Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Avison

I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.

I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.

Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.

 

Couldn't agree more. Also i would like to mention that anyone who supports GW2 and then make topics like these has zero credibility.

---

Originally posted by Banaghran

---

Originally posted by lizardbones We don't know what Rift sold after it released 'around the world'. However, if we assume that Rift sold a million and Eve is holding at four hundred fifty thousand, that puts the total UO + SWG + Eve peak players at (450 + 300 + 278 = 1,028) a bit over a million people. That is just ahead of Rift's peak of a million. Then we have SWToR and Guild Wars, both of which had peak users around two million.  

---

I should probably not reply to this given my recent record, but 1m boxes sold =/= 1m subs, rift never had a million subs, the highest number we have is 600k right after launch, dropping quite fast to the 300k area. So you would have to elaborate a bit further to prove that 1m or even 2m boxes, that amount at best to 4 months of subs are better, except for the obvious possibility of making a crap game intentionally just to cash up on the hype and box sales.

Does Guild wars even have a sub fee?

Flame on!

:)

 

---

What is your recent record?

Anyway, their peak users had to be at least a million. They had a million accounts as of the pre-order period just before launch. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108017-Rift-Tops-the-One-Million-Account-Mark. They could have had five people playing one month later, but they sold at least a million boxes before they went global.

That's just one game. Conan and Warhammer both got around the million player mark. SWToR got near the two million player mark and GW2 started with something like two million players.

Taking WoW out of the picture, theme park games attract more players, which means they are more popular.

That they make more money can't be proven without looking at the financial sheets of the companies involved, but companies keep pumping money into theme park style games and I can guarantee you that those publishers do not care one little bit about whether a game is a theme park or a sandbox. They just want a return on their investment. They have a reason to believe that the overall return on investment for theme park style games is better than sandbox style games. Doesn't really matter what I think, they believe it and they have a lot more information than I or anyone in this forum has access to.

I don't think there's going to be some dramatic market shift towards sandbox games. That would involve millions of people suddenly changing the games they want to play. I think there will be a change in what it costs to develop MMORPG though. The tools will get better and as more companies get involved in making them, a set of best practices for the technology will emerge. When it gets affordable for indie developers and feasible for independent developers, there will be more changes happening in the market. More sandboxes will get made because more everything will get made.

If SWG was released today with the graphics and story line of TOR, but the opwn world, crafting, housing, social aspects, and space combat of SWG.................. Well i dont think any game would stand up to it to be honest.

But to compare a game with 300k subs (SWG had over a million accounts also btw) in a time were only 25% of people were online and 10% played MMO's, to a game with 600k-1mil subs with 80% of people online and 50%+ playing mmo's just doesnt add up. Its a stupid comparison. Its like saying you can count higher than a caveman.

---

Originally posted by Onomas
If SWG was released today with the graphics and story line of TOR, but the opwn world, crafting, housing, social aspects, and space combat of SWG.................. Well i dont think any game would stand up to it to be honest.

But to compare a game with 300k subs (SWG had over a million accounts also btw) in a time were only 25% of people were online and 10% played MMO's, to a game with 600k-1mil subs with 80% of people online and 50%+ playing mmo's just doesnt add up. Its a stupid comparison. Its like saying you can count higher than a caveman.

---

SWG didn't sell a million copies of the game until 2005, two years after the game released. SWToR, Rift, Age of Conan, Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 all had nine hundred thousand to nearly two million accounts within a month of release day.

In 2003, Everquest had four hundred and fifty thousand people playing. SWG peaked at three hundred thousand people playing sometime after 2003. Even compared to a gaming contemporary SWG didn't do that well. It was newer, had better technology and had a better known IP and still did not perform as well.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Onomas
If SWG was released today with the graphics and story line of TOR, but the opwn world, crafting, housing, social aspects, and space combat of SWG.................. Well i dont think any game would stand up to it to be honest.

 

But to compare a game with 300k subs (SWG had over a million accounts also btw) in a time were only 25% of people were online and 10% played MMO's, to a game with 600k-1mil subs with 80% of people online and 50%+ playing mmo's just doesnt add up. Its a stupid comparison. Its like saying you can count higher than a caveman.

---

SWG didn't sell a million copies of the game until 2005, two years after the game released. SWToR, Rift, Age of Conan, Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 all had nine hundred thousand to nearly two million accounts within a month of release day.

In 2003, Everquest had four hundred and fifty thousand people playing. SWG peaked at three hundred thousand people playing sometime after 2003. Even compared to a gaming contemporary SWG didn't do that well. It was newer, had better technology and had a better known IP and still did not perform as well.

 

But I think you fail to see what Onoma's point here.

There is a Relationship, between The available Player Mas and the Number of Subs that gives important information in order to form a conclusion on the Popularity. The actual numbers cannot be compared directly to make a conclusion, it would be falacious.

If 3 people ou of a total of 5 like a certin thing, this thing is more popular than if 20 people like something out of 50, Yet you are looking only at the 3 versus the 20, and ignoring that there were only 5 in one instance and 50 in the other.

In other words, all these MMO's we are making conclusions about did not launch at the same time.

If indeed SWTor was like SWG as Onomas is describing and launching at the same time as the one you speak of, Rift etc, it would by far be more popular.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Avison

I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.

I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.

Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.

I bail on the conversation because i was banned so many times on this forums. I just can not risk getting into debate.     
Also I think that the point was made and the number of posts in this topics do resonate with general feeling of the community

 Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

 

sandboxers should be able to ignore themparkish aspects they dont like and play a game, if they chose to do so.... but themeparkers cant "make believe" themepark elements in to a game.

Supporters of worlds cry out for a world as the gaming industry do not provide them, supporters of instanced games disagree because a virtual world game will take away a new game to try for a month or two before becoming unhappy with the shallowness of it all.

Originally posted by lizardbones
Anyway, their peak users had to be at least a million. They had a million accounts as of the pre-order period just before launch. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108017-Rift-Tops-the-One-Million-Account-Mark. They could have had five people playing one month later, but they sold at least a million boxes before they went global.

 

You can have an account even without paying for the game. This is the same argument back from the rift forums, if rift would EVER have a million live subs, do you think Trion would have kept it a SECRET, just so that a few guys could argue over it on teh internetz? :)

That was really my only problem with your post, even if i stupidly commented on the box price vs sub number thing.

You may carry on bashing purist sandboxes. I made my point sufficiently clear a few pages back when you argued with yourself :)

Flame on!

:)

Dear World of Darkness,

Please hurry.

Thanks.

Originally posted by NaughtyP

Dear World of Darkness,

Please hurry.

Thanks.

Archeage

Black Desert

The Repopulation

EQNext

Greed Monger (though im starting to lean away from this one)

And few others as well ;)

 

Never seen so many sandboxes getting ready to explode on the market. We will see changes soon enough.

 

My main problem with themepark junkies is they want their games easy and linear. Fine, ok. But they can play that way in a sandbox. A sandbox junkie can not play their way in a modern new age themepark. There is no way, because there is no depth or freedom.

And its sad they are satisfied with suck low balling games its not even funny. Better to have and not use, than not to have and want it. MMO's have gone backwards, and many can not see this. Even see some hardcore themepark players in here wanting more now. Even themeparks from 4-6 years ago were three times the game that most new release themeparks are.

Its not a matter of themepark vs sandbox, but a matter of poor game vs a real epic mmo. That is what most of us want. Well minus that one that thinkgs all games should be MOBA and lobby style LOL.

I would like an MMO where you can walk for days and build a house or town in some remote part of the world if I want to.  I would like it to be a mixture of UO and SWG, with as much, if not more complexity to all aspects of the game. I'd also like there to be castles, moats and land control, battles with seige eqiupment and 1000's of players on screen without the server or my PC taking a dump. Also aim based combat with no tab targetting.

If you can have that ready for next year that'd be great.

YOU don't want games; YOU want worlds.

I want games. I already live in a perfectly acceptable, functional and rewarding world as it is.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Avison

I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.

I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.

Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.

I bail on the conversation because i was banned so many times on this forums. I just can not risk getting into debate.     
Also I think that the point was made and the number of posts in this topics do resonate with general feeling of the community

 Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

 

Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

 

Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

 

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Avison

I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.

I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.

Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.

I bail on the conversation because i was banned so many times on this forums. I just can not risk getting into debate.     
Also I think that the point was made and the number of posts in this topics do resonate with general feeling of the community

 Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

 

Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

 

Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

 

But then you get people complaining about the goblin killing grind they have to do to get the goblin leader quest and how unfair it is.

Originally posted by ObiClownobi

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Avison

I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.

I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.

Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.

I bail on the conversation because i was banned so many times on this forums. I just can not risk getting into debate.     
Also I think that the point was made and the number of posts in this topics do resonate with general feeling of the community

 Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

 

Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

 

Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

 

But then you get people complaining about the goblin killing grind they have to do to get the goblin leader quest and how unfair it is.

Who cares? Atleast it is there and they have the chance to do it. Better than not having it at all. Thats the problem with new mmo's they want everything fast and easy. Thats why we are complaining. If you cant take a minute and go kill some goblins when you are leveling to earn a title, you should just be handed a title ;)

UO came out during a different time period.   It's subscriptions were decent for the time.  A big MMORPG was considered in the hundreds of thousands not millions.   We were also on dial up and a lot less people were actually online back then. 

WoW was a perfect storm of pulling masses from it's developers popular games, being more polished and more casual.  It also had good marketing.  Blizzard to a degree is the Apple of game developers.  People buy their games because it's Blizzard and they have a loyal fan base.  Or did at least.  

For me to find MMORPG's was essentially looking for a multiplayer Ultima 7 or multiplayer mod.  I found Ultima Online and have been hooked.  

I am looking for a world.  It seems to me the whole point of MMORPG.  WoW was sucessful and we've had two semi failure AAA sandbox games and sandboxes have been dropped almost altogether.  Of course it ignores all of the failed WoW clones.   It's a waste that nobody is trying to make these games.  

These days 99% of MMORPG's are soloable in every aspect outside of PVP/mini raids.  The reason being is it seems the easest thing to do is make a single player style game with other players and WoW quest hubs and change the skins and a couple of gimicks.   It's made most MMORPG's unsubscribeable and free to play mostly is annoying.  It's to the point that even EQ1 is considered sandboxy.  EQ1 is a sandbox. The world was very static, but it was a pure MMORPG.

I want player housing, player shops, crafting areas.  A world designed to feel like a world not a leveling step stone.  Give me interdependance where other players need each other.   Bah it's all been said before.  Just want something different that's not total crap.  I'd support a sandbox that's done well but they are few and far between.  

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran
 

Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

 

Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

 

Suffer? Suffer?! What bullshit is this? No one suffers! Everything ends. It doesn't make it bad or worse.

Also, generated quests kill the story element. You can't make them or mask them well enough to not feel like generated. I can't feel attached or interested in something like that. It is bound to feel like a grind after a short while once you figure how things work.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran
 

Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

 

Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

 

Suffer? Suffer?! What bullshit is this? No one suffers! Everything ends. It doesn't make it bad or worse.

Also, generated quests kill the story element. You can't make them or mask them well enough to not feel like generated. I can't feel attached or interested in something like that. It is bound to feel like a grind after a short while once you figure how things work.

Arent you one of the themepark junkies? Most all themepark quests are generated lol. Everytime you restart or make a new character, its the exact same quest = boring.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Avison

I've been around the gaming community since it was first born. Every new game takes steps forward and back and makes sacrificies for numerous features. I can't say that I don't want a world to inhabit. This is why Ultima Online and similar games were so enjoyable to me.

I'd also like to thank Lobotomist for making thought provoking and interestings threads and posts since he joined this community. You're one of the very minute members who contributes to the very fundamental reason why forums exist. The sharing of ideas and the debates/arguments surrounding those ideas. Your posts are a pleasure to read.

Meh, I think of him more as more of a firestarter, he gets the threads burning but then bails on the conversation, apparently doesn't enjoy the controversy they stir up.

I bail on the conversation because i was banned so many times on this forums. I just can not risk getting into debate.     
Also I think that the point was made and the number of posts in this topics do resonate with general feeling of the community

 Fair enough I guess, though I don't find it particularly difficult to present my points without suffering the wrath of the ban hammer, try to keep the emotion out of it seems to work best for me anyways.

If you read the thread from end to end, (something I've actually done), you'll see a pretty strong split between those looking for virtual worlds vs those who want a more in and out experience.

While I'd love to see the two sides peacefully co-exist it will never happen, just too polarizing unfortunately.

 

Who ever said sandbox and themepark exclude each other ???

Even EVE has themepark missions and lot of themepark elements.

 

Bare in mind that themepark lovers eventually suffer from themepark game , because the content is always bound to come to the end. This is why sandbox is needed and perfectly also dynamically generated "themepark" missions

Missions that are created depending on your actions in the world.

For example if you have been killing lot of goblins, humans in the area decide you are "goblin slayer" and give you mission to kill goblin leader. This spawns goblin leader in goblin fortress and you (or others) can kill him.

 

Er, who was talking about sandbox vs themepark?  I was talking about virtual worlds vs MMO "games" and a theme park game can certainly be a reasonable approximation of a virtual world, DAOC was one such title back in the day. (so much so many people argue it was a sandbox instead)

Reading further, maybe you meant to reply to someone else's post?