the same gear, etc... So to think WoW is better is just a bias, not an objective evaluation.
At the end of the day, all of those games were taken over by mainstream design (ie the chase for entertainment over game play) and the results are what we have today, few games, lots of chat rooms. In the end though, the mainstreaming is what killed them. I watched LoTRO be turned into a gimmick due to it and start to lose its sub base because it attended to the mainstream WoW crowd rather than continuing on with its core crowd. DDO did the same, ran off that crowd to appeal to the mainstream crowd. Everyone wanted that next Boy Band hit and they were going to sell their own mother out to get the teeny boppers to buy in.
EQ was pretty greedy about the dollar too...They were releasing expansions all the time and had the $15 a month sub model.....Many of us that played during the 99-2004 era remember spending quite a bit on EQ and after leaving not wanting a sub model again.
LOL
First off... EQ started with a 10 buck sub model for years. Second, you are seriously going to argue that that the company is greedy by providing the players continuous new content?
I assume WoWs model is better, to charge you 15 a month and release an expansion once every 2-3 years while they have the players grinding tail chasing content till their eyes bleed?
Or maybe... you like the FTP model, where you play the game for free, but then everything in the game is a pay wall, or a gimmick to encourage you to want to use the store where if you do, you end up spending 100s a month rather than that sub fee?
I mean, help me out here. I want to understand how a company who charges you a monthly fee and then provides you with new content in a timely manner is greedy? I mean don't you actually get a bunch of new content with each expansion? Is it greedy to charge for an actual service you provide? Should we all go protest on Wall Street to show our displeasure with this greedy system that actually expects to be paid for services? I mean, this world!!! It is so GREEDY I swear! Making us buy things they made, durn it!!!
All I can say is I spent more on EQ that all other MMOs I have played combined.....I was so burnt out on paying 15 bucks a month that I had zero interest in ever doing it again...The game was fun but was not worth anywhere near what we ended up paying for it......If Pantheon uses the same payment model they will be out of business in a year.
So, you have no argument to the points. Good job, but we should all take the FTP supporters claim that they will be out of business if they don't make the game free!
That is like listening to a financial planner who is poor. /boggle
The sad thing about oldschool MMOs is, more people didn't just stop because they wanted something new or a game with better graphics, they stopped because the game fundamentally changed to try to capture a different audience.
In short, they sold out.
Right on the mark, you couldn't be more center if your tried. This is why I left EQ and why I left every game I ever played with any real intent out there. They stopped making games and started marketing gimmicks to the lazy and inept.
Those games changed because the greater playing populace was leaving them for WOW....The exodus happened first...
Nope. WoW was going to pull some people away regardless, it was a cultural phenomenon. However, EverQuest had changed fundamentally by 2004 when WoW launched. EQ2 is very indicative of SOE's MMO design philosophy, which was also before WoW.
Its like I often say here, of course people chose to not play those games (or play them any longer), everything they were trying to do, WoW was doing better.
Had they held true to the original design, they'd of had to worry about WoW far less, because many of them were so different their target audience barely overlapped. Same issue with Star Wars, et al. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess, but I've been saying the same thing for over 10 years.
Comments
I look forward to Pantheon but I don't think it would be great if too many games tried the same thing. The real problem with the current MMO market is the lack of originality and if the publishers just start copy a new game instead of Wow we would be just at the same place we are now.
Developers try to blame the downfall of the hardcore mmo on people having less time or too much media outside mmos. And sure a bunch of people may fall in that category. But there is that microcosm of players who relish that type of game.
Most genres had graphics and power limitations in the old days. Now you see newer versions of every genre with improved graphics, larger worlds, new server tech. There is no way of knowing if Pantheon will do great. Because there isn't really no new modern place for EQ,FFXI,Vanguard, vets to call home currently. Some players quit the old games simply because they spent 5-10 years in said game and became fatigued, finally wanting something new. Doesn't necessarily mean they are tired of hardcore games.
One thing I would like to see change in this space is the traditional single experience bar. It is one bar that governs everything you do. In a world with 1000s of creatures, this bar doesn't take into account what you do, only where you do(level appropriate content). It doesn't care how or what you kill, only that you kill level appropriate stuff. I can see how that would be the kind of grind people detest.
But what if there was a system that took those other ideas into consideration? Synergy based systems like FFXI renkei attempted this and newer game in GW2 made a separate xp bar called Masteries. Why can't there be a scoring and leveling system that cares how and what I kill to level up. Should a player be able to kill a 20 story dragon because they killed 2000 rabbits? Or would it make more sense to level up and get stronger based on what enemy you fight? I create a mini dragon genocide, I should be the dragon master.
In short, they sold out.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Aside from EQs unique situation with many reasons, every other game caused this to happen. LoTRO, WoW (Even WoW catered to the mainstream and ran off its gamer base), RIFT, DDO, etc.. all started mainstreaming and ran off their core player base.
They changed because mainstream is a bigger audience than the niche market they were initially trying to attend to. All of them sold out and became cheap marketing gimmicks.
I"m sure it wasn't much different in other games. This is the whole reason the WOW model became the mainstay, it's design proved to be more popular, even for the core MMO audience before they became a household name.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sure, but keep in mind WoW Vanilla was nothing like it is today. It is night and day. WoW streamlined the questing into some carrot style of play, this was new and shiny as you say so it was an interesting change up. Then you had instances, which with EQs continued "bottle neck" contested content design (which wasn't that bad in the early game and expansions) made the appeal of instancing enticing.
I was there, I fell for it to. I loved the idea of instancing, especially because it was so nice to be able to work the schedule around. I loved the closed feel of an instance, like it was an adventure made just for you. There were many things I liked about WoW, and why many of us moved on to try it.
Keep in mind though, it was the technical features that were sought, not the dumbing down. Even the more arcade action combat was interesting for a change up if you were used to the EQ/AC style. That said, the game was still hard. Solo questing was now possible for everyone, but the content was still challenging and resulted in lots of deaths. Also, a lot of the content had group required content layered through it all, so groups were still needed for a major portion of the game.
Now I don't think those things WoW did were "better", just a different style of play. Also, WoWs features has its own slew of problems. Instancing destroys the social aspect of the game, it doesn't control the influx of gear into the game (ie people can farm gear over and over with as fast as theycan run an instance) and all of this led to content being consumed fast, everyone having the same gear, etc... So to think WoW is better is just a bias, not an objective evaluation.
At the end of the day, all of those games were taken over by mainstream design (ie the chase for entertainment over game play) and the results are what we have today, few games, lots of chat rooms. In the end though, the mainstreaming is what killed them. I watched LoTRO be turned into a gimmick due to it and start to lose its sub base because it attended to the mainstream WoW crowd rather than continuing on with its core crowd. DDO did the same, ran off that crowd to appeal to the mainstream crowd. Everyone wanted that next Boy Band hit and they were going to sell their own mother out to get the teeny boppers to buy in.
That is like listening to a financial planner who is poor. /boggle
Its like I often say here, of course people chose to not play those games (or play them any longer), everything they were trying to do, WoW was doing better.
Had they held true to the original design, they'd of had to worry about WoW far less, because many of them were so different their target audience barely overlapped. Same issue with Star Wars, et al. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess, but I've been saying the same thing for over 10 years.