---

Originally posted by Mors.Magne
I totally agree with the OP 100%.

 

For example, a combination of these would be fantastic:

> Darkfall's combat + crafting mechanics

> Minecraft's world generation

> Eve Online's single server universe

> Skyrim's graphics

 

And maybe change the setting to a futuristic fantasy world, a like Warhammer 40k.

 

---

This would be the end of my work career! But sure the best way to starve, couse I won't have money for food or time to eat =)

Originally posted by Ghost12

 

I sincerely believe that anyone that expects to have WoW's number of players is just delusional. WoW was the introduction to a new style of gaming and I doubt we will see one game gather as many players as WoW has.

 

But who says a good sandbox cant gather 500,000?

Anyone who believes any MMO, themepark or not to get WoW like numbers is delusional. EvE has 500k, which is likely more than SWTOR.  I think a polished sandbox could achieve 1m max, but 500k is a more likely figure, as it needs a subscription based model, by necessity a sandbox is limited in its cash shop options as every action in a sandbox affects other players.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ghost12

Want to be a knight in shining armor? Boom.

Want to be a mercenary hunting down other players? Boom.

Want to be a dancer, entertaining tired players on the street for some coin? Boom

Want to be a leader of a player run corporation? Boom.

Want to be an architect, designing other players houses? Boom.

Want to be a thief, stealing other players' hard earned cash? Boom!

Want to become a politician, managing a player city? Boom.

But what if the person isn't skilled, creative or social enough to actually achieve those goals?

Besides... Want to be subjugated? Want to be robbed? Want to get hunted by other players? When creating your utopian game, you have to look at both sides of the player-to-player interaction.

See, it's very easy to type 'Boom' on a forum and think that actually made something so. It's another thing entirely to try to make it happen in a game world catering to a target audience that often has the most fickle interests and most nebulous wants possible.

Then they improve themselves? Become something else?  Create their own path? Dont underestimate the player. They are a human being. They will find a way.

If the target audience has fickle interests, then all the more for a sandbox. That is the essence of sandbox - creating your own story and your own content. In a sandbox, if you want to switch your profession, then all the more power to you.

Originally posted by Ghost12

 

 

How many big titles did we have after WoW that fell flat on their faces?

 

 

Except, if you took many of those titles that "fell flat on their faces" (in your opinion) and actually looked at them by a case by case basis, you would see that their issues had nothing to do wtih being a themepark and more to do with actual issues.

You're trying to make an assessment based upon superficial obsrevations when the real causes lie deeper.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ghost12

Want to be a knight in shining armor? Boom.

Want to be a mercenary hunting down other players? Boom.

Want to be a dancer, entertaining tired players on the street for some coin? Boom

Want to be a leader of a player run corporation? Boom.

Want to be an architect, designing other players houses? Boom.

Want to be a thief, stealing other players' hard earned cash? Boom!

Want to become a politician, managing a player city? Boom.

But what if the person isn't skilled, creative or social enough to actually achieve those goals?

Besides... Want to be subjugated? Want to be robbed? Want to get hunted by other players? When creating your utopian game, you have to look at both sides of the player-to-player interaction.

See, it's very easy to type 'Boom' on a forum and think that actually made something so. It's another thing entirely to try to make it happen in a game world catering to a target audience that often has the most fickle interests and most nebulous wants possible.

I dont thinik that is the real problem, the real problem here is that a lot of those players dont get along well together.

The dancer get robbed by the thief, the corporate leader hires the mercenary to kill the politician and so on. And the thief will surely enjoy robbing the dancer but I have a feeling that she wont like it as much.

The real problem is that in the real world rules must exist to build a civilization and since it have actual permadeath it works to keep crimes down, if you actually could make a game with the same realism it would work but you need the right players for law enforcement. And xperience tells us that there will be 3 times as many criminals as cops in the game at least.

Permadeath but only for criminals that gets executed by the law would probably help a bit.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ghost12

Want to be a knight in shining armor? Boom.

Want to be a mercenary hunting down other players? Boom.

Want to be a dancer, entertaining tired players on the street for some coin? Boom

Want to be a leader of a player run corporation? Boom.

Want to be an architect, designing other players houses? Boom.

Want to be a thief, stealing other players' hard earned cash? Boom!

Want to become a politician, managing a player city? Boom.

But what if the person isn't skilled, creative or social enough to actually achieve those goals?

Besides... Want to be subjugated? Want to be robbed? Want to get hunted by other players? When creating your utopian game, you have to look at both sides of the player-to-player interaction.

See, it's very easy to type 'Boom' on a forum and think that actually made something so. It's another thing entirely to try to make it happen in a game world catering to a target audience that often has the most fickle interests and most nebulous wants possible.

Then they will fail, as they should, or they will find their niche in the world and succeed. That is why the themepark genre is stagnated, everyone gets a gold star, no one fails.

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Good reference, sandbox style gamers do seem to be wandering the wilderness for 40 years trying to find their next big title.

Perhaps one day it will happen........

I think there's a market for a new sandbox style MMORPG, but I can't agree that there's any real evidence that it will accomodate "millions upon millions" served.

Unfortunately, if you are going to build a new MMORPG and ask someone to front you anywhere from $100M - 200M to create it, they're going to want some assurances that you know what you are doing and that there's evidence in the marketplace that reduces the risk of their investment.

Right now, the only real examples to follow are standard theme park MMO's so that's why we keep getting so many variants of basically the same game released back in 2004 (or even earlier if we go back to EQ1)

If a runaway hit in the sandbox space ever happens it's probably going to be a matter more of sh!t luck rather than by intelligent design.

 

 

I sincerely believe that anyone that expects to have WoW's number of players is just delusional. WoW was the introduction to a new style of gaming and I doubt we will see one game gather as many players as WoW has.

 

But who says a good sandbox cant gather 500,000?

 

Anything is possible. And sad fact is - the MMO industry is extremely risky. Any entreprenuer knows that an investment is always going to be risky.

 

The fact that standard themepark MMO's keep on underperforming tells me, as an investor, that they arent what they are cracked up to be. And I am not approaching this as a sandbox lover, I'm approaching this as an investor. As an investor, I would not invest in any themepark title as of this moment.

 

I think with the performance of TOR, its pretty clear.

 

Part of being an entrepreneur is not only examining the risks, but also taking them. Opening a business is always risky.

 

There are always going to be risks. But right now, I would rather fund a sandbox MMO rather than a themepark any day of the week. It makes much more sense.

 

@Kyleran: I see what you did there.

@Ghost12: Even if you think themeparks are underperforming, sandboxes are not the fallback solution. Themeparks losing customers does not mean more to sandboxes. This is faulty logic. If there are no good MMOs, people will play something else. There's plenty to choose from between single player and regular multiplayer games.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

Look, another MMO Moses. Please tell us more revelations oh enlightened one! We will buy whatever you're selling.

Good reference, sandbox style gamers do seem to be wandering the wilderness for 40 years trying to find their next big title.

Perhaps one day it will happen........

I think there's a market for a new sandbox style MMORPG, but I can't agree that there's any real evidence that it will accomodate "millions upon millions" served.

Unfortunately, if you are going to build a new MMORPG and ask someone to front you anywhere from $100M - 200M to create it, they're going to want some assurances that you know what you are doing and that there's evidence in the marketplace that reduces the risk of their investment.

Right now, the only real examples to follow are standard theme park MMO's so that's why we keep getting so many variants of basically the same game released back in 2004 (or even earlier if we go back to EQ1)

If a runaway hit in the sandbox space ever happens it's probably going to be a matter more of sh!t luck rather than by intelligent design.

 

I sincerely believe that anyone that expects to have WoW's number of players is just delusional. WoW was the introduction to a new style of gaming and I doubt we will see one game gather as many players as WoW has.

 But who says a good sandbox cant gather 500,000?

Anything is possible. And sad fact is - the MMO industry is extremely risky. Any entreprenuer knows that an investment is always going to be risky.

 The fact that standard themepark MMO's keep on underperforming tells me, as an investor, that they arent what they are cracked up to be. And I am not approaching this as a sandbox lover, I'm approaching this as an investor. As an investor, I would not invest in any themepark title as of this moment.

 I think with the performance of TOR, its pretty clear.

 Part of being an entrepreneur is not only examining the risks, but also taking them. Opening a business is always risky.

 There are always going to be risks. But right now, I would rather fund a sandbox MMO rather than a themepark any day of the week. It makes much more sense.

 

Oh, I agree with you, 500K is probably quite obtainable, but no one is going to invest 100M + in a new title to draw in that number of subs, just not worth the risk.

While perhaps no one expects a repeat of WOW's success (probably not even Blizzard) I'd venture to say most developers are shooting for at least 2M or so (based on recent SWTOR info)  and they're not seeing it in the sandbox market at this point.

 

I do expect future titles to draw in over 500K subs but this is more likely to happen once the recession is over.

For example, improvements in technology mean that Eve Online players (on PCs) will be playing in the same universe as DUST 514 players (PS3). This won't appeal to a lot people, but many people will get to know about it.

Things would really take off if virtual reality was commonly used.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ghost12

Want to be a knight in shining armor? Boom.

Want to be a mercenary hunting down other players? Boom.

Want to be a dancer, entertaining tired players on the street for some coin? Boom

Want to be a leader of a player run corporation? Boom.

Want to be an architect, designing other players houses? Boom.

Want to be a thief, stealing other players' hard earned cash? Boom!

Want to become a politician, managing a player city? Boom.

But what if the person isn't skilled, creative or social enough to actually achieve those goals?

Besides... Want to be subjugated? Want to be robbed? Want to get hunted by other players? When creating your utopian game, you have to look at both sides of the player-to-player interaction.

See, it's very easy to type 'Boom' on a forum and think that actually made something so. It's another thing entirely to try to make it happen in a game world catering to a target audience that often has the most fickle interests and most nebulous wants possible.

I dont thinik that is the real problem, the real problem here is that a lot of those players dont get along well together.

The dancer get robbed by the thief, the corporate leader hires the mercenary to kill the politician and so on. And the thief will surely enjoy robbing the dancer but I have a feeling that she wont like it as much.

The real problem is that in the real world rules must exist to build a civilization and since it have actual permadeath it works to keep crimes down, if you actually could make a game with the same realism it would work but you need the right players for law enforcement. And xperience tells us that there will be 3 times as many criminals as cops in the game at least.

Permadeath but only for criminals that gets executed by the law would probably help a bit.

Then the dancer or the politicianwould hire protection from another player when in vulnerable areas. That creates a new role in the sandbox. Sandboxes are fluid, the human dynamic within them changes constantly, moves are made, counters are developed and the world turns.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Ghost12

 

But what if the person isn't skilled, creative or social enough to actually achieve those goals?

What? "Oh I want to be an architect and design players houses in a multiplayer game, but I can't design for shit and I can't talk to other players". That is an issue with the player picking something completely unsuited, not an issue with the game

Besides... Want to be subjugated? Want to be robbed? Want to get hunted by other players? When creating your utopian game, you have to look at both sides of the player-to-player interaction.

Who wants to be killed in esports? Who wants to be killed in an RvR lake? Who wants to be killed by an NPC boss? Who wants to be killed by a random NPC? Who wants to be defeated at any point in any game?  I don't think the people who sign up to EVE/UO or Darkfall were sold on the product because they thought "oh cool someone is going to kick the crap out of me and take my stuffz, awesome!!!". Yet they signed up nonetheless. Some are seemingly able to take it as well as give it (no sexual pun intended).

See, it's very easy to type 'Boom' on a forum and think that actually made something so. It's another thing entirely to try to make it happen in a game world catering to a target audience that often has the most fickle interests and most nebulous wants possible.

Indeed.

Not saying that we will see AAA sandboxes with millions of subs, nor that the majority of players want sandbox games. The majority aren't even aware they exist.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Good reference, sandbox style gamers do seem to be wandering the wilderness for 40 years trying to find their next big title.

Perhaps one day it will happen........

I think there's a market for a new sandbox style MMORPG, but I can't agree that there's any real evidence that it will accomodate "millions upon millions" served.

Unfortunately, if you are going to build a new MMORPG and ask someone to front you anywhere from $100M - 200M to create it, they're going to want some assurances that you know what you are doing and that there's evidence in the marketplace that reduces the risk of their investment.

Right now, the only real examples to follow are standard theme park MMO's so that's why we keep getting so many variants of basically the same game released back in 2004 (or even earlier if we go back to EQ1)

If a runaway hit in the sandbox space ever happens it's probably going to be a matter more of sh!t luck rather than by intelligent design.

 

 

I sincerely believe that anyone that expects to have WoW's number of players is just delusional. WoW was the introduction to a new style of gaming and I doubt we will see one game gather as many players as WoW has.

 

But who says a good sandbox cant gather 500,000?

 

Anything is possible. And sad fact is - the MMO industry is extremely risky. Any entreprenuer knows that an investment is always going to be risky.

 

The fact that standard themepark MMO's keep on underperforming tells me, as an investor, that they arent what they are cracked up to be. And I am not approaching this as a sandbox lover, I'm approaching this as an investor. As an investor, I would not invest in any themepark title as of this moment.

 

I think with the performance of TOR, its pretty clear.

 

Part of being an entrepreneur is not only examining the risks, but also taking them. Opening a business is always risky.

 

There are always going to be risks. But right now, I would rather fund a sandbox MMO rather than a themepark any day of the week. It makes much more sense.

 

@Kyleran: I see what you did there.

@Ghost12: Even if you think themeparks are underperforming, sandboxes are not the fallback solution. Themeparks losing customers does not mean more to sandboxes. This is faulty logic. If there are no good MMOs, people will play something else. There's plenty to choose from between single player and regular multiplayer fronts.

So you're just going to ignore the actions of your customers?

I work in business. In my business, we offer products to our customers. If our customers stop buying our product, that tells us that they might be unhappy with that product. If there is an alternative to that product - why not offer it? I might turn out to be an improvement.

Heres the problem - sandboxes are not really being offered. They arent being given a chance.

"If there are no good MMOs, people will play something else. "

Now that is faulty logic. If there are no good MMOs, then those players will not play anymore MMOs (Or just stick to playing WoW) The "other games" do not factor into the equation here. We're talking about MMOs, not the entire game market.

Originally posted by Ghost12

There is a saying; Only a fool does the same thing over and over again and expects different results.

 .....

Totally agree with every word you said. I remember wondering the themeparkish WoW at its release. Why does everyone think it is so cool to play linear path with no freedom? Had few internet depates about the subject ending everyone calling me stupid. Here we are, still at the same point where we were 8 years ago. Maybe the release of Unohly Wars will change that. I hope so.

"The whole argument of “sandbox is a small niche, it doesnt work, everyone loves themeparks” IS A LOAD OF BALONEY!"

Show me the big powerhouse sandbox game that everyone is playing...oh, right...

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

 

So you're just going to ignore the actions of your customers?

 

I work in business. In my business, we offer products to our customers. If our customers stop buying our product, that tells us that they might be unhappy with that product. If there is an alternative to that product - why not offer it? I might turn out to be an improvement.

 

Heres the problem - sandboxes are not really being offered. They arent being given a chance.

 

"If there are no good MMOs, people will play something else. "

 

Now that is faulty logic. If there are no good MMOs, then those players will not play anymore MMOs (Or just stick to playing WoW) The "other games" do not factor into the equation here. We're talking about MMOs, not the entire game market.

Why do you still persist with the notion that people have to play some MMO all the time? They don't. They really don't. If there wouldn't be a satisfactory themepark out right now, it wouldn't make me turn to sandboxes, it would make me turn to non-MMOs instead. MMOs are games just like any other. They are not on a pedestial and they definitely share a market with SP and regular multiplayer games. They undeniably have an effect on each others' sales.

I actually admire the spirit of your post but the problem is you are speaking to the elitist of the elite mmorpg players and the truth is, there have been just as many sandboxes that have been even more spectacular failures than the themeparks to release.

Let's be honest here while every game you mention did underperform to some extent (and I suspect regardless of what the GW2 army says that game is headed down the same path) the sandboxes that have been released have been even worse than any of the themeparks you name.

Darkfall,Fallen Earth,Mortal online remember those? These games if you ask former players were hardly more than scams.

If your argument is that these huge budgets should be going to these games I still have to disagree because no matter what we on mmorpg think the gameplaying populace at large isn't ready to support a big budget sandbox.

If they did games like civilization would sell more copies on consoles etc. games with depth though don't do well so I still don't see this.

Unfortunately your poll is extremely limited with an  all or nothing view that is basically about trying to draw a line in the sand and atleast for me I'm not there yet as I still do enjoy playing some of my themeparks but make no mistake I'm more than willikng to support a well made open ended sandbox so log as it doesn't resort to stupid tactics that cater to a specific type of gamer like ffa pvp.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

But what if the person isn't skilled, creative or social enough to actually achieve those goals?

Oh, I do not think it is a question of being very skilled or creative or even being very social! I very much believe, that any theme park fanboy could have the time of their life by playing a good sandbox too. Problem nowadays is, that there is - with the exception of EVE - no polished sandbox around. So do not even try. They think, all there is WoW style. That's why you often read by younger player that MMOs are all about raiding and doing instances and so on. Believe me, I have the most boring job on earth and  I am anything but creative or very skilled. And I still had the best MMO times in UO. I loved being a gardener, doing nothing else than growing plants for weeks, I loved to mine for hours, I love banksitting, I loved IDOCing etc. Nothing very creative or skill dependent. Just give players something meaningful to do other than striving for the next part of gear which will be useless when the next epansion hits.

Besides... Want to be subjugated? Want to be robbed? Want to get hunted by other players?

YES, YES and YES! I would love that :)

Originally posted by Ghost12

"If there are no good MMOs, people will play something else. "

Now that is faulty logic. If there are no good MMOs, then those players will not play anymore MMOs (Or just stick to playing WoW) The "other games" do not factor into the equation here. We're talking about MMOs, not the entire game market.

No, it is perfectly logical. We've been watching it happen for four years or so, as MMO gamers have been shifting more of their gaming time to MOBAs, Action RPGs, MMOFPS/RTS, mobile games, and singleplayer RPGs.

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

Look, another MMO Moses. Please tell us more revelations oh enlightened one! We will buy whatever you're selling.

Good reference, sandbox style gamers do seem to be wandering the wilderness for 40 years trying to find their next big title.

Perhaps one day it will happen........

I think there's a market for a new sandbox style MMORPG, but I can't agree that there's any real evidence that it will accomodate "millions upon millions" served.

Unfortunately, if you are going to build a new MMORPG and ask someone to front you anywhere from $100M - 200M to create it, they're going to want some assurances that you know what you are doing and that there's evidence in the marketplace that reduces the risk of their investment.

Right now, the only real examples to follow are standard theme park MMO's so that's why we keep getting so many variants of basically the same game released back in 2004 (or even earlier if we go back to EQ1)

If a runaway hit in the sandbox space ever happens it's probably going to be a matter more of sh!t luck rather than by intelligent design.

 

I sincerely believe that anyone that expects to have WoW's number of players is just delusional. WoW was the introduction to a new style of gaming and I doubt we will see one game gather as many players as WoW has.

 But who says a good sandbox cant gather 500,000?

Anything is possible. And sad fact is - the MMO industry is extremely risky. Any entreprenuer knows that an investment is always going to be risky.

 The fact that standard themepark MMO's keep on underperforming tells me, as an investor, that they arent what they are cracked up to be. And I am not approaching this as a sandbox lover, I'm approaching this as an investor. As an investor, I would not invest in any themepark title as of this moment.

 I think with the performance of TOR, its pretty clear.

 Part of being an entrepreneur is not only examining the risks, but also taking them. Opening a business is always risky.

 There are always going to be risks. But right now, I would rather fund a sandbox MMO rather than a themepark any day of the week. It makes much more sense.

 

Oh, I agree with you, 500K is probably quite obtainable, but no one is going to invest 100M + in a new title to draw in that number of subs, just not worth the risk.

While perhaps no one expects a repeat of WOW's success (probably not even Blizzard) I'd venture to say most developers are shooting for at least 2M or so (based on recent SWTOR info)  and they're not seeing it in the sandbox market at this point.

 

 

But SWTOR is a disaster.

 

See here's the thing, if these MMOs came out with good numbers, then I would have much more faith in the themepark genre.

 

But from the looks of it, these themeparks are actually underperforming. How is it that such games like Runescape and Minecraft that are created in people's basements and backyards are yielding such high returns on investment, compared to these other titles?

 

I suspect these investors may not actually know what they are doing. We've had 8 years of evidence towards themeparks and lets face it, they have nearly all met with mediocre success with the exception of a couple games. People can throw around the  "themeparks are the standard" argument plenty, but when we look at the evidence - it doesnt really add up.

 

I think what its going to take is a studio that is prepared to really innovate and distinguish themselves from the competition. When you do that in business, it increases your chances of success exponentially. And I think everyone can agree on that.

 

It also increases your chances of failure exponetially too

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Failings
I believe the sandbox formula has always been what MMOs were about. The genre was led astray by WoW's success but finally it seems we're coming out of that infernal cycle.

I've been thinking about that.

 

Its possible that WoW was a sort of necessary evil. It brought many new players into the genre. Unfortunately, these players dont really know what a sandbox is. However, I believe at this point, players are ready "for more" and ready for the genre to evolve into something more, giving players their freedoms back.

WoW was the training wheels. Now, we're ready for the real deal.

this..i have heard the term sandbox floating around,can someone please explain the difference between lets say conan and a sandbox mmo please...i would be very greatful