Originally posted by Silvarch

Shadowbane was launched before World of Warcraft

Yea WOW brought in millions of people that weren't even playing MMORPGS before then. Now many of the people playing WOW are tired of it and are looking for something new.

So if a new MMORPG comes out that is good, it will get a ton of players.

You shouldn't just omit the rest of what I said. Were that the case, why do you think that most MMOs after the release of World of Warcraft fail to garner a signifcant amount of subscribers (ie. no different or better than sub numbers pre World of Warcraft, despite the great numbers it brought in)? Yet, WoW's numbers keep increasing. Although WoW did bring great numbers to the market, the ones dissatified with it also enjoy a far greater variety of AAA choices when compared to the times of Ultima Online and Shadowbane. Nothing indicates that most players bored of WoW will look at conceptually different games, much less as far apart as Darkfall, instead of going for different so called WoW clones or ceasing to play altogether. A game can be very polished and extremely high quality, but its core features can make it unattractive for some (a lot like how most people that want DF find WoW unattractive), and when this "some" is the majority of the market then it will meet, at best, limited success.

It's unlikely that DF will have far more subscribers where it to launch now than it would've had before all those other games released.

Originally posted by Silvarch

I disagree, there's no confusion. As long as you're playing a video game, no matter what it touts, you will be much more limited than your imagination.  Constraints are always there, so where do we draw the line regarding when a game is a real a RPG or not? It's subjective to each person. Under your rather strict standard, no video game is a RPG because your option are always limited, and the only thing that can hold up to the label is your own imagination.

I disagree that if a game does not try to be an RPG (as described by the industry) then it likely doesn't need to be a MMO. Need is a strong word though, nothing really needs to be MMO, but I'll take it you mean something like "gains from being one". MMO is a design decision regardless of genre. If you believe gameplay will be enhanced by your game being massively multiplayer and online then it warrants it (eg. Test Drive Unlimited).

By the way, roleplaying means, quite literally, playing a role. Whether you're playing the role verbatim to the script, fully improvised, or anywhere in between, which is basically the difference between sandbox and the alternative, you're still playing a role.

1) So the distinction between RPG and non-RPG is too blurry using my definitions, but the distinction between sandbox and not-sandbox is black and white?  This isn't rocket science.  They are both grey areas where if one condition is held true [RPG], the other can be assumed [sandbox].  Sandbox, however, is slightly more inclusive.

2) You are having problems discerning the differences between online play and massively multiplayer - again, part of the confusion rampant in the industry.  Diablo II and Starcraft were online games via Blizzard's BattleNet servers that had massive amounts of players.  They were not considered massively multiplayer because instances of the game typically involved just 4 to 8 players at a time.  While Test Drive Unlimited may allow several people to pass each other in a virtual world, I doubt any of their gameplay structure would necessitate more than a few people racing at a time.  If it does, then they may be one of the rare exceptions to my generalization.

3) You are missing the key second part of the compound word roleplaying.  Roleplaying does not mean acting, or performing.  It means playing a game.  Which means imagination, not scripting.  Which means sandbox, not jumping hoops.

Originally posted by Silvarch

You shouldn't just omit the rest of what I said. Were that the case, why do you think that most MMOs after the release of World of Warcraft fail to garner a signifcant amount of subscribers (ie. no different or better than sub numbers pre World of Warcraft, despite the great numbers it brought in)? Yet, WoW's numbers keep increasing. Although WoW did bring great numbers to the market, the ones dissatified with it also enjoy a far greater variety of AAA choices when compared to the times of Ultima Online and Shadowbane. Nothing indicates that most players bored of WoW will look at conceptually different games, much less as far apart as Darkfall, instead of going for different so called WoW clones or ceasing to play altogether. A game can be very polished and extremely high quality, but its core features can make it unattractive for some (a lot like how most people that want DF find WoW unattractive), and when this "some" is the majority of the market then it will meet, at best, limited success.

It's unlikely that DF will have far more subscribers where it to launch now than it would've had before all those other games released.

AOC is a pvp based game, and it sold 500,000 copies right off the bat. So I don't understand why you don't think a pvp game like Darkfall can succeed.

Sure most players aren't bored of WOW. But if even 1/10th of the players are bored, thats still a million players looking for another game

lol @ OP

Talk about selfpwnage, if this was a movie this thread would be at YouTube with some teenager casting a boomerang without a clue about it's function and be unable to cach it when it cames back.

I'm just shocked at the fanbase to this game.  It just seems like the devs are undermanned and it's a big project that will never be worth subscribing to.  Sorry to say it, but unless it's free, i'm not playing it.   I'm not paying 15 bucks for lies any more after AOC.

Originally posted by Raithe-Nor

Originally posted by Silvarch

I disagree, there's no confusion. As long as you're playing a video game, no matter what it touts, you will be much more limited than your imagination.  Constraints are always there, so where do we draw the line regarding when a game is a real a RPG or not? It's subjective to each person. Under your rather strict standard, no video game is a RPG because your option are always limited, and the only thing that can hold up to the label is your own imagination.

I disagree that if a game does not try to be an RPG (as described by the industry) then it likely doesn't need to be a MMO. Need is a strong word though, nothing really needs to be MMO, but I'll take it you mean something like "gains from being one". MMO is a design decision regardless of genre. If you believe gameplay will be enhanced by your game being massively multiplayer and online then it warrants it (eg. Test Drive Unlimited).

By the way, roleplaying means, quite literally, playing a role. Whether you're playing the role verbatim to the script, fully improvised, or anywhere in between, which is basically the difference between sandbox and the alternative, you're still playing a role.

 

1) So the distinction between RPG and non-RPG is too blurry using my definitions, but the distinction between sandbox and not-sandbox is black and white?  This isn't rocket science.  They are both grey areas where if one condition is held true [RPG], the other can be assumed [sandbox].  Sandbox, however, is slightly more inclusive.

2) You are having problems discerning the differences between online play and massively multiplayer - again, part of the confusion rampant in the industry.  Diablo II and Starcraft were online games via Blizzard's BattleNet servers that had massive amounts of players.  They were not considered massively multiplayer because instances of the game typically involved just 4 to 8 players at a time.  While Test Drive Unlimited may allow several people to pass each other in a virtual world, I doubt any of their gameplay structure would necessitate more than a few people racing at a time.  If it does, then they may be one of the rare exceptions to my generalization.

3) You are missing the key second part of the compound word roleplaying.  Roleplaying does not mean acting, or performing.  It means playing a game.  Which means imagination, not scripting.  Which means sandbox, not jumping hoops.

I'm not saying sandbox is a black and white definition either.

I disagree with the condition that for a game to be an RPG it must be a sandbox, but we're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this, so I'll just agree to disagree.

If roleplaying means playing a game, does RPG mean game where you play a game? No video game in existence allows you to use your imagination as a gameplay mechanic, all the things you can choose to do are implemented via mechanics that were programmed or scripted, one way or the other. Sandbox just means jumping through hoops not set in a specific course.

Originally posted by Antikythera

It's not my fault they chose to create a game that will inevitably fail.

Failure to launch or failure after launch. Pick your choice.

Hell I can go play Archlord right now for free and get a solid PvP game with up to date graphics. Think about that for a second. The game had to go FREE to play because no one wanted to play it. 

You really think people are going to come in droves to play some unheard of PvP game made by unknown devs simply because it's some kind of sandbox?

What's my motivation to play Darkfall?

FULL LOOTZ?? old graphics??  terrible animations??   What???

I'am a potential subscriber. Why should I play Darkfall?  Multiply me by 1 million and you have everybody else asking the same question and Aventurine asking why nobody is playing their game.

I'll tell ya why no one is going to play this Aventurine.  It's because you developed for far too long. You have no existing subscriber base to sell to.  The engine is terribly outdated. The content I'am sure is completely lacking in todays standards for a MMORPG.  You have far too much competition with deep pockets and huge teams to keep things up to date who will steal away 90% of your players without even knowing they did it.

Sure Darkfall might have some initial buzz going and some decent activity for awhile but at the end of the day when it's all died down , there will be nothing left but another empty game world and another failed attempt at greatness by an inexperienced team who's eyes are bigger than their skills and who got chewed up and spit out by the veteran companies in this industry.

Darkfall is the last in the line of failed MMORPG's that started back around 2000. It simply hasn't come full circle yet and launch and fail like all the others. 

My words are good. Watch and see.

 

 

 

What would be your motivation to play a game as DF??

What would be your motivation to play a MMO as WoW i say!

In a sandbox MMO noone is telling you what to do.  Go and do whatever you want from the first day. Earn your right to live. Join a clan/empire and fight for it....as a soldier, mage or crafter.....all all at same time. Become a pirate, bounty hunter, commander and become famous (real famous among real players).

Ohh, i see that this could be a problem with player freedom...you have to find a fate for yourself.....noone will give it to you.

Maybe best to go back to WoW and PvE item grind some more

Originally posted by ghoul31

Originally posted by Silvarch

You shouldn't just omit the rest of what I said. Were that the case, why do you think that most MMOs after the release of World of Warcraft fail to garner a signifcant amount of subscribers (ie. no different or better than sub numbers pre World of Warcraft, despite the great numbers it brought in)? Yet, WoW's numbers keep increasing. Although WoW did bring great numbers to the market, the ones dissatified with it also enjoy a far greater variety of AAA choices when compared to the times of Ultima Online and Shadowbane. Nothing indicates that most players bored of WoW will look at conceptually different games, much less as far apart as Darkfall, instead of going for different so called WoW clones or ceasing to play altogether. A game can be very polished and extremely high quality, but its core features can make it unattractive for some (a lot like how most people that want DF find WoW unattractive), and when this "some" is the majority of the market then it will meet, at best, limited success.

It's unlikely that DF will have far more subscribers where it to launch now than it would've had before all those other games released.

 

AOC is a pvp based game, and it sold 500,000 copies right off the bat. So I don't understand why you don't think a pvp game like Darkfall can succeed.

Sure most players aren't bored of WOW. But if even 1/10th of the players are bored, thats still a million players looking for another game

 

AOC does not share nearly the same features with DF. Hell, it's been likened by a lot of DF supporters to a WoW clone. It also had amazing hype and advertising.

But that's a million players that have an incredible wealth of choice regarding what to play compared to what we had back in UO or SB times. I won't say none would go to a game like Darkfall, just that the difference wouldn't be that great.

Originally posted by daarco

Originally posted by Antikythera

It's not my fault they chose to create a game that will inevitably fail.

Failure to launch or failure after launch. Pick your choice.

Hell I can go play Archlord right now for free and get a solid PvP game with up to date graphics. Think about that for a second. The game had to go FREE to play because no one wanted to play it. 

You really think people are going to come in droves to play some unheard of PvP game made by unknown devs simply because it's some kind of sandbox?

What's my motivation to play Darkfall?

FULL LOOTZ?? old graphics??  terrible animations??   What???

I'am a potential subscriber. Why should I play Darkfall?  Multiply me by 1 million and you have everybody else asking the same question and Aventurine asking why nobody is playing their game.

I'll tell ya why no one is going to play this Aventurine.  It's because you developed for far too long. You have no existing subscriber base to sell to.  The engine is terribly outdated. The content I'am sure is completely lacking in todays standards for a MMORPG.  You have far too much competition with deep pockets and huge teams to keep things up to date who will steal away 90% of your players without even knowing they did it.

Sure Darkfall might have some initial buzz going and some decent activity for awhile but at the end of the day when it's all died down , there will be nothing left but another empty game world and another failed attempt at greatness by an inexperienced team who's eyes are bigger than their skills and who got chewed up and spit out by the veteran companies in this industry.

Darkfall is the last in the line of failed MMORPG's that started back around 2000. It simply hasn't come full circle yet and launch and fail like all the others. 

My words are good. Watch and see.

 

 

 

 

 

What would be your motivation to play a game as DF??

 

What would be your motivation to play a MMO as WoW i say!

In a sandbox MMO noone is telling you what to do.  Go and do whatever you want from the first day. Earn your right to live. Join a clan/empire and fight for it....as a soldier, mage or crafter.....all all at same time. Become a pirate, bounty hunter, commander and become famous (real famous among real players).

Ohh, i see that this could be a problem with player freedom...you have to find a fate for yourself.....noone will give it to you.

Maybe best to go back to WoW and PvE item grind some more

No motovation to play a game that has a lot of bad publicity, empty promises, and how long has this game been in-work?  Seems like the devs are not getting any support.....once that happens the game fails.

Originally posted by Silvarch

 

AOC does not share nearly the same features with DF. Hell, it's been likened by a lot of DF supporters to a WoW clone.

No AOC doesn't have the same features as Darkfall. The PVP in Darkfall will be a lot better than AOC.

Originally posted by ghoul31

Originally posted by Silvarch

 

AOC does not share nearly the same features with DF. Hell, it's been likened by a lot of DF supporters to a WoW clone.

 

No AOC doesn't have the same features as Darkfall. The PVP in Darkfall will be a lot better than AOC.

 

It will certainly be different. Better, my friend, is subjective.

Originally posted by Silvarch

If roleplaying means playing a game, does RPG mean game where you play a game? No video game in existence allows you to use your imagination as a gameplay mechanic, all the things you can choose to do are implemented via mechanics that were programmed or scripted, one way or the other. Sandbox just means jumping through hoops not set in a specific course.

Second Life.

Originally posted by Antikythera

Even if the game launches and it's half decent it will still fail because of it's design and lack of player base and i'am sure lack of content.

For a game like Darkfall you need TONS of players online all the time otherwise you're just running around searching for people to kill and it becomes pretty pointless. If the game doesn't have a massive subscriber base there will be literally nothing to do other than basic PvE crap which can be found done 300% better in games like WoW.

Hell WoW's PvP expansion coming out this year is probably 100 x better then the entire Darkfall game is which is another reason this game will fail.

Of course the Fanbois will chime in now saying it doesn't have FULL LOOTING so it sucks. LOL

Like that's supposed to actually be a selling point to get subscribers or something.

I won't even bring up Warhammer which it would have to compete against among everythning else.

(If) Darkfall launches and is even half playable I see it getting no more than around maybe 10-20k subscribers and holding them for a few months until Warhammer and Lich King are out and becoming a forgotten nich game where there's maybe a few hundred people online at any given time.

My words are good.

Go back to WoW.

Originally posted by Thoric485

Go back to WoW.

I don't play WoW. I don't play any MMORPG's for that matter.

Originally posted by Silvarch

Originally posted by Gerec

Originally posted by Silvarch

Originally posted by ghoul31

Originally posted by Antikythera

(If) Darkfall launches and is even half playable I see it getting no more than around maybe 10-20k subscribers

 

Shadowbane had 100k subscribers at launch. And this game is supposed to be a better version of Shadowbane. So if it actually has most of the features they claim, it will have a lot more than 20k subscribers.

People are desperate for a good sandbox game  at this point, so this game could easily get 200k subscribers. 

 

 

Shadowbane was launched before World of Warcraft or Lineage 2 or Age of Conan or Warhammer. The analogy isn't that valid because we're not talking about the same market conditions. We can see Ultima Online peaked higher than Shadowbane. If anything the UO->Shadowbane->Darkfall subscriber progression could be expected to be linear, with a negative slope.

 

This isn't math dude, it's common sense. Ultima sold more units because ultima was a better game. It had nothing to do with the market, hell the market hardly even existed before ultima. IF anything, sandbox games are in a better position than they were before Warcraft, because the market has been so hugely expanded that there are sure to be many new players who would be interested in a sandbox game.

Then common sense should tip you off that if there was no market before Ultima Online then its success does not necessarily have to be attributed to its superior quality.  When Ultima Online was released, the market wasn't there, so they were the only commercial (high, M59 notwithstanding) quality graphical MMO, they had virtually no competition. When EQ was released, UO started losing subscriptions to it en masse. The performance of a product, as well as its apparently quality, is always relative to its market. I agree that UO was superior in quality to SB, but that's not the main reason why it performed better (or as good as it did). I agree that the market is much bigger now, but now there are also far more choices. Don't forget which type of game brought this influx of new players into it.

500,000 subscribers is hoping for far too many, but that is just my opinion

"Common sense should tip you off that there was no market before Ultima"

Are you kidding?  Thats like saying that theres no market for a cure for cancer, or flying cars.  OH IT hasn't been made so we didn't really want it before.

Make a sandbox game worth playing and people will play it.  SWG is a decent example, but was SWG ever really finished?  Not in the least it was buggy all the way through to now.  Never polished, but still had a very good subscriber base.  If it was actually polished at launch, or even a year afterward, who's to say it wouldn't have had 500K subs?

We'll never know, SOE's fault on that one,  and since then there hasn't been a game created with enough sandbox elements to challenge them, but we've got 2 developers willing to try and as long as its not half-assed I have a feeling everyone will be surprised by where the market goes.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Are you kidding?  Thats like saying that theres no market for a cure for cancer, or flying cars.  OH IT hasn't been made so we didn't really want it before.

That has to be one of the most idiotic comparisons I've ever seen made. Obviously there is a huge market for a cancer cure because so many people die from it constantly. The death numbers support the market demand for that.

On the other hand you don't see millons of people dying because they don't have a andbox mmorpg to play. The fact that games like WoW completely dominate the landscape is proof that the market for sandbox PvP games is ridiculously small and not in demand at all.

You can go play a PvP sandbox skill based game right now. Just log in to Asheron'scall 1 on the Darktide server but you'll find yourself playing a online single player game which is just more proof that no one really wants to play a game like Darkfall.

I am trying to figure out how a post started by somone who uses words like "I'am" is taken seriously enough to garner 4 pages of posts.  Posting on here and directing your post to the company  isn't going to spark Aventurine to magically create the next big game.  What it sounds like to me is you were one of those people back when it was first announced who got overly excited and now you're just angry.  I don't know about you but I don't really give much credit to any game until it can be installed on my computer and played.  It's nice to see what is being made, but most people have better things to do than to stress over a game... for years.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Silvarch

Originally posted by Gerec

Originally posted by Silvarch

Originally posted by ghoul31

Originally posted by Antikythera

(If) Darkfall launches and is even half playable I see it getting no more than around maybe 10-20k subscribers

 

Shadowbane had 100k subscribers at launch. And this game is supposed to be a better version of Shadowbane. So if it actually has most of the features they claim, it will have a lot more than 20k subscribers.

People are desperate for a good sandbox game  at this point, so this game could easily get 200k subscribers. 

 

 

Shadowbane was launched before World of Warcraft or Lineage 2 or Age of Conan or Warhammer. The analogy isn't that valid because we're not talking about the same market conditions. We can see Ultima Online peaked higher than Shadowbane. If anything the UO->Shadowbane->Darkfall subscriber progression could be expected to be linear, with a negative slope.

 

This isn't math dude, it's common sense. Ultima sold more units because ultima was a better game. It had nothing to do with the market, hell the market hardly even existed before ultima. IF anything, sandbox games are in a better position than they were before Warcraft, because the market has been so hugely expanded that there are sure to be many new players who would be interested in a sandbox game.

Then common sense should tip you off that if there was no market before Ultima Online then its success does not necessarily have to be attributed to its superior quality.  When Ultima Online was released, the market wasn't there, so they were the only commercial (high, M59 notwithstanding) quality graphical MMO, they had virtually no competition. When EQ was released, UO started losing subscriptions to it en masse. The performance of a product, as well as its apparently quality, is always relative to its market. I agree that UO was superior in quality to SB, but that's not the main reason why it performed better (or as good as it did). I agree that the market is much bigger now, but now there are also far more choices. Don't forget which type of game brought this influx of new players into it.

500,000 subscribers is hoping for far too many, but that is just my opinion

 

"Common sense should tip you off that there was no market before Ultima"

Are you kidding?  Thats like saying that theres no market for a cure for cancer, or flying cars.  OH IT hasn't been made so we didn't really want it before.

Make a sandbox game worth playing and people will play it.  SWG is a decent example, but was SWG ever really finished?  Not in the least it was buggy all the way through to now.  Never polished, but still had a very good subscriber base.  If it was actually polished at launch, or even a year afterward, who's to say it wouldn't have had 500K subs?

We'll never know, SOE's fault on that one,  and since then there hasn't been a game created with enough sandbox elements to challenge them, but we've got 2 developers willing to try and as long as its not half-assed I have a feeling everyone will be surprised by where the market goes.

 

  I don't understand something, why bother quoting me if then you're just going to alter my quotes? Also, apparently you are confusing market ("The definition implies that at least three actors are needed for a market to exist; at least one actor, on the one side of the market, who is aware of at least two actors on the other side whose offers can be evaluated in relation to each other.") with demand.

SWG was arguably a sandbox game, but it was far more mainstream (faction based optional pvp, no full loot, etc) than DF claims, or wants, to be, and based on an extremely popular IP. It isn't that good of an analogy. And since then there have been many games created with enough and more sandbox elements (Face of Mankind, Wurm Online, Saga of Ryzom, etc), they just haven't been very successful due to a perceived lack of quality. Yet, other games with about the same or worse polish and quality, or lack there of, but different core mechanics, remain more popular. Let us hope that DF does surprise us, in a good way.

Originally posted by vingvega

I'm just shocked at the fanbase to this game.  It just seems like the devs are undermanned and it's a big project that will never be worth subscribing to.  Sorry to say it, but unless it's free, i'm not playing it.   I'm not paying 15 bucks for lies any more after AOC.

Sounds good, we don't want whiners ruining our game. Guys like you belong in WOW, they employ people to ignore your whine posts there.