Originally posted by jimdandy26

He also says that they eat up the content in 90 days and then return to WoW, which is also partially not true...

If you have data to support that, it would be very interesting to see. Most of the migration back and forth wouldn't even register as a blip on WOW's radar, so losing 100k or so and then gaining it back in a few months would barely show up on a graph anywhere.  I'm not saying Ryan is infallible, but he's been in the industry as a game developer and an exec long enough that if he's putting a statement out there like that, it's a safe bet that it's pretty accurate.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Corehaven

I always thought that if a dev really wanted to retain players they'd simply make an end game with extreme sand box elements.  What else do players typically do anyways?  They run the same dungeons over and over, grind for gear, and pvp since that is typically some of the only options and even those wear thin for some (like me) very quickly.  More is needed.  Much more. 

All I'm saying is they should have their theme park until you reach max level.  Then the sandbox should open up.  Big time.  If that happened most would probably claim, " The real game opens up at max level" and that's fine.  I figure that's a winning formula. 

Hey if devs want to create a sandbox entirely that's fine with me.  But in my mind, if you are going to have a themepark build a sandbox on top of it.  A big one.  With tons of things to do.  The better your end game sand box the longer your players will stick around.  Period. 

Good for revenue, but why on earth would a player want that? If I want sandbox content, I'm going to play a game that has it from the start, especially if I am paying from the start. Why would you want to grind (note: grind is a bad thing) through game play you don't want just to get to the part you do want? Now, before you write that off as lazy, instant gratification or any of the other cute phrases that get tossed around here as the noses turn up in collective proud self-righteousness, really think about that.

 

See, the problem here with your assertion is that it has to be a grind. The term grind itself generally means the content is unfun. You do not like leveling, therefore refer to it as a grind, but a large number of people DO enjoy leveling, as a game designer it makes perfect sense to aim at those players. Just because you do not like a game does not make it bad. Just because there are elements of a game that you do not personally enjoy do not make them bad. It means you do not want them/enjoy them. Considering that it is rather apparent by now that the playerbase prefers themepark to sandbox why would you not incorperate as many themepark elements as you could get away with? As a player do you really want to see "your" game get shut down within a year or two because its not profitable, assuming that they get it launched at all?

@Corehaven I do truly wonder where the idea comes from that sandboxes keep players playing. In all of the data I have seen I have yet to see any truth to that statement. Just like the oft repeated "rpers are more faithful to their game". The metrics available simply do not show it. In general I am against the idea that "player generated content" is the future. While some truly amazing things do come from it, the vast majority is garbage, as has been shown by the internet at large. Everywhere you turn, from Youtube, to Deviantart, to Reddit, easily 90% of the content produced is simply terrible, and while there are filters and the like that help curb some of it, a ton still slips through. I will agree that community, players themselves, are content, and that generally speaking sandboxes focus more on player interaction than themeparks do, but its still not a requirement for a sandbox.

@Onomas. LOL. Please oh priest of the sandbox god, preach to us your wisdom how the great all mighty sandbox will save us!

I find it very difficult to judge trends regarding sandboxes because there have been so few released.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Corehaven

I always thought that if a dev really wanted to retain players they'd simply make an end game with extreme sand box elements.  What else do players typically do anyways?  They run the same dungeons over and over, grind for gear, and pvp since that is typically some of the only options and even those wear thin for some (like me) very quickly.  More is needed.  Much more. 

All I'm saying is they should have their theme park until you reach max level.  Then the sandbox should open up.  Big time.  If that happened most would probably claim, " The real game opens up at max level" and that's fine.  I figure that's a winning formula. 

Hey if devs want to create a sandbox entirely that's fine with me.  But in my mind, if you are going to have a themepark build a sandbox on top of it.  A big one.  With tons of things to do.  The better your end game sand box the longer your players will stick around.  Period. 

Good for revenue, but why on earth would a player want that? If I want sandbox content, I'm going to play a game that has it from the start, especially if I am paying from the start. Why would you want to grind (note: grind is a bad thing) through game play you don't want just to get to the part you do want? Now, before you write that off as lazy, instant gratification or any of the other cute phrases that get tossed around here as the noses turn up in collective proud self-righteousness, really think about that.

 

Sure but my point is, that's exactly what you are doing in the typical themepark end game.  You are doing dailys, doing PVP, running dungeons and generally desperately trying to find something to do.  It is a sandbox.  After all, the theme park content is done.  You are now at end game. 

What I'm saying is give it a solid dose of sandbox elements.  Because what's being done now is a sandbox, just not much of one at all.  I mean they may as well.  Because they're loosing players otherwise.  And why are they loosing players?  Because end game typically sucks.  That's why.  Why does end game typically suck? 

The lack of sandbox elements that's why. 

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by jimdandy26

He also says that they eat up the content in 90 days and then return to WoW, which is also partially not true...

If you have data to support that, it would be very interesting to see. Most of the migration back and forth wouldn't even register as a blip on WOW's radar, so losing 100k or so and then gaining it back in a few months would barely show up on a graph anywhere.  I'm not saying Ryan is infallible, but he's been in the industry as a game developer and an exec long enough that if he's putting a statement out there like that, it's a safe bet that it's pretty accurate.

Also many of those players never cancel when they try that new game for 60-90 days. So.. those do not show up at all. 

Too bad EVE online is the only MMORPG sandbox that has grown since release. Every single other sandbox, be it Mortal Online or Darkfall, had their population steadily decline

Originally posted by Xepo

I love your graphs. I love your premise. Eve has always seemed like an interesting game, but I am one of those gamers where when I am adventuring in the world created for me I really do not want to be ganked repeatedly in an open pvp world. I work a full time job so it is not always doable to find friends to play with to protect me. In the long run I am one of the massive amount of people playing MMOs that just shy away from a game like Eve for little reason than the lack of time to put in the effort to stay safe. A quick in and find something that entertains me for a couple hours (even if it lacks all the elements I really want) works for my lifestyle.

 

I also don't have a lot of time to game, yet I'm able to easily avoid getting ganked in EVE. New Eden is a large place; there are some "dark alleys" that you'll want to avoid, for sure, but the mechanics of Concord provide vast stretches of "safe" space for you to play in. I've played for over 6 years and have never been "ganked" in high security space, which is way less than the number of times I've been ganked in the other MMORPGs that I've played.

Look me up in game if you're interested in giving EVE another try. I'll help you get started with ISK, equipment, and advice.

Originally posted by mindw0rk

Too bad EVE online is the only MMORPG sandbox that has grown since release. Every single other sandbox, be it Mortal Online or Darkfall, had their population steadily decline

 This may be due to the final product more than the potential of the sandbox, or sandbox-ish, design.

The only difference i see with eve and the rest of the games on that list ( well Eq1 i guess) all the games with a high initial spike and then a rapid downtrend...they ALL hyped the living crap out of their games prior to launch.

All were groundbreaking/innovative/ "fixing whats wrong with..." whatever.  Everyone believes marketing people in the gaming community and then they realize its just another game and many leave...right into the arms of another prelaunch marketing man.

Eve didnt start hyping untill the game was well developed, EQ...well i dont remember that game being hyped like games today, it was just like "this is EQ...play? (y/n)"  and people who were interested played and stayed.  

Also another point i see, is that EQ and EVE both have some serious progression (*gasp* GRIND!!!).  I have a feeling that games that max you out in 3-5 weeks dont build player attachment or pride for what they did, and its easy to just walk away.  Games that take some serious effort to max out...well i have the feeling that a higher percentage will be retained.  Games with a real goal. Lets be honest here, no one would play EVE if you could max out your character in a month, people play because it takes like 12 years to max out all roles. Theres always something for you to improve and it keeps the pvp interesting.  Maxed character pvp in mmorpgs is so boring and predictible.

I think hype is the overwhelming cause of those graphs.  

But with sandboxes, hard to tell, most want to play those, but then leave when its not remotely polished or finished, and then the indy devs who make them struggle with a 5 man team to fix a game that needs a 200 man team to fix, and forever flounder to rebound (and usually just run out of money and die)

Originally posted by Crunchy222

[...] and then the indy devs who make them struggle with a 5 man team to fix a game that needs a 200 man team to fix, and forever flounder to rebound (and usually just run out of money and die)

And those are the ones lucky enough to make it to release.  I've run into several Indie devs along the ways.  Great plans, even some exceptionally nice pre-alpha demos.  ... and that's the last we hear of them.

Originally posted by jimdandy26

/snip 

See, the problem here with your assertion is that it has to be a grind. The term grind itself generally means the content is unfun. You do not like leveling, therefore refer to it as a grind, but a large number of people DO enjoy leveling, as a game designer it makes perfect sense to aim at those players. Just because you do not like a game does not make it bad. Just because there are elements of a game that you do not personally enjoy do not make them bad. It means you do not want them/enjoy them. Considering that it is rather apparent by now that the playerbase prefers themepark to sandbox why would you not incorperate as many themepark elements as you could get away with? As a player do you really want to see "your" game get shut down within a year or two because its not profitable, assuming that they get it launched at all?

 

@Corehaven I do truly wonder where the idea comes from that sandboxes keep players playing. In all of the data I have seen I have yet to see any truth to that statement. Just like the oft repeated "rpers are more faithful to their game". The metrics available simply do not show it. In general I am against the idea that "player generated content" is the future. While some truly amazing things do come from it, the vast majority is garbage, as has been shown by the internet at large. Everywhere you turn, from Youtube, to Deviantart, to Reddit, easily 90% of the content produced is simply terrible, and while there are filters and the like that help curb some of it, a ton still slips through. I will agree that community, players themselves, are content, and that generally speaking sandboxes focus more on player interaction than themeparks do, but its still not a requirement for a sandbox.

Because the typical themepark design has been profitable? Other than Rift what other game has been able to successfully copy the mold (WoW)? They haven't.  From the moment WoW broke sales records other companies started their bid for riches and 5+ years later found out there is only one WoW.  The only reason there have been so many WoW-like themeparks games is because everyone thought they would have the next WoW 5+ years ago, not because it was a superior design.

Let me start off by saying that I don't think a "pure" sandbox game will ever be that popular and I'm not sure many think that either.  I think an MMO that has a lot of sandbox features while offering a fun framework will be very popular though.  Developers making open ended content will get a lot more playability than something pre made to run over, and over, and over.  I'm not saying to take away those things but make half premade content and the other half tools for creation.  The reason player retention could be a lot higher is that the more you do with your avatar(s) the more dedicated you are to them.  Having a character with property, a garden, a house (with crafted items inside) all made by your character holds more weight than just a gear score.

It should be pretty obvious that a system that allows players to make or generate their own content is going to last longer than content that is designed by developers, devs# < player#.  You said a lot of it may be garbage but you're missing the point which is being able to make it at all, no matter how horrible it may be.  This of course is tied with how well developed the creation system is to begin with.  In the next year or two we will find out just how poplular sandbox-ish games can be.  You brought up matrics but if you mean the history of sandbox games you can go ahead and throw that right out the window.  The MMO landscape, playerbase and genre as a whole is very different now.

Originally posted by XAPGames

Originally posted by Crunchy222

[...] and then the indy devs who make them struggle with a 5 man team to fix a game that needs a 200 man team to fix, and forever flounder to rebound (and usually just run out of money and die)

 

And those are the ones lucky enough to make it to release.  I've run into several Indie devs along the ways.  Great plans, even some exceptionally nice pre-alpha demos.  ... and that's the last we hear of them.

 

I wish they'd develop everything with stick figures and only THEN start pumping mony on graphics.

have you seen minecraft graphics ?

it proves one thing...graphics matter only for first week(s). your brain naturally simplifies information to process it faster anyway. you dont even notice the graphics mid-combat in a game you played for a few years, even in the shiniest flashiest asian mmo.

Originally posted by XAPGames

Originally posted by Crunchy222

[...] and then the indy devs who make them struggle with a 5 man team to fix a game that needs a 200 man team to fix, and forever flounder to rebound (and usually just run out of money and die)

 

And those are the ones lucky enough to make it to release.  I've run into several Indie devs along the ways.  Great plans, even some exceptionally nice pre-alpha demos.  ... and that's the last we hear of them.

 

This is primarily why some people have a misconception that sandboxes are unpopular; simply because there hasn't really been a good one released since EVE.

EQNext may be the first attempt at a sandbox by a major developer in years (assuming it actually IS a sandbox and not just marketing BS from Smedley) so I reckon that will be the time to finally see how a proper sandbox is received by the modern MMO audience.

In the meantime I'm glad to see a lot of games are starting to adopt more (if minor) sandboxy elements.

Originally posted by XAPGames

Originally posted by Crunchy222

[...] and then the indy devs who make them struggle with a 5 man team to fix a game that needs a 200 man team to fix, and forever flounder to rebound (and usually just run out of money and die)

And those are the ones lucky enough to make it to release.  I've run into several Indie devs along the ways.  Great plans, even some exceptionally nice pre-alpha demos.  ... and that's the last we hear of them.

That's because even the crappiest of ideas can look good on paper. Implementation and execution are a very different story.

Originally posted by jimdandy26

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Corehaven

I always thought that if a dev really wanted to retain players they'd simply make an end game with extreme sand box elements.  What else do players typically do anyways?  They run the same dungeons over and over, grind for gear, and pvp since that is typically some of the only options and even those wear thin for some (like me) very quickly.  More is needed.  Much more. 

All I'm saying is they should have their theme park until you reach max level.  Then the sandbox should open up.  Big time.  If that happened most would probably claim, " The real game opens up at max level" and that's fine.  I figure that's a winning formula. 

Hey if devs want to create a sandbox entirely that's fine with me.  But in my mind, if you are going to have a themepark build a sandbox on top of it.  A big one.  With tons of things to do.  The better your end game sand box the longer your players will stick around.  Period. 

Good for revenue, but why on earth would a player want that? If I want sandbox content, I'm going to play a game that has it from the start, especially if I am paying from the start. Why would you want to grind (note: grind is a bad thing) through game play you don't want just to get to the part you do want? Now, before you write that off as lazy, instant gratification or any of the other cute phrases that get tossed around here as the noses turn up in collective proud self-righteousness, really think about that.

 

See, the problem here with your assertion is that it has to be a grind. The term grind itself generally means the content is unfun. You do not like leveling, therefore refer to it as a grind, but a large number of people DO enjoy leveling, as a game designer it makes perfect sense to aim at those players. Just because you do not like a game does not make it bad. Just because there are elements of a game that you do not personally enjoy do not make them bad. It means you do not want them/enjoy them. Considering that it is rather apparent by now that the playerbase prefers themepark to sandbox why would you not incorperate as many themepark elements as you could get away with? As a player do you really want to see "your" game get shut down within a year or two because its not profitable, assuming that they get it launched at all?

That is some truly unique thinking, and I guess if your goal was to make Kitchen Sink Online, that would be a decent philosophy to build it with.

Originally posted by Crunchy222

The only difference i see with eve and the rest of the games on that list ( well Eq1 i guess) all the games with a high initial spike and then a rapid downtrend...they ALL hyped the living crap out of their games prior to launch.

All were groundbreaking/innovative/ "fixing whats wrong with..." whatever.  Everyone believes marketing people in the gaming community and then they realize its just another game and many leave...right into the arms of another prelaunch marketing man.

....

I think hype is the overwhelming cause of those graphs.  

Agreed. Selling the pre-order and getting as many in on Day One is a definite goal for many companies, or at least certain departments/boards within the company. It's an unwinnable war. The group that drives that isn't responsible for the fallout afterwards because they've left and moved on to sell the next game for someone else, with the big numbers from the previous game padding out their CV.  Rift, AION, SWTOR... Look at the marketing teams for any MMO where there was the massive spike at release. The hype, sell, move to next game release.

Since you make wow an exception from your chart.  Maybe you should make Eve an exception from your chart too.

Show me a chart of the other sandbox game, I dont' think it look good too.

And you know what about the Eve clone, or propetuus or whatever it's name is?  It is not successful too.

People been saying how popular DayZ is, and if some mmorpg use that model it'll be popular.  I'm still waiting for WarZ to be successful.

And you know what?  There isn't much sandbox game on the market.  Why isn't the few sandbox game on the market more popular?  Why dont' Eve have more subscriber?  It is weird it being the only few sandbox game on the market and really the population isn't that great.

Now I don't care about themepark game or sandbox game.  All I can say is nothing is proven until it is proven.  I with sandbox game the best.  And hope WarZ will turn out great.  And Archage online will dominate like other people say it will.  But that is remain to be seen.

Where do these charts even come from?

They look very much like directly ripped out of mmodata.net / mmogchart.com