Isn't everyone always telling everyone else to vote for the type of game they want with their money? Now, everyone who has been waiting for a true open world MMORPG finally has a chance to vote for something that isn't some Asian grindfest or a themepark WoW wannabe and the response is a pass because of who is developing it? Developers aren't going to realize if there is a market for this type of game if when a game like this does get released because everyone is too scared to even give the chance a single look. Money tells developers what the people want. Competition will make it better.
That said, as someone who has never played ARK, I have only ever heard good things about it, and while a quick look on Twitch shows a game that looks terrible, that doesn't completely tell the entire tale of ATLAS. I will take a wait and see approach and make a decision after I see other people playing it. I am going to be enthusiastic that someone is even trying a game like this though, even if the game is not for me.
I've got to say- I totally agree and I'm a bit perplexed why that isnt the general line of thinking on a site like this.
Honestly, there has been nothing- ZERO- exciting in the MMORPG sphere in ages- The genre is dead and frankly the best "MMORPG" I have played in a decade is a multiplayer survival game with 100 people on a server. Thats pathetic but true.
Good ideas are a dime-a-dozen. Getting them properly made into a fully-functional, enjoyable game is pretty difficult.
The reason people are pessimistic is because of past experiences. And, this particular studio has a record of which a lot of people are not very fond.
This isnt an Kickstart game we will see in 10 years (maybe) or selling
$1,000 ships or offering financing for their cash shop purchases... This
is a $30 sandbox mmorpg we can play this week.
Couple that with the fact that this game has had little coverage and is suddenly releasing next week. It's almost guaranteed to be another Early Access-hell.
We vote with our wallets for many reasons- Sometimes those reasons can
be far more complex than merely being about the product itself. We vote
to punish or reward or in some cases we vote merely to show that there
is a demand for this product.
Will it be good? No idea- I know
I'm buying it but not playing it for a million reasons at launch. I'm
buying it because the genre is stale and dead and void of new and
interesting ideals. Void of "virtual worlds". Void of real risk taking.
Void of soul.
If we want the genre revived and advanced we have
to vote with our wallets. otherwise enjoy a million Fallout 76 games as
your new "mmorpg"
This isn't a "punish or reward" scenario. It's perpetuating an endless cycle. You basically say, "I don't care if it's any good or not,
I'll buy it regardless."
There's are reasons games like Fallout 76 exist, and it's the very same reasons you guys are claiming we should follow.
Your viewpoint is the very embodiment of "desperation". Accepting shoddy workmanship because of desperation certainly isn't going to push developers to do better or encourage them to make better games. Hence, all of the Early Access games that just get abandoned and never completed.
------------------
Anyway, I think the concept of the game sounds great, but I am certainly not going to rush out and throw money at them for what could very well be another half-baked shell of a game.
For example, what good is a conceptually-amazing MMORPG if the system can't handle large numbers of players?
Judging from their past optimization issues with ARK, it sounds like a pipe dream. Supposedly, they are using the same engine as ARK. You do the math.
It may very well be just another Fallout 76, at the end of the day. The responsibility should fall on the developers to prove their product isn't trash.
I hope it turns out to be a great game that can actually live up to their grandiose claims. I'd love to have a game like the one they are envisioning.
But like I said, good ideas are free and easy to come by. It's turning them into a viable product that is the issue.
Thats alot to respond to-
I'll try to sum things up- I agree that good ideas are a dime a dozen and see them on Kickstart all the time with amateur devs, no money and a copy of unity- Promising the world... good ideas being backed by a company with actual resources? No so much...At all.
I know very little about the history of the company and I just started playing Ark (loving it) but for all the hate it gets (warranted or not) theres like 70k player average on steam, alone (quick guess based on these numbers https://steamcharts.com/app/346110) so I can surmise this company has some cash behind this and also the chance to rebuild the foundation of a game based on their learning and mistakes with Ark.
The point is this is probably the best chance we have of seeing any good ideas come to fruition- At least in the near term.
We all can grab unity and make a GDD and slick kickstart and promise the world but this game is going to be playable in a few days and the people behind it have actual money.
Oh, yeah, I'm not questioning the popularity of ARK. And, I don't doubt that this game will pick up a big following, also.
Having plenty of money to back it up can certainly help produce a better product.
And, the game will definitely be playable in a few days. And, if it turns out to be awesome, I'll even be interested in it.
But, how playable will it actually be? How many of those features will actually be in and functioning in the next 3 years? Will they be able to fix the problems they've had in the past?
Who knows...
Which is basically my point. If they prove it, then I'll buy it. But, so far, we've seen very, very little of this entire project, so I'm not going to get excited about it and pull my money out of my wallet until we've seen that proof over the next few months.
Fortunately, as you mentioned, we should be able to see the state it's in really soon, unlike most of these other MMO projects. So, at least people won't have to throw money at them totally blinded.
Isn't everyone always telling everyone else to vote for the type of game they want with their money? Now, everyone who has been waiting for a true open world MMORPG finally has a chance to vote for something that isn't some Asian grindfest or a themepark WoW wannabe and the response is a pass because of who is developing it? Developers aren't going to realize if there is a market for this type of game if when a game like this does get released because everyone is too scared to even give the chance a single look. Money tells developers what the people want. Competition will make it better.
That said, as someone who has never played ARK, I have only ever heard good things about it, and while a quick look on Twitch shows a game that looks terrible, that doesn't completely tell the entire tale of ATLAS. I will take a wait and see approach and make a decision after I see other people playing it. I am going to be enthusiastic that someone is even trying a game like this though, even if the game is not for me.
I want a decently polished, released game, not just an early access mess with a cool-sounding list of features that they hope to someday implement. If they someday deliver a good product, then I'll have a look. But if a game is in early access, then as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't yet exist and there's no point in fussing with it.
Bottom line,it is VERY tough to make a AAA mmorpg,like incredibly tough,lots of manpower,money,smart people running the show,great producer,great system designers,great networking,it is mind boggling.
To think a game comes out of nowhere and will be THAT GOOD,is i feel stretching it but hey i was here when my fave games came out,there are surprises every once in awhile.
I agree in a way, you need the talent. But I think we're at where we are at is because too many people have their hand in the cookie jar and believe their opinions/ideas are gospel in development.
Shouldn't take lots of manpower to generate a good idea and execute it properly (granted can get into semantics about this but this is a loose opinion as multiple variables would have to be met).
Bottom line,it is VERY tough to make a AAA mmorpg,like incredibly tough,lots of manpower,money,smart people running the show,great producer,great system designers,great networking,it is mind boggling.
To think a game comes out of nowhere and will be THAT GOOD,is i feel stretching it but hey i was here when my fave games came out,there are surprises every once in awhile.
I agree in a way, you need the talent. But I think we're at where we are at is because too many people have their hand in the cookie jar and believe their opinions/ideas are gospel in development.
Shouldn't take lots of manpower to generate a good idea and execute it properly (granted can get into semantics about this but this is a loose opinion as multiple variables would have to be met).
Right now, I feel like the problem has been that some of these projects have been too ambitious with the "big ideas" without first seriously looking into how realistic those ideas will be to get into a functioning form.
Early Access/Crowdfunding has allowed a lot of unique ideas to get a swing, but sometimes these devs appear to want to stuff it full of the unique ideas without a good plan on how those ideas will work together or, indeed, if they are workable at all. It's not become "what kind of great new idea could we mesh well into an MMORPG/Survival/Whatever," but "here are our big ideas for our MMORPG/SurvivalWhatever title, now let's see if we can get it to work."
Bottom line,it is VERY tough to make a AAA mmorpg,like incredibly tough,lots of manpower,money,smart people running the show,great producer,great system designers,great networking,it is mind boggling.
To think a game comes out of nowhere and will be THAT GOOD,is i feel stretching it but hey i was here when my fave games came out,there are surprises every once in awhile.
I agree in a way, you need the talent. But I think we're at where we are at is because too many people have their hand in the cookie jar and believe their opinions/ideas are gospel in development.
Shouldn't take lots of manpower to generate a good idea and execute it properly (granted can get into semantics about this but this is a loose opinion as multiple variables would have to be met).
What if the ability to execute it properly is part of the definition of an idea being "good"?
I think that all theme park MMORPGs should have an effectively infinite amount of highly polished content that varies widely rather than getting really repetitive. Is that a good idea? In the sense of "would make for a good game if implemented", it certainly is. In the sense of "has a decent chance of working well if you try to implement it", it certainly is not.
Like it or not, there are a lot of things that are really hard to implement well, whether because they're hard to program, hard to balance, hard to get enough manpower for, or whatever.
Bottom line,it is VERY tough to make a AAA mmorpg,like incredibly tough,lots of manpower,money,smart people running the show,great producer,great system designers,great networking,it is mind boggling.
To think a game comes out of nowhere and will be THAT GOOD,is i feel stretching it but hey i was here when my fave games came out,there are surprises every once in awhile.
I agree in a way, you need the talent. But I think we're at where we are at is because too many people have their hand in the cookie jar and believe their opinions/ideas are gospel in development.
Shouldn't take lots of manpower to generate a good idea and execute it properly (granted can get into semantics about this but this is a loose opinion as multiple variables would have to be met).
Right now, I feel like the problem has been that some of these projects have been too ambitious with the "big ideas" without first seriously looking into how realistic those ideas will be to get into a functioning form.
Early Access/Crowdfunding has allowed a lot of unique ideas to get a swing, but sometimes these devs appear to want to stuff it full of the unique ideas without a good plan on how those ideas will work together or, indeed, if they are workable at all. It's not become "what kind of great new idea could we mesh well into an MMORPG/Survival/Whatever," but "here are our big ideas for our MMORPG/SurvivalWhatever title, now let's see if we can get it to work."
This is an issue with inexperienced dreamers(i.e. Indie developers).
Most Indie devs tend to get their start with a dream project in mind, but not the experience to realize how improbable the idea is to pull off in actuality.
Crowdfunding is great for people with a dream. Unfortunately, it's up to the people paying the bill to be logical enough to know that the scope is ridiculous. But, hey, if people want to throw away money on something impossible, I guess that's no harm to me
Really, even the supporters should have enough sense to know that some random indie guy isn't going to put in 10x more systems and complexity than a AAA studio with 500 people taking 3+ years to develop similar.
Of course, there's also those "other guys". You know, the ones who use every popular, trending buzzword they can just to rake in free money.
They are blocking people critical of their prior games on their Steam forum. That is a BIG red flag for me.
I recently found out that the same company that is producing this game also produced Dark and Light. As some may know, Dark and Light's development is a mess. The game crashes and bugs still abound. So I expressed my concerns, what guarantees are we going to get that this company won't do the same thing with Atlas as what they have done with Dark and Light.
So what did they do? Instead of addressing these concerns, I have now been banned from replying or commenting on the Atlas Steam forums.
That kind of damage control is highly suspect.
If anyone is curious here is the post I was banned for.
They are blocking people critical of their prior games on their Steam forum. That is a BIG red flag for me.
I recently found out that the same company that is producing this game also produced Dark and Light. As some may know, Dark and Light's development is a mess. The game crashes and bugs still abound. So I expressed my concerns, what guarantees are we going to get that this company won't do the same thing with Atlas as what they have done with Dark and Light.
So what did they do? Instead of addressing these concerns, I have now been banned from replying or commenting on the Atlas Steam forums.
That kind of damage control is highly suspect.
If anyone is curious here is the post I was banned for.
On responses they point out, Dark and Light was another company and not the same devs, they just license or something similar to the engine and other teams work with it.
This was also the case with the recent PixArk. Both Dark and Light and PixArk are not from the creators of Ark yet from a new studio they bought.
The company that is producing Atlas is directly on the studios that created Ark Survival. This being the studios assigned towards it, on the aspect Snail Games is not involved (the company Wildcard bought and that did DnL).
Companies like EA and Ubisoft also bought and own a lot of studios, the titles they develop are developed by one or more of those studios, even Mass Effect 4 and now Anthem while both Bioware was not the same studio leading development.
The studios the main company bought that used the same game engine to develop a new title are their own thing, they co-exist on their own projects only not being the case if the parent company wants those studios supporting a new title.
Really looking forward to playing this one. Realistically i know it probably won't play anything like the trailer or the expectations iv created in my head but I'm at least hoping this turns into another Conan Exiles where i pick it up cheap in EA and then a year from now it turns into a amazing game.
They are blocking people critical of their prior games on their Steam forum. That is a BIG red flag for me.
I recently found out that the same company that is producing this game also produced Dark and Light. As some may know, Dark and Light's development is a mess. The game crashes and bugs still abound. So I expressed my concerns, what guarantees are we going to get that this company won't do the same thing with Atlas as what they have done with Dark and Light.
So what did they do? Instead of addressing these concerns, I have now been banned from replying or commenting on the Atlas Steam forums.
That kind of damage control is highly suspect.
If anyone is curious here is the post I was banned for.
On responses they point out, Dark and Light was another company and not the same devs, they just license or something similar to the engine and other teams work with it.
This was also the case with the recent PixArk. Both Dark and Light and PixArk are not from the creators of Ark yet from a new studio they bought.
The company that is producing Atlas is directly on the studios that created Ark Survival. This being the studios assigned towards it, on the aspect Snail Games is not involved (the company Wildcard bought and that did DnL).
Companies like EA and Ubisoft also bought and own a lot of studios, the titles they develop are developed by one or more of those studios, even Mass Effect 4 and now Anthem while both Bioware was not the same studio leading development.
The studios the main company bought that used the same game engine to develop a new title are their own thing, they co-exist on their own projects only not being the case if the parent company wants those studios supporting a new title.
This is simply NOT true and I keep pointing this out to people. They see the name of the dev team and assume it is a different company, for example your mention of Snail Games. It is a fact that Snail Games BOUGHT Wildcard studios in 2015. It is NOT a different company. It is the same company with different dev teams.
But I think you know this with your next comment, "This was also the case with the recent PixArk. Both Dark and Light and
PixArk are not from the creators of Ark yet from a new studio they
bought."
The parent company calls the shots. The parent company allocates resources like personnel and financing to these different dev teams. People get this crap stuck in their heads that what Wildcard does with Ark in no way affects what Snail games does with Dark and light, or what Grapeshot does with Atlas. This is pure nonsense. IT IS THE SAME COMPANY!
When I worked as a developer at tech firms, we had multiple dev teams, and when the main company pulls resources and re-allocates them to other dev teams, those projects suffer. Resources are finite. But people don't realize this and just parrot the line "But its a different dev team!" without understanding it is one company with limited resources distributing those resources to different projects.
I think more than anything that is why these companies get away this sort of cash grab crap. People just lap it up and think these dev teams are independent. They're not!
This is simply NOT true and I keep pointing this out to people. They see the name of the dev team and assume it is a different company, for example your mention of Snail Games. It is a fact that Snail Games BOUGHT Wildcard studios in 2015. It is NOT a different company. It is the same company with different dev teams.
I think more than anything that is why these companies get away this sort of cash grab crap. People just lap it up and think these dev teams are independent. They're not!
I know that but that still is irrelevant.
The fact of who owns the studios is not relevant to the studios that will develop a title, just like EA owns a ton of studios, their studios work on different titles / IPS.
It's not because DICE and Bioware are owned by EA that Mass Effect will ever be touched by the DICE studio and vice-versa towards Battlefield.
That is a fundamental thing to understand, the fact the parent company owns the studios that developed X or Y title, they are still their own companies that work on their project(s), just owned by the same parent company.
In this case we have Snail Games STUDIOs being the ones creating AND publishing Dark and Light and PixArk. We have Wildcard Studios, Instinct Games and other studios that do Ark (retaining publisher as wildcard studios), and now we have Instinct Studios and Grapeshot Games doing Atlas.
Dark and Light, for example, is clearly its own small dev team and not co-developed by the studios that develop Ark. Snail Games itself is a chinese company has developed games for long, Dark and Light, PixArk, and ARK Park are titles developed by the actual Snail Games studios.
The fact that the parent company can spin resources to support ongoing projects, does not change the studio and developer team that leads a project.
You come around like saying that Snail Games is the one developing Ark, when it is Wildcard Studios, the fact they own them doesn't make them the developer, neither that the Snail Games USA studio itself would be developing Ark, or Atlas for this matter.
If we ever saw anything on the industry with the biggest companies like EA, Ubisoft, etc... Is that the studios they own develop their own titles, they do not mix in multiple studios in a pot co-developing a game, it's the main studio leading a project with others as support.
It's not relevant? LOL you obviously don't know how these tech firms work internally. If the parent company fails to allocate resources to one or more dev teams, IT IS RELEVANT to those projects those dev teams work on.
Again your comments just prove my point, that people just parrot the line "Squawk it's a different dev team. Squawk!" and that is why these companies get away with some of their cash grab shenanigans.
People like you assume these dev teams are completely autonomous and independent. They ARE NOT! Their parent firm calls the shots and allocates resources to them. In fact anyone can see in the history of gaming how and why certain projects get canceled. Many if not MOST of the time, the parent company pulls resources from a dev team resulting in a canceled title. But according to you... that's not relevant. That is pure nonsense and overlooks the personnel and financing that goes on with these dev teams.
It's not relevant? LOL you obviously don't know how these tech firms work internally. If the parent company fails to allocate resources to one or more dev teams, IT IS RELEVANT to those projects those dev teams work on.
Again your comments just prove my point, that people just parrot the line "Squawk it's a different dev team. Squawk!" and that is why these companies get away with some of their cash grab shenanigans.
People like you assume these dev teams are completely autonomous and independent. They ARE NOT! Their parent firm calls the shots and allocates resources to them. In fact anyone can see in the history of gaming how and why certain projects get canceled. Many if not MOST of the time, the parent company pulls resources from a dev team resulting in a canceled title. But according to you... that's not relevant. That is pure nonsense and overlooks the personnel and financing that goes on with these dev teams.
....
Your argument is like wanting to wanting to imply a game created Snail Games US that is around 30-40 employees would be developed by or with the parent company that is Snail Games the Chinese company with 3000 employees, by default. Resources might be allocated to support one studio, but it IS the main studio that leads and sets the direction of a project, not a supporting studio (and that is the most important part as to who is the dev).
While owned by it but they are not it.
Fallout 76 was not developed by ZeniMax Online (the devs of ESO) just because as stated they supported the development of Fallout 76 (Bethesda Studios did), neither vice-versa.
If you are a studio under the umbrella of a larger studio, you can count on a lot of shared decision making going on there. I've been though that whole process more then once, being acquired by a larger studio. I've been through it twice outside of the game industry also. There is no such thing as a hands off policy. They often say there is, but it's complete BS.
At what levels decisions are shared and on what subject matter, varies a lot. It can also vary by studio also. The best studio I was in got fairly free reign because we were so successful. Others that didn't do as well that were under the same umbrella, had a very different experience.
Then our umbrella company got acquired itself by someone even larger, and it all changed.
There is just no norm for how it can play out, it depends so much on the particulars of the studios involved, their strengths and weaknesses, leadership, etc..
If you are a studio under the umbrella of a larger studio, you can count on a lot of shared decision making going on there. I've been though that whole process more then once, being acquired by a larger studio. I've been through it twice outside of the game industry also. There is no such thing as a hands off policy. They often say there is, but it's complete BS.
You're mixing in this with other aspects.
The parent company mostly cares about business decisions, influencing the development of a title on the ways they see fit, that is mostly the job of a publisher.
Now a project has LEAD, the studio that leads the development project is the developer, if the parent company spins more resources it'll be to support the studio that is leading not to co-develop the game in equal standard (it would be a mess if that was ever the case with different studios).
In that context, it is most important to see who the developer is, and what to expect from the core development team that is leading the game.
It's like the example I've given while the devs of ESO, Zenimax Online have supported the development of Fallout 76 it doesn't make them the developers, neither does it make Bethesda the developers of ESO while they also supported that effort.
The relation you could speak more is the one of publisher > studio as the publisher owns and most times also funds those studios they have a bigger say on a development project, if it is not the publisher but directly their studio doing the management then they are the developer (such as Bethesda the publisher and Bethesda Studios the actual developers).
On the case of Atlas, Grapeshot is a sister company to Wildcard, having both the lead creator and creative director of Ark working on Atlas, while Snail Games have been using the Ark engine/brand to release their own titles under their US studio (Dark and Light, PixArk and ARK Park) where the Ark devs do not work on, Wildcard shows to have retained their own team and focus on Ark itself (remaining self-published by the studio)... Making Atlas the first game the Wildcard devs are directly attached as from the same creators leading its development (unlike Dark and Light or PixArk).
Just going to quote the PCGamer article again, since it has so much info in it:
Atlas will only have one PvP and one PvE server for each major region,
so players won't be arbitrarily segregated across hundreds of identical
servers as in World of Warcraft.
With just two choices of server to choose from, Rapczak is hoping that
Atlas' PvP server will eventually mirror the smörgåsbord of political
scheming and bloody warfare that makes EVE Online so fascinating. "We
really expect people to take advantage of the large size of the world to
stake their claim on parts of the map, establish a government, and
build ships and outposts," Rapczak says.
Yeah but like Ark the PvE is not the main focus, people would work on PvE if they cope well with focus on building or so, even RP, but unless the MMO PvE server sees major interest I wouldn't think the devs will cater much to its PvE content.
If you are a studio under the umbrella of a larger studio, you can count on a lot of shared decision making going on there. I've been though that whole process more then once, being acquired by a larger studio. I've been through it twice outside of the game industry also. There is no such thing as a hands off policy. They often say there is, but it's complete BS.
You're mixing in this with other aspects.
The parent company mostly cares about business decisions, influencing the development of a title on the ways they see fit, that is mostly the job of a publisher.
Now a project has LEAD, the studio that leads the development project is the developer, if the parent company spins more resources it'll be to support the studio that is leading not to co-develop the game in equal standard (it would be a mess if that was ever the case with different studios).
In that context, it is most important to see who the developer is, and what to expect from the core development team that is leading the game.
It's like the example I've given while the devs of ESO, Zenimax Online have supported the development of Fallout 76 it doesn't make them the developers, neither does it make Bethesda the developers of ESO while they also supported that effort.
The relation you could speak more is the one of publisher > studio as the publisher owns and most times also funds those studios they have a bigger say on a development project, if it is not the publisher but directly their studio doing the management then they are the developer (such as Bethesda the publisher and Bethesda Studios the actual developers).
I was giving information on how it actually worked where I was. As a lead dev on multiple titles. Structures vary so much that unless you are actually inside, you really have no clue how it works.
Studios in some cases do co develop to some extent. We had a lot of central tech for example, and we collaborated with other sister studios on all sorts of things from tech to design to monetization.
One thing that does seem to be true is the more successful you are the more autonomy you get. I know that was true everywhere I have been. If you are successful nobody wants to mess that up. The instant you fail everyone wants to tell you what you did wrong and those with the purse strings start micro managing you.
And like ARK its all or nothing. You either have full PvP or you have zero PvP. SOME PvP (in some form) is almost mandatory for an MMO. But full PvP is a death sentence. THATS the balance most companies (none actually) have ever found.
It also plays into the PvP versus PvP 'balances' in regards to classes. Which no company has ever gotten right either. Lotro bypassed it somewhat with not having one side of their PvP war being a PvE option (other than the one, now two maps). But they still never got balance right. Always having one side or the other much more powerful than the other.
Seems to me with a map as huge as this one (allegedly) is carving out a massive section of it to be PvP wouldnt or shouldnt be all that difficult. That way people could pick and choose when and where they wanted to do PvP. And they could go about their generic building and whatever unhindered.
Again with a map this big then building in a PvP area wouldnt be too difficult either. So if people WANTED their homes/bases to be PvP options that wouldnt be too hard either.
Or they (or any of these companies creating these PvP centered games) could try something almost revolutionary that no one (that I know) of has tried and have the map be subject to a "war" type area of effect. So the map starts out in a state of war and depending on where and how PvP is fought in this open world the war area can move. And you have BOTH PvP and PvE elements to affect it. That way BOTH groups have some interest in the whole process. Have a 'carebear' with a homestead getting encroached upon by the 'war' then he is going to really be interested in either fighting to push it back or doing some content to slow it or steer it in another direction.
The mechanics to have 'open world' flagging has existed for 20 years. Why they have never made it 'dynamic' (a decade old MMO catchphrase) is beyond me. Pirates of the Burning Sea did a rudimentary version of it but that game was so limited it didnt work. But a truly open world war zone that changed depending on the fighting and the efforts of people would be something genre changing.
But its never going to happen because it requires too much imagination and work. And these companies are all just lazy now. And theyre just trying to survive in a genre that is dying more and more everyday and their lack of understanding is hastening the death.
Comments
Welcome to the forums, by the way.
Early Access/Crowdfunding has allowed a lot of unique ideas to get a swing, but sometimes these devs appear to want to stuff it full of the unique ideas without a good plan on how those ideas will work together or, indeed, if they are workable at all. It's not become "what kind of great new idea could we mesh well into an MMORPG/Survival/Whatever," but "here are our big ideas for our MMORPG/SurvivalWhatever title, now let's see if we can get it to work."
I think that all theme park MMORPGs should have an effectively infinite amount of highly polished content that varies widely rather than getting really repetitive. Is that a good idea? In the sense of "would make for a good game if implemented", it certainly is. In the sense of "has a decent chance of working well if you try to implement it", it certainly is not.
Like it or not, there are a lot of things that are really hard to implement well, whether because they're hard to program, hard to balance, hard to get enough manpower for, or whatever.
This was also the case with the recent PixArk. Both Dark and Light and PixArk are not from the creators of Ark yet from a new studio they bought.
The company that is producing Atlas is directly on the studios that created Ark Survival. This being the studios assigned towards it, on the aspect Snail Games is not involved (the company Wildcard bought and that did DnL).
Companies like EA and Ubisoft also bought and own a lot of studios, the titles they develop are developed by one or more of those studios, even Mass Effect 4 and now Anthem while both Bioware was not the same studio leading development.
The studios the main company bought that used the same game engine to develop a new title are their own thing, they co-exist on their own projects only not being the case if the parent company wants those studios supporting a new title.
Aloha Mr Hand !
The fact of who owns the studios is not relevant to the studios that will develop a title, just like EA owns a ton of studios, their studios work on different titles / IPS.
It's not because DICE and Bioware are owned by EA that Mass Effect will ever be touched by the DICE studio and vice-versa towards Battlefield.
That is a fundamental thing to understand, the fact the parent company owns the studios that developed X or Y title, they are still their own companies that work on their project(s), just owned by the same parent company.
In this case we have Snail Games STUDIOs being the ones creating AND publishing Dark and Light and PixArk. We have Wildcard Studios, Instinct Games and other studios that do Ark (retaining publisher as wildcard studios), and now we have Instinct Studios and Grapeshot Games doing Atlas.
Dark and Light, for example, is clearly its own small dev team and not co-developed by the studios that develop Ark. Snail Games itself is a chinese company has developed games for long, Dark and Light, PixArk, and ARK Park are titles developed by the actual Snail Games studios.
The fact that the parent company can spin resources to support ongoing projects, does not change the studio and developer team that leads a project.
You come around like saying that Snail Games is the one developing Ark, when it is Wildcard Studios, the fact they own them doesn't make them the developer, neither that the Snail Games USA studio itself would be developing Ark, or Atlas for this matter.
If we ever saw anything on the industry with the biggest companies like EA, Ubisoft, etc... Is that the studios they own develop their own titles, they do not mix in multiple studios in a pot co-developing a game, it's the main studio leading a project with others as support.
Your argument is like wanting to wanting to imply a game created Snail Games US that is around 30-40 employees would be developed by or with the parent company that is Snail Games the Chinese company with 3000 employees, by default. Resources might be allocated to support one studio, but it IS the main studio that leads and sets the direction of a project, not a supporting studio (and that is the most important part as to who is the dev).
While owned by it but they are not it.
Fallout 76 was not developed by ZeniMax Online (the devs of ESO) just because as stated they supported the development of Fallout 76 (Bethesda Studios did), neither vice-versa.
Looking forward to see people play this and see if it's something I'd enjoy.
..Cake..
At what levels decisions are shared and on what subject matter, varies a lot. It can also vary by studio also. The best studio I was in got fairly free reign because we were so successful. Others that didn't do as well that were under the same umbrella, had a very different experience.
Then our umbrella company got acquired itself by someone even larger, and it all changed.
There is just no norm for how it can play out, it depends so much on the particulars of the studios involved, their strengths and weaknesses, leadership, etc..
The parent company mostly cares about business decisions, influencing the development of a title on the ways they see fit, that is mostly the job of a publisher.
Now a project has LEAD, the studio that leads the development project is the developer, if the parent company spins more resources it'll be to support the studio that is leading not to co-develop the game in equal standard (it would be a mess if that was ever the case with different studios).
In that context, it is most important to see who the developer is, and what to expect from the core development team that is leading the game.
It's like the example I've given while the devs of ESO, Zenimax Online have supported the development of Fallout 76 it doesn't make them the developers, neither does it make Bethesda the developers of ESO while they also supported that effort.
The relation you could speak more is the one of publisher > studio as the publisher owns and most times also funds those studios they have a bigger say on a development project, if it is not the publisher but directly their studio doing the management then they are the developer (such as Bethesda the publisher and Bethesda Studios the actual developers).
On the case of Atlas, Grapeshot is a sister company to Wildcard, having both the lead creator and creative director of Ark working on Atlas, while Snail Games have been using the Ark engine/brand to release their own titles under their US studio (Dark and Light, PixArk and ARK Park) where the Ark devs do not work on, Wildcard shows to have retained their own team and focus on Ark itself (remaining self-published by the studio)... Making Atlas the first game the Wildcard devs are directly attached as from the same creators leading its development (unlike Dark and Light or PixArk).
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I was giving information on how it actually worked where I was. As a lead dev on multiple titles.
Structures vary so much that unless you are actually inside, you really have no clue how it works.
Studios in some cases do co develop to some extent. We had a lot of central tech for example, and we collaborated with other sister studios on all sorts of things from tech to design to monetization.
One thing that does seem to be true is the more successful you are the more autonomy you get. I know that was true everywhere I have been. If you are successful nobody wants to mess that up. The instant you fail everyone wants to tell you what you did wrong and those with the purse strings start micro managing you.
It also plays into the PvP versus PvP 'balances' in regards to classes. Which no company has ever gotten right either. Lotro bypassed it somewhat with not having one side of their PvP war being a PvE option (other than the one, now two maps). But they still never got balance right. Always having one side or the other much more powerful than the other.
Seems to me with a map as huge as this one (allegedly) is carving out a massive section of it to be PvP wouldnt or shouldnt be all that difficult. That way people could pick and choose when and where they wanted to do PvP. And they could go about their generic building and whatever unhindered.
Again with a map this big then building in a PvP area wouldnt be too difficult either. So if people WANTED their homes/bases to be PvP options that wouldnt be too hard either.
Or they (or any of these companies creating these PvP centered games) could try something almost revolutionary that no one (that I know) of has tried and have the map be subject to a "war" type area of effect. So the map starts out in a state of war and depending on where and how PvP is fought in this open world the war area can move. And you have BOTH PvP and PvE elements to affect it. That way BOTH groups have some interest in the whole process. Have a 'carebear' with a homestead getting encroached upon by the 'war' then he is going to really be interested in either fighting to push it back or doing some content to slow it or steer it in another direction.
The mechanics to have 'open world' flagging has existed for 20 years. Why they have never made it 'dynamic' (a decade old MMO catchphrase) is beyond me. Pirates of the Burning Sea did a rudimentary version of it but that game was so limited it didnt work. But a truly open world war zone that changed depending on the fighting and the efforts of people would be something genre changing.
But its never going to happen because it requires too much imagination and work. And these companies are all just lazy now. And theyre just trying to survive in a genre that is dying more and more everyday and their lack of understanding is hastening the death.