Originally posted by Moaky07

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

Originally posted by Moaky07

 

Like I said, MMO sandboxes dont sell worth shit. Which is why you dont see AAA production of them these days.

You can't really say that until a company creates one with a large budget and gets rid of stupid things like FFA.  People just don't want to play cheaply made games regardless of their style.  I'm not saying it would come anywhere close to themepark numbers but I have no doubt it would be successful if actually funded properly.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect anything more. Despite the relative honesty of his message, I can't help but hear him saying: "Sorry, we know we're not doing anything new or special, but we've got some gimmicks that might convince a few dumb people otherwise."

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect anything more. Despite the relative honesty of his message, I can't help but hear him saying: "Sorry, we know we're not doing anything new or special, but we've got some gimmicks that might convince a few dumb people otherwise."

Maybe you can give me an example of something new; no one else I've asked seems to be able to so maybe you'll provide me an answer. What could they do, that would be significantly different, while not using mmofps game mechanics?

I wish him good luck, I think many here wish we had the funds to make the MMO we want.  I think that is what he is trying to do. 

I do know Curt is not a pvp guy so I would not expect much in the way of pvp outside of dueling or maybe some e-sport, one thing for sure it will NOT be an open pvp game :P

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

 

Sorry but Eve being consistantly in the top10 of MMO's despite being a game where you play a spaceship and having started with a MUCH smaller budget then most of the AAA Themeparks it's outselling would tend to argue against that.

I have nothing against Curt and 38 Studios making the game they want to make and have passion for...they should go for it.  But the idea that sandboxes can't be successfull compared to themeparks is a completely unsurported arguement.

In order to even attempt to prove that..... you have to have a relatively controled data set where the primary differentiators are the "themepark" or "sandbox" factor in isolation from other important elements. You don't have that..... you have apples and oranges. Must people compare small, buggy, indie titles made with limited resources and by teams with limited experience to big budget AAA titles made by experienced teams.... that doesn't work as a valid method of comparison.

You'd have to look at small, indie themeparks vs small, indie sandboxes..... and doing that, the "themeparks" really don't do significantly better.

Or... you'd have to look at big budget AAA sandbox's vs big budget AAA themeparks, but you hardly have any data set to work with when doing that as there are next to no big budget AAA sandboxes to use as data points.

You'd also have to work with a fairly significant data set, since a big factor in success is not just style but implimentation....and there are alot of different factors that go into whether a game is successfull or not.

What you are doing is the equivalent of looking at one guy with red hair who struck out at his one at bat ever....and jumping to the conclusion that "People with red hair can't bat."

"Themepark" and "Sandbox" are 2 ends of a scale...and when you look across multiple verticals, games on the "Sandbox" side of the scale historicaly don't do bad at all....

The Elder Scroll series, the "Sim" series, 2nd Life, Mine Craft, Eve, etc....all do reasonably well for thier verticals. Heck even UO and SWG did reasonably well for WHEN they were released despite the problems that they had.

On the other side of the coin.... you have WoW as the one big data bump for Themeparks....outside of that thier success isn't all that outstanding, especialy when factoring in the budgets/resources that went into building them..... and you have a number of big budget AAA themeparks that were outright financial flops (Vanguard, STO, etc).

So I think it's really NOT a very well supported arguement that Themepark/Sandbox plays a significant factor in a games success or failure.

The closest arguement one could make to that probably stands AGAINST Themeparks...since the MMO market is heavly saturated with Themepark offerings right now, so any product released with "Themepark" as a major factor in it's selling points is going to have to fight all that competition for market share.....While a "Sandbox" offering probably just has to fight Eve...and then the likes of things like Mortal Online for market share.

Are you kidding me?

EVE is the one sole example of a sandbox MMO doing 300k for any type of sustained time. SWG started at 300k and dropped fast. If UO even hit that number(275 ish was best I saw), it didnt stay for long.

Themeparks have EQ, EQ2, FF11, LoTRO, Rift, and that big elephant in the room WoW that have all carried these type numbers for 6 months or more.....TOR is about to be added to the list.

That doesnt even mention games like STO, CoH, DDO etc that all either had good intial sales numbers, or have done well on the move to FTP, or both. Or more PVP focused games like AOC and WAR, which both sold a ton. Both more akin to a themepark though.

There is a reason themeparks are the most played style since the launch of EQ, and that is PVE content with no forced PVP. The themepark is centered around it.

SO yeah, when I look at the numbers, I see a huge disparity in the popularity of themeparks, and obviously so do the companies producing games, as sandbox production is few and far between.

You sticking your head in the proverbial sandbox, and trying to rationalize the numbers doesnt change it.

Was so dissapointed in Curt Schillings PR blunder at this juncture.  I for the life of me do not know why game developers continue to think that making WoW clone after WoW clone will be a hit when all market indicators point to the fact that none of them have been successful by any stretch of the imgination.

I had high hopes for this title, probably to high to be truthful but the simple fact is that old school games are dead and innovation is just another cute chatch phrase that means nothing to no one in this industry any more.

Originally posted by Skuz

I can't help but think they are making the same mistakes as many other post-WoW game so far released has made.

2 factions

Themepark

WoW/EQ combat

Quest-grind

Traditional western fantasy, Elves, Gnomes etc

I'm a fan of fantasy, but what seems to be going into this game seems awfully, can it be said of fantasy? "Mainstream", insofar as it uses very familiar settings, races, classes, plot devices and the saturation of the fantasy MMO is so high I've really lost my taste for it, so much so it may be the 1 thing keeping me in SWTOR right now & that's becoming more a case of playing it while waiting for TSW.

Will still keep tabs on it, but I think it's looking more like a destination for short-term game tourists (aka game-hoppers). Much like everything else since WoW.

 QFE, They would need to do something amazingly awesomesauce to get me to buy the game and go through the same theme i've already played dozens of times in different games. Now is the time to do something really big and special with the fantasy theme, something like what archeage is doing imo.

Originally posted by Moaky07

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

 

Sorry but Eve being consistantly in the top10 of MMO's despite being a game where you play a spaceship and having started with a MUCH smaller budget then most of the AAA Themeparks it's outselling would tend to argue against that.

I have nothing against Curt and 38 Studios making the game they want to make and have passion for...they should go for it.  But the idea that sandboxes can't be successfull compared to themeparks is a completely unsurported arguement.

In order to even attempt to prove that..... you have to have a relatively controled data set where the primary differentiators are the "themepark" or "sandbox" factor in isolation from other important elements. You don't have that..... you have apples and oranges. Must people compare small, buggy, indie titles made with limited resources and by teams with limited experience to big budget AAA titles made by experienced teams.... that doesn't work as a valid method of comparison.

You'd have to look at small, indie themeparks vs small, indie sandboxes..... and doing that, the "themeparks" really don't do significantly better.

Or... you'd have to look at big budget AAA sandbox's vs big budget AAA themeparks, but you hardly have any data set to work with when doing that as there are next to no big budget AAA sandboxes to use as data points.

You'd also have to work with a fairly significant data set, since a big factor in success is not just style but implimentation....and there are alot of different factors that go into whether a game is successfull or not.

What you are doing is the equivalent of looking at one guy with red hair who struck out at his one at bat ever....and jumping to the conclusion that "People with red hair can't bat."

"Themepark" and "Sandbox" are 2 ends of a scale...and when you look across multiple verticals, games on the "Sandbox" side of the scale historicaly don't do bad at all....

The Elder Scroll series, the "Sim" series, 2nd Life, Mine Craft, Eve, etc....all do reasonably well for thier verticals. Heck even UO and SWG did reasonably well for WHEN they were released despite the problems that they had.

On the other side of the coin.... you have WoW as the one big data bump for Themeparks....outside of that thier success isn't all that outstanding, especialy when factoring in the budgets/resources that went into building them..... and you have a number of big budget AAA themeparks that were outright financial flops (Vanguard, STO, etc).

So I think it's really NOT a very well supported arguement that Themepark/Sandbox plays a significant factor in a games success or failure.

The closest arguement one could make to that probably stands AGAINST Themeparks...since the MMO market is heavly saturated with Themepark offerings right now, so any product released with "Themepark" as a major factor in it's selling points is going to have to fight all that competition for market share.....While a "Sandbox" offering probably just has to fight Eve...and then the likes of things like Mortal Online for market share.

Are you kidding me?

 

EVE is the one sole example of a sandbox MMO doing 300k for any type of sustained time. SWG started at 300k and dropped fast. If UO even hit that number(275 ish was best I saw), it didnt stay for long.

 

Themeparks have EQ, EQ2, FF11, LoTRO, Rift, and that big elephant in the room WoW that have all carried these type numbers for 6 months or more.....TOR is about to be added to the list.

 

That doesnt even mention games like STO, CoH, DDO etc that all either had good intial sales numbers, or have done well on the move to FTP, or both. Or more PVP focused games like AOC and WAR, which both sold a ton. Both more akin to a themepark though.

 

There is a reason themeparks are the most played style since the launch of EQ, and that is PVE content with no forced PVP. The themepark is centered around it.

 

SO yeah, when I look at the numbers, I see a huge disparity in the popularity of themeparks, and obviously so do the companies producing games, as sandbox production is few and far between.

 

You sticking your head in the proverbial sandbox, and trying to rationalize the numbers doesnt change it.

There you go again, completely ignoring the facts staring you in the face.  Except for Wow all these so called great themeparks have not managed to retain their playerbase.  Within the launch year they are merging servers.

Eve has maintained their playerbase, in fact it has grown.  You think long term retention of players is not important?  I think there are a bunch of AAA titles that have that as the number one problem with their game.

Secondly, ffa pvp is not a necessary condition of a sandbox despite what some of the posters here say.  SWG and Asheron's Call did very well without it, allocating pvp to those that chose to.

 "General: Copernicus: What It Won't Be"

On my computer.

Originally posted by Moaky07

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

 

Sorry but Eve being consistantly in the top10 of MMO's despite being a game where you play a spaceship and having started with a MUCH smaller budget then most of the AAA Themeparks it's outselling would tend to argue against that.

I have nothing against Curt and 38 Studios making the game they want to make and have passion for...they should go for it.  But the idea that sandboxes can't be successfull compared to themeparks is a completely unsurported arguement.

In order to even attempt to prove that..... you have to have a relatively controled data set where the primary differentiators are the "themepark" or "sandbox" factor in isolation from other important elements. You don't have that..... you have apples and oranges. Must people compare small, buggy, indie titles made with limited resources and by teams with limited experience to big budget AAA titles made by experienced teams.... that doesn't work as a valid method of comparison.

You'd have to look at small, indie themeparks vs small, indie sandboxes..... and doing that, the "themeparks" really don't do significantly better.

Or... you'd have to look at big budget AAA sandbox's vs big budget AAA themeparks, but you hardly have any data set to work with when doing that as there are next to no big budget AAA sandboxes to use as data points.

You'd also have to work with a fairly significant data set, since a big factor in success is not just style but implimentation....and there are alot of different factors that go into whether a game is successfull or not.

What you are doing is the equivalent of looking at one guy with red hair who struck out at his one at bat ever....and jumping to the conclusion that "People with red hair can't bat."

"Themepark" and "Sandbox" are 2 ends of a scale...and when you look across multiple verticals, games on the "Sandbox" side of the scale historicaly don't do bad at all....

The Elder Scroll series, the "Sim" series, 2nd Life, Mine Craft, Eve, etc....all do reasonably well for thier verticals. Heck even UO and SWG did reasonably well for WHEN they were released despite the problems that they had.

On the other side of the coin.... you have WoW as the one big data bump for Themeparks....outside of that thier success isn't all that outstanding, especialy when factoring in the budgets/resources that went into building them..... and you have a number of big budget AAA themeparks that were outright financial flops (Vanguard, STO, etc).

So I think it's really NOT a very well supported arguement that Themepark/Sandbox plays a significant factor in a games success or failure.

The closest arguement one could make to that probably stands AGAINST Themeparks...since the MMO market is heavly saturated with Themepark offerings right now, so any product released with "Themepark" as a major factor in it's selling points is going to have to fight all that competition for market share.....While a "Sandbox" offering probably just has to fight Eve...and then the likes of things like Mortal Online for market share.

Are you kidding me?

 

EVE is the one sole example of a sandbox MMO doing 300k for any type of sustained time. SWG started at 300k and dropped fast. If UO even hit that number(275 ish was best I saw), it didnt stay for long.

 

Themeparks have EQ, EQ2, FF11, LoTRO, Rift, and that big elephant in the room WoW that have all carried these type numbers for 6 months or more.....TOR is about to be added to the list.

 

That doesnt even mention games like STO, CoH, DDO etc that all either had good intial sales numbers, or have done well on the move to FTP, or both. Or more PVP focused games like AOC and WAR, which both sold a ton. Both more akin to a themepark though.

 

There is a reason themeparks are the most played style since the launch of EQ, and that is PVE content with no forced PVP. The themepark is centered around it.

 

SO yeah, when I look at the numbers, I see a huge disparity in the popularity of themeparks, and obviously so do the companies producing games, as sandbox production is few and far between.

 

You sticking your head in the proverbial sandbox, and trying to rationalize the numbers doesnt change it.

 

You are completely wrong.  You've got to look at Sales & Subscription numbers in relation to the size of the potential market.  275K in '97 is entirely different then 275K today because the size of the potential Market today is EXPONENTIONALY LARGER then it was in '97..... and that market size is dictacted by factors entirely divorced from interest in playing MMO's.

- Look at statistics for the number of households with access to a computer.

- Look at the statistics for the number of households with access to high speed reliable internet access.

The difference in those 2 statistics alone is staggering when comparing '97 to today, looking inside the US.... when you look outside the US it's even more dramatic. Heck the difference even between '97 and '99 is pretty large.

That's the thing that most people are overlooking. Those factors dictate the size of the potential market. You can't sell an MMO to someone who doesn't have access to a computer or the internet. When looking in terms of the scale of the potential market UO (which is a game I didn't even really like) pretty much blows away almost ALL of todays potential themeparks, including TOR in terms of market penetration.

Eve with a much smaller development budget actualy beats most of the AAA themeparks out there in terms of subscription base, including ALL but one of the ones (Rift) that is on your list.  Those are 2 of the 3 big budget sandboxes that have ever been released (Maybe you could count AC ...as it was kinda sandboxy).

Futrthermore you really have to look at subscriptions or microtransactions rather then initial sales....as that is where the meat and bread of MMO's draw thier proffit from.

Would you rather have a one time payment of $50, which if you are lucky you get to split 60/40 with distrubters retailers or would you rather have a recurring revenue of $15 per month over the course of 3-5 years which you don't split with anyone?

The answer to that question tells you why almost everyone...including all the big Tech companies outside of the games vertical... is looking to get in on the services model in one form or another (whether FTP with monetization through microtransaction and/or advertisement ..... or traditional sub base).

Most of the Themepark MMO's today, despite your protestations to the contray,  are struggling....there are only a handfull that are doing reasonably well.  It's not because there is any real problem with "Themepark" as a style.....it's because there are 50 million different Themepark offerings all struggling to fight for the SAME customer base. 

I would never play a game made by the guy that murdered Chewbacca and a baseball player. The fact that it's going to be just like WoW makes it even worse.

Originally posted by KingGator

Originally posted by corpusc

Originally posted by KingGator

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

Originally posted by KingGator

It sounds to me ike many of you want an mmofps....planetside 2 is coming for you. Stop trying to make mmorpgs into mmofps' that genre exist, go play it if you want the "unique" system of twitch combat and EVERYONE being dps.

 

Its one of the mos t tired arguments on this board. I have an idea tell me what would be new and different(with specifics) that wouldn't be an mmofps, within the frame work of an mmo describe to me what you would do to make it "unique".

 

Your argument is even more tired. MMO boards, this one and many others, are already filled with threads of mechanics long-gone or never made that still fall within the bounds of "MMO", have nothing to do with twitch-based combat, and that players would like to see. Use the search function.

 

 

Funny, because I've been reading these boards for a long time now and have never read anything of the sort. When this discussion comes up its always some one advocatiung twitch mechanics.

 

 

you replied in his quote box instead of in your own message. 

but he's right, about the part where your cliched complaint has been seen many many many times before.

 

and what you're suggesting to the people who you are angry at, is extremely illogical and self centered.

 

And yet you haven't given me one example; there is a reason cliches are used; there is a grain of truth to them.  My point was very logical, your calling it illogical is an emotional response based on your butt hurt. You guys never give examples of what would be "new" or "original" other than fps mechanics., and you almost never see a thread about it unles it is touting the virtues of fps mechanics and again I say to you...............if you want an mmofps play one, there are some now and several in developement at this very moment.

why would i give you an example?  my whole point is that you are every bit if not more annoying and cliched than what you are complaining about.

people wanting twitch mechanics have a valid reason.

your conclusions and suggestions to them are completely invalid, irrational and head-in-the-sand. 

Mr. Clliche that only cares about cliched concerns, and damnation to anybody who bucks the status quo.  

even tho you got 450 or so MMOs with no twitch mechanics, you complain about the people who have basically no choices TO THIS DAY, getting a few nods in their direction lately.

not one single MMO out there for me.  but somebody like you, with all kinds of choices gets all offended that people are making baby steps in my direction, and that i might get something i find worthwhile to play eventually, after waiting for it for 15 years.

that's pathetic. 

Originally posted by KingGator

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

Don't get me wrong, I didn't expect anything more. Despite the relative honesty of his message, I can't help but hear him saying: "Sorry, we know we're not doing anything new or special, but we've got some gimmicks that might convince a few dumb people otherwise."

 

 

Maybe you can give me an example of something new; no one else I've asked seems to be able to so maybe you'll provide me an answer. What could they do, that would be significantly different, while not using mmofps game mechanics?

since thinking and imagination are apparently a challenge for you, how about looking at every non-MMO genre thats existed for the past 20-30 years in videogaming history?   were they all FPS games?  no.   were they all RPGs?  far far from it. 

MOST of those mechanics from thousands & thousands of radically varied games can and WILL be done in MMOs. MOST of the elements from this rich history of VARIED gaming will be brand new to the MMO world.

RPGs are just a slice of a much bigger genre pie (outside of MMOs).  and the MMO space will eventually reflect the same thing.  once people like you are no longer the sole MMO audience.  if companies build them, they will come.... problem is, nobody (hardly) has built MMOs outside of RPGs so far.  its obvious that this is changing lately, and people like you are having a hard time coming to grips with this, which is why you have these little outbursts (which are pretty ironic, considering how you called ME "butt hurt" for some reason).  it won't be all about RPG players after a few more years.   how terrible for you, after having the space all to yourself for so long!   for 15 years Mr. Cliche gets RPG cliche after RPG cliche to choose from, and can't imagine anything outside of RPG cliches.  how will he adapt to this new world of variety!?

I dunno I really enjoyed KOAR , a MMO version of that would be fine with me.

Well I'd thank Curt for being honest about what it won't be.   I admire the fact he put so much of his own money into forming the company.

I won't be a potential customer for their game... and to be honest the business side of me just shudders.   I don't really see the point of putting so much of your own money into what is just going to be ... the same old same old.

There may not be many "new" things a game can have (as some posters have said).   Yet you can go with a design that isn't being used by 90% of the games in an overly saturated market.   <- That is talking purely from a business perspective... not the customers perspective.  

If every car company on this planet sold a car that looked exactly the same and performed exactly the same.   The only reason to buy from any paticular company would be if they had an exclusive paint color or something similar.   To me that is pretty much where the MMO market is at.   How many subscriptions are you willing to pay?   How many cash shops are you willing to fund?  Would you be more apt to play two games that are almost the same... or two games that are very different?

This isn't 1999 anymore... where you had pretty much UO or EQ as the majorly "known" MMO's...   and telling me you won't reinvent the wheel... followed by some vague promises with no substance is not the best marketing system I've seen.  (this has been promised but never done.. we just won't tell you what the promise was in case we can't keep it?  or this was thought to never be able to be done.. but we won't tell you what it is.. in case we can't do it..)   <- that's how it comes across to me .. whether it should or not.

Anyway I'll stop my wall of text here... and simply say... good luck to you Curt and your company.   I hope you so very well in the market.  (I like the guy and some of the people working for him.. even if I won't buy their product.)

At least he's honest about a few things it won't be.

Taxpayers are the only ones still investing in WOW/Eq clones it seems. Hope their investment pays off  lol;)

Originally posted by kishe

If its going to be anything like Kingdom of Amalur, I'm out!

      Kind of how I feel also.....They had better do alot better this time around.

Originally posted by Alders

Originally posted by Moaky07

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

Originally posted by Moaky07

 

Like I said, MMO sandboxes dont sell worth shit. Which is why you dont see AAA production of them these days.

 

You can't really say that until a company creates one with a large budget and gets rid of stupid things like FFA.  People just don't want to play cheaply made games regardless of their style.  I'm not saying it would come anywhere close to themepark numbers but I have no doubt it would be successful if actually funded properly.

A-FRACKING-MEN

Name me one AAA Sandbox PvE centered game?  A game free from the brain dead gank fests of FFA full looting PvP that continues to plague the sandbox market. A game that is built from the ground floor with all the production quality of a World of Warcraft and the Exploration and wonders of an Everquest or Asherons Call.  A Game that offers tons of content such as:

1. Level-less skill based progression

2. Non-Instanced Player built housing that takes weeks and months to aquire the componets to build and a lifetime to finely tune its look and archectecure.

3. Non-instanced PvE game play that attempts to get players out into "the world" exploring or hunting for rare mobs, exotic locales, hidden loot filled caves and grottos.

4. Removal of any sort of centralized gathering spot.  Instead of 1 capital city you have 100 smaller villages, hamlets, keeps and towns that offer story driven questing and places, REAL PLACES, you want to call your home town.  (Sort of like I will always be fond of calling Glendon Woods my home town in AC1)

5. The carrot is stripped of all its glory and instead the stick becomes the primary motivation method in getting players excited about enjoying the game.

6. Meaningful crafting that will rival the best loot drops in the game but will require weeks if not months of work finding the right componets.

7.  A true political system devoid of artifical factions set up by developers but instead created through guilds and allegiances.

I tell you people one thing, the first AAA developer that can create the spiritual successor of an Asherons Call with the production quality of a Blizzard product will strike gold in the MMO gaming world.

*yawn* exactly the stuff every devs says, when introducing a new MMO. Hopefully not a WoW clone, WoW is ugly bs.

Personally, I'm glad it will not be a "sand box". Its been my unfortunate experience that those all too many times translate into some type of FFA gank/grief fest.  I'm just NOT interested in those types of games any more. Not to mention we've seen what happens to such "sand box" type games in the modern western markets.  Lets see how the game turns out, berfore we get out the pitch forks and torches, and march on the Dev's castle. ^^